May 7, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLV No. 8

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome seventeen students from Holy

Heart of Mary School in the District of St. John's East. These students are

accompanied by their teachers: Ms Dianne Penney, Ms Sylvia Roswell, and Ms Mandy

Swain, and their chaperones: Ms Christine King, Mr. Rick Heffernan, and Mr. John

Pinto.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for Topsail; the hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the

Member for Kilbride; the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the

Member for St. John's North, and the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to pay tribute to a resident of Conception Bay

South, Mr. Tom Dawe, who is a world renowned author and artist. On May 5, 2007,

this past Saturday evening, Mr. Tom Dawe was inducted into the Newfoundland and

Labrador Arts Council Hall of Fame.

University and has authored a total of sixteen books. He is a creative artist of

many talents, including those of drawing and painting. He has also written a

number of books for children and was well-known for his radio broadcast on

poetry and fiction.

In 1973 he was awarded a gold medal for visual arts in the annual Arts and

Letters Contest sponsored by the provincial government. It is, however, as a

poet, that he is best known. His poetry has been widely published, especially in

Eastern Canada, but particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, from whose life,

landscape and folk history it derives a large portion of its subject matter.

Tom Dawe published his first poem, The Sculpin , in the Newfoundland

Quarterly in 1965 and has remained identified with the literary life of

Newfoundland and Labrador during his entire career, frequently winning prizes

for his poetry in the arts and letters competition. He was a founding editor of

Newfoundland's premier literary magazine, TickleAce , and one of the

co-founders of Breakwater Books.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in

congratulating Mr. Dawe on his accomplishments as an author and his induction

into the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Gus

Etchegary, formerly of St. Lawrence and now living in St. Philips. Mr. Etchegary

will be inducted into the Canadian Soccer Association Hall of Fame today, May 7,

as a builder.

The Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame recognizes the excellence of those that

serve with distinction over an extended period of time.

Mr. Etchegary started playing soccer in St. Lawrence in 1945 at the age of

twenty-one, and for fourteen years was an all-star fullback for a number of top

teams. He then moved on to become provincial soccer president from 1966 to 1971.

His playing and executive-builder career has brought him many honours, including

induction into the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame in 1976,

induction into the St. Lawrence Hall of Fame in 1977, induction into the

Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Hall of Fame in 1980, and the Burin Peninsula

Hall of Fame in 1986.

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

Etchegary on his induction into the Canadian Soccer Association Hall of Fame.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to show my

admiration for a little girl in my district who should be an inspiration for us

all. This little girl is eight year old Taylor Murphy, who was named the Janeway

2007 Champion Child last fall.

Taylor was diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis at the age of four months. Having

been born in Grand Prairie, Alberta, her family decided to move home to

Newfoundland to be closer to family and friends. Taylor was registered with the

Cystic Fibrosis clinic at the Janeway and started on a routine of enzymes,

vitamins, inhalers and daily chest physiotherapy.

As the Champion Child for the Children's Miracle Network, Taylor was the

representative for the Newfoundland and Labrador Children's Hospital, the

Janeway.

On March 29, Taylor and her family flew to Ottawa to meet the other eleven

Champion Children from across Canada. There, the children met the Governor

General, Micha lle

Jean, and got to tour Ottawa, seeing the Parliament Building and the other

historic sites. From Ottawa, Taylor and her other eleven Canadian Champion

Children flew to Disneyland to meet the American Champions.

Cystic Fibrosis does not slow Taylor down. She is a very active

eight-year-old involved in baking and drama classes in her community. She is

also an active fundraiser. She continues to make her family very proud of her.

Taylor is able to do all of this because of the continuous treatment she

receives from the Cystic Fibrosis team at the Janeway.

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

Taylor and wishing her well in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Grand Falls-Windsor Concert

Band which recently celebrated its twentieth anniversary. The success of this

band can be attributed in great measure to the dedicated group of people with a

love of music who first started the band.

Ray Aylward was the first director, and upon his retirement in 1989, music

teacher, Michael Race, assumed this position. There are currently twenty-five

regular members who perform at numerous town events such as the Kiwanis Music

Festival.

Mr. Speaker, the concert band owes its start to Paul Hennessey, who was the

first Mayor of the Town of Grand Falls at that time. With the financial support

of the town and the mill's owner, the band got together and the town became

the only municipality in our Province to have its own band. The town has

continued in its support of the concert band over the past twenty years.

Not long after its first rehearsal in February, 1987, the concert band held

its first performance for Lieutenant-Governor James McGrath's visit during a

May 24 weekend. Their next public performance was at the Christmas concert on

December 9, 1987. Since the band's beginning, more than 140 musicians have

been members and have performed at many memorable occasions.

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

congratulating the Grand Falls-Windsor Concert Band upon celebration of its

twentieth anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, this year the Canada Winter Games were held in

Whitehorse, and one athlete from this Province who did very well is a young man

by the name of Mponda Kalunga-Loksa, who has come to be known as George -

probably with good reason. A Level III student at Holy Heart High School, George

did everyone proud by winning a silver medal in boxing.

In itself, this is quite an achievement, but when we look at George's

history, the winning of a silver medal becomes even more special. He was born in

Alexandria, Egypt, but his family moved to Cairo. Then, when he was only three

years old they were forced to go to a refugee camp in Tanzania. For six years

the family stayed in this camp, along with 40,000 other refugees and the

problems that would be associated with such a situation, problems such as

rampant malaria, no electricity and no schooling.

In 1999 George, along with his three sisters and father, came to our Province

from the refugee camp. Less than two years ago George took up boxing, and

through hard work and dedication to his sport, and the assistance of his coach,

John Stanley, he qualified for the Winter Games in Whitehorse. At the Games he

defeated more experienced fighters from Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia to win the

silver medal.

Mr. Speaker, this is a story of a young man who not only defeated his boxing

opponents but overcame adversity and beat the odds.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating George Kalunga-Loksa on his

silver medal achievement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a real pleasure today to rise in the House and pay tribute to a woman

who has spent her life in service to others, and whose service has now been

Kathrine Bellamy, a Sister of Mercy and member of the St. Joseph's

community on Signal Hill Road in St. John's, was invested last Friday as a

Member of the Order of Canada, adding to her other honours of investiture as a

Member of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and of being recipient of an

Honourary Degree of Laws Degree from Memorial University.

Kathrine Bellamy, born in Bay Roberts, has spent her long and illustrious

life as an educator, musician, social justice activist and writer.

Her hard work as a choir director who inspired young girls with an intense

level of singing resulted in her choir being awarded the coveted Mathieson

Trophy for Amateur Canadian Choirs in the 1960s. That same choir was then chosen

to sing at Expo 67.

As a music educator, Sister Kathrine took an interest in the professional

nature of her career and co-founded the Music Council of the Newfoundland

Teachers' Association, becoming its first vice-president. She also contributed

articles on music and music history regularly to the journal of the Newfoundland

Teachers' Association, as it was called at that time.

When Sister Kathrine's time in the school system came to an end, she turned

her attention to new concerns. Not content with having reached a place of honour

in her profession, she took on the needs of people living on low income in the

heart of St. John's. She was founder and coordinator of Emmaus House, an

Anglican and Roman Catholic food bank, co-founder and first vice-president of

the Province-wide Community Food Sharing Association and co-founder of Voices

for Justice in Housing.

In spite of long hours of work as a teacher and then as an activist, Sister

Kathrine also turned her hand to research and writing. Over the years, she has

produced articles on the history of the Sisters of Mercy in Newfoundland and

Labrador. This work calumniated in her recently published book, Weavers of

the Tapestry , a book on the story of the Sisters of Mercy in this Province,

a tome of several hundred pages. At the age of eight-four her writing continues.

Sister Kathrine is now researching the contribution of the Sisters of Mercy

to music in Newfoundland and Labrador. As well, she is editing research

materials gathered in connection with her last publication, preparing them as

archival material for the Sisters of Mercy, to whom she gives full recognition

for being there with her and for her every step of the way, and archival

material for the Archdiocese of St. John's. As is obvious, this woman never

stops; in spite of a number of bouts of serious illness throughout her life.

I ask the hon. members of the House to join with me in congratulating Sister

Kathrine Bellamy, and the Sisters of Mercy of Newfoundland and Labrador, on a

life of commitment that has benefitted both individuals as well as the whole

community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers?

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today in recognition of National Nursing Week being held

from May 7 to May 13, 2007. It is my great pleasure to acknowledge the over

8,500 nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses and Nurse Practitioners across our

Province who provide quality care for their fellow Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

The theme of this year's celebration is: Think You Know Nursing? Take a

closer look. The message highlights the diversity in the nursing profession.

Today's nurses practice in a variety of settings, including nursing homes,

hospitals, communities, government agencies and the military. The role of nurses

has grown and diversified as well over the last two decades. In addition to

traditional nursing services, today's nurses are researchers, policy-makers,

promoters of wellness, advocates for patients' safety and administrators.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure of hosting a coffee break for

nurses, nursing leaders and various other stakeholders in our health and

community services system. Over twenty individuals with an interest in the

profession of nursing joined myself and the Provincial Chief Nurse to launch

Nursing Week celebrations in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to supporting our strong workforce

of nursing professionals. Building on last year's commitment to add

thirty-nine public health nursing positions over two years, this year's Budget

invests approximately $1.6 million to hire the remaining thirteen nurses.

Additionally, in Budget 2007, we announced funding for a new graduate

orientation program for nurses in front-line practices. This program will enable

new graduates to make a positive transition to the workforce and provide them

with the additional support through mentorship.

Furthermore, through our regional health authorities, we are enhancing

recruitment efforts for nursing graduates and ensuring they secure permanent

positions within our provincial health care system. I look forward to working in

conjunction with the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union and the College of

Licensed Practical Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, to ensure that the

voices of our nursing professionals are heard and addressed. Together we have

built a very positive relationship, one which I hope will continue into the

future for the good of our Province's nurses and the well-being of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me today in paying

tribute to the dedicated nurses across our Province who provide a quality of

care for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the minister for the

advance copy of his statement.

I, too, rise in recognition of National Nursing Week, May 7 to May 13. It is

a privilege to recognize the over 8,500 Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses and

Nurse Practitioners. As a matter of fact, I believe it was a previous

Administration who introduced the Nurse Practitioner Program to the Province.

When I read the theme, Think you know Nursing? Take a closer look, I think it

is important that we do take a closer look and maximize, at every opportunity we

have, to expand the role of nurses in the Province. They play a very valuable

role, and in every opportunity we have to expand their scope, we should look for

ways to do that.

The minister also mentioned about the recruitment program for nursing

graduates. It is important that we do look for ways to recruit young nurses to

this Province. It is also important that we look for ways to retain our current

nurses. We need to be a little creative, I believe, and work with the profession

and look for ways to retain so that these nurses can stay and work in the

Province where they live.

In recognition of National Nursing Week, I would also like to thank the over

8,500 nurses for their valuable contribution to the quality of care they provide

to the residents of the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy.

It is a real pleasure to stand and congratulate the 8,500 Nurses, Licensed

Practical Nurses and Nurse Practitioners. I do not think we can ever thank them

enough or congratulate them enough for the work that they do, both in our

hospitals, home care and all the other various settings in which they do their

work. I think it is great that the government is enabling new graduates to make,

as it says here, a positive transition to the workforce. I am also glad to see

that the government has a sense of the need for permanent positions. Anybody who

is in touch with anyone who is working in the medical profession today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MS MICHAEL: Just a moment to wrap up the statement, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: I want to recognize the extremely hard work that is being

done in the medical system, especially in our institutions, in places where

nurses are overworked because of lack of nursing spaces and I encourage the

government to take real action on getting new permanent positions in large

numbers in our systems.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, once again this year I had the honour of

participating in the annual flag raising ceremony for North American

Occupational Safety and Health Week, or NAOSH Week. With the local

chapter of

the Canadian Society of Safety Engineers, we raised this flag to once again show

our commitment to occupational health and safety.

Every year, employees and employers across Canada, the United States and

Mexico participate in events in recognition of NAOSH week during the first week

of May. This special week is set aside to promote a greater awareness for the

importance of preventing workplace accidents and occupational illnesses.

This year's theme is Safety and Health, A Commitment for Life - Start

Today. This theme is an excellent reminder for everyone that our lives depend

upon a safe and healthy workplace. One way we can achieve this is by focusing

our attention on ensuring safe and healthy work practices and procedures are a

part of our everyday routine.

Mr. Speaker, I have to especially recognize the hard work the Canadian

Society of Safety Engineers does to promote NAOSH Week every year. If it were

not for our local chapter, we may not be celebrating this week today. Ten years

ago, the local

chapter developed NAOSH Week as a way to highlight this important

issue. Evidently, the need to recognize this week was not lost on the rest of

North American as the celebration quickly spread throughout the Province,

Canada, the United States and Mexico. Once again, this Province showed

innovation and determination to emphasize the need for health and safety in our

workplaces.

However, I cannot stress enough how important it is for all of us to continue

to be vigilant year-round in order to make our workplaces safer. This one week

is set aside to bring attention to workplace health and safety, but it has to be

something that each and every one of us commits to every day. We only have to

think of our families and friends to encourage us to start today.

Mr. Speaker, workplaces all over the Province are celebrating and recognizing

NAOSH Week through many activities which promote safe work practices. I

encourage everyone to do something in their workplace this week which recognizes

the importance of this issue. By working together, government, employers and

employees can ensure that our workplaces are safe. If we all make this

commitment, we will all do our part to ensure workers return home to their

friends and their family every day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

We, too, on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, join with the North American

Occupational Safety and Health Week celebrations that are taking place right now

across our great country. We, too, offer our support and commitment to

Occupational Health and Safety.

It seems like just celebrating for a week is a little bit of an

understatement as to what the importance of a safe workplace is all about. Mr.

Speaker, many people in this Province go to work every day and receive a

paycheque, but there is more to going to work than receiving a paycheque. There

is also the obligation of receiving a safe working environment when they are

there earning that bit of money.

Mr. Speaker, my own family has suffered a loss of a brother and

brother-in-law to industrial accidents. So, coming from a personal standpoint, I

can say to the minister that this is a very important issue in our Province and

I encourage the government to make sure that the Occupational Health and Safety

regulations that are presently in place are enforced. The amount of inspectors

that are out there, there is not enough I can say to encourage that they be

increased and, and as our Province develops -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: By leave

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, as our Province develops with

our oil and mining industries, as it has in the early 2000s and late 1990s, I

encourage that government make every effort to make sure that all our loved ones

come home safe and sound from their workplace.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy.

Obviously, this is a wonderful thing to do, and a wonderful thing to

celebrate, the week for Occupational Health and Safety. It is something we

cannot become too concerned about. I spoke to these issues last week, actually,

after we celebrated the Day of Mourning on April 28.

I note in the minister's statement today that she encourages everyone to do

something in their workplaces this week which recognizes the importance of the

issue. Well, last Monday I asked the government to look at the fact that they

have a report in their hands, Five Deaths a Day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

- a report, Five Deaths a Day, to which they have not yet made a response.

This report has some wonderful recommendations in it that would improve the

situation here in Newfoundland and Labrador that hopefully would stop us from

having eighteen deaths a year.

I would encourage the government that, the something they need to do is to

tell us what they think about that report and start putting some of the

recommendations in place.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at 2:30 this afternoon, Newfoundland time, 1,400

schools throughout Canada will be united in song. Today is Music Monday, an

annual event that celebrates music. In this Province, sixty-eight schools will

join their counterparts throughout the country to play the same piece of music

at the same time.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, the value of music in the curriculum. There is an

important link between school music programs, communities, and the cultural

vitality of Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of us were brought up with the

sounds of traditional music in our homes. Our communities foster musical talent.

This explains why so many of our young people display such an interest in, and

talent for, music.

Music education is alive and well in our schools. Mr. Speaker, Budget 2007

allocated $2.8 million as part of the $10 million Cultural Connections Strategy.

Over the past several years, this has allowed the department to hire

twenty-three music teachers aimed at the K-6 level. We have supported the

ArtsWork Conference which is starting in Corner Brook this Saturday.

Money was also provided for the Artists in Schools Program which will connect

music, drama and visual artists with students. For example, Mr. Speaker, we

partnered with the Labrador School Board this year to support the George

Zukerman Ensemble. This group, which included local musicians, toured the

majority of schools in Labrador.

Through cultural connections we have also introduced a music equipment

program. School districts can access funding on a cost-shared basis to purchase

or repair instruments or other equipment.

We have a new music curriculum for K-6 students. The music curriculum for the

intermediate grades is under development. New curriculum at all levels will have

increased emphasis on Newfoundland and Labrador cultural content. We have also

established a travel allowance program to support student groups so they can

perform at venues and events.

These are all important initiatives, Mr. Speaker. They are a clear indication

of the importance this government places, not only on music education but on the

music of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something we are all proud of, that we

hold close to our hearts. We will continue to promote it in our schools, so

students will have a better sense of place and a greater confidence to carry

them proudly into the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister of an advance copy of her statement and to say

that we on this side of the House congratulate the sixty-eight schools here in

our Province who will be taking

part in today as Music Monday.

As a matter of fact, just before I came to the House of Assembly, I had the

opportunity to speak to my twelve-year-old grandson who was taking part at Coley's

Point Primary, where all the other schools are coming together, and he said,

"Pop, boy, you should have been here today." He is probably getting

ready for October, for me, I don't know.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on a more serious note, it is wonderful to see all the

schools coming together. When you travel to the schools, not only in my district

but throughout the Province, and we see the choirs and the house bands and the

individual musicians that are being developed, we are so proud in this Province;

because our music and our drama and our visual arts, it is a way of our culture

and heritage. Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the group travelling to Labrador

so that music can be taken to some of the schools on the Coast of Labrador.

Each and every spring in Amalgamated Academy they kick off spring with a

great program. They call it, We'll Rant and We'll Roll, where musicians from

the school and the community get together with traditional Newfoundland music.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side want to congratulate all those who are taking

part today and say: Have a wonderful Today Is Music Monday.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I will be as positive as my colleague who just spoke. Thanks to the

minister for the advance copy.

I cannot congratulate the government enough for the work going on around

music education. As a musician myself, it is something very dear to my heart and

I know what it means to have a good musical education in school. We cannot do

too much.

Last Saturday, a week ago, I went to the Arts and Culture Centre for a

performance by the Montreal Symphony Orchestra and I was impressed by students

from Nain who were there. I think that is the kind of thing we have to do, bring

musicians to the students all over the Province, encouraging them, as musicians,

as students, and also giving them opportunities to come into St. John's and

Corner Brook and other centres that have things like the Montreal Symphony.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: I will clue up.

I also know that the School of Music does a wonderful tour with opera,

bringing singers from the School of Music into the schools and doing some very

creative presentations of opera that get the children realizing that this is

something they can enjoy. So, I encourage the minister and the ministry and

government to keep doing this. I really believe we can never put too much money

into our educational system in general, but especially into music.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated on numerous occasions that the sale of

FPI assets would only take place if and when the Province gained control of FPI's

quotas. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister stated on Monday past in this House

of Assembly, and I quote: The Premier and myself have made it absolutely and

abundantly clear that if government is to approve the sale of assets of FPI, the

quotas and the licences must rest with this Province or some arm of it. This is

a condition of the sale and it is one that is absolute and one that government

is absolutely committed to.

I ask the minister: Do you and the Premier stand by those words today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it now appears that the federal government will not be handing

over FPI's quotas to the Province but, instead, will only give assurances that

these quotas will be landed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

On Friday our minister, the Minister of Fisheries, said that this assurance

does not go far enough and this guarantee was only as good as the person who

signs it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will FPI or any of its assets be sold if the

government of this Province does not have unfettered access or ownership of FPI's

quotas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the answer to the first question

was pretty definitive, and the answer to the second question is the same.

Unless the conditions laid down by the government - the Premier and myself,

on behalf of the government, over the last number of months - unless some way is

found to satisfy those conditions then the Province will not be giving its

approval for the a sale of the assets of FPI.

I do not know how much more definitive I can be, but it seems to me that is

rather definitive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries stated in last Thursday's The

Telegram that government had discussed the option of nationalizing FPI. Can

the minister tell us today why this option was dismissed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think when I responded to that particular

matter in a scrum, I believe it was, it was in response to a suggestion made by

the Leader of the Opposition that the government should follow through; that I

believe it was his position that the only thing left for the government to do

would be to nationalize or expropriate the assets of FPI.

I indicated that we had given consideration to that, but there is no

assurance, Mr. Speaker, particularly in light of the position now taken by the

federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, there is no assurance that we can hang

our hat on that even if we were to do that - not to say that we would, but even

if we were to do it - there is no assurance that, as a result of that process,

the quota and licences, the groundfish quotas and licences, would rest with the

Province. With a lack of that assurance, there would be nothing gained for the

Province in the long term by taking that particular route.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week we discussed Ms Joan Cleary and the generous severance payments

that should never have been paid. Interestingly enough, this was not the first

incidence of questionable severance payments paid by the Bull Arm Site

Corporation.

Last November the Auditor General wrote both the Minister of Natural

Resources, the current minister, and Ms Cleary, to raise concerns about

severance payments to the former site manager. The Auditor General stated at

that time, and I quote: Although the former site manager's contract contained

a clause that stated, quote, agreement may be terminated by either party giving

at least five days notice thereof in writing to the other, in 2006 this

individual was paid a three month severance package totalling approximately

$30,500.

Our review - that being the Auditor General's review - of the contract

indicated there was no obligation to make this payment.

The Auditor General also recommended that the money be recovered.

I ask the minister: Why was this recommendation ignored? Have you made any

attempts to recover the severance payment made to that site manager, which the

Auditor General felt ought not to have been made? As well, are you undertaking

the appropriate actions with respect to Ms Cleary's circumstance to recover

the $40,000 in taxpayers' money that was made in a similar fashion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have to go back to my department and check on the measures taken with

regard to the former site manager.

With regard to Ms Cleary's contract, Mr. Speaker, appropriate action has

been taken every step of the way to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week government stated that they had legal opinions indicating that Ms

Joan Cleary must be paid the $40,000 in severance. On Friday, Minister

Dunderdale, in the local media, stated that there were not, actually, any legal

opinions prepared or correspondence existing. If there was no legal opinion, and

we know there was no oversight by this board - and Ms Cleary was paid over

$100,000 that year while not holding a single meeting as President and CEO of

the Bull Arm Site Corporation. In addition, we found two instances where the

Public Tender Act was broken by Ms Cleary and only then did government

acknowledge they had the grounds to fire her.

Minister, we questioned your due diligence last fall and determined that you

did not perform your ministerial duties. We now learn of a general severance

package given to Ms Cleary, after similar circumstances were previously brought

to your attention by the Auditor General. Minister, why are you not doing due

diligence as minister, and when can we expect you to do the honourable thing and

resign?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I received Ms Cleary's resignation I brought it to the senior

officials of my department who, in consultation with justice, made the decision

on how to action the resignation. I remained arm's-length from that process.

There was no political interference in that process and her resignation was

acted in accordance with her contract and government policy and practice.

The Leader of the Opposition has made a great deal about their efforts to

gain information around this piece and he has constantly misrepresented the

facts. He raised the issue in this House on November 28. Ms Cleary was asked for

her resignation on the seventh. He knew only of the issues around the security

shed. It was me, as minister, and this government, who made the declarations

around the winterization contract and we made it absolutely public what was

happening upon our review. We were clear, we were transparent and we were

accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one supplementary, given the minister's comments here. We found the

information concerning the former site manager and the severance package, which

was contrary to what the Auditor General felt should have been done, as a result

of a Freedom of Information request that we filed with the minister's office,

not as a result of anything that this minister did.

Again, in the spirit of openness and accountability, I ask the minister: Will

you table in this House the documentation from either Ms Cleary, her

correspondents or her representatives, whereby she would have even asked for the

severance, or was this something that you left to someone else to sort out? That

was the question last Thursday.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, when I received Ms

Cleary's resignation I brought it to senior officials in the department to

action in an objective and unbiased way in accordance with the terms of the

contract and in accordance with government policy and practice.

Mr. Speaker, I have here eight pages since 1992 of non-compliance with the

Public Tender Act by the people opposite when they were in government, and I

ask: Who was held accountable? Who resigned? Who was fired? Mr. Speaker, there

would not be a soul left over there if they had to take the same stance and the

same approach to government practice and policy as this government done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that justifies you giving $40,000 to one of your

political cronies of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon we learned Persona Communications flipped

their company to Bragg Communications Inc. of Nova Scotia for an undisclosed

amount of money. This is the latest saga in the untendered fibre optic deal with

the Premier's close friends and business associates. Mr. Speaker, last month

the Auditor General expressed concern that this deal was in a state of flux,

continually changing and details were constantly changing since first announced.

I ask the Premier: Is the deal finalized? Has any taxpayers' money been

spent or advanced, and could you please table a copy of the details of any deal

that has been completed with regard to this fibre optic deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, let me reply first with a letter from the

Auditor General to me on April 27, 2007.

Dear Sir: Further to my letter of April 3, 2007, to Minister Taylor wherein I

outlined concerns about documentation, I am pleased with the process that has

recently been established which will provide my office with the necessary

information to complete my review of the fibre optic deal.

I also acknowledge your letter of April 25, 2007, wherein you indicated that

Cabinet has waived its privilege of Cabinet confidence for the purpose of

providing my office with access to all relevant Cabinet papers. Given the

recently established process and access to Cabinet documents, we anticipate

getting on with the task at hand and completing the review as quickly as

possible.

With respect to your letter of April 24, 2007, please be advised that it was

not my intention to create such a perception.

That is the Auditor General. We will table that if you want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, still no answer to the question. The Premier can

get up and he can read what he wants. I asked you a simple question, to table

the deal, or if the deal was complete because the Auditor General did mention to

you in the letter that he wrote you previous to that one, that the deal was

still influx, that it was still changing. Yet, you refuse to answer the question

today.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but be skeptical about this whole fibre optic

deal and the $15 million. It was nothing more than an attempt to prop up the

share value of Persona and look after the interests of the Premier's friend,

Mr. Dean MacDonald. EastLink, a company owned by Bragg Communications, happens

to own a fibre optic link from Cape Breton to Halifax. In government documents

that you tabled here in the House of Assembly last fall, or earlier this spring,

it states that $9.5 million will be spent by this Province and the consortium

that is running this fibre optic deal for new fibre optic cables from Cape

Breton to Halifax.

I ask the Premier: Now that this new company already has fibre optic cable in

Nova Scotia, will the Province still contribute to funding for the consortium of

a second cable through Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I understand it correctly, what the

Leader of the Opposition has just proven is that in fact that $15 million did

not pump up the value of the deal because they already had a significant part of

it already built. So that is an answer to the first part of your question.

What do we need to do? The Opposition asked for the Auditor General to review

the Persona arrangement. What did we do? We brought in the Auditor General and

we gave him all the documentation that he needed. They then asked: Would we

provide Cabinet documentation? We said no, because of the law it would be

inappropriate to provide the Cabinet documentation. We then decided, for the

benefit of the public and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to make sure

that this was not tainted, that the smears and the slurs and the tainting and

the negativity that was put on it by the Leader of the Opposition would be

displaced, so we opened up the Cabinet documentation. They objected because Dean

MacDonald was involved in the company. Now Dean MacDonald is going to be out of

the company, they are not happy with that. This company was formerly owned by

American interests, it is now going to be owned by an Atlantic Canadian company.

They are not happy with that. NATI and CONA and MUN and all kinds of other

organizations, the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, they are happy with

it but you are not happy with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What else can we do, Mr. Speaker? This is a wonderful

project for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and at the end of the day what the

hon. gentleman opposite does not understand is that we own an asset here. We own

$15 million worth of IRUs. We own a piece of that property that Persona or

nobody else can sell because we pay our money and we own a piece of it, no

different than a condominium. So, at the end of the day, we have an asset that

cannot be disposed with.

Now we are part of a complete Atlantic link and that makes it even stronger

again, but they are still not happy with that. I cannot do any more, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier a simple question: Is any of

the $15 million that we have put into this project going towards putting a line

from Cape Breton to Halifax now that the new company, Bragg, already has a line

across there?

You did not answer that question when I just asked it. You did not answer

that question when I asked you that question in the fall, I say to the Premier.

You can get up and talk your way around it all you want. I think that the people

watching you today realize you do not answer questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, Group Telecom was another company that received a

government contract and was flipped when the deal was completed, I believe the

Premier knows quite well, as he and Dean MacDonald were the authors of that sale

as well.

I ask the Premier: Were talks ongoing regarding the sale of Persona to Bragg

during government's decision to commit the $15 million in the fibre optic

deal, and was this $15 million investment a condition of the sale of Persona to

Bragg?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when Group Telecom was built by the

original company that I was involved in, we did a contract with government to

displace a previous contract that government had with Aliant, that actually

saved the people of Newfoundland and Labrador $2 million, so there were

significant savings to the people.

The people sitting there opposite, the people in that government, approved

that transaction as being a legitimate transaction, so there was nothing wrong

with it.

Now, with respect to whether there was anything going on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You approved it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question has been asked. I ask members to give their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Premier, who has some time left to give a response.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has been provided with all

the documentation that the Auditor General has. They will see from that

documentation that there is no indication whatsoever that there were any

negotiations going on with Bragg Communications. If there were, we would not

know anyway; it is none of our business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That certainly does not give me much comfort.

The Premier talked about the contract that he did with the previous

government. What he forgot to tell the people of this Province today is that you

flipped that company, or that contract, immediately upon the signing of that

deal.

I will tell you another thing, Mr. Speaker: there was no one on this side of

the House who had anything to do with that, because it is my understanding that

there was only one individual who had anything to do with that contract, giving

it to today's Premier, and that was the former Premier, Mr. Tobin, because it

never went to Cabinet, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, time is moving quickly.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition, and I ask him to put his

question immediately.

MR. REID: Thank you for the protection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What safeguards have been put in place to

protect our investment of $15 million in the fibre optic deal now that Persona

has been sold to Bragg?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the hon.

gentleman opposite, and obviously he does not understand it, the Province owns

the IRUs. They pay the money for the IRUs. It is similar to owning a condominium

in a project. They have actual outright ownership.

With regard to the allegation and the inference that I flipped some company

or I did something improper, I sold Group Telecom, which was an affiliate of

Cable Atlantic, and I sold Cable Atlantic so that I could offer myself for

public service. That is exactly why I did it, and nobody knows that any better

than them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is why it was done, and when I disposed of those

assets I stood for public office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not sure whether the Premier has finished his comments or not.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a joke! I say to the Premier, that company was flipped long before you

put your name on a ballot, and you collected the proceeds of it.

Mr. Speaker, in the fall we asked how many fibres we were getting for the $15

million and the minister basically said he did not know. Mr. Speaker, in

documentation that we have gotten since then, it has been confirmed that we are

the largest investor in this project with 29 per cent of the total funds

committed. Yet, we are only receiving four of the forty-eight fibres, a measly 8

per cent.

I ask the Premier: If this is such a good deal, why are the people of this

Province contributing the largest amount of money, yet receiving the least

benefit for this fibre optic deal?

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

Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition does math, but

thankfully he wasn't the Finance Minister under the previous Administration.

We are in for $15 million, Mr. Speaker. Our contribution to the project has

been assessed and it was determined what an appropriate number of strands were.

He says four strands. It is not four strands. It is four strands across the

Gulf. There are eight strands across the Island. There are another couple of

stands to go up the Northern Peninsula when that project is done up there, which

is unrelated to ours. This is $15 million of an $82 million project, Mr.

Speaker, and no matter what way you cut that, that is a long ways from the 23

per cent that he is suggesting that we are into it for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we got a good deal. It is recognized as a good

deal by everybody who has looked at it thus far, and it will be borne out at the

end of the day, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows no more about this deal than he

did last November. He talked about us owning fibre going up the Northern

Peninsula, when it says in the documentation that you passed over to us that the

line up the Northern Peninsula has nothing whatsoever to do with this deal. It

will be in addition to this deal and we will pay extra for it, I say to the

minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we have asked time and time again in this House

for a breakdown of the money put into this deal by Persona, each of the three

individual companies. How much did Persona put in, MTS Allstream put in, and how

much did Rogers put in? However, for some reason, this government refuses to

even give us a breakdown. We know that we put $15 million in. We do not know how

much each of these individual companies put in themselves.

Now that the lead proponent, Persona, has flipped its company with what we

would expect to be a nice profit, I ask the Premier: Will you give the detailed

breakdown of what each company was putting into this deal, and could you please

confirm whether or not the $15 million of taxpayers' money invested was part

of Persona's share?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I tell you this, Mr. Speaker - I will answer his last

question first - the $15 million had absolutely nothing to do with Persona's

share. Persona's share is substantially more than the $15 million, Mr.

Speaker.

As for why the actual breakdown of ownership has not been divulged, Mr.

Speaker, it is the same today as it was several months ago when I answered that

same question back in November and December. That information is not released

publicly because it is proprietary information; however, Mr. Speaker, all of the

information related to this has been provided to the Auditor General and any new

information that comes forward will also be provided to the Auditor General so

that a thorough analysis and evaluation and costing of this can be done to

determine, once and for all, at the end of the day, this is absolutely a good

deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about proprietary information. What is wrong with saying

how much the four partners put in? We already know how much we are putting in,

as one of the four partners. What would be wrong with telling us what each of

the other three are putting in? Why do you have to hide that information from

the general public? What is it? What impact could that have on a company? I

think you are hiding something because you know full well that we are putting in

a portion, if not all, of Persona's share, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, this whole deal gets more suspicious by the day. The Premier has

continuously refused to advise the people of the Province who his trustee is,

overseeing his blind trust.

I ask the Premier: Do you or your trustee have any shares in Bragg

Communications or any ownership of that company or any shares or ownership of

Persona?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker, but what I will do

is see if I am allowed to find out in my blind trust and I will certainly

provide you with the answer. But certainly not on my instruction, I am not aware

of any ownership whatsoever. To my knowledge, there was no ownership, but I will

check and I will make sure. But, from what I understand, Persona is a private

company and Bragg is a private company. That is your answer. How could I buy

shares in those companies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also said: Do you have ownership in Bragg, it could be a private company?

Mr. Speaker, a simple question: Why is the Premier so protective over the

name of his trustee? Will you tell the people of the Province the name of the

individual or individuals who are looking over your blind trust? Will you give

us the name or the names, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not required to disclose the name of

my blind trustee. How would I ever get a blind trustee if I ever disclosed the

name and allowed him to be completely ransacked and berated by that crowd over

there any time they feel like it? So, no, Mr. Speaker, I am not required to give

it and I will not give it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: A final question, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, and he should know this, the trust is supposed to be

blind. What harm would it tell if you were to tell who your trustee was?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am just not required to disclose that, Mr. Speaker.

And, quite frankly, it is none of your business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There are 49,000 mothers in the provincial labour force with children under

twelve, but only about 6,000 regulated child care spaces. Government appears to

have only a three-year plan for creating a few hundred more. This, in effect,

will not deal with families needs for child care.

So, my question for the minister is: When will the government commit adequate

funds to a non-profit system to meet the need for more child care spaces in this

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will recall the answer to

the question similar to that she posed last week, when I said at that time, in

the last three years this government has increased the number of spaces by some

40-odd per cent.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is a major commitment, considering the fact that

we made a commitment last year in an announcement that we would continue to

grow, we would continue to invest. When we formed government some

three-and-a-half years ago, the Province was investing a little over $11 million

in that particular sector, in child care services in this Province. This year

that number has grown to close to $18 million, reflects the significant

investment in dollars, significant investment in the number of spaces available,

and we will continue to grow and expand and provide the services that the

children of this Province require.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not directly relate his answer

to the numbers that I put out. The numbers that I put out indicate that we need

a lot more than what is happening and we also need them in regulated

not-for-profit sectors, not in unregulated private sectors. So I would like the

minister to think further about what I asked.

More and more parents are looking for high quality preschool programs where

their children can gain the skills they are expected to have when they reach

kindergarten. Other provinces, such as Saskatchewan, have realized the

importance of preschool in giving children a good start and they have

established a public preschool system.

My question for the minister is: When will this government realize the

importance of preschool as part of the lifelong learning continuum and include

preschool early learning programs in the formal education system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to two things. One,

she makes reference to regulated, and this industry is regulated. We, as a

government, made sure that the regulations are in place to appropriately govern

the conduct of people who provide those services and to ensure that it is

focused on the development of the children. I think when you look at the kind of

growth that we have seen, both in the for profit and in the private sector in

this particular area in the last four to five years, I think you will recognize

that we are continuing to expand, continuing to grow. Whether or not we have

enough today? No, Mr. Speaker. Will we continue to add to it tomorrow? Yes, Mr.

Speaker. As I said a moment ago, we will continue to expand, we will continue to

grow and we will continue the kind of investment we have made in the last three

years.

One thing is for certain, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member opposite

and everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, that expansion will reflect quality

programming, focusing on the children, focusing on their development needs and

acknowledging the significant part of their lives. That period between birth and

starting the kindergarten program, that is a very significant

part in that child's

life and we recognize that. So, she can be assured that it will be quality, it

will be regulated and it will be done in an appropriate fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the second time that the minister has responded to me in the past

week or so with regard to the 40 per cent increase in seats. As I asked last

week, and I am going to ask again, would the minister please table in detail

where the 40 per cent of the seats are located? Where they are located, if they

are located in not-for-profit, in private, in individual homes? I am looking

forward to this information to be tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I ask

the minister to let me know when that will happen.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member opposite would

want to know, this is important information. I will just repeat what I said to

her on Thursday of last week. This is the first sitting of the House since I

have answered her question last week and I said at that time that I would be

very proud to table in this House a profile of the growth in this sector since

we formed government, the kind of investment we made, and the number of areas

where we have had increased capacity. So, I would ask her to be a little bit

patient. I will endeavour to try to have this tomorrow; if not tomorrow, the day

after. I made a commitment, an undertaking in this House that I would table it,

and that commitment still stands. I will table it. Hopefully, it will be

tomorrow, but if not tomorrow, the next day.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Before we proceed, the Chair wishes to rule on a point of order raised by the

Government House Leader on Thursday last. He drew reference to words that were

used by the Opposition House Leader earlier in the afternoon. In that particular

matter, it was in Question Period and the words were used, and I quote: Why was

this resignation scenario cooked up between the minister and Ms Cleary to ensure

she would receive $40,000 of taxpayers' money?

The Chair has reviewed the context and the presentation made in the House,

and the Chair rules that these words are unparliamentary and I ask the

Opposition House Leader to withdraw them.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the words, cooked up.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 5)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will move that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider Certain Resolutions

relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 6)

Mr. Speaker, finally, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 10)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Safer Communities And

Neighbourhoods. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal the Certified Public Accountants Act And The

Chartered Accounts And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act. (Bill 7)

I also give further notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities. (Bill 12)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I omitted one.

I give notice that I will introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Human Rights Code. (Bill 8)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice under Standing Order 63.(3), it being Private Members' Day on

Wednesday, that a private member's motion will be made by the Leader of the

Opposition and seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. The member will

read the motion.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The motion will read:

WHEREAS the fishery is the mainstay of the economy of

rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS FPI was originally established to be the flagship of our fishing

industry of this Province; and

WHEREAS over 2,000 people in this Province look to FPI for direct employment;

and

WHEREAS the sale of the marketing and secondary processing division of FPI to

a Nova Scotia company would not be in the best interest of FPI workers or the

fishing industry as a whole; and

WHEREAS this government has been unable to negotiate effectively with the

federal government to gain control over FPI quotas, which was supposed to be a

precondition to the sale of FPI or any of its assets;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the establishment of an

all-party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, before moving to Orders of the Day, I think

Your Honour will recall that when we rose before we entertained the

entertainment motion on Thursday, my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, had

finished, I believe, or at that point finished at least making a submission to

Your Honour on whether or not an amendment to the motion to appoint a new Chief

Electoral Officer, whether or not that amendment was in order, and I had

indicated that I would perhaps have a word or two to say about that before your

Honour took the matter under advisement today, and I will be very brief - very,

very brief.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, I think he said before he called Orders

of the Day. He has to call the Orders of the Day so we can proceed to deal with

Motion 5.

MR. RIDEOUT: Orders of the Day, Motion 5, I think, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if I could just briefly say this in terms of

the arguments made by the House Leader in support of the amendment that he wants

to debate - and I am going to be very brief, as I said, Your Honour - it is my

submission that the amendment as proposed by the Opposition House Leader is out

of order. It is out of order not because it is against our Standing Orders. It

is out of order not because it is contrary to the precedence of the House of

Commons of Canada or the House of Commons in Great Britain. It is out of order,

Mr. Speaker, because if the amendment were to be debated and passed, it would

impose a condition on the appointment of the Chief Electoral Office that is not

required by the Elections Act of 1991.

That is the reason why the amendment is out of order. To impose such a

condition, Mr. Speaker, on the appointment would be tantamount to approving an

amendment to the act itself. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be accomplished

by a resolution. Everybody knows that if you are going to have an amendment to

an act of this Legislature, there is a way to do it, and that way is outlined in

the Standing Orders.

I should also note, Mr. Speaker, subsection 4.(2) of the Elections Act, 1991,

states that the Chief Electoral Officer holds office during good behaviour and

may only be removed from that office by a resolution of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having recognized that, it is arguable therefore that when

a member believes that the Chief Electoral Officer has acted in a manner that is

contrary to the requirements of the act, then that member would be free to

propose a resolution to the House calling for the removal of that particular

person.

Mr. Speaker, really, then, in

summary, the amendment to the resolution

proposed by the Opposition House Leader, in my view, is out of order because in

effect it tries to effect an indirect amendment to the Elections Act, 1991, and

therefore cannot be entertained as in order by the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear a very brief comment by the Opposition

House Leader. We have already had significant commentary on both sides, but in

fairness we will hear some concluding comments by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that, and I believe that was the understanding on Friday, that I

would be given an opportunity to respond to the Government House Leader.

With all due respect to the Government House Leader's submission, I think

he is premature. The question that we have to deal with here, and the Chair has

to deal with, first and foremost, is: Is the amendment in order? That is all we

are talking about here. We are talking about drafting technicalities, and is the

amendment in order?

I think I outlined quite clearly and adequately on Thursday as to why the

amendment is in order, both pursuant to the Standing Orders - there is nothing

here saying it is out of order. There is nothing. In fact, they have precedent

here which says it would be in order, from this very Chair, this very Speaker,

when we dealt with and I read into evidence that particular amendment when we

dealt with the Atlantic Accord. So, we have precedent from this House where that

type of amendment is in order.

I say again that all you are doing here, if the thing is in order, which

there is no doubt in my mind that it is, and I gave the substantive authorities

to say that, the issue raised by the Government House Leader then becomes: Do we

or do we not agree with the statements contained in the amendment? That is a

different issue. That gets debated when and if you rule that it is in order.

Then we decide whether we agree or do not agree that the appointment of a new

Chief Electoral Officer should at least have equivalent verification as a DRO

would have under the act. That is the whole point of this here. Not trying to

change any laws; not trying to change any laws at all.

I say to the Chair again, and in response to the Government House Leader's

position, this amendment is well within order. If they want to vote it down

after, that is a different story. That is a discussion, and that is where you

give your argument as to the validity of the motion or not as a motion or as an

amendment, but the first step and the only step we are dealing with here is: Is

it in order? There is absolutely nothing that I can find saying that it is out

of order. If it is, I would certainly appreciate seeing the reasons from the

Chair.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess the House for some final consultations

with the Table Officers.

This House is now in recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Speaker thanks the House Leadership for their presentations on the

proposed amendment under consideration. Careful consideration has been given to

the viewpoints presented to the House by the Opposition House Leader and the

Government House Leader.

I also wish to recognize that in addition to standard consultations with the

Table Officers, the Speaker has also extensively reviewed the appropriate

parliamentary literature.

The resolution as placed before the House by the Government House Leader is

very direct. It reads, "Therefore,

be it resolved that Mr. Paul Reynolds be

appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members'

Interests."

The amendment as proposed by the Opposition House Leader would delete all the

words after the word "that" and substitute the following, "Mr.

Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members'

Interests after it is verified that he meets the requirements for the

appointment equivalent to a DRO under

section 21 of the Elections Act."

The Elections Act, 1991 gives direction on the appointment of the Chief

Electoral Officer and the House of Assembly Act provides a similar function with

regard to the Commissioner of Members' Interests. Both Acts deal with the

appointment process for the relevant positions and outline the separate and

distinct roles of the Executive Branch and the Commission of Internal Economy.

The main motion before the House is very precise in that it calls for the

appointment of Mr. Paul Reynolds as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of

Members' Interests. The Chair acknowledges that this type of direct and

concise motion is not easily amended.

The Chair notes that the intent of the amendment is to link the appointment

of Mr. Paul Reynolds to the outcome of a verification process. Such an amendment

would clearly make the main motion to be subject to the results of such a

determination.

The proposed amendment expands the original motion by placing thereon a

conditional qualification on the appointment process that was not anticipated in

either The Elections Act, 1991 or The House of Assembly Act. The legislation

passed by this House does not give direction on the matter of qualifications.

The Speaker must assume the silence in the enabling legislation on the matter of

qualifications to be the expressed wish of this House and its elected

representatives.

The Speaker would like to reference a similar amendment introduced in the

House of Commons during the Free Trade Debate in 1987. The main motion was

direct and precise in that it asked the House of Commons to endorse the Canada-U.S.

free trade agreement as being in the national interest. An amendment was

introduced which would have had the effect of adding words to clarify the

ratification process by adding a requirement that the approval of the free trade

proposal be determined by the Canadian population in a general election.

In a ruling dated December 17, 1987, Speaker John Fraser referenced earlier

decisions in the House of Commons; specifically, a decision of Speaker Roland

Michener on June 11, 1958, and decisions of Deputy Speaker Lucien Lamoureux on

June 4, 1964 and a further ruling by Speaker Lamoureux on May 6, 1966.

Speaker Fraser, in his ruling on the amendment to the free trade resolution

noted the following, "Assuming the amendment and the motion were accepted,

we would have the endorsement by the House of the free trade agreement subject

to a further endorsement by the population at the next general election and, in

my humble opinion, this is foreign to the main question."

Therefore, after the most careful consideration and with due consideration of

viewpoints offered by the House leadership, the Chair must rule that the

amendment, in expanding the scope of the resolution, to be foreign to the main

question. Moreover, the amendment, if passed by the House, has the potential to

be an indirect negative to the main motion. Thus, passing the amendment may

constitute a circumstance which would be analogous to voting against the main

motion.

However, the Speaker notes that, should the House wish to consider the

proposition contained in the amendment, it need only to be formulated as a

separate and substantive motion with due notice as required in the Standing

Orders.

Thus, the Chair rules that the amendment as placed before the House by the

Opposition House Leader to be out of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

I do believe that you were speaking in your twenty minutes back on Thursday,

and you can continue to speak.

The Chair will consult with the Table to find out exactly how much time

remains.

MR. PARSONS: I assume I had three or four minutes left. I am not exactly

certain.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your commentary on the ruling vis- B -vis

the amendment. I would like to take the remaining time that I have to propose an

amendment to principal resolution, again for consideration of the Chair and the

Table Officers as to whether this one is in order or not.

As the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, seconded by the Member for

Carbonear-Harbour Grace, I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the

words after the word, "that" and substituting the following therefore:

"Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of

Members' Interests only upon the completion of an independent public

competition deems him best qualified of all applicants for this position."

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. the Opposition House Leader for putting

forward his amendment. The Chair does not have a copy of the amendment. When the

Chair gets a copy, we will recess the House for a short while so that the Chair

can have the appropriate consultations.

The Chair will recess the House so that we can have the appropriate

consultations.

This House is now in recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed the second amendment put forward by the member sitting

in Opposition and the Chair recognizes the fact that this particular amendment

is very similar to the previous amendment and the same rationale has been used

by the Speaker in giving consideration to it. Therefore, after careful

consideration by the Speaker and by the Table Officers, and with due

consideration to the matter before the House, the Chair must rule that the

amendment in expanding the scope of the resolution expands the main question,

and is foreign to the main question.

Moreover, the amendment, if passed by the House, has the potential of being

an indirect negative to the main motion. Therefore, the Chair rules the

amendment put forward by the Opposition House Leader to be out of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order.

I want to make it quite clear, I am not in any way questioning Your Honour's

ruling, and I accept it without issue.

When you made your comments in reference to the initial amendment that I

filed, you also ended by making a comment about, it would have stood as a

substantive motion under our Standing Orders. I am wondering if that same

rationale would apply to the second amendment as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Opposition House Leader is correct, that any

particular amendment can, of course, be proposed to the House by any particular

member as a separate motion and would therefore stand in its own right.

Therefore, the only way which we are going to amend this particular motion that

we are discussing, the main motion, would be if we were to have a substantive

motion put before the House and have it discussed and let it stand on its own

merits.

MR. PARSONS: In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I am going to - if the

government would be agreeable to having either of the amendments that we put

forward be debated in this House as a substantive motion with consent, as we

have often done in this House when we deem it to be of importance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair also notes, of course, as he did in his

commentary, that such motions under our Standing Orders would require notice and

that the appropriate notice given then of course can be dealt with by the House

Leadership and the Chair would be merely the facilitator.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to continue with my minutes, if I could, under those

circumstances.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader,

who I do believe has several minutes left in his allotted time.

MR. PARSONS: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. In fact , I thought I had

two or three minutes left here.

Again, I would like to, in my remaining time, propose an amendment to the

main resolution that is before the House. I notice some of the members opposite

seem to have a problem with following procedure here. Maybe you would like to

speak to it, if you so wish, but otherwise I would appreciate having an

opportunity to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the main motion on the floor here concerning the

appointment of the (inaudible) be amended by adding immediately after the word,

interest, the following: To perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan

manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not seen the proposed amendment. Again, we will follow due

process. If I could have one of the Pages pass me the proposed amendment. The

Chair now has the amendment and the Chair will recess the House to give it due

consideration.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to rule on a proposed amendment put forward by the

Opposition House Leader that would add, at the end of the motion, the following:

To perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan manner.

The Chair wishes to reference a decision of the House of Commons dated

November 29, 1995. The resolution before the House of Commons on that day dealt

with the desire of the Province of Quebec for recognition as a distinct society.

A motion was put forward by the Right Honourable Jean Chr tien,

the Prime Minister. During the debate, Mr. Preston Manning put forward the

following at the end of the motion, he put forward this amendment that said:

That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word

"accordingly" the following: Nothing in this resolution shall confer

or be interpreted as conferring upon the Legislature or the Government of Quebec

or any new legislative (inaudible) executive powers, et cetera, et cetera.

There was an addendum, in other words, put on the main motion. That

particular addendum was ruled in order by Speaker Parent.

In considering the amendment put forward, the Chair has had consultations

with the Table Officers, and has had consultations with leading parliamentary

authorities by telephone this afternoon - leading Canadian parliamentary

authority.

The Chair finds that the proposed amendment is not foreign to the main motion

nor negative to its intent. The proposed amendment does not raise a new

question. The amendment may be redundant to the intent of the main motion, but

that of itself does not rule the amendment out of order.

The amendment does not offend the generally accepted rules of parliamentary

practice, and the amendment makes explicit what is implicit in the main motion.

Therefore, the Chair rules the amendment to be in order.

Under our Parliamentary rules, that would mean that the mover of the

amendment would now have time to speak to the amendment.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) time, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocation for speaking to the amendment would be,

I understand, twenty minutes.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you. I just wanted to confirm.

Maybe if I could have a copy of the amendment as well. I believe I gave my

only copy, actually, to the Table.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This issue, of course, the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer for our

Province, is a seminal question. It is important to all of us, not only who sit

here as parliamentarians, but it is important to everybody in this Province.

We are going to have an election on October 9, this year. That was set by way

of fixed election legislation that was dealt with in this House back, I do

believe, in 2004. The concern and the reason why this particular amendment is

being put forward, and the words we asked to have here as an amendment again

were, "to perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan

manner".

That is a pretty general statement, but it is pretty obvious why such a

statement is necessary. We are here in this House dealing with a resolution that

is going to appoint someone to be in charge of, and responsible for, the

non-partisan application and

interpretation of the Elections Act.

Everybody in this Province, whether you be Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or

anyone else, we are only here, us members, as participants in the electoral

process at this time. The reason why this is important is not because of how

this member expects to be treated by the person who has been proposed, but it is

how everyone in this Province, everybody - the voters more so even than the

persons who are participating in the actual system - need to have the confidence

of knowing that everybody who has put their name on a ballot box, every system

and procedure that is going to be used in running of an election, is going to be

absolutely above reproach and without question.

That is why this amendment is being proposed here. The question is quite

simple: How do we test, how do we determine, that the person who has been

nominated here will be absolutely impartial? That is the question here: How can

we as a House, and how can we as a people in this Province, have the assurance

that person will be absolutely impartial?

Well, the first thing you do, of course, you can ask the individual. I asked

the individual personally. I was not prepared to come in here in this House and

talk about Mr. Paul Reynolds or anyone else and say he is not the right person

or he is the right person. I said, back when we had this debate earlier, in May

of 2006 when we were talking about the then nominee, Chuck Furey, I have no

problem with a person who was a politician.

Mr. Reynolds, in my understanding, was never a politician in that sense, as I

said with Mr. Furey, but I said I had no problem with that, about parking your

politics at the door. I meant it and still mean it, but I was wrong in one

aspect that I did say at that time. Wrong, I guess in the sense that I was not

fully informed; because I made a comment at that time that the appointment of a

position such as this is a lot like the appointment of a judge. I made that

statement and said I see no reason - the same as our current Chief Justice, Mr.

Wells, was the former Premier of this Province. He had politics. He was a

politician, but I see no reason why he would have been not appointed to the

bench because he was of a particular political stripe, no more than I would say

Mr. William Marshall who sat in this House as a Conservative member for years

with distinction, he left politics and he went to the bench and served the bench

in this Province with distinction, absolutely. So there are two examples of

where people who had been in the political system went on to have another career

somewhere else.

I made the comment, I said that is a lot like we are doing here with Chuck

Furey; but, really, it was not, when I look back in hindsight. It was not the

same process, and I would like to point out why it was not the same process.

Once someone goes to the bench there is a process, a far more detailed

process than we have here. We have here, under the laws - now, maybe the process

is not right. It is totally, absolutely the Premier's prerogative to bring the

name forward. We all know that. That is in this act, how we do it, and he did it

and he has total right to do it, but, I say, there was no consultation. It says

in the act that it be done in consultation. Now, what does consultation mean,

first and foremost? I guess you can say: Well, we picked up the phone or we had

our Chief of Staff pick up the phone on the afternoon that you announced it, ten

minutes before, and say: Here is who we are going to put there. Thank you. Good

bye.

Now, that might constitute consultation with some people. I would use the

words, that is advising someone what you are going to do. That is not much

consultation. I do not know if the Leader of the NDP was ever consulted or told

about it. I do not know. She will speak for herself. I know there was no

consultation here in terms of the sense of the word consultation. That is how it

happened, folks. The word was sent out, that this is who it is going to be. In

fact, within ten minutes it was in the press, the release was gone. Now that is

the consultation that we had here. Do not try to hide behind any guises of there

was some process of consultation between the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition and the Leader of the NDP. It did not happen.

The other question - back to the judge thing again, in comparing. When a

person applies for the bench, there are a lot of processes in place, once I came

to think about it, that we did not have here. For example, you can only be

appointed a judge if you make an application. Whether it is provincial or

federal, you cannot even go to the bench until you, in writing, express your

wishes and say you want to be such and outline your resume. I do not think there

was any such process here of an application. There certainly was no public

process. I do not remember seeing anything in the newspaper where this

government said: We need a new Chief Electoral Officer and anybody who is

interested, make your application. That was not done. That would not take away

from the Premier's right to make a recommendation. That would only be opening

it up so that anybody and everybody who felt that he or she could be a Chief

Electoral Officer would have the right to apply. That was not done. There was no

application process, like there would be in the case of a judge. I use the

comparison of a judge, of course, because that person, he or she, once they

assume that role, must be absolutely impartial and apply the law equally and

fairly and equitably to everybody who comes before them. I do not see much

difference in terms of the role that a Chief Electoral Officer is playing. So,

we did not have any kind of public process here to determine who was interested.

We did not have it, and we did not have any consultation. Now, those are two

reasons.

We also never had an interview. If you are going to be appointed to the

bench, there is an interview process. You have to give your name and your

references as to some people you have worked with. The Member for St. Mary's,

I am sure, is aware of this as well. You have to say who your references are and

that committee, the judicial committee, federal-provincial, whichever, actually

calls all these people. Every member on these committees calls your references

and says: Such and such is applying for the bench. What do you think of him? It

is done in the strictest, total confidence. The Premier had that right to do

that. He could have consulted with whomever he wanted. We do not know. I do not

think there was any kind of vetting or consulting with anyone in the case of Mr.

Reynolds. That was not done. In fact, there is an assessment done of the person.

The committee actually does an assessment on a scale of 1 to 10, on a number of

criteria, about 200 criteria actually, to determine if that person is fit to

serve in that role. We did not have that here. There was no assessment done.

There was no consultation done. There was no application done and there was no

counsel vetting anybody done.

In fact, under the judge's piece, you have to comply with Revenue Canada

stuff. It says right in there: One of the basics you do is check out and make

sure this person does not owe any money in taxes. That is an impediment to the

appointment.

When you compare the two processes - I was absolutely wrong - they are not

the same. The vetting process for the bench is far more detailed than this

process. There is no process, which brings me back to the comment again on what

this amendment is based on. How do we, as a people, get an appreciation of this

gentleman's impartially? How do we have a comfort level here that this

individual is non-partisan?

I said to him last Thursday when we were in this House, because I called him

and said: Look, the caucus that I am a member of asked me these questions. They

know you are political. There were a few comments made in The Telegram .

Are you still political? Can you let us know what your political involvement was

because it is causing them some concern? There is too much of a closeness

between you, in time, and your appointment.

For example, Mr. Furey, I think - he was different again. Chuck Furey was a

member of the Liberal Party of this Province; no doubt about it. I said in my

comments about him earlier, I didn't know the man, really. I was in Cabinet

with him but wasn't chummy, wasn't buddy-buddy sort of thing. I told him, I

speak as I find; he had no problem with that. He wasn't one of my closest

colleagues, shall we say, but I voted for him.

MR. REID: He was out of politics how long then?

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Furey was out of politics for two, three or four years

before he got appointed.

MR. REID: Five years.

MR. PARSONS: Five years.

In fact, anybody on the other side who listened to CBC commentary, whether it

be on the telly or on the CBC, we had some serious concerns over on this side

during that period, when he was a commentator, if he was indeed a Liberal. In

fact, he was apt to tell it like it was. Mr. Furey told it like it was, and he

tore a few strips off us, too, no question about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why he got appointed.

MR. PARSONS: Now, I am not suggesting that had anything to do with his

appointment, that he changed his colours, but it is certainly different for the

situation of Mr. Reynolds, in timing. Because, folks, when I called Mr. Reynolds

and wrote that letter to Mr. Reynolds on Tuesday - he had been put forward on

Monday in the press release - when I wrote him on Tuesday and I subsequently

spoke to him, he admitted, and he has admitted in writing which we have here

before this House, that he stayed a member of the Virginia Waters PC executive

even after his appointment.

Now, folks, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out, is

partisanship a possible issue here? We are looking at somebody to go into a

position. I am just saying, look at the evidence. We did not create that

circumstance. I do not have to stand up here and fabricate something about Mr.

Paul Reynolds to show what his politics was. He was up front and told me that.

That might even be a good point for him, that he told me. He admitted it, it

did not have to be squeezed out of him, but it says something about his

judgement. It says something about his judgement, because surely this

appointment did not get made on Monday without the Premier's office and Mr.

Reynolds having some conversations. Surely, somebody would have told Mr.

Reynolds, or Mr. Reynolds would have said: Well, Premier, I am the

Vice-President of the Virginia Waters PC Association. Even the optics do not

good on this, Sir. Shouldn't I resign my position, at least?

Do you know what? For whatever reason - oversight, arrogance, whatever - he

did not do it, and that causes a problem. Because, if you want to put the wrong

twist on this, it sounds almost like the gentleman said: Well, thank you very

much; because the Premier is appointing me and we have the numbers, those are

the only people I have to answer to.

That is the whole problem about appointing somebody as Chief Electoral

Officer, if they happen to feel that way. That is a problem, because you do not

only park your politics at the door; you park your preferences at the door.

In fact, I read from the newspaper - Mr. Reynolds was here last week - I was

utterly, utterly shocked when I read in The Telegram - not my words, his

words. He says: but I think you in the media and all people concerned are

familiar with how the Premier of this Province operates. He is a man of the

utmost integrity. I think he sees me in a role similar to himself - have high

standards in that direction.

Then it goes on to say: as of Tuesday afternoon, Reynolds was still a

director of the PC Association.

We did not fabricate this. I did not say things or make public statements

that made one think about one's impartiality. These circumstances all existed

because of the doings - only, solely, wholly - by the person who has been

nominated, and that causes people to have problems. He hires and he fires people

under the act who are going to run elections in this Province.

For example, we have special ballots that caused a big issue the last time

around, who could do them, who could be part of the process or not part of the

process. In fact, I was anticipating that we were going to have a substantial

piece of legislation brought forward in this sitting of the House dealing with

some election issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I am glad to hear from the Government House Leader that is

intended.

Mr. Reynolds, of course - and, like I said the last day, we are not under any

false pretenses here that he is not going to end up being the Chief Electoral

Officer. That would be foolhardy for us to suggest that. It is a numbers game,

folks. It is a numbers game. The government have more numbers, the government

want the person there, and we cannot possibly overrule them on the numbers game,

but that does not take away from whether it is right. That does not make it

right. It does not make it right, that simply because you have numbers you can

put people in places where you have these questions of their impartiality.

I say to the members opposite, too, and I listened to all of them who spoke

last week - the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for St. John's Centre, the

Government House Leader - you gentlemen have the benefit, no doubt, of knowing

Mr. Reynolds personally. You can speak of him based upon knowing the man

personally. I do not have that benefit. I can only speak to what I see, and I

pointed out those two things that I see.

I appreciate the fact that he openly, readily acknowledged his connection

with the Conservatives. I appreciate that. He did not try to hide anything, but

it was there. The fact that a person who is known to you, you could get up and

talk about and praise him to the heavens as to why he should be in this

position. It does not take away from the fact that this person must be seen by

the people of this Province to be absolutely impartial. We have not seen that.

We have questions in this House, for example, about the Premier - you talk

about the commissioners' interests piece. We have been asking in the

Opposition here, repeatedly, of the Premier: Who is the trustee of your blind

trust? The Premier, as of today, shouts across the House: None of your business.

That is the comments he made across the House today, folks.

Now, here we are in a Province where we are going to appoint someone again.

We are asking a question and the Premier says: None of your business; not going

to know. The Leader of the Opposition asked a very valid question. He said:

Premier, what does knowing the name of your trustee have to do with what is in

your trust? There is no connection. None of our business. He is absolutely

right, it is none of our business what is in his trust. That is the man's

confidential, personal, private doings. That is what that is there for, but does

that take away from saying who your trustee is? Why does that take away from

(inaudible) your trustee? Where is the accountability and the openness? The

people of this Province are going to continue to ask that question because as

long as the Premier refuses to say who it is, there is suspicion, doubt in the

minds of the public as to: Why is he not telling us? That question is out there

in people's minds, folks.

Anyway, I understand, Mr. Speaker, my time is approaching its end. I will

certainly turn this over - I guess we have speakers remaining over on this side,

certainly, to the amendment as well. I understand the Government House Leader is

going to be speaking to it as well.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I will briefly say a few words to the amendment

as proposed by the Opposition House Leader. The amendment, I think, is

self-evident. The amendment just adds the words and asks that the person

proposed to be appointed to the position of Chief Electoral Officer, quote: To

perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, we would not be here as a government proposing the appointment

of anybody to the position of Chief Electoral Officer if we expected them to

perform their duties in a partisan matter. It is implicit in the resolution that

the person appointed to that position will, in fact, perform their duties in a

non-partisan manner. As a matter of fact, it is implicit in the resolution

appointing the hon. gentleman that if some member of this House - nay, Mr.

Speaker, some member of the public. If some member of the public had reason to

believe that the person filling the position did not perform their duties in a

non-partisan manner - in other words, were partisan, were engaged in party

politics, were part of the party process in making decisions affecting the Chief

Electoral Office and the functions of that office, it would be incumbent on a

member of this House to bring a motion before the House that the person be

dismissed. That is as plain as the nose on your face, Mr. Speaker, that it is

implicit in the resolution that a person park their politics at the door if they

had any.

There was no amendment made to the resolution appointing Mr. Furey, that he

perform his duties in a non-partisan manner. I have no indication that he did

not. If I had any indication that he did not, I could have sought a remedy from

this House, if the Legislature was in session, asking that he be dismissed, that

he be given the flick, that he be gotten rid of because there was evidence to

suggest that he did not perform his duties in a non-partisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, it is academic, it is elementary, that the person appointed to

this position would be expected, not only by the members of this House but by

the general populous of Newfoundland and Labrador, to perform their duties in a

non-partisan manner. It is elementary that when a person is appointed to the

bench that the public expects that they perform their duties in a non-partisan

manner. It does not matter about screening or interviews or consultations. That

is why if a partisan person, a person with a partisan background, involved in

political - the only way you can become involved in political life in most

jurisdictions in Canada, with the exception of some of the territories of

Nunavut, is to be part of a party. You cannot form a government by being an

independent, but in Nunavut you can form governments by being independent.

Members are not elected as part of a party.

So, the only way you can be confidently involved and adequately involved in

public life in most jurisdictions in Canada is be part of the party system. That

is why after people leave partisan politics, and if they are going to be

appointed to two positions that have partisanship associated with them, people

call it patronage, some people end up being judges, some end up serving on

boards, quasi-judicial boards like the public utilities board, some end up

serving on the Immigration Refugee Board of Canada. All kinds of quasi-judicial

boards people end up serving on. There is no motion - there is no qualifier

appointed or attached to your appointment saying that when you take this job you

park your politics and become non-partisan. It is expected that you do it. It is

a given that you do it.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Reynolds was so forthcoming about it, that as a

result of a letter from the Opposition House Leader he said it. He said: In my

role as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests I want

to assure you personally and your caucus - I do not know if they had that

commitment from his predecessor or not. I do not know if they asked for it, but

this gentleman was so forthcoming that he said: I assure you personally and your

caucus that all MHAs will be treated with fairness, on an impartial basis, and

with strict adherence to the act.

Mr. Speaker, I would expect nothing else of Paul Reynolds. That is Paul

Reynolds, the man that I know. I would expect nothing else of him, only to be

right jack blunt, upfront and say: If I am going to do this job, I am going to

do it in a fair, unbiased, impartial manner without fear of anybody. I am

independent. Once I am appointed by the Legislature I am independent. I will

perform my duties in fear of nobody. I will take direction from nobody. If I

have to hammer the Premier, as leader of the government of the party that I

supported when I was active in politics, I will do it. Just as I would expect

the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, Clyde Wells, who was a partisan

politician, I would expect him to hammer, no matter who it is, without fear of

retribution, whoever appears in front of him, because he has to do his job

impartially, unbiased and without fear, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: This amendment to this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is nothing.

It means nothing. It does not accomplish anything. It does not make the

resolution more acceptable or non-acceptable to anybody because we all believe

in it. We all believe - we, on this side of the House anyway - that Mr.

Reynolds, on becoming Chief Electoral Officer, will perform his job in an

unbiased, non-partisan, non-political way.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this resolution for the government to vote

against because it is implicit in the resolution that the man will do it. So,

Mr. Speaker, we would vote on the resolution now if the House wants to. We would

vote on the amendment now if the House wants to.

Now, I know, I suspect from the headlines in today's paper, that the

resolution is here for another reason. I suspect it is here for another reason,

and the f word, the filibuster word and all that. That is fine. Those are the

rules of the game. I have played by them for about thirty years here and I

accept that, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem with that. So, if the Opposition

wants to debate the amendment so that they can all have another kick at the cat,

so to speak, that is the way -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fill their boots.

MR. RIDEOUT: Fill their boots - that is the way it works - and then go

back to the main motion, that is the way it works.

We know the rules, Mr. Speaker, but in terms of the amendment let me say

this, and let the word go forth, Mr. Speaker, to anybody who might be listening,

to all those mom-and-pop chesterfield people that the Opposition House Leader

talks about, if they are out there now listening, let them understand that we

have no problem with this amendment. It is implicit in the resolution that the

person appointed to the position will perform his or her duties in a

non-partisan, unbiased and an impartial manner. We would expect -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is common sense.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is common sense. You do not have to be a rocket scientist

to figure it out. I mean, anybody can figure it out, Mr. Speaker. Somebody as

stunned as me can figure that out, Mr. Speaker, that you do not have to - you

know if you are going to accept that position, if you had partisan politics, if

you engaged in partisan politics in the past, it is over, it is done with; you

park it at the door and you get on with doing your job.

Our responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that we appoint somebody who is

capable of doing the job; and, Mr. Speaker, I submitted, and everybody in this

government believes, that Paul Reynolds is capable of doing the job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We therefore, Mr. Speaker, will support this amendment when

it comes to a vote. If it comes to a vote today, we will support it. If it comes

to a vote two weeks from now we will support it, because we believe that Mr.

Reynolds is the right person. He will do the job and he will do it in a fair,

unbiased and non-partisan manner, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make a few comments with regard to

the amendment to the original motion. It has been, I guess, entered before the

House by the Opposition House Leader. I just want to refer to some of the

comments that have been made and a few comments that I have of my own.

We are all well aware, like the Government House Leader just mentioned, how

motions are made and amendments are made for various reasons. I have seen that,

I guess, operate from both sides of the House. We know that the motion was put

forth by the House Leader that Mr. Paul Reynolds would be appointed the Chief

Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. We know that

subsection 4.(1) of the Elections Act, 1991 provides for this to be done by a

resolution before the House of Assembly. We also know that under subsection

34.(2) it states that it be done on a motion by the Premier followed by

consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and any other parties involved

with the hon. House of Assembly.

That has been brought forth here this afternoon, no doubt, the Premier came

up with the name of Mr. Paul Reynolds. The Leader of the Opposition, in my

understanding, received a phone call from the Premier's office. I have to say,

like the Opposition House Leader said, there was very little consultation, if

you want to call it that, but he did receive a phone call saying the name that

would be put forward before the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we know and we have discussed what the duties are, of the

individual who will be hired: To carry out the administrative conduct of

elections, enforcing the fairness and impartiality and compliance with the act,

and maintaining, investigating and reporting with regard to the compliance of

the Members of the House of Assembly when it comes to conflict of interest

legislation.

I listened to members opposite when they spoke. Some of them mentioned how

they worked with Mr. Reynolds, and no doubt they probably know the gentleman far

more than I do. Other people served with him, whether it was on councils or on

various committees within the Wedgewood Park, St. John's area. Many of them

knew him as a friend and they spoke very, I guess, spoke their minds on how they

knew this gentleman, whether it was as a personal issue or through business or

what have you. Others, no doubt, mentioned that they knew the gentleman

politically, and I have no problems with that.

I can honestly say that the comments that I make here today have nothing to

do with Mr. Reynolds as the individual. From all indications that I know - I

have heard talk of the man over the years - he is a fine gentleman who has

served his community and many organizations to the fullest of his ability, and I

commend him for that, a gentleman who originally came from an area of the

Province that is very close to the district that I represent.

Mr. Speaker, when you look over his biographical information - and I will

just go back to the comments that the Government House Leader made when he

stated that there was nothing political about it; he came forward with the

positions that he held and so on - in the information that I have here with

regard to Mr. Reynolds, it tells where he received his education, the part of

the Province he came from and was born. It goes on to talk about the private

sector, the volunteer work that he was involved in, and lists all of the boards

and organizations.

I am going to tell you - and this was dated April 23, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. -

there is nothing on this whatsoever, and I am not saying it should have been

there, but there is nothing there, I can assure you, that outlines his political

background. It tells everything else about the gentleman. I guess that is fair

as well.

We knew he was a person who was involved in the political arena to some

degree, not being an elected official but served on various executives and

president of the party and so on, but it was in the letter, I guess, when he

responded to the Opposition House Leader, where I personally saw it, when he

wrote the letter and explained what his involvements were.

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, no doubt about it, the individual is a qualified

individual from all aspects. I do not have any problems with regard to the

gentleman, like I just mentioned; however, when it comes to the position that he

is being appointed to, I guess that is where you have some concerns with regard

to the way it was dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, we know, like I said, since 1949 - I think the Leader of the

Opposition went through each and every individual who has been selected to this

position over the years since 1949. I think he mentioned there was probably one

other point in time when someone with a political background with regard to the

position probably was appointed.

What it comes down to, Mr. Speaker, is that anyone with a political

allegiance, I believe, should not hold this position, even though back when Mr.

Furey - and, like I said, we know Mr. Furey had a good political background. He

was a Member of this House of Assembly. I have to be honest. At that particular

time, after I heard some of the members from the government side, some members

on the Opposition side, when they made their speeches, I think the record will

show that I voted in favour at that time; but after that and leading up to this

particular time - I mean, Mr. Furey was there for one year. I have to be honest,

after listening to people and sizing up the situation, the way it transpired,

even though I voted for it, I still have some concerns as to the way it was done

at that time.

The other thing I want to point out, when we reference political appointments

- I remember in the by-election of 2001, the same time the Premier and I ran, it

was two by-elections at the same time. I remember very clearly, Mr. Speaker, not

only our Premier of today, but all members who were in the Opposition at that

time, traveled through the District of Port de Grave and there were many issues,

no doubt about it, but the message they were sending out loud and clear - Mr.

Speaker points at himself and says, not him. All jokes put aside, they went

through the district saying: Look, things have to change in this Province.

Political patronage - this is going to be a new vision, a new leadership, this

should not happen anymore.

I heard some hon. members saying today: I suppose you guys never, ever did

something like that over there. That was the way of the past apparently. When

this government took over in 2003, what we are seeing now and on other occasions

was not supposed to happen anymore. Whether that is right or wrong, the record

will show that is what happened at that time. However we have seen a long list,

I guess, of people who had been appointed, whether they were relatives, friends,

political acquaintances, business acquaintances or what have you. It is still

continuing today.

When Mr. Reynolds name was put forward at that point in time, no doubt it was

put forward by the Premier, and we have heard that as well. We also know when

this happened, I do not think the process was properly followed, because he was

appointed or the announcement was made on April 23 and it was just after that

when Mr. Reynolds announced that he would be resigning from the position that he

held.

I know this has been mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, but I couldn't help but

notice it, in the note that was in the paper, that Mr. Reynolds said he would be

fair and honourable to all people, and I guess, time will tell. We know that

eventually this motion will pass before the House, Mr. Speaker. He went on to

say that he felt the Premier wanted him there, to appoint him to this position,

because he felt that he was more or less an individual like him and it was the

proper way to go.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at some other issues, I know there are not the same

rules and regulations that are governed to appoint the CEO, but even when we

look at the application form for the enumeration workers who are going to be

selected around this Province for the upcoming election, it states very clearly,

even for those individuals which is only a minor - not to belittle it - is only

a minor position for a very short period of time, that sixty days before they

are appointed they cannot be in the service of any political party, they cannot

be employed by a political party or another person, they cannot even be employed

by another person, who is doing work for the interests of a political party.

During the general elections, the deputy returning offices, the poll clerks,

the election clerks, all of those people - and I have seen this happen in my own

district and prior to being elected myself to the hon. House of Assembly - those

people cannot be part of a political party or even be perceived as part of a

political party. I have seen incidents where we have had rallies in the district

of Port de Grave and individuals who wanted to be a poll captain, an agent or a

driver on polling day, or wanted to become a DRO or a poll clerk or what have

you, they were more or less told that it was a common thing, that look, you

cannot go to those political rallies if you wish to get one of those positions.

You cannot attend any political meetings whatsoever to become a DRO or a poll

captain. The same thing with being seen in a headquarters. Even if you had a

parade in your district, they were not allowed to take

part in the parade. If

you were seen there, you would lose your position.

I bring this up for a reason, Mr. Speaker, because to me again, not to

belittle those positions, I think they are very minor when it comes to the

position of the Chief Electoral Officer that we are talking about here today.

Even in those positions, it is a key point that they are making on the rules and

regulations, that you cannot be affiliated with any political party up to that

point in time.

We have heard, from time to time, with regard to the positions and the work

that has to be done during elections - and I am not saying that Mr. Reynolds or

anyone else who would get this position - but the perception is there that when

you know someone is, I guess, a part of a political party of the past, the

perception is there not only amongst us as politicians, but the general public:

Will they play the game straight? Will they not play the political game?

Hopefully that would not happen, but that is the perception that is out there.

The amendment that my hon. colleague, the Opposition House Leader, put

forward, says: to perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, that is where we ar