May 3, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLV No. 7

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome thirty Level I, II and III

students from Mount Pearl Senior High School.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: That school is located in that wonderful District of

Waterford Valley. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Darrell Penney.

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 the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member

for St. John's West; the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South; the hon. the Member for Humber Valley;

and the hon. the Member for Port au Port.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to Gina Colbourne, Karen Gill and the

Carbonear Collegiate Choir of Carbonear, who were honoured recently with awards

at the thirty-seventh Kiwanis Club of Carbonear Regional Music Festival.

Gina Colbourne, a Grade 11 student at Carbonear Collegiate, accepted the

Terra Nova Shoes Senior Rose Bowl, which was the festivals top award.

Mr. Speaker, Karen Gill, a vocalist also from Carbonear, was named runner-up

to the Junior Rose Bowl winner. She received the Caroline Powell Memorial Award

for best performance in folk solo; the Kiwanis Music Festival Opera Award for

best performance in opera solo; the Adey Memorial Award for best performance in

Canadian composers vocal.

The Carbonear Collegiate Chamber Choir was awarded the Joseph P. Pike

Memorial Award, the McCarthy Council Knights of Columbus Award for the best

performance in school choirs sacred music, and they tied for the Kiwanis Club of

Carbonear Award for best performance by a choir.

The award winners and young performers in the concert were among the

approximately 2,400 young musicians and vocalists who participated in this year's

Kiwanis Music Festival.

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

congratulations to Gina Colbourne, Karen Gill, and the Carbonear Collegiate

Chamber Choir on their performances and achievements at the recent

thirty-seventh annual Kiwanis Club of Carbonear Regional Music Festival and to

wish them every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Rosemary Stanoev, a student at Cowan Heights

Elementary School, on recently winning the right to represent the Province in La

Grande Finale Internationale of the Dict e

P.G.L.

The Dict e

P.G.L. is the key activity of the Paul Geroid-Lajoie Foundation in Canada, but

it is also held in Africa, Haiti and the United States. It is an international

French dictation competition that aims to promote French around the world and it

is used as an educational project for elementary school students in the French

and French Immersion classes. The competition provides a wonderful opportunity

for students to improve their French writing skills.

Mr. Speaker, Rosemary participated in the regional finals in the French

Immersion category of this competition in March and she was selected to

represent our Province in the overall finals to be held in Montreal later this

month.

I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to Rosemary

and in wishing her good luck in the Montreal competition. F licitations

et Bonne Chance B

Montr al.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently I attended a volunteer appreciation banquet in

Milltown-Head Bay d'Espoir. For the second year the town sponsored the event

to thank community volunteers for their dedication and hard work. Milltown-Head

Bay d'Espoir has a population of less than 900, with 250 volunteers in

twenty-eight organizations.

One hundred-and-twenty residents from communities in the Bay d'Espoir

region attended the banquet. Deputy Mayor Herb Dinghai paid special tribute to

all volunteers on behalf of the town. It was interesting, as last year the youth

volunteers provided entertainment. However, this year the seniors graciously

took to the stage and provided some fabulous entertainment that was enjoyed by

all. Throughout the evening there was accordion and guitar music, a slide show,

and some very appropriate and reflective messages read by participating seniors.

Mr. Speaker, it was tremendous to see volunteers from other communities in

the Bay d'Espoir region join the festivities and celebrate volunteerism. In

this area, organizations such as the ambulance committee, cancer benefit group,

crime prevention committee and others co-operate to serve all residents in the

region.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the members of the organizing committee

for planning such a remarkable event. The members include: Sue Dinghai, Boyd

Pack, Clarence Kelly, Judy Kendall and Wayne Hallett.

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

volunteers in the Milltown-Head Bay d'Espoir and the entire region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues about a new program in my district

offered through the Salvation Army, Home with a Heart. It is a twelve-week

course for single mothers, including training in the basics of homemaking,

enriching family life and career development.

A class of five young women have already completed the program and, as a

result, two are attending school and two are connected with the Single Parents'

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I extend my congratulations to these young women and look forward to more

success of Home with a Heart when another session is planned for this fall.

I have had the privilege of working with Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Stanley and

Major Lyndon Hale and wish to acknowledge their commitment and dedication to

this worthwhile project.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in extending our appreciation to the

Salvation Army for offering this program and helping those in our communities

who are most vulnerable. This program complements government's commitment to

poverty reduction in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a

second-generation family business in my district that was just recently awarded

the Best Overall Logging Contractor Award for Atlantic Canada.

Noble's Lumber Yard Limited is a logging contracting business which was

first created by Calvin Noble. Calvin built the business on his own and then,

after raising four sons, Grant, Gene, Glen and Graham, decided to step back and

let them take over.

Mr. Speaker, the Noble boys have done an exceptional job. This was proven

after they travelled to Moncton, New Brunswick to take

part in the Canadian

Woodlands Forum. The Canadian Woodlands Forum is made up of forest companies,

paper mills, sawmills, equipment supplies and contractors from all over Eastern

Canada. There were over 300 people at the convention and they all witnessed a

quartet of brothers receiving their most prestigious award, Best Overall Logging

Contractor of Atlantic Canada.

This is the second time in the last three years that a contracting company

from Newfoundland and Labrador has taken home this top award.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear stories like the Nobles' that reflects

overall on the contractors in Newfoundland and Labrador. Just to think that this

company, which now boasts four harvesters, three forwarders, an excavator, a

loader and about five tractor trailers, started as a dream with a dad who has

now created a livelihood for not only four brothers but twenty additional

families.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to

Gene, Grant, Glen and Graham Noble, and also to extend congratulations to their

dad, Calvin, on the occasion of their most prestigious award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in his hon. House to congratulate

the winners and nominees at the recently-held Stephen Awards banquet in

Stephenville. The Citizen of the Year award went to Bob Byrnes of Stephenville,

who devotes extraordinary time and effort to building and maintaining the

community. Despite his busy personal and business schedule, Bob always manages

his time to get involved.

Mr. Speaker, also presented was the first ever Masters Athlete of the Year

award, of which Kathleen Jean was the recipient. Kathleen is a golfer, curler,

dart player and hockey player. Other awards presented that night were: Matthew

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

Athlete of the Year award; and Stephanie O'Quinn was honoured with the Youth

of the Year award.

Mr. Speaker, eighteen Certificates of Merit were also presented to

individuals for their outstanding volunteer work for the community.

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

congratulating all the award winners and nominees of the Stephen Awards on their

invaluable contributions to the community, their region, and the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight some of the fee

reductions which pertain to my department, most notably the 10 per cent fee

reduction for on-line use of some services.

My department was founded on the concept of consolidating, as far as possible

and practical, licensing, permitting and inspection services within government

in order to provide a single window for public access in these areas.

In the fiscal year 2005-2006, the Department of Government Services collected

more than $110 million in revenue for government, and handled some 2.5 million

transactions with the public. Some of these transactions include services which

we provide on-line.

One of the goals we have identified in our strategic plan is to increase the

number of services offered on-line, and the frequency of on-line use by our

clients. In fact, improving e-government is a commitment this government has

made in the Blueprint. We hope that consumers will find it more convenient to

access these services at their convenience in their own homes or through other

Internet access sites, and with faster results.

I am very pleased that we are now able to offer a 10 per cent on-line fee

discount for some of our services at our commercial registries. This will

certainly be beneficial for the many users of these registries. These include

fees for certificates of incorporation under the corporations regulations, and

the filing of annual reports with the Registry of Companies.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we are offering a 10 per cent on-line discount for

some services at our Motor Registration Division. This division, in particular,

processes over 1.5 million transactions a year, the most common being vehicle

registration renewals which are offered on-line.

In 2005-2006, only 17 per cent of all vehicle renewals were conducted via the

Internet. We want to increase those numbers. Now, anyone renewing their

passenger vehicle on-line will save $18. So far is seems to be a success.

Between 12:02 a.m. on May 1 to 4:00 p.m. on May 2 we had 1,271 vehicle renewals

registered on-line. A normal amount during this period is about 939. The 10 per

cent on-line discount also applies to taxies and motorcycle registration

renewals, as well as renewal fees for licensing commercial motor vehicles, some

trailers and recreational trailers.

Mr. Speaker, we are aiming for an increase to 20 per cent in the first year,

25 per cent use in the second year, and 33 per cent in the third year. This will

also be a benefit for anyone coming into our Motor Registration offices for

services, as it should reduce wait times for other services. There will be no

job reductions as a result of this initiative.

I have to say, though, that we did not reduce the overall $180 fee for

vehicle renewals because the money we collect is directly used to repair our

roads. The overall budget for the road improvement program this year is valued

at $66.5 million, the most ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I also want to highlight that we have removed the

fee for obtaining a death certificate within one year of the date of death. This

will alleviate a burden for anyone having to deal with the death of a loved one.

One year after the death of an individual, certificates will cost $20, down from

the current $25, as we know that most people requesting death certificates at

this point are most likely doing research for family histories.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: We have also brought our birth and marriage certificate fees

in line with the same $5 reduction.

Mr. Speaker, we have also eliminated what some have considered nuisance fees,

such as the $5 fee for a written test and $2 fees for the road user guides.

These are just a few examples of the fees that we have either eliminated or

reduced in Budget 2007. I am very excited that we have been able to offer those

savings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her advanced copy.

Actually, when I received it I had to read it the second time because I could

not believe it. I just could not believe the very crass attempt of this

government to claim that they are giving the people of this Province a break. In

2004 they were giddy over there putting fees up. They were giddy from doing it.

Here we are in 2007, a few short months before an election, after putting the

fees up $27 million three-and-a-half years ago, now they are going to reduce

them $3.4 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

MR. SWEENEY: Wow! I tell you, wow!

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help put think about the seniors in this Province who

do not have access to computers and the other people out there in parts of this

Province who are struggling to make an existence from day to day, where they are

going to get a $40 Internet fee to pay for an Internet service.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe this, to go through this and then to say there

is going to be a reduction for the first year only for a death certificate. You

have a deadline to get a free death certificate. After that you are going to get

it at a discount. You are going to save $5.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I just cannot fathom - do you realize that this

is the same government that is collecting a 15 per cent special tax on

insurance, in most cases imposed by the government, that people driving the

highways in this Province had imposed on them? They cannot drive a vehicle

without paying this insurance tax, without having insurance.

Mr. Speaker, another group in this Province - and people from your district -

antique car clubs, do not get a break. They do not have the access to the 10 per

cent discount to register an antique vehicle. People who go through great

expense in this Province to do up vehicles, old vehicles, to show them to the

public to raise funds for charitable causes, these people are omitted as well.

What difference does a car make if it is a 1999 Chev or a 1949 Chev, Mr.

Speaker? Why can't they receive the same 10 per cent discount? It does not

make sense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allocated time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Leave is denied.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy.

I will not repeat the things that my colleague from Carbonear-Harbour Grace

said because I do not want to waste my time. I agree with everything that my

colleague said. The thing that I want to add to that is my concern over jobs. I

am not satisfied with the statement, there will be no reduction in jobs as a

result of this initiative. You go around this country from one industry to

another and you see the results of depending on technology and the relationship

to loss of jobs. You go into a bank and you see teller stations with no tellers

at them. You go to airports and you see stations with nobody at the stations,

nobody serving on the front line because we are expected to use technology. I

really am concerned that our government would have as a goal to do something

that could potentially become a loss of jobs, and I believe it can become a loss

of jobs.

I would really ask this government to temper itself with this strategic plan.

What is this strategy about? Why is it so important to have people, a third of

the people registering, why is it so important to have them registering on-line?

There has to be a reason for that and I do not see the reason. I have a sense it

is so that there will be a loss of jobs, and I have no proof that it will be

otherwise. Again, the discount, 10 per cent for using it, may be an award for

those who are using but it is a penalty -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, just to clue up, please.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

The discount for people using on-line becomes a penalty for the others, and

that is how I see it. Like with everything else that this government puts

forward, there are always two sides. Well, for me, the 10 per cent discount is a

penalty.

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.

I, too, would like to welcome the students from Mount Pearl Senior High. I

think my wife teaches most of these students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard a variety of

preambles, but that is the first time we

have had that kind of introduction to Question Period.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Industry, it is too bad I did not teach him, he

might know a little bit more today.

Mr. Speaker, when asked questions in the House of Assembly about the sale of

FPI's individual units, the Minister of Fisheries seems to know nothing about

it, but we do get the answers to our questions. Every time I ask a question of

the minister that he does not answer, it seems like someone from FPI comes on

the air the next day and clarifies something.

On Tuesday afternoon, I asked the Minister of Fisheries who was bidding on

FPI's British seafood company - at that time the minister said, and I quote:

At this time there is no plan to sell that division. That was his quote on

Tuesday afternoon. On Wednesday morning, someone from FPI - Wednesday morning,

less that twenty-four hours later - put out a release saying that they have been

actively involved with a European company for the purchase of that particular

asset.

I ask the minister: If you are so much on top of that file, can you tell me

the company wishing to purchase the seafood company? Is there anyone, or is John

Risley in any way connected with the company that is going to purchase that

division?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, when I responded to the question in the House

on Tuesday posed by the Leader of the Opposition, I told him the truth, as I

knew it at that point in time, that there was not, to the best of my knowledge

then, any agreement to sell the seafood company in Europe. I did make some other

comments, I believe, about the value and the position of the Opposition when

that company was purchased a year or so ago, and that is about where the answer

took us.

Mr. Speaker, about FPI coming on radio and volunteering information; they do

that once in a while, reluctantly most of the time, as far as I recall, but

every now and then they will let us know, in a public way, what they are up to.

I can confirm that there are negotiations taking place between FPI and an

European firm for the possible - note, possible - sale of the seafood company

that they purchased in the United Kingdom a year or so ago. That sale, if it is

to be finalized, will be subject to the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador, as is

any sale to OCI or High Liner on other assets of FPI.

That is where the matter is. I understand that negotiations are, in fact,

taking place, and the government is aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the comments that the minister

just made. Here we are watching the largest seafood company in this Province

being sold off piecemeal, and the lives and the livelihood of 2,000 or more

people and their families at jeopardy.

We govern FPI by

an act in the Legislature, and the minister just rises and

says: FPI doesn't tell me much. FPI doesn't tell me anything.

I say, Minister, you are the minister responsible; you should know!

MR. RIDEOUT: I never said that! (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

I remind the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to

place his question and then there will be time for the government to respond.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday, the minister said that FPI purchased a British seafood company

for $40 million, and he said that right now it is probably worth $80 million.

I ask the minister a simple question: How much of the $40 million in profit

that FPI will show from that sale, how much of that will go into the pockets of

the workers of FPI, and how much will go into the pockets of people like John

Risley?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time there has been no sale.

We will be able to answer that question if and when a sale does, in fact, take

place.

I indicated, as a matter of course, to the Leader of the Opposition a few

days ago in the House, that the company was purchased for about $40 million a

year or so ago, a number of months ago, and that is was my best guess that it

has probably doubled in value now.

Mr. Speaker, if and when there is a sale - FPI, as I understand it, borrowed,

I believe, somewhere around $40 million to purchase that company. If and when

there is a sale, part of it will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

MR. REID: You said they were going to sell it for $80 million (inaudible)

worth $80 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members for their co-operation.

The Chair asks the hon. member asking questions to direct your questions to

the Chair, and also ministers responding to direct you responses through the

Chair.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader to make some

concluding comments.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what I was about to say before I was

interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition is that I would expect that the

amount of money that was borrowed to buy the asset in the first place would be

repaid out of any sale, if there is a sale. Then, of course, what is going to

happen with the disposition of any other proceeds from that is a matter that is

not decided yet because, first of all, there has been no sale. There have been

negotiations. It may lead to a sale, or it may not lead to a sale, but the

provisions of the FPI Act will certainly be operative at all times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious, I think, to anybody looking at us here today, that the

Minister of Fisheries is certainly not all over this file.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Minister of Fisheries praised National Sea, or

High Liner, which it is sometimes known as, spoke out about the proud history

that National Sea had in this Province. Let me enlighten the minister. Maybe he

will go back and check out the facts on this.

In 1990, High Liner closed the plant in Burgeo and made it possible for the

quotas attached to that plant to be transferred to Canso. Shortly after that,

they closed the plant in St. John's. After that, they closed the plant in La

Scie, and then recently they closed the plant in Arnold's Cove, pulled out of

Arnold's Cove.

What kind of a track record do you think the future holds for FPI workers?

What is going to happen, do you think, Mr. Speaker, to the 160 workers who work

in the fish plant in Burin, or the 120 workers who work in the office on O'Leary

Avenue, if High Liner lives up to that great track record that we have seen from

them in the past?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what I said in the House some time ago, and I

will repeat again -

MR. REID: I will quote you tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question. What I said in the

House some time ago, and I will repeat again: High Liner has operated in this

Province as a seafood company and an employer in the fishery for quite some time

and have had a good record in many, many towns and communities in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about what happened in this Province after

the moratorium, you can talk about FPI and its closing in Trepassey. You can

talk about FPI and its closing in Harbour Deep. You can talk about FPI and its

closing in Twillingate. You can talk about FPI and its closing of a whole bunch

of plants around this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when High Liner seafoods, along with FPI, closed a number of

plants in Newfoundland and Labrador, they closed them because the resource had

dried up. The resource was gone. The resource was taken away. It was not there

any more. What were they supposed to process? Apples, in fish plants, Mr.

Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is - and everybody in Newfoundland knows

this - you ask the people in La Scie how they felt about High Liner and National

Sea Products as an operator and they will speak very highly of them. Ask the

people in Burgeo -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious the government is in full deflection mode today. I say to

the minister, the apples I hear about these days are the ones that my friends in

Burgeo are picking because National Sea closed the plant in Burgeo. Those are

the apples I hear about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, after finally receiving Ms Joan Cleary's employment contract -

through the Access to Information Act, I might add, not because I requested it

from the minister here in this House in March and I had to wait for over a month

to get it, and then only because we had to use the law to pry it out them -

there are some interesting questions that have arisen concerning the decision to

give Ms Cleary $40,000 in severance.

Clause 6.1 of that employment contract says that government can dismiss that

person under that contract without notice, for cause. Government acknowledged in

this House back in December, they had cause; Ms Cleary broke the Public Tender

Act twice.

Under clause 6.2 in that contract it says: The corporation shall not make any

payment when terminated for cause.

It is pretty clear, not a question of if, ands or buts. They shall not make

any payment when the termination is there for cause.

I ask the question of the minister: How do you justify paying someone $40,000

of taxpayers' money after you fired that individual for their actions,

especially when the contract clearly states that such actions and such payments

are prohibited?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am constantly amused by my colleague opposite who likes to put his own

spin. The facts speak differently, Mr. Speaker. I heard him on Open Line this

morning talking about our failure to respond, to give him the information he

requires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: For the record, Mr. Speaker, the member raised this issue

in the House with my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, on

Wednesday, November 28. He raised it again with me the next day, on the

twenty-ninth, and he did not ask for information. He raised it again in the

House on December 4. At that time he asked for information. I provided that

information in this House, Mr. Speaker, on December 6 and December 11, along

with three news releases on this matter. So, information has not had to be pried

out of this government. We have been completely open with the Opposition and

with the general public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair notes that some answers are getting progressively longer and some

questions are also getting progressively longer. The Chair will revert to the

Opposition House Leader, but reminds members to keep their questions short and

also the answers equally short.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say again, it is quite obvious that we are into deflection mode here. I

heard not a word uttered here in answer to my question about why we are wasting

$40,000 of taxpayers' money. The minister uses the word amused. Well, I say

the taxpayers did not get $40,000 worth of amusement out of that gaff by this

government.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, every time we get information through the

Access to Information Act, more serious questions arise. No wonder government is

hiding the information.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs yesterday stated that

a legal opinion from the Department of Justice recommended government pay Ms

Cleary over $40,000 in severance, even though the government had definite cause

for her dismissal.

My question, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of this Province,

hard-working taxpayers of this Province, of the minister, is: In the spirit of

openness, accountability and transparency, and to ensure that the people of this

Province do not have to wait an additional thirty days for that information,

will the minister undertake to table that legal opinion immediately?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this issue was raised in

this House on November 28. On December 7, because of the concerns that I had

when the issue was raised in my own review of what had been happening at Bull

Arm and the irregularities that I found, I asked Ms Cleary for her resignation,

which she readily gave, co-operatively gave.

I then brought the file to the officials in my department and said: Please

action this resignation in accordance with the contract with Miss Cleary and

with the government policy and procedures.

They, in consultation with the Department of Justice, came to the position

that Ms Cleary was eligible for $40,000 of benefits, which included severance

and other benefits that had accrued to her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just say again to the minister, a simple question, none of the bull, we do

not need it: Can we have the legal opinion? That is all. Nothing hidden here. If

you have, give it. Don't hide behind the Freedom of Information Act again.

This thing is hot and current right now. People would like to know right now,

today.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Cleary was in her position for a year when she was fired.

During that time she was paid over $100,000 in salary, held not a single board

meeting - not one - broke the law twice, and yet she was awarded with a $40,000

send-off gift.

I say to the minister, and my question is: Knowing there was cause for her

dismissal - which you admitted in this House twice, she did it - why was this

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

received $40,000 of taxpayers' money? Why is this government continuing to use

taxpayers' money to line the pockets of their political friends?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I was brought up and told not to stoop when

there is nothing to pick up. I try very hard in this House not to get down in

the gutter, but sometimes it is the only place you can go to have a face-to-face

conversation with members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, there was a consultation with the officials

of my department and the Department of Justice. I remained arm's-length from

that process. There was no political interference. The officials were instructed

to deal with Ms Cleary's resignation in accordance with her contract, the

template, the same contract that was used by the people opposite when they were

in government and hired the CEO for Bull Arm, the exact same contract.

There was no collusion and there is no moral authority on that side of the

House. If they had the same standards that this government has exercised, they

would have saved the people of Newfoundland tens of millions of dollars!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks members to be a little more cautious with the use of language

and words.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again it is obvious here, when you ask some questions that they do not know

the answers to, or do not want to give you the information to, they get

personal.

I say to the minister, if I'm in any gutter, I know whose shoulders I'm

standing on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Make no mistake about it.

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a disconnect between the rules that apply to

the Premier's friends and the rules that apply to everyone else in this

Province.

I ask the minister: Are you aware of any situation in the public sector,

throughout this Province or throughout this country, where a person who

unilaterally awards contracts to their friends, breaks the law in doing so, is

dismissed from their job for those actions, and is then rewarded with a

significant monetary package? Name them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to quote from an editorial in The Telegram that was written

about the time that this issue was raised. No one from the Liberals was forced

to resign when they were in government and the government was found in court to

have broken the Public Tender Act in awarding hospital contracts improperly. No

one resigned when the government was found to have breached the tendering act so

thoroughly that it was a standing joke, that whenever a tendering case was

brought to court, you knew the taxpayers were about to pay (inaudible) again.

These people have no moral authority. We acted swiftly, we acted appropriately,

and we acted fairly to protect the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The defence mode is coming on more and more. The tougher the questions get,

the more defence they are into.

My next question for the minister. Let's talk once again about openness and

transparency, as it seems to be an unknown phenomenon to this government.

Attached to Ms Cleary's contract is a letter from the Bull Arm Site

Corporation providing a breakdown of the calculations of the $40,000 severance

package paid to her. Unfortunately, the breakdown is blacked out.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. PARSONS: As this is public money, I am wondering, in your true spirit

of openness and accountability, will the minister now - without, again, the need

to pry it out of you with a Freedom of Information thing or resorting to privacy

legislation, can you give the public of the Province the details of that, and

could you explain to us why you blacked it out, maybe?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I did not black it out. We have an Access to

Information policy in this Province and that is vetted through there. There is

very good reason why that information cannot be released, because it gives

personal information about the person who held the contract.

I am not trying to hide anything, Mr. Speaker. I have never tried to hide

anything. I have been completely open, transparent and accountable around this

whole issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Still no answers. Deflection again. They know about the Freedom of

Information Act and they use it full tilt, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, these severance packages are completely unacceptable. Ms Cleary

was dismissed with cause, yet government still made the payment. Once again,

similar to the fibre optics deal, rewarding political friends with taxpayers'

money. I am certain that no other individual in government, or the country,

would receive a half year's salary just about, especially when the contract

they worked under said they should not be paid.

I ask the minister: Is there any documentation - this is pretty

straightforward again, not rocket science. My good friend Joe Chesterfield out

there in TV land is going to understand this. Is there any documentation from Ms

Cleary's lawyers demanding these payments be made under the contract, or was

this just a gratuitous payment? Will you undertake, minister, to provide to this

House, immediately, all correspondence from Ms Cleary -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: - or her lawyers or their representatives?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader calls a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take great offence to the Speaker of this House, who is supposed to be

impartial, cutting off a member during Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This Chair has interrupted on numerous occasions on both sides of the House.

The allocated time had expired.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Natural Resources.

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just say again that when this matter was brought to our attention we

investigated immediately. Because of concerns that I had, I asked for Ms Cleary's

resignation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as the former Justice Minister and Attorney General, he

knows that there is a substantive difference between being fired and resigning.

I will say something else in this case, Mr. Speaker, Ms Cleary, as I understand,

is a woman of character.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the hon. the minister. The

minister has a few moments left to finish her response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in my knowledge and my experience, Ms Cleary

is a woman of honour and who did good work at Bull Arm. Yes, there were

irregularities around the Public Tender Act, and because there were concerns

with regard to her judgement, I asked for her resignation. She was then dealt

with appropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Chair has a job to do in protecting everybody's rights,

but I gave him some serious questions here this afternoon, and we will deal with

this later on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members know that there is a process - if there is a question that members

have, there is a process laid out in the Standing Orders of this House, and laid

out as well in Marleau and Montpetit, laid out in Beauchesne, to handle such

situations.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

The minister and I are aware, as are other people who are affected, that a

major daycare centre in the east end of St. John's will close on May 11,

necessitated by unresolved regulatory issues with Eastern Health. This closure

will disrupt the lives of a large group of children whose parents are

discovering that there are no spaces in other centres. The government considers

daycares to be private businesses and child care to be a personal responsibility

of parents. Other than licensing, government takes no responsibility for

ensuring that children who need child care have access to it.

My question for the minister is: When will this government recognize that

child care, like primary education, needs to be a formal, publicly funded system

in which government is responsible for ensuring that child care services are

available to all children in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has demonstrated, very clearly, our value that we show to

child care services in this Province. Since we formed government, we have

increased the number of spaces available in this Province by some 40-odd per

cent. We continue, up to this day, to invest large sums of money in expanding

the capacity that we have in the system. We make major investments in improving

the quality of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - childhood educators in this Province by providing bursary

programs for people to continue their education, provide opportunities where we

provide bonuses for those who advance their education and are providing services

to children in this Province.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this government has clearly demonstrated, by its

investment in additional spaces, its investment in quality, that we do care

about child care spaces in this Province, we do care about the development of

children in this Province, and we continue to invest and we put our money where

our mouth is, and we support the development of early childhood learning in this

Province.

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 his answer, but in this Budget of this year, 2007,

there are no new spaces and I want to know if this government will take the lead

of other provincial governments in this country, like Manitoba and Quebec, who

continually, every year, are increasing the percentage of child care seats that

are publicly funded?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite would recall, last year

this government made a commitment to expand child care supports and services in

rural Newfoundland by adding sixteen new spaces, sixteen new facilities, to be

announced over the next two years. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of

commitment we have made in the recent past and we continue to invest today to

increase supports to children in this Province, child care spaces being one, the

investment in family resource tenders being another, the investment we made this

past week about what we are investing into Child, Youth and Family Services, the

investments we have made in education this year.

Children are a big part of this government's agenda. Just look at this

Budget. This is a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) diabetic pumps.

MR. WISEMAN: A good example. The member opposite just raised another one,

diabetic pumps.

All of these sorts of things, Mr. Speaker, reflect this government's

commitment to the children in this Province, and we stand by our record on

investment in children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am requesting the minister, Mr. Speaker, to table in this House all of the

new seats for child care that have been produced around this Province since last

year. I would like to see a record of the new spaces that have been developed

during the Budget 2006-2007.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister, if he wishes, has time for a brief

reply.

MR. WISEMAN: Sure, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very proud, in fact, to table in this House our investment in child

care services in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Any time.

As I said a moment ago, we will stand any day, toe to toe, with any

government in this country and compare the investment we make in children in

this Province. So I will be very proud, today, tomorrow, any time in the future,

to table in this House the documentation that speaks to the record of our

investment in child development in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

The Chair wishes to rule on a point of order raised on Wednesday, May 2, by

the Opposition House Leader. The matter under review relates to comments made by

the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development on Tuesday, May 1.

While the Speaker was not in the Chair at the time the comments were made,

the Chair acknowledges that he has consulted with the House officers, the Deputy

Speaker, and the Deputy Chair of Committees. The Chair has also reviewed Hansard

and the videotape of the proceedings provided by the House Broadcast Centre.

While the minister did qualify his introductory remarks, it is the opinion of

the Chair that the expression, "It was utterly false statements made by the

Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile..." to be

unparliamentary.

The Speaker reminds members, as noted in Beauchesne's Parliamentary

Rules and Forms 6 th Edition , page 143, "Words may not

be used hypothetically or conditionally, if they are plainly intended to convey

a direct imputation."

I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to withdraw all

the words and expressions that are deemed to be unparliamentary.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I respect the Speaker's ruling and I withdraw my statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. PARSONS: I appreciate the answer given here by the minister. I think

he has done the right thing, and I commend him for it.

I am rising here on a new point of order, the point of order being what just

transpired in Question Period.

We have an understanding in this House during Question Period, and I think I

probably interjected for the first time ever, since I have been in this House,

during Question Period; because the rule is, and I am well aware of it, that you

do not normally interject during Question Period, but I think, and my point of

order is, that the process is not being followed here today.

Let me explain now, my position. I am not challenging the Chair. I am making

my point. The point here is that we have thirty minutes for Question Period, and

Question Period today started at 1:51 p.m., and we had thirty minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: At 1:51 p.m. it started, and twice this Chair, for the first

time since I have been Opposition House Leader - the first time, mind you, the

first time that this Speaker has been in the Chair and the first time since I

have been here as Opposition House Leader - that I ever witnessed the Chair

twice cut off the speaker like that. Never saw it before in this House. I think

it was pretty obvious, to the people out there who watched this, what happened

here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is entirely the option of the Chair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is entirely the option of the Chair, when the Chair believes that he has

heard a point of order sufficiently.

In this particular case I am not rising on that particular matter, except to

remind all members that in this House and in the parliamentary practice of the

Westminister model that we have to be always cognizant, and I quote from page

523 of Marleau and Montpetit. It reads as follows, and I quote,

"Reflections must not be cast in debate on the conduct of the Speaker or

other presiding officers. It is unacceptable to question the integrity and

impartiality of a presiding officer and if such comments are made, the Speaker

will interrupt the Member and may request that the remarks be withdrawn....

Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker or other presiding

officers have been ruled to be breaches of privilege."

In this particular matter, I do believe there is a forum. If the hon. the

member has a difficulty, there is a forum. There are two forums. One, the member

is welcome to discuss the matter with me in my private office; or, the member

has the option to have it dealt with on the floor of the House, but only through

way of a substantive motion.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A new point of order has been raised.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: A new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

It seems quite obvious that you are well-prepared today to respond to my

points of order.

My question I raise again is not as to the integrity of the Chair. I am

questioning the timing of the Speaker, and what we were doing in Question

Period.

I was in the middle of a question, and had the question half done, when you

cut me off. What I am saying to you has nothing to do with the integrity of the

Chair or to cast aspersions upon the Chair. I am saying you did not read the

clock - as simple as that. I had time left and you did not allow me the time,

the same as you are cutting me off again here now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair attempts to be absolutely fair. In this particular case, well over

a minute had expired before the interruption. We are going to be fair in this

House. We have to be fair on both sides of the House. We cannot have the Speaker

who, day after day, will interrupt ministers when they go on too long. Today, on

four separate occasions I do believe, ministers were cut off in their

presentation. The same thing applies to questions. If questions go on too long,

if the

preambles are too long, then, we must be fair. If we are fair to one

side, we are fair to the other side. We try to keep it to a minute. In this

particular case, a minute had expired.

The Chair is satisfied that we try to be fair. Sometimes it is not a perfect

science, but we do have to try to always be fair to both sides. The same rules

apply to both sides.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order,

please.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Government House

Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief point of order. It is a

matter again that occurred in Question Period, which I just made a note of and

left - as we customarily do - until the end of Question Period for it to be

dealt with.

The Opposition House Leader, in, I guess, the

preamble of a question to my

colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources - Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition

House Leader, in asking questions about the resignation of Ms Cleary, used the

words cooked up. In other words, he made the statement that the minister cooked

up reasons for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this language infers, of course, motives. It is

imputing motives to the minister. It is imputing motives to her officials,

because the member clearly used the words cooked up as a way to explain the

resignation of Ms Cleary and then to justify the payment of certain sums of

money to her.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit, that is clearly a breach of the rules of this

House. It is a breach of every parliamentary rule, many parliamentary rules,

that can come to mind. I believe it has been ruled on before, that you cannot

impute motives to members and to ministers when they are asking questions in

that way. You cannot use that kind of language in a

preamble to a question. I

would ask that Your Honour, when you have an opportunity, review the

circumstances of the remark, review what was said and take the appropriate

action.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order. First and foremost, I readily admit that I used the

words cooked up. Let there be no misunderstanding there. I admit that I used the

words cooked up. Let is also be understood that my whole questions in Question

Period - you talk about determining whether I am imputing any improper motives

to the minister. Let it also be understood that the context today of my

questioning, what I did get in, was directed totally, absolutely to determine

what the motivations of this minister were. That is exactly why every question I

asked here today was: give us the information. Can I have, for example, the

correspondence from her lawyer, which I wanted to ask but never got to ask? Can

I get all of that correspondence? That is exactly why I used the words cooked

up. We do not know if there is anything improper, nasty, unacceptable that

occurred here or not until we get the information. Now, if I am not allowed to

ask for the information and I am not allowed to use the words as to why I am

asking for it, to determine if something is cooked up, what else are you allowed

to ask in this House, I say?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing preventing the Opposition

House Leader, or any other member of the Opposition for that matter, in asking a

question. There are rules though in terms of what language can be used in asking

that question, and that is all I am saying here. When you use words like cooked

up or words that the minister - who is now leaving the House - had to withdraw

the other day, they are very similar words, very similar language. They are

imputing motives and that is not permitted under the rules of the House. The

member knows it, I know that, but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it is not permitted

and I ask that it be dealt with.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point here. If

the parties opposite have a problem with my use of the words cooked up, I have

no problem with that, if it is unparliamentary. I do not have an issue with

that.

For example, the word coverup is deemed by Beauchesne to be

acceptable. Now, if cooked up is not but coverup is, or contrived is, which it

certainly is, I have no problem if the minister wants me to change my wording,

withdraw cooked up and put in coverup. I mean, that is fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will review Hansard, as well as the video-taped presentation, and

come back on next Monday with a ruling.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 5, the resolution regarding the

appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer; Your Honour has to call it, I guess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 5 has been called by the Government House Leader. The

Chair will dispense with the WHEREASes. The motion before the House is:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral

Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests.

The rules of debate will follow the standard rules as per Standing Order 46

for this type of resolution.

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that, on behalf of the

government, I am very pleased to stand here today and to move the resolution

appointing Mr. Reynolds to the position of Chief Electoral Officer and

Commission of Members' Interests.

Mr. Speaker, the only - not only, I suppose - criticism that I have heard

surface on this appointment is the fact that Mr. Reynolds had the good sense in

his lifetime to be associated with a political party. Now, it happened to be the

political party of which those of us on this side of the House are associated,

and that, I think, is imminently good sense as well, but that really does not

matter.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the Member of the Bay of

Islands got on in his usual fashion and started to bully and interrupt - and

from his seat, too, when he is not even allowed to be recognized - but as I was

saying, Mr. Speaker, that is the only criticism that I have heard in this

appointment. Mr. Reynolds is a gentleman of sterling character.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reynolds has made a tremendous contribution

to the public life of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Reynolds has been a

sterling member of the business community in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Mr. Reynolds has served his community and the people in the community

where he lived, in the Province in general, in many, many volunteer capacities.

Mr. Reynolds has done exemplary, as an individual serving his community in many,

many ways, in many volunteer ways.

MR. SWEENEY: A fine fellow.

MR. RIDEOUT: A fine fellow, as the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour

Grace said. Yes, indeed, he is a fine fellow. I have had the pleasure of knowing

that gentleman for a long, long period of time, and I concur with the sentiment

that he is a fine fellow.

Therefore, if he is such a fine fellow, should this fine fellow and his great

contributions to the public life of Newfoundland and Labrador not be an

overriding consideration if the government wished to nominate him and appoint

him to this particular position? I say yes, Mr. Speaker, and I say yes for a

number of reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I have to keep an eye on what is going on in the House, too,

when I hear certain statements being made, because I have a responsibility as

Government House Leader, and I am trying to introduce this resolution too.

Anyway, as I was trying to focus on here, this gentleman, I believe, is

exemplarily qualified to hold the position of Chief Electoral Officer and

Commissioner of Members' Interests. This gentleman has proven himself to be

competent. He has proven himself to be a good community person. He has proven

himself to be trustworthy. He has proven himself to be sensible and sound and

unbiased whenever he has to make decisions that affect the public interest.

I have confidence, and for that reason I have no hesitation. I have

confidence, as Government House Leader, and one member of this government, that

this member - even though he was associated with a political party - is the type

of man, the type of individual, that the Opposition talked about when they

supported - or some of them supported - the appointment of his predecessor. When

some of the Opposition supported the appointment of Mr. Furey, many of them made

the point that they believed that Mr. Furey was the type of individual who would

park his political bias at the door when he took over the job. I believe that

Mr. Reynolds is, too, that kind of individual. He had a political bias - of

course he did - and he makes no apology for it, and I make no apology for it on

his behalf.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he was a supporter of mine, co-chaired the

campaign for me when I ran for the leadership of this party, and did a marvelous

job, a successful job in terms of winning the leadership. I could not have

wished to have worked with a team better than the team that was put together by

that hon. gentleman.

I support his nomination for this process, but I do not think that had

anything to do with it. Those who say that, because you had an association with

politics in this Province, whether you were an elected member of the Legislature

and a Cabinet minister, like the former person who served in that position, or

whether you helped your political party in some way, those who say that makes

you unfit to hold this office, I disagree with them, Mr. Speaker. I disagree

with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: I disagree with you.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the member's right, to disagree with me, and I am

sure he will articulate it eloquently when he gets to his feet. I have no doubt,

Mr. Speaker, that the member, if he disagrees with me, will be able to

articulate why he disagrees with me. That is what debate is about in this House.

I disagree with him. I happen to believe, Mr. Speaker, that no member, that

no person in our society, ought to be dismissed for consideration for a

position, or discriminated for consideration for a position, because they happen

to have had the audacity to have supported a political party at some time in

their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I remember the former Liberal Premier of this Province, the

person who is now the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Chief Justice

Wells. I remember him when I was in Opposition, Opposition Leader, in this very

Chamber. Many, many times I remember him, when we were talking about patronage

appointments, talking about the political colour of an individual that the then

Premier was appointing to a board, or to chair some corporation or whatever, I

remember him saying - and Hansard will bear me out in this, Mr. Speaker - time

and time and time again: I will not discriminate against a person because they

were a Liberal. I will not refuse to appoint a person to a position - Mr.

Speaker, he would say - because they were a Liberal, because they were

associated with the Liberal Party. I refuse to do that. I will consider their

qualifications on their merits. If I believe they are qualified, and if they are

a Liberal - he would say - so be it, all the better. That makes it better, from

my perspective, but I will not discriminate against them and refuse to appoint

them because they had the audacity at some point in their life to be associated

with the political party that is now the government.

To those, Mr. Speaker, who try to conjure up all kinds of bogeymen or women,

whatever the appropriately correct political phrase is those days -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Bogeyperson, is it? When I was growing up they were

bogeymen. Anyway, whatever they are, for those who try to conjure up all of

those negative things, Mr. Speaker, in this appointment, for those who say they

are somehow concerned because the fate of the political system is in the hands

of a person associated with a political party, who once had an affiliation with

a political party, for those who have climbed that hill and expressed that

concern, Mr. Speaker, I say I am no more uncomfortable - yeah, I am just as

comfortable, Mr. Speaker - I am just as comfortable with having the fate of the

political system in the hands of this individual, who was associated with our

political party, as I am having the fate of the judicial system lie in the hands

of judges, some of whom served other political parties in this Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I am just as content, Mr. Speaker, to have my political fate

and the fate of our democracy rest in the hands of that capable gentleman as I

am to have my judicial fate rest in the hands of some judge who may have served

in this House or the House of Commons. I see no difference.

Mr. Speaker, there is no difference. If a person is going to park their

political bias at the door once they finish one aspect of their life and their

career, whether it is in public service or not, and move on to the next, if they

are going to do that, Mr. Speaker, there is no problem. If they are going to do

that, there is absolutely no problem, Mr. Speaker, and that is why many people

in the Opposition, when we debated the appointment of Mr. Furey, made that same

point, Mr. Speaker, that I am making here today. If it was true and valid then,

as I say it was, then I believe it is true and valid here today in this

appointment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Opposition House Leader, for example, Mr. Speaker, was

so enthused about the appointment of Mr. Furey that he said the following. He

said: It is the Premier's prerogative to nominate a person of his and his

Cabinet's choice.

It is so, Mr. Speaker, and we have done it twice now in a year. We nominated

a person who was a known follower, supporter, minister in a Liberal government,

and we saw the resolution through and we saw the person appointed, and I do not

believe there is anybody who can say that person did not serve with distinction

and serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, went on to say in

supporting the appointment of Mr. Furey, to say the following: To me, he said,

politics are irrelevant. Not my words. It is the words of the Opposition House

Leader. To me, he said, politics are irrelevant. To me, if he is appointed for

this job, which he no doubt will be, he parks his politics at the door. The

prophetic words, Mr. Speaker, of the Opposition House Leader. When he goes into

work he is the Chief Electoral Officer and is the Commissioner of our interests

and he parks his politics at the door.

Mr. Speaker, that is the nub, that is the crunch for me in this appointment.

We have submitted the nomination of a person that we believe very strongly in.

We believe that Mr. Reynolds will do an admirable job. We believe he will be

unbiased. We know he will be unbiased. We know he will park any political

affiliation that he had at the door, just as the Opposition House Leader was

confident that the former incumbent, the former nominee for that position would

do, and in fact did do. There was never any allegation from anybody, despite

those who said at the time that it should not go to a person associated with a

political party. There was never any - anywhere in this Province that I know -

hint that Mr. Furey in performing his duties, did anything other than park his

politics at the door on the day of his appointment.

So, Mr. Speaker, many people in the Opposition then, two or three of them,

did not support it, for whatever reason and they said it, and they thought they

were good reasons. They were certainly good reasons in their view, but the

majority of members in the House, including members of the Opposition, thought

that the appointment of Mr. Furey made sense. They believed that Mr. Furey would

be above partisan politics, and I submit that he was.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this man, that we have nominated today to fill

this position, will be above partisan politics, too. I know he will. I know he

will leave his political past behind him, as great as it was, and he was a great

person at it, did an admirable job, but I know he will leave it behind him and

do the work which the job demands as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of

Members' Interests. I know he will do it with distinction, Mr. Speaker,

because that is his reputation. He has had that reputation in every job that he

has held, in the private sector, in the volunteer sector and in the public

sector. He has the reputation of doing the job well, of performing well, and

performing in a non-bias and non-partisan way.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased, as a government, to bring forward this

nomination. We are absolutely delighted that a person of Mr. Reynolds'

character and calibre would submit himself, allow his name to be submitted,

knowing that there are going to be those who are going to take a different view.

That is fair game. That is fair game, Mr. Speaker, knowing there are going to be

those who will take a different view.

Ms Jones is expressing some view now, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is all right. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds the hon. the Government House Leader that references to

members should be by their title or by their district, and I ask him to respect

the protocols in the House.

MR. RIDEOUT: I do respect it, Your Honour, and thank you for reminding

me. If she had been in her seat I would have referred to - I was just looking at

the names of the members from the Opposition who voted in support of the

resolution appointing Mr. Furey and I was making note that the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was for his appointment and, in fact, voted for it.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members on this side of the House, and I would

hope some members on the other side of the House too, just as there were some

members on the other side of the House who supported Mr. Furey, some did not,

but I would hope that there will be members on both sides of the House who will

see the appointment of this fine individual for what it is, and that is a person

who is quite capable of doing the job and doing it in a non-bias and

non-partisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, we support this resolution and we

will be voting in favour of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I have an hour, if I so desire, but I do not think I will be speaking

for an hour on this motion this afternoon.

The motion is to appoint Mr. Paul Reynolds as the Chief Electoral Officer and

the Commissioner of Members' Interests for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I listened to the minister, the Deputy Premier, with great interest as

he presented the motion and called upon us to support it.

First of all, I would like to welcome Mr. Reynolds to the gallery here today,

to the Speaker's gallery, as I did his predecessor, Mr. Furey. I have known

Mr. Reynolds for quite some time, not really well, but I know the individual. I

know from whence he comes. I think he was born and raised in Riverhead, Harbour

Grace, not too far from my hometown in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, what I am about to say today has nothing to do with Mr. Reynolds's

character, nothing whatsoever. It has to do with the position of the Chief

Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests and what I feel,

or who I feel should be filling this position.

The minister talked today about appointments made to our judiciary,

politicians being appointed to be judges, to be magistrates and what not, and

that has been our tradition. I think that democracy, and you can correct me if I

am wrong, is based on tradition. The rules and regulations in this House of

Assembly are based on traditions and precedents. For the most part, that is what

governs this House of Assembly, traditions and precedents.

Mr. Speaker, this position has been traditionally held by a senior civil

servant, an individual who has worked his way up through the ranks as a civil

servant, through the civil service. As we all know, you do not work your way up

through the ranks of the civil service if you are in any way, or perceived to be

in any way, politically connected. In fact, if you check the traditions and the

history of our Province, what we will find, since Confederation, is that once

the bureaucrat crosses the line and becomes politically involved, that person is

asked to vacate his position. In other words, he is fired, or she is fired,

because tradition says that person in the civil service should not be

politically motivated, or politically aligned with a certain party, simply

because the bureaucracy in our Province could not work if that were the case.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason I am talking about tradition and precedents is

because I have done a little bit of research on who has occupied these positions

since Confederation. It is my understanding, and I do not know for exactly sure,

maybe I can be corrected later on, but I do believe that from 1949 or 1950 when

the first Chief Electoral Officer was appointed, it was an individual who was a

magistrate. That individual, I think, occupied that position up until 1963, and

then I think that individual was replaced by another magistrate, and again

followed by another magistrate up until 1973.

Mr. Speaker, I would assume that a magistrate, once he became a magistrate,

was not politically aligned, or politically motivated. The position just does

not hold that. It would not be in the magistrate's best interest, or anyone in

the Province, to have a magistrate who was politically motivated after he

became, or after he was put into that position.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was in 1973, when the late Frank Moores took power,

that precedent changed and there was a well-known Tory who was appointed to the

position, but I do believe from that point on, after that, the position, after

Mr. Moores' successor came along and into the Deputy Premier today, when he

was the Premier, even though it was for a short period of time, I do not think

that you changed the Electoral Officer at that time. I do not think that anyone

else did thereon after.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that position, from 1949 until 1973, was

held by a magistrate, and for a brief period of time in the 1970s it was

occupied by a person who was politically aligned. From that point on, I think

the position was held by a senior civil servant, an individual who worked his

way up through the ranks of the civil service and occupied that position of

honour.

The only time that I am aware of, in recent history, that changed was in

2005. When was Mr. Furey appointed, in 2005 or 2006?

AN HON. MEMBER: In 2006.

MR. REID: In 2006, Mr. Furey was appointed.

I stood in the House of Assembly at that time - and I say to Mr. Reynolds,

don't feel bad if I do not support your nomination this afternoon, because I

did stand in the same spot and face Mr. Furey, who happened to be a previous

colleague of mine, who sat in the same seat that you are sitting in today, and I

did not support his nomination as well. This has nothing to do with

personalities or character. This has to do with what I believe should be a

position that is above politics. That is the same reason that I gave Mr. Furey

when he sat in your seat, I say to Mr. Reynolds. I voted against Mr. Furey at

the time because he was politically aligned.

The minister, or the Deputy Premier, might say there is no difference between

a Chief Electoral Officer and a judge. He made reference to Clyde Wells, who

went on to be the Chief Justice. I think, in terms like that, Mr. Speaker, if

you go before the justice system, I do not think that someone is going to

convict you of a crime because of your political stripe, or be lenient on you

because of your political stripe. What I am saying is, because there has always

been a tradition in this Province of appointing judges, for the most part, on

their political allegiance, I do not have a problem with it because it has been

a tradition, but the tradition has never been that you appoint someone to the

position of Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests

based on their political allegiance. That is the point that I am trying to make

today, Mr. Speaker.

That was not the only reason, I say to Mr. Reynolds, that I voted against

Chuck Furey. There were others, and I will get into those as I go on.

Mr. Speaker, the position of Chief Electoral Officer, the individual who will

oversee all elections, general elections and by-elections in this Province,

holds a very important job. I think that individual should be politically

impartial. Just by the nature of the job itself, that individual should be

politically impartial. Not only should he be, Mr. Speaker, politically

impartial, but he should be perceived to be politically impartial. There has to

be a perception that the individual is politically impartial.

Unfortunately, I do not feel that the individual who is being presented today

to fill that position, just like his predecessor, Mr. Furey, could be perceived

to be politically impartial. I do not think either one of them could be

perceived to be politically impartial, simply by the nature of their resumes and

what they did prior to taking this position. Mr. Furey was a politician,

obviously; everyone in the Province knew it. Mr. Reynolds, up until the Premier

appointed him, or put his name forward for appointment, said himself in the

paper that he was still a member of the PC Association of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Virginia Park.

MR. REID: - Virginia Park Tory Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Virginia Park, I say to my hon. colleague.

That shows me that the individual, by his own words - besides that, he was a

former President of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, and by his own

resume which he forwarded to us, was gracious enough to forward to us today, he

admitted that he was the President of the PC Party and was still an active

member - a director, I do believe - of the PC Party of Virginia Waters, up until

the Premier put his name forward.

That, to me, Mr. Speaker, shows that he is not politically impartial, nor

could he ever be hoped to be perceived to be politically impartial. Whether or

not the individual would lean one way or the other once put into that position,

I do not know. Let's hope that he would not, but that still does not remedy

the fact for me, Mr. Speaker, that this position should never be given to any

person who is so closely connected to a political party, because there are

circumstances, Mr. Speaker - for example, whomever occupies that position will

be responsible for the general election in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in the fall of this year, October 9 to be exact. There are forty-eight

districts that we just realigned, most of them, so the individual who is

chairing that will be responsible for realigning the boundaries of those

districts. He will be responsible for determining where ballot boxes are going

to be located throughout these forty-eight new districts. He will be responsible

for hiring the individuals who will work on those polling boxes in the

forty-eight districts.

I will give you an example. My district, for example, had, I think, fifty-one

polling booths in the last election. It is my understanding that fifty-one

people in my district will be employed by the Chief Electoral Officer, and

whomever the Chief Electoral Officer is going to be will be responsible for

hiring those individuals. We all know in this Province, I say to those opposite,

we all know - my wife said it to me the other night - it's not what you know,

unfortunately, in this Province; it's who you know. I have a concern about

that.

I also have concerns, Mr. Speaker, about what happened in Humber Valley in a

by-election a few weeks ago, or a couple of months ago, when the Deputy Premier

of this Province got out and called into question some of the activities that

occurred during that by-election, and certainly cast aspersions that some of the

people who worked in the polling booths in that district should not have been

doing it because they were closely aligned with the Liberal candidate.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Deputy Premier said that.

MR. REID: The Deputy Premier made those comments on television, that he

had concerns because a relative - a relative - of the newly elected Member for

Humber Valley worked in a polling station. The same individual is standing today

and making a case that, while there was something not right about what happened

in Humber Valley, we could elect today in the House of Assembly the individual

who is going to control all of the elections, all of the by-elections and every

polling booth in the Province, while he is politically aligned, and there should

be no problem with that.

Does anyone here see the irony or the paradox of that? Does anyone see it?

The Deputy Premier stands and says what he said about the lady in Humber Valley

a few weeks ago, or a month-and-a-half ago, but today sees nothing wrong with

the ex-President of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador - director, up

until last week, of the Virginia Waters Tory Association - and no problem.

Therein lies the problem. Therein lies the problem.

A bigger problem I have is the comment that the Deputy Premier made himself

when he talked about the individual - we are talking about here today, Mr.

Reynolds - when the Deputy Premier stood in the House here, no more than fifteen

minutes ago, and said that he had the good sense to be associated with the Tory

Party. Just imagine. Therein lies the problem, when the Deputy Premier stands in

the House of Assembly and talks about the incoming Chief Electoral Officer as

being or as having the good sense to have been aligned with the Tory Party. Now,

if anybody does not see the politics involved in this then they are sadly

mistaken. Again, it has nothing to do with the character. It has to do with the

position. There has to be impartiality, and the perception of impartiality in

that position.

Mr. Speaker, that individual will also be the Commissioner of Members'

Interests. For those of you who are watching who do not know what that means, I

will tell you. Every year, every single member in the House of Assembly has to

forward to the Chief Electoral Officer a list - actually, it is a booklet that

you have to complete. I do not know if the new members opposite, who were just

elected, had an opportunity to fill that out. It is a very comprehensive

document in which I have to, and everyone in this House of Assembly has to, put

down and itemize every single thing that we own. Not only what I own, but what

my spouse owns. That has to be itemized in the book. Along with that, you have

to put down not only what you own, you also have to - in another

section of that

book - put down every single cent that you owe and who you owe it to; every

single cent, right down to the credit card. I have to tell the Commissioner of

Members' Interests, the Chief Electoral Officer, how much my wife owes on her

credit card and how much I owe on mine. We have to say what taxes we are paying

on our properties, everything.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have to go and root around and do some thinking, if I

am leaving a thing out because if I leave something out and the Commissioner of

Members' Interests, the Chief Electoral Officer finds out about it, then I

could be in a conflict and I am hiding something. God forbid, I say to the

minister, if the general population ever got a whiff that Gerry Reid was hiding

something. The reason that the Commissioner of Members' Interests and the

Chief Electoral Officer wants to know that - and he wants to know it especially

for the Premier and the Cabinet Ministers. Do you know the reason he needs to

know that? Because he wants to be sure that the individuals are not in a

conflict with the companies and the institutions that they deal with on a daily

basis.

For example, Mr. Speaker, if - and I don't - I own shares in FPI and I was

the Minister of Fisheries for this Province, then the Commissioner of Members'

Interests would like to know that. I think it was set up originally because they

did not want to see you get into a conflict or they did not trust you. I think

when it was originally set up they did not trust the hon. members in the House

of Assembly. I guess some people out there will say: We don't today either.

They did not want me, for example, if I owned shares in FPI when I was the

Minister of Fisheries, to increase the value of those shares by something that I

might do in the Department of Fisheries. There is a right to do that, Mr.

Speaker.

The Premier, for example, has - and he said it himself - very extensive

holdings and investments in companies, not only in this Province but throughout

North America, and who knows, around the world. The individual who is going to

occupy this position today will know how much every single person in this House

of Assembly owes and owns.

No disrespect for Mr. Reynolds, because I said the same thing about Chuck

Furey, I had concerns about that. When you are aligned or had been aligned with

a political party, sometimes you have to wonder - not saying it happened or

would ever happen, but when you are sitting back or lying back in the nighttime

you have to sometimes wonder: Is this information safe or will it be used

against me in the House of Assembly?

Just this afternoon the minister of industry, trade and rural renewal, or

whatever the department is called today, held up a paper and said: I will get

you all next week with the information that is in here. I will have all your

resignations next week. It frightens me to think that when you cross the line

between the Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests with

politics, some crazy things could happen in this Province.

So, I said enough about that part of it, because I told Mr. Reynolds that I

was also going to address other areas when it comes to why I will not be voting

for this motion this afternoon, just like Mr. Furey. Mr. Furey entered this

House of Assembly when he was being recommended for appointment by the Premier,

I looked at Mr. Furey and I realized - I said, Mr. Furey has a pension from the

provincial government. He was a Cabinet minister.

We have people leaving this Province on a daily basis. We saw 9,000

individuals line up on the Kenmount Road in November, we saw 5,000 visit the

Glacier last weekend, all looking for employment out of this Province. Some of

our youngest and brightest, some of our middle-aged and brightest, and all of

those in between, looking for employment. This position pays in excess of

$100,000 I do believe, and someone can correct me if I am wrong. We have lots of

people in this Province who would certainly do with $100,000. No disrespect for

Mr. Reynolds but he, like Mr. Furey, I understand is retired, receiving a

pension. I do believe. I am not 100 per cent certain but I would assume. That is

another reason that I think the position should be occupied by somebody else.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on but I think I have made my points. I do not

think, for example, that - and he did not have to do it. I don't think Mr.

Reynolds, when he came out in the paper last week and said he was proud to have

been associated with the Tory Party - I know that is your right, just as much as

my right. I just thought that it showed a lack of judgement when you are asking

to be appointed to be the Chief Electoral Officer for this Province, to be out

talking about your politics.

I think, as well, Mr. Speaker, that if anybody read an editorial in The

Telegram - I do not know if it was Saturday past or the Saturday before,

when we were talking about - the editorial was about conflict of interest. I

think the last sentence in the paragraph said: If the Premier of this Province

could not see a conflict in appointing Mr. Reynolds to this position, how is Mr.

Reynolds going to recognize a conflict when he gets the position?

Mr. Speaker, again, I say I know Mr. Reynolds, and it is no disrespect for

him as an individual. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his character, just

like it had nothing to do with Chuck Furey's character, but because this

position should be impartial, and perceived to be impartial, the fact that it

has always been, or for most of the time - 99 per cent or 98 per cent of the

time since Confederation this position has been filled by a civil servant who

has worked his or her way up through the ranks of the civil service, who was

proven to be impartial, occupied the position. I do not think that we should be

voting today to fill this position with an individual who had been so closely

aligned with the Tory Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and support this motion for the election of Paul

Reynolds as the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members'

Interests.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at a position that a person holds, I look at that

person and I will put it in my mind: Can that person do the job? Without

hesitation, this person can do the job. Can he do it independent of all of

government? Yes, he can. Can he put aside his bias? Yes, he can. He is a man of

impeccable character, Mr. Speaker, impeccable character.

I have known Mr. Reynolds for quite a long time and I have seen him socially

in terms of on the golf course, maybe, or at a function, or whatever the case

may be, and everyone, Mr. Speaker, everyone, spoke very highly of Paul Reynolds.

They spoke of what a fine gentleman he is, what a nice man he is, what a

trusting man he is, and what a person he could be in high authority.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about his character, no question at all. I

look at him as a man who was a community leader, a volunteer, and a person who

served his people well. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reynolds was Mayor of Wedgewood Park,

if people remember that, and he was mayor for eight years, two terms. He also

served on council there.

Mr. Speaker, when a person is in the position of authority that he held, as

Mayor of Wedgewood Park at the time, let me tell you, throughout the municipal

world in Newfoundland and Labrador, throughout the municipal sector of which I

was a part, he was held in very, very high esteem. When Paul Reynolds would get

up to speak at federation meetings, people would listen. People said: That is a

man who knows what he wants, knows where he is going, and has vision. Mr.

Speaker, he was respected second to none by everyone in the municipal world.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the mayor of a community, no matter what

community, these people sit there in office and are respected very well by the

community, the people they represent. I had that privilege of representing the

City of Mount Pearl for two terms and, let me tell you, people look up to you,

people trust you, people expect you to do a good job, and with that they will

elect you. They did the same thing with Mr. Reynolds, time after time.

I am sure if Wedgewood Park were here today, which I think it should have

been - that is another story - then I would say Mr. Reynolds could have still

been the Mayor of Wedgewood Park to this day, as we speak, because of the

respect which he held in his community. He has certainly, in his volunteer

sector - because I am not sure if the Mayor of Wedgewood Park was paid any

stipend at the time. I am not sure he was. I do not think he was.

When you look at that, and look, by the nod of the Speaker, as your

experience in the municipal world, saying no, I take that as being truthful

because I think you know as much about the municipal world as I do, and probably

more. So, when you look at a person who stayed in a volunteer position serving

the people of his community without bellyaching, without complaining, without

making a fuss, but doing it for the goodness of his community, how could a

person not have respect for that person? How could you, when you look at the

high esteem he was held in, in his community?

Mr. Speaker, I also knew Mr. Reynolds through his business sector. I cannot

remember every business he was in, but I can remember his last one, I think, he

retired from. Each and every one of the people I know in that business had high,

high respect for him. He was looked on as a man of authority, looked upon as a

man with trust, and looked upon as a man with respect.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problems with this gentleman coming in as the Chief

Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests. I have no

problem with that. I look at the position as, what would I expect? Similarly, I

had no problem with Chuck Furey there because I did separate the politics from

that. I look at the position, saying, in my own mind: Can that person hold that

office and do it service, do justice to that office? Mr. Speaker, this person

can.

Mr. Furey came here. He was a Liberal, and everyone knew that. I looked at it

and said: Well - I put the politics aside - can he serve that office with

respect and dignity? I answered that question with a very affirmative yes. No

different from the gentleman we are putting forth here today.

Look at the office, look at what he has to handle, and ask yourself, before

you vote on this: Can that person do justice to this office? The answer to that

is very simple. The hon. House Leader over there may smile at it, but that man

has a lot of dignity, a lot respect, a lot of trust, in not only the community

in which he serves but in the Avalon area and the Province as a whole.

So, when you make the decision -

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I want to make a point here. The comment that the Member for

Mount Pearl just uttered across here is as if I had done something in a

derogatory manner by smiling with respect to Mr. Reynolds.

I want to make it quite clear that the first time I ever met, that I recall,

in my life, meeting Mr. Reynolds, was this morning. In fact, we had a pretty

frank and open discussion in my office this morning, because I asked to meet

with him. So, any smiling that I did here today was directly to the eyes and

face of Mr. Reynolds, who sits in this gallery, and it certainly was not done

with any negative reasons whatsoever. I would like this House to record it.

I certainly do not need the Member for Mount Pearl to try to cast any

negative aspersions upon this member. If I have something to say about Mr.

Reynolds, I will say it in due course when I get my opportunity in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: Now, that is as sanctimonious as you can get.

Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go there. I made the comments and I

will stand by them.

Mr. Speaker, again, go back and see what this person has to do. The

Opposition mentioned that the election is coming up. Well, go back to the

experience Mr. Reynolds has in the municipal world. He has gone through many

elections in the municipal world and also, too, in the City of St, John's, I

might add, so he is quite familiar with what happens during elections.

By the way, this is not somewhere where Mr. Reynolds has to go out and

develop a policy, develop the act and develop the legislation for this. This is

all in place. Mr. Reynolds has the initiative, the intelligence and the ability

to interpret the legislation and put it into place in proper perspective. He has

that, and he can do that, and he can do it well. So do not be disillusioned in

terms of saying, well, he is going to go into this office and put forth

legislation to this House of Assembly so he can be prepared for the election in

October. Uh-uh, that is in place as we speak. That man has to -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands is continuously

disrupting again, as usual. He has been a nuisance in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is clearly unparliamentary to refer to another hon. member using the words

just used by the Member for Mount Pearl and I ask them to withdraw the words

immediately.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. member and ask him to continue his debate.

MR. DENINE: I hope this is not off my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, look at the election as ready. The hon. Member for Bay of

Islands said everything is not in place. Right now, they have people hired on to

do the enumeration process to make sure every voter is registered. The districts

have changed. So, once all of that is put in the computer, all you have to do is

take it, enter the data, bring it out and here is your voter's list.

Now, the thing about people who are going to be involved with the election

coming in October. I had people who were going to work for me, and all of a

sudden they put their name down to be a returning officer. They came to me and

said: Dave, I can't do anymore work for you. Fine. I never talked to them or

spoke to them after. They stayed totally out of it, and I expect all people who

are going to be hired on for an electoral office to do the same thing, because

it states it in the rules very clearly. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no problem

here. Mr. Reynolds has the ability, is trustworthy, is a fine gentleman and he

can read the legislation and put it in place and put it into proper perspective.

Now, the conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, every year I had to fill out one

when I came into this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I did not realize how

little I had until I filled out one of those. I said to myself: well, why would

they want mine? I do not have that much to worry about. My wife and I share a

house. We have some small investments. We have a couple of cars. I said: Why

would they want to know that? I said, all they had to do was come to my address

and look at it. That is what I had. Then again, Mr. Speaker, the idea of this -

and I do not mean to laugh at it in terms that it is not serious, because

everyone should make it known to what they are involved with. I am just saying

to myself that mine is so small that it is not worth worrying about. Some

members here may have other interests that I do not know about, and I really do

not care.

Mr. Speaker, I will fill out the form next year - God forbid, if everything

goes all right and the electoral of Mount Pearl re-elects me again. Then, if I

am here in this position, I will fill out that form and I will send it in to Mr.

Reynolds. He will be, as far as I am concerned, the Chief Electoral Officer and

the person of Conflict of Interest. I have no hesitation, one bit, in sending

that in to him; not one bit. Will I worry about whether he tells someone? No,

nothing. Did I worry about Chuck Furey telling him about that? No, I did not.

Mr. Speaker, you have to look at it. The Opposition, they are going to say

what they have to say, but from my perspective, I look at the gentleman here as

a man of integrity, honesty and has the ability to do the job. There is no

question in my mind that he can do it and do a job well done. Will the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador be well served? I can tell you, without hesitation,

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be well served. Will the

integrity of the Chief Electoral Office be held up in the esteem that it is

today? I say, yes it will. I say yes it will because of the person that we have

nominated here today.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, and I look forward to the vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise in opposition to the motion, but before speaking to it, I do want to

welcome Mr. Reynolds to the House. I want you to understand Mr. Reynolds, I have

never met you before, we do not know each other, but anything that I have to say

has nothing to do with you as a person. Everything that I will be speaking of

are principles that I, and my Party, believe in. So I ask you not to take

anything personally. Of course, it is on record that when we were dealing with a

similar issue - when the House was dealing with a similar issue with Mr. Chuck

Furey, our Party took the position that I am taking today. As I said, that is

based on principles.

I do not know why this government has to, in different ways, pride itself on

doing things differently from everybody else. Why is it that a tradition and a

practice that has gone on both in this Province and goes on right across the

country cannot be carried on? We are not talking about something that is

unusual. We are not talking about something that is strange. When we talk about

conflict of interest - and this is where I am going to start because I think we

are dealing with conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is a common phrase.

We all know what conflict of interest means because conflict of interest is part

of contracts, conflict of interest is part of agreements, conflict of interest

is part of our society. We use it all the time. Why the government cannot see

the conflict of interest and why it thinks that it can ignore conflict of

interest, really, really confuses me. I cannot understand it. To me it is just

common sense.

Why even do this to your friend? If Mr. Reynolds is a friend of yours, why

even put him in this embarrassing position where this discussion has to happen?

Because the discussion does have to happen. The discussion is happening outside

of this House and the discussion is happening in this House because we are

dealing with something that everybody understands. We heard today in the House,

even our local paper understands it. This is not confusion, it is very, very

simple.

When our public sector is ruled by conflict of interest, why can't we see

that we should be ruled by conflict of interest rules? I am used to people

saying to me, you know people who are in positions with our government, even

people who are in positions not in government per se, like even if you are in a

management position at the College of the North Atlantic, you cannot publicly

come out for a party; even in management at the College of the North Atlantic,

you cannot do that. Even that can be seen as a potential conflict of interest.

So, if it is not okay for somebody in the College of the North Atlantic in

management to be aligned with a party publicly, why do we think that it is

strange for us who are saying it, strange for us to be pointing out, that having

somebody who is so openly aligned with the party - it is fine to be aligned with

a party. I have been aligned with a party all my life, but I have never asked -

I should not put it that way. I have never had to deal with being put in the

position of conflict of interest. I have never done that. So, why do it now, my

colleagues across the House? I cannot understand it. It does not make any sense

to me. Besides the flying in the face of common practice, you are putting us,

again, in an embarrassing position when it comes to the public.

This House has had quite a bit of public criticism over the last months,

going back to last June. People see the House of Assembly being run by its own

rules. You know, we just had a really good thing happen with the Internal

Economy Committee making its own decision to now hold its meetings publicly. So

we are starting to take steps to break through that notion that we are in this

enclave here and we think that we are different from everybody else, that we do

not have to live by the same rules as anybody else, that we do not have to

govern ourselves in the same way as anybody else.

The confusion for me, as a new member of the House, and as a new member in

the political system, the way I am now in it, is that it seems to me that we

should be the shining paragons. We should be the ones who are showing the public

how to do things, not going against the things that society says are the way to

do it. We should be showing, not only do we agree with the practices in society

but we carried it on as far as we can carry it on, that we are the paragons.

What we are doing here by voting to have somebody who is politically aligned

to be in this position of tremendous responsibility in our political system, we

are saying to the general public: We have our own rules; we can do what we want

in the House of Assembly. The general rules do not apply to us, do not mean a

thing. We can do whatever we want in here.

That is the message that we are sending to the general public with this

decision. It really bothers me. It really upsets me. I feel like I am going to

be going around, when this motion gets passed - because I have no doubt that the

government is going to pass its own motion - I am going to find myself going

around apologizing for looking like we consider ourselves different than

everybody else.

We have to stop talking about things on a personal level. There are

principles at play, and principles are so important, so this has nothing to do

with the person of Mr. Reynolds. I have no doubt, from those who know him, that

everything that has been said about him is correct. I did not even live in the

Province, I don't think, when he was mayor, so I have no doubt he was a

wonderful mayor, but that is irrelevant. It is completely and totally

irrelevant, because we are setting a precedent that can be very, very

problematic.

We just cannot be doing things on this personal level. So I am not impressed

when my colleague from across the room says all these wonderful personal things

about Mr. Reynolds. I am sure they are true, and I am sure that if he and I were

to meet each other we would be able to talk to each other and have a good time

together; I have no doubt about that. It is irrelevant; it does not mean a

thing.

Here we are dealing with a decision for an extremely important position in

our system, and I am not saying that by putting Mr. Reynolds in it we are

compromising the position. I am saying that there will be the perception of

conflict of interest. We should know by now in the public sphere that perception

is reality. That is the reality, that perception is the reality.

As much as I hate that, as much as I would like to think that people can be

open and people will not go by perceptions, people do go by perception. That is

reality. So, being perceived as being in a conflict of interest position, being

perceived as being in a position where one could potentially do something for

one's own good or for one's friends own good, just being perceived that way

makes it a reality. Unfortunately, that is true, so I have no choice but to

stand here and to say that I vote against this motion.

I read Hansard when my predecessor did the same thing with Mr. Chuck Furey,

and my predecessor and Mr. Chuck Furey were friends. My predecessor turned to

Mr. Chuck Furey and said to him: Now, Chuck, you know, take this all right; but,

buddy, I can't vote for this motion, and I can't do it because of the

principle of conflict of interest - a principle that we find in law, a principle

that we find in every sphere in our society.

You know I would love to think that the government would be convinced by the

arguments that some of us are putting forth. I would love to think that you

would say: Oh, we have made a mistake.

That would be wonderful, if you did that. Not that you made a mistake in

judging Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Reynolds' character, but that you made a mistake

in going against something that is so prevalent in our society and doing

something that no other area in the country, no other provinces, are doing. It

makes so much sense to have somebody who has been inside of the system, the

governmental system, the bureaucracy, in this position. It makes so much sense

to have somebody who has had to have been in positions where they are

interest-free coming into this position. It is essential. As I have said, that

seems absolutely logically to me.

I am not going to stand up for the sake of standing. I do not want to beat

this to death. I have said what I have had to say very clearly, I think.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for my time today and, as I said, I will have to

vote against this motion.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to rise in support of this

motion and of Mr. Reynolds moving into the position of Chief Electoral Officer.

I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker, I did not know Mr. Reynolds personally. I

have heard certain things about him. Therefore, before I decided to get up and

speak, I wanted to check as to Mr. Reynolds' credentials, and so on and so

forth.

A very important characteristic that I like to judge people on - certainly,

there are two things. Qualifications is always a consideration when you are

moving into a position of authority, but also I find it good to get impressions.

Therefore, as I sought out certain things about Mr. Reynolds, I spoke to people

who knew him. I guess, Mr. Speaker, when you speak to people one-on-one

sometimes they are very much more apt to speak to you honestly than if they are

in a larger group setting.

Some of the things that I heard about him: In his role as a volunteer, he was

spoken of very highly as someone who gives energy and brings vibrancy to the

positions that he got into. Those people I spoke to, spoke very highly of him in

that regard. Equally, I heard about his role in municipal politics. I think the

words that I heard would be dignity in which he carried out that role. Likewise,

some of his business associates spoke very highly of him in that regard.

If I were to couple those kinds of comments that I heard with the credentials

that this gentleman carries with him, I am then able to make a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you, Sir, that I have no - absolutely no - problem in

supporting this motion and supporting Mr. Reynolds who, as people have

indicated, is here in gallery, supporting moving him into this role, one that I

think he will carry out very efficiently.

What is the type of individual we want in these positions? Well, we certainly

want people who are efficient, who are organized, who are effective. This gives

them the capacity to carry out the role that they are to take on, and I think

that Mr. Reynolds is such a character.

Now, as some people have alluded to, as the Deputy Premier alluded to, I must

credit him with the good sense of aligning himself with the Progressive

Conservatives. I do not think he can be faulted for that, but I also think that

he is such an individual that, once he enters into this role, then he will

diligently carry out his job in that, and the politics gets parted along the

way.

If we were to look at positions of authority, and consider individuals who

have political alliances, and that we would or would not appoint somebody based

on those grounds, then I think we are doing ourselves an injustice. In fact, it

automatically discredits some people from moving into positions where they would

be more than apt to fit. If you look at it from that perspective, it is a form

of discrimination.

Again, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi alluded to, I do want to beat

this to death and I do not want to repeat things that have been said by

individuals, but if we look at the former gentleman who held the position, Mr.

Furey, when I voted to support his moving into that position, I certainly did

not consider his political stripe.

Likewise, you looked at the credentials and the impressions that were given

to you about Mr. Furey and you made a decision based on those types of things.

As a result, Mr. Furey was placed into that position.

As the Deputy Premier said, members opposite voted to support Mr. Furey. Some

opted not to, for the reasons that they gave here today as to why they are not

supporting Mr. Reynolds, and that is their prerogative; but, from where I sit, I

certainly do not think that someone should be denied going into a position

because of their political stripe.

The Member for Signal Hill said that perception is reality. Well, in cases,

that may very well be, but I do not think that in all instances we should decide

against a particular individual because of the perceptions of some people.

People will make their own determinations, they will form their own judgements,

and there may be a perception, but the bottom line for me is: Can the person

going into the position do the job? Do they have the credentials? Does their

past history support them moving into that position? Again, just as it was for

Mr. Furey, I say the same of Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. Furey, in his role, this side supported him. I do not think anybody on

this side felt that Mr. Furey was not apt to carry out his job because he had an

affiliation with the Liberal Party. If that were the case, we would be making

judgements about the Public Service that, you know, certain people would not be

placed in positions because of this. Then we look at where the democratic

process is.

So, you know, should Mr. Reynolds not be supported because of this, because

of some past role? Should I or an individual out there be denied a position

because of some past association with a party or a particular group out in

society? I certainly would not agree with that and support that. To me, it is a

form of discrimination and therefore it is not grounds for denying someone to

move into a particular position.

Again, as I have already said, members on both sides have supported

individuals such as Mr. Furey. Likewise, as has already been mentioned, there

will be some who will not support and others who will.

Mr. Speaker, I can stand here and continue to rehash this, but I conclude

with what I started out by saying: My decision is based on impressions that I

get from people who know individuals such as Mr. Reynolds. It is also based on

the qualifications and the credentials that an individual brings to a particular

job. In the case of Mr. Reynolds, I think he will carry out his duty diligently,

effectively, and we will see in the end that this gentleman will do a good job.

I cannot allow my decision to be based on perceptions. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I will be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity to stand and speak on the recommendation of the Chief

Electoral Officer here in the House. It is with great pride that I will be able

to do it.

I hear already the people across the way because I guess they know that I

will not be voting for this recommendation off the front, so I guess I am being

heckled right away because I do not agree with the government. I can tell the

members opposite that I am a man who was elected by the people of the Bay of

Islands and I am going to speak and say what I think is right on behalf of the

people of the Province, not because I am just told to do something. You can

heckle as much as you like; I will not be changing my vote here today.

I heard the Deputy Premier here today talking about what a great - his words

were, how glad he was that he was involved, he was smart enough to be involved,

with the PC Party. That is fine. The man admitted that publicly. I just find it

so ironic that, when the election for Humber Valley took place and it was down

to seven or eight votes, here is the Deputy Premier of this Province complaining

because the sister of the candidate who was elected, who was the returning

officer, I say, for at least twenty years, complaining how it may be perceived

as conflict, and how a ballot box was put into the member's home for the last

twenty or twenty-five years, that he happened to own - the Member for Terra Nova

said they were put in his home also, or around in seniors' homes across the

Province, whoever wants them at the time - and how he said: Well, we should not

have let the ballot box be moved around. There may have been something done

wrong there, to give two seniors a chance to vote, so we are going to have it

looked into - all because of politics. Yet, we are supposed to vote for a man

here now that the Deputy Premier stands up and says: Oh, he had the wisdom to be

part of the PC Party. I just find it a bit ironic, actually.

Mr. Paul Reynolds, I never met the man in my life. The first time I saw him

was here today. I never met the man before in my life. I would not know him -

except for today - if walked into him somewhere along the street. I would not

have a clue who he was.

I know one of my colleagues brought it up earlier about all of the youth

leaving the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of the people looking for

a job. Mr. Reynolds, I understand, is retired now from a position earlier,

collecting a pension, or saved up for his own pension, however it works. Here we

are again, another $100,000 or $125,000-a-year job. Here are a lot of young

people over there, job fairs, 9,000 or 10,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Here we are,