December 6, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV

No. 42

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

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

hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the

District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of St.

John's North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour

Grace.

The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to the Newfoundland Ranger

Force. The Newfoundland Ranger Force was a police force established by

Commission of Government in 1935 to police rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Between 1935 and 1950, 204 men served as Rangers, and five men served as Chief

Rangers.

The Newfoundland Ranger Force was an integral part of the Commission of

Government's plans to rehabilitate Newfoundland. The Commission reformed

existing institutions within Newfoundland, such as the customs service and the

fishing industry, but it also created the Newfoundland Ranger Force. The Rangers

worked for every government department and could be asked to enforce any

government regulation.

As the Ranger Force grew and expanded, the Rangers began to build a

reputation for themselves and in most areas they were the only representatives

of government and many requests were made of their services.

At midnight on July 31, 1950, the Ranger Force ceased to exist when its

members were absorbed into the RCMP. The Force existed for a mere fifteen years;

yet, it left a monumental mark on Newfoundland's history. In 1980, a memorial

plaque containing the names of all who served in the Newfoundland Ranger Force

was unveiled by Newfoundland's Finance Minister at the time, Dr. John Collins,

on the grounds of the Colonial Building.

Mr. Speaker, over my lifetime, I have had the honour and privilege of meeting

many of these former Rangers. While many of the former Rangers are now deceased,

the plaque commemorates over fifteen years of service by a group of men to whom

Newfoundlanders owe a considerable debt for the peace, order and good government

that is part of our heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this hon. House to join me today as we pay

tribute to the Newfoundland Ranger Force which served the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador from 1935 to 1950.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to Nish

Paul, a champion of native culture, a father, grandfather, husband and a great

friend, who passed away on November 19 after a short illness at the age of

sixty-seven. The Exploits Valley is still mourning this great loss.

Mr. Paul was an honorary chief of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians,

former vice-chief of the Sple'tk First Nations, and a member of the board of

directors. Nish Paul was a logger on the Badger Drive, and he and his family

spent a lot of time on the Exploits River where his father owned traditional

hunting grounds.

Mr. Speaker, Nish Paul contributed a great deal to the area through his

volunteerism and contribution to various organizations. In fact, the last time I

saw Nish in public was in October when he volunteered at the fundraiser in

Badger for the Stephenville flood victims. At that time, he entertained us with

his accordion music and song, and he had the audience in stitches with the jokes

that only Nish could tell.

One of his dreams was to have a lodge with eagles on the Exploits River. He

built the lodge with the help of his wife, Rita Curtis. He entertained people

from all over the world, and they praised his hospitality and how much he made

people welcome in our Province.

Nish Paul loved children, and he could amuse them for hours with his

storytelling, and the same held true for adults. Nish Paul was also a noted

craftsman and used to make native beads and necklaces, talking sticks and wood

carvings.

Nish Paul was loved by all who knew him and he will be sadly missed.

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

expressing condolences to his wife, Rita and family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, last week I was proud to attend the unveiling

of a monument built on the property where St. Patrick's Hall once stood. This

monument will serve as a reminder of the outstanding history of St. Pat's from

the old school on Queen's Road to the new schools on Bonaventure Avenue and

Merrymeeting Road.

The unveiling was the culmination of two years' work by a committee chaired

by Vince Withers, with members Joe Mulrooney, Kevin Fisher, Walter Dalton and

John Byrne, who unfortunately succumbed to cancer some months ago. Special

mention must be made of the other member, Sandy Roache, who was project director

and played a major role throughout.

The monument, designed by personnel at the Grand Concourse, features a

sixteen-foot bronze plaque on which artist, Jim Maunder, has depicted scenes to

illustrate the many aspects of life at St. Pat's.

It is estimated that some 35,000 students went to St. Pat's and many

memories were created, but, Mr. Speaker, I believe I would be remiss, as an

ex-pupil of St. Pat's, if I did not take advantage of this occasion to mention

one outstanding highlight, the 1960 Boyle trophy win over St. Bon's.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to recognize this monument

committee who have succeeded in marking in a lasting way the rich history of St.

Patrick's Hall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Ms Sonya Williams, who has become

the Province's first and only female fire chief.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: After 175 years of providing fire protection in the historic

Conception Bay town, the brigades only female member was elected fire chief

earlier this month during the brigade's annual meeting and election of

officers.

Sonya has served with the Harbour Grace brigade for twelve years, the last

two as crew chief, which makes her the longest serving female volunteer

firefighter in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, outside her involvement with the fire brigade, she is active in

her community in the field of sports and recreation. She coaches minor hockey at

the Atom level, was the first female coach with both the Harbour Grace and

Conception Bay North minor hockey leagues.

Also, as a member of the legendary Williams family of rowers, she is active

as a coxswain at the annual Harbour Grace Regatta. During the annual Regatta

last summer, she coxed a crew, which set a record in the Junior Ladies race.

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

congratulating Sonya Williams, the Province's and the Harbour Grace Volunteer

Fire Brigade's first female fire chief.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind hon. members of this House about an

exciting upcoming event for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. On January

7, 2006, Stephenville will host the CBC's Hockey Day in Canada.

Since 2000, this yearly tradition has seen the CBC travel to communities

throughout the country to highlight the diversity and uniqueness of Canada, and

to tell the story of how hockey has become one of our most beloved national

pastimes.

This year, this event will include thirteen-and-a-half hours of hockey

coverage, including an all-Canadian NHL tripleheader, community profiles and

individual features.

High profile Canadian media personalities, Ron MacLean and Don Cherry, will

be rink side at the Stephenville Dome, where they will showcase Stephenville to

the rest of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the West Coast of our Province is a hotbed

for hockey. From the rivalry between the Corner Brook Royals and Deer Lake Red

Wings, to the competition that thrives in junior and minor hockey from

Stephenville to Port aux Basques and all points in between. The West Coast and,

indeed, our entire Province, has a tremendous history in the game of hockey.

In fact, we have produced some outstanding talent throughout the years,

including the talented Faulkner brothers, the legendary Bob Cole, and the young

up-and-comers that we watch every week on Hockey Night in Canada.

And I have no doubt that this event will inspire a whole new generation of

young girls and boys to follow their dreams on the ice. In fact, I understand

that minor hockey in the region has grown in anticipation of the January 7

event.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that 2005 has been a very, very difficult year for

Stephenville and the Bay St. George region. Yet, despite the challenges, we have

all seen the strength and resilience of the people of the region, and I have

seen their resolve to move forward to build a strong and a vibrant region. I can

think of no more fitting way to start the new year for the people of

Stephenville than to celebrate their pride in their hometown, and for this pride

to be broadcast right across this great country.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to welcoming the CBC and our fellow Canadians to

Stephenville for Hockey Day in Canada. To paraphrase the great Foster Hewitt, we

welcome hockey fans from Canada and the United States to our Province for Hockey

Day in Canada.

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.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: I thank the Premier for an advance copy of the statement made

here today.

I can assure the House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, there is

no one more proud of having Hockey Day in Canada in Stephenville than I am.

I have a bit of a history with Ron MacLean, through the Canadian Paraplegic

Association, over the last five or six years. In the last little while, when

Newfoundland and Labrador was considering it, Ron asked Joel Darling, the CBC

producer for Hockey Night in Canada, to contact me and provide him with some

information. Over the three or four months prior, we were back and forth with

information on different communities in and around the Western Region to see

where they would go to Western Newfoundland for Hockey Day in Canada. When the

floods in Stephenville arose, I think they made their decision very easily.

I thank Hockey Day in Canada, and Joel Darling, the CBC producer, for making

this decision for Stephenville because it will be great for Stephenville.

The other thing on Ron MacLean that I am not sure a lot of people know - of

course, we know his stature with CBC - Ron MacLean is also the national

spokesperson for the Canadian Paraplegic Association for Canada. He makes it one

of his pet things, that he travels around Canada and, just about every place he

goes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JOYCE: - he gets himself involved with the Canadian Paraplegic

Association through a dinner, visiting the rehab centres, visiting people. On

January 4, he is having a dinner in Corner Brook, on behalf of the Canadian

Paraplegic Association also in Cormack, so he is coming to Corner Brook to have

that dinner.

Congratulations to Stephenville and the Bay St. George region. It is a

deserving and well-fitting tribute to the area. As the Premier has stated,

hockey rivalry in Western Newfoundland is second to none. This will highlight

the hockey rivalry in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in that region.

Myself, personally, I just want to welcome Ron MacLean. I want to welcome all

CBC, the people who are coming in. There are going to be a host of people coming

in to do special tributes all during the week, so this is just not a hockey day;

it is going to be a long-time tribute to the Stephenville area.

Congratulations. I am sure Newfoundland and Labrador, and all the people in

this House of Assembly, will welcome them all. We cannot wait to see the profile

that is going to done on the Bay St. George region.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the Premier for a copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, this is a big day for Stephenville and area, and the entire

Province, where they will be showcased to the rest of the country. As was said

by previous speakers, hockey is a very important sport in this Province and in

the country. It is a national pastime. The people who will be in Stephenville

during this period of time are certainly household names throughout this

country; better known, I might say, than any of the politicians in the country.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of minor hockey, I think we need also to congratulate

the many volunteers who give unselfishly of their time to make sure that hockey

flourishes not only in our Province but in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

I should have gotten that minor detail out of the way at the beginning, but -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

As the Premier mentioned in his statement, Mr. Speaker, with hockey from our

Province, you know, we did have legends like the Faulkner brothers and Bob Cole.

There is one other person who has lived in my district now for the past twenty

or thirty years who I want to mention as well, who caused quite a stir in

provincial hockey in this Province, and that is a guy by the name of Jimmy Dawe,

whose name to, certainly, us -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: - has done much for hockey in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this will be a big day for Stephenville and the area, as I said.

There is only one thing I would like to say: It is too bad that the House is

not open in January. Maybe we could have Don Cherry here during Question Period

to lay some order to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible for the Status

of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize December 6 as the

National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This day was

established in 1991 by the Parliament of Canada, to remember the Montreal

Massacre.

On December 6, 1989, Marc Lepine walked into L'Ecole Polytechnique in

Montreal and opened fire, shooting twenty-seven female engineering students.

Fourteen of these women died, making this the worst mass murder in the history

of our country.

As a university student at the time, I remember the day vividly. I was

attending the University of Toronto at the time, doing my Masters in Social

Work. I remember going home from class to hear the news of what had happened. In

the days that followed, there were many emotional discussions with my

classmates, social workers, one of whom was Lisa Zigler who is now the Executive

Director of the St. John's Status of Women's Council. We were all shocked by

the brutality against these women, and questioned how such a tragedy could

possibly have happened.

Sixteen years later, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is more important than ever

that we remember the events of December 6, 1989. In addition to reflecting on

the victims, we can also use this time as an opportunity to think about the

women in our own lives and the difference they make in our homes, communities

and workplaces. It becomes quite clear then, Mr. Speaker, that all women deserve

to be treated with respect and dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked that a purple ribbon be distributed to each member

of the House today. The flags at the Confederation Building have also been

placed at half-mast. As you pin on your purple ribbon, and as you look up at the

flags, I ask you to stop for a moment and remember those women who were killed

sixteen years ago.

As we approach the holiday season, it becomes increasingly important for us

to reflect on the many good fortunes and loved ones that surround us. Many of

us, this past weekend, spent time with our families, shopping, putting up

decorations, and getting ourselves into the holiday spirit; but, for the

families of those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy, and for families who

have been impacted by violence, this coming season will still carry with it

tremendous sadness and loss.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my hon. colleagues join me in a minute of silence out

of respect for the victims, and to remind each of us of the importance and

impact all women have in our communities and on our individual lives.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If we could hear the respondents first, before we have the

minute of silence, I think it would be appropriate.

Are there respondents from the Opposition, to the statement?

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, it is on this anniversary date that we are still reminded of

the tremendous violence that is fostered against women in our society for just

being women.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all have a role, not just in this Assembly but

outside and in our lives, to ensure that violence is curbed in society, in our

homes, in our families, our community, and throughout our Province. Mr. Speaker,

that starts by supporting programs that support the victims of violence. That

means continuing the support for family violence initiatives, for the violence

prevention initiative which I know right now is waiting to see that it will be

funded, and I hope that it will be funded over the next few years.

Unfortunately, it is on this anniversary date that we are all reminded;

reminded of the terrible, terrible situation that took place in Montreal those

years ago. I think it is also a time for all of us to reflect and to remember

who those victims were.

Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of yourself and of the Legislature, I would

like to read the names of those women into our Legislature. There were fourteen

women who were victims: Genevi P ve

Bergeron, who was twenty one; H l P ne

Colgan, who was twenty-three; Nathalie Croteau, who was twenty-three; Barbara

Daigneault, who was twenty-two; Anne-Marie Edward, who was twenty-one; Maud

Haviernick who was twenty-nine; Barbara Marie Klucznik who was thirty-one;

Maryse Lagani P re

who was twenty-five; Maryse Leclair who was twenty-three; Anne-Marie Lemay who

was twenty-two; Sonia Pelletier who was twenty-eight, and Sonia was to graduate

on December 7, 1989, the day after the massacre; Mich P le

Richard who was twenty-one; Annie St.-Arneault who was twenty-three; and Annie

Turcotte who was twenty-one.

Mr. Speaker, may we keep in mind the names of those fourteen victims as we

have our moment of remembrance today, but we also remember the many other

victims who are out there in our Province and who still need our support and our

assistance to curb family violence and violence in general in our Province.

Today, Minister, I say to you, that we are pleased to stand on this

anniversary date and share in the statement that you have prepared for our

Legislature.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against

Women. The names of the individuals just read out, we must remember, were

murdered because they were women. The killer went into a classroom, separated

the men from the women, and killed the women. That is why, aside from the number

of people who were killed, this day is of such significance in this country,

because not only are we being asked to remember but we are asked to take action.

As Joe Hill said, a famous union organizer of the last century: Mourn the dead

but fight for the living. The action that is taken in remembrance of what

happened is, I think, what is important to also to focus on today.

I want to pay tribute today, in addition to remembering these women, to the

women of Newfoundland and Labrador who spend their time fighting for greater

equality for women, fighting to improve programs and prevention of violence

against women and working to achieve equality between men and women in our

Province, because it is the attitudes of inequality that allow this sort of

thing to happen, that it is all right to use power against women, that it is all

right to treat women differently than men. That attitude is the foundation of

the grossest kind of discrimination that was witnessed obviously in 1989.

I join in remembering these women and the terrible tragedy that took place,

but also in commending all those women and men who support the cause of

eliminating violence against women and creating a more equal society.

MR. SPEAKER: I would invite all members of the House, all visitors in the

gallery, and all those who are listening on radio or watching on television, to

stand with the members of the House in the moment of silence.

[Members observe a moment of silence]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time in furtherance of notice which I gave yesterday, that I

would on today be rising on a point of privilege.

The point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, concerns yourself and your appearance in

a political advertisement this past weekend in The Telegram , in

particular, this photo here, which I will table along with my subsequent motion.

You appeared in an ad in The Telegram with other provincial MHAs

endorsing the Conservative candidate in the federal election.

First of all, I would like -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker wishes to say that in reference to directions in Marleau and

Monpetit, we should be very careful in how we approach this particular matter. I

would certainly ask the member for his co-operation.

On one previous occasion, the Chair did permit this particular - to say that

the member is rising on a point of privilege, I take points of privilege very,

very seriously. However, in this particular matter we should be careful that we

do not offend the procedures of the House and that these matters probably should

be taken in discussion privately with the Speaker, but in this particular

matter, I am satisfied that the member can proceed. I ask him if he would make

his presentation rather quickly and to the point.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect, I think a point of privilege - I am not aware of any

rules of any parliamentary authority whereby you put a time restriction on how

long it takes for the member, who raises the point of issue, to state his case.

I certainly do not intend, nor would I ever offend this House or any person

who is an Officer of this House or a member of this House and I certainly do not

intend, by my comments today, to be contemptuous of the Chair or any person who

might occupy the Chair or any seat in this House, but I do feel it is of such

seriousness and importance and that is why I proceed to raise it as a point of

privilege - which is not your typical point of order that someone might raise

and you get to decide the duration of the point of order or how long they might

speak to it.

Again, I say it is a point of privilege. It is very serious, and it concerns

yourself as the Speaker and your appearance in a political advertisement this

past weekend in The Telegram , which I will table when I table my

subsequent motion.

First of all, I would like to lay the groundwork for the point of privilege.

Again, the people in this House may understand what a point of privilege is all

about and the criteria that one needs to satisfy to have it heard and made, but,

again, I think this is in the public interest to have this properly explained

and laid out.

So, the groundwork; of course, I must state, as the person raising the point

of privilege, what the point of privilege is and the circumstances that I feel

are necessary in order to make it because you do not make such a motion

frivolously.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one can consult any of the authorities that you would like

on parliamentary procedure, Beauchesne or Marleau and Montpetit that you

referenced, but the basic principles are the same when it comes to making a

point of privilege. Freedom of Speech, or an infringement of one's Freedom of

Speech in the House of Assembly is considered the most obvious and clearest

violation of a member's privilege. Some authorities, in fact, feel that is the

only thing you can raise as a point of privilege, but I would submit that even

more basic and implicit a privilege and an expectation of Members of the House

of Assembly and the public is that the Speaker is to be impartial and non-bias.

In fact, the Speaker in the current sitting of the House was elected for the

first time in the history of our House, when this new government took office

back in November, 2003.

Any actions by the Speaker which bring his or her personal opinion or

political affiliation or biases into play would constitute, I submit, a breach

of privilege. There is a saying in the legal system: A justice must not only be

done, it must be seen to be done. I would submit, the same applies to the role

of Speaker of the House of Assembly.

Our parliamentary system is based on democratic principles and our democratic

principles are exercised in this House and it is required, absolutely, that the

Speaker must be impartial and unbiased and must not be seen as being partial or

biased. The actions of the Speaker are also judged, not only what he or she does

while sitting in the Chair or within the precincts of Parliament, but also takes

into considerations the actions of the Speaker, generally, including what he

might do in public.

I refer in particular to item 168(2), on page 49 of Beauchesne . It

says, "In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually

relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not

attend any party caucus nor take

part in any outside partisan political

activity."

This brings me to the details of the photo of this Saturday's edition of The

Telegram which, number one, it is clear that this is a public document

because it was circulated by way of a newspaper. Number two, it is obvious that

the Speaker appears in the photo. Number three, it is quite clear that the photo

was taken in the government common room, which is in the precincts of the House

of Assembly. Also, the Chair of Committees, who is, I believe, the Member for

St. John's West, is also in the photo. In fact, in full dress and garb that

she wears when she is fulfilling her role as the Chairperson of Committees in

this House. It is also clear from this advertisement that it is an endorsement

of a particular political candidate, Mr. Hearn, who is involved in the current

federal election. It is also clear that this is an endorsement of a particular

political party. It says in the bottom lefthand corner, it is the Conservative

Party. These are the facts.

Under our system, when one raises a point of privilege, there is a two-stage

process that needs to be gone through. First, normally the Speaker, once the

point of privilege is made, would decide whether or not there is a prima facie

case, that there has in fact been a breach of privilege. In other words, is

there any evidence whatsoever that one can look to, to at least establish that a

case might exist on a prima facie basis so that it could be sent to, then, the

House of Assembly to be dealt with?

Now, we have a problem here. That is step one; the Speaker decides if there

is a prima facie case. If there is a prima facie case, it is not dealt with by

the Speaker; it is dealt with by the House. That is in step two; and, in step

two, normally the matter would be referred to the Privileges and Elections

Committee of the House, which Committee would consider the merits of the motion,

and the facts, and decide if indeed there was a breach of privilege and, if

there was, what an appropriate remedy might be.

We have a Catch-22 in this situation, and that is: The very person against

whom the point of privilege is being raised, the Speaker, is the person who,

under step one, would normally decide if there is a prima facie case. How can we

ask, or even expect, the very person who is the subject of the point of

privilege to be both the judge and the jury to this step one process when he is

the subject of the complaint? Which brings us to the quandary of: How do we

ensure that there is a impartial and unbiased hearing in step one, the prima

facie step?

This situation would normally be resolved, I would think, if it involves that

situation, that Catch-22, by asking the Deputy Speaker or the Chairperson of

Committees to handle that step; however, we have a problem there. Our Deputy

Speaker is not elected by all of us here. The Deputy Speaker - and I do not

think there should be any pretense about it - is an appointee of the government,

so I think that is quite obvious. I think it is also quite clear that we cannot

ask the Chairperson of Committees to substitute for the Speaker in step one,

since the Chairperson of Committees is, herself, in the same photo. So, we have

a dilemma: What is the solution to get us even past step one?

Now, we might normally resolve that by asking for some assistance from an

outside parliamentary source. For example, we might go to some other democratic

body in Canada, some other Legislature, and ask for their Speaker to assist us

in unravelling it, but we have a further problem because our Speaker is the

Chair of the Canadian Parliamentary Association, which I think, in and of

itself, compromises asking anyone from that association to intervene.

So, where does one go? Mr. Speaker, I suggest the only option we have, and I

do not think this is far-fetched at all, is that we need and have to ask someone

- to ensure complete impartiality and unbiasedness on step one - we would need

to ask someone from where we took our roots. Let's ask the British House of

Commons to intervene to do the step one process.

The next issue, once we have gotten past the step one Catch-22 problem, and

assuming, when that step one is done, that a prima facie case is established and

that it gets referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections, our Standing

Orders, Order 65.(1)(

e) permits for the appointment of a Privileges and

Elections Committee, but it is my understanding that our Privileges and

Elections Committee has not been struck. I notice from the board outside the

Speaker's Office there is a Striking Committee, and the Striking Committee

has, indeed, struck a number of other committees of this House, but the

Privileges and Elections Committee, to which this motion, this point of

privilege, would normally be referred, has not been struck.

Even assuming we get past step one and we go to step two to have this matter

dealt with by the House Committee, we do not have that Committee in existence,

which raises the issue of that Striking Committee needing to strike that

Committee, because the Speaker is the Chair of the Striking Committee.

Again, we have the dilemma here of making sure that due process is followed.

We are very serious about this point of privilege, I am very serious about this

point of privilege, and I would like to insist upon, I want to insist upon, the

matter unravelling and unfolding as it should. I think the fairest and only way

that we can do that is, in step one, get somebody who is absolutely not biased

and has no role whatsoever to play in our House of Assembly to make that

determination of the prima facie case. Then, I would submit, the fairest way to

do it vis- B -vis

the Striking Committee is that the Speaker would remove himself from the

Striking Committee and have government appoint someone in his stead for the

purpose of having the Striking Committee establish the privileges at Committee.

I would like to conclude by filing the actual motion. I move, seconded by the

Member for Twillingate-Fogo, that, having established a prima facie case of

privilege, this matter be referred to the House Standing Committee on Privileges

and Elections.

I would also table, in support of the motion, along with the comments I have

made, the photograph that came from last week's edition of The Telegram .

I have discussed this matter briefly, privately, with the Government House

Leader before coming here today. I gave the House notice yesterday that I would

be raising it today. I would certainly appreciate the input and comments of the

Government House Leader and the Leader of the NDP as to how they feel we might

best proceed in terms of process, not regarding the merits or non-merits of the

privilege itself, but given the fact that we have this process issues that I

have referred to in terms of step one and step two. Any comments and assistance

they might be able to offer in that regard would be greatly appreciated as well.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Other than hearing the notice of motion yesterday, I have not participated in

any discussions about what procedure might be appropriate in these

circumstances, but I do understand that the question is a serious one that has

been raised by the Opposition House Leader. There are a number of ways that the

question can be dealt with. I guess the question that has to be answered by

someone is: Why is the incident giving rise to the matter, a question of

privileges of members of the House? Or a question that needs to be dealt with,

and someone has to decide whether it was perfectly all right, or whether it was

an error in judgement, or whether it was something more serious than that.

I guess the question is: Who is to decide that matter? It has been suggested

that Your Honour, since you are part of the subject matter of it, is not an

appropriate person to do so. That may or may not be. We know in the legal

context, if we have an objection to a judge hearing a case you raise the matter

with the judge and the judge decides whether he is in a conflict or is not. If

you do not like what he does or she does, you go to the Court of Appeal, but in

the first instance the matter is decided that way. In this case, it would be you

making a decision and if people did not like it, asking the House to overrule

you. That may be too serious a process to undertake in something like this.

The second way that we could deal with it, albeit we do not have a standing

committee on elections and privileges struck, would be to strike such a

committee and simply refer the matter to the committee without having to make

the first decision or assume that the matter that is raised is certainly an

issue of privilege or an issue that needs to be resolved and ask that committee

to consider the matter and make a report back to the House. That way, at least

the House would have the benefit of a judgement on the matter before being asked

to consider whether any action needs to be taken.

So, it seems to me we could bypass the first step, or at least agree that it

is a question which deserves consideration and that perhaps the best body to

consider it would be the standing committee on elections and privileges and that

we will proceed to ensure that such a committee was put in place to refer the

matter directly to. As I have not had an opportunity to give a lot of thought to

this, but it seems to me that rather than put Your Honour in the position of

having to make a judgement, subject only to the House taking a most drastic step

of overruling your judgement on the first question, then we could agree to

bypass the initial ruling and just assume or accept that it is a question, or it

is an issue that raises a question of privileges and one that is appropriate to

be discussed and determined by the committee on elections and privileges. That

is the possible way surrounding it.

As I say, I do not have a definitive answer right now, but I do want to offer

my comments to Your Honour and to the House as to what might be a way around

this solution without asking the Mother of Parliaments to get involved.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a matter that is of

concern to all members, and also of concern to yourself. I think we have to ask

ourselves: What are we trying to accomplish here? I do not think we want to

embarrass the Speaker of the House. I do not think we want to embarrass this

Assembly, under any circumstances. I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

has kind of alluded to that. If there is to be a process and if the Opposition

wants a process and they want an impartial process and a fair process, then,

obviously, there will be that process in this House.

However, I am not so sure as an Assembly that we want to put our Speaker in

that kind of a situation where it gets run through some process and it then

becomes a big issue and it makes it look like something terribly improper was

done. Perhaps this was an error in judgment. I do not know. I have not had an

opportunity to discuss this with the Speaker, nor would I. If it is an error in

judgment - when those of us in this Assembly make errors in judgment from time

to time we deal with it. Within this House we retract or we withdraw, or

whatever we do.

I do not like to see a situation and a process start here where the

conclusion is that we have embarrassed our own Speaker in this Assembly. So, I

am asking hon. members opposite whether there is some other process we could

look at, whether it is worthwhile for the House Leaders to sit down and get

together with the Speaker before we finalize this, at this particular point in

time, and see if we can agree upon a solution that, for want of a better term,

is a better way out than where this could ultimately end up and just become

embarrassing to all of us.

If Opposition members are agreeable to having a discussion about this, either

together or in the presence of the Speaker and any of the officials, then that

is something I would certainly urge you to consider, under the circumstances.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would not have any objection to the suggestion put forward by the Leader

of the NDP, if that is to accept that the prima facie case has been made and

refer the matter - strike the committee and refer it to the committee for

further consideration. We would not have a problem with that. I realize it is

not in conformity with the rules, but, again, it is not the intent here to

embarrass anybody, but it has happened. It is a fact. We need it dealt with and

we need some guidance for future reference as well, as to what is acceptable.

So, I think the House has to deal with the matter. Now, if we bypass step one

and go directly to the committee which would be struck, we would have no problem

with that. The committee would deal with it and do whatever they felt was

necessary and appropriate.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of things, first of all. I do not think that we should automatically

accept that a prima facie case - and for those watching, that means that if we

are making a judgement on a prima facie case, it means that the facts and the

case, as presented by the Opposition House Leader, are strong enough on the face

of it. Thus, prima facie case; on the face of it, that it warrants some sort of

action. So, I do not necessarily accept without doing my own sort of piece of

due diligence, and this is just from the Government House Leader's point of

view on behalf of government, that a prima facie case exists; step number one.

Secondly, in terms of the dilemma that the member described, I understand the

points that he has made and the sort of quandary that he believes the Assembly

may be in. There is nothing to stop any member from putting a substantive motion

forward to deal with the Chair or any belief with respect to the Chair, for all

members, because when it comes down to it, if a point of privilege - and I was

the subject of a point of privilege some years ago. There was no question about

- in terms of when the motion was put forward on a point of privilege, it was

also followed by a substantive motion.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the point of privilege was made by a certain

member supported by other members. They put forward a substantive motion, which

really means, they put forward a remedy that if the member in question, or the

individual in question, if there was a case, that all the Speaker had to do was

decide: was there a point of privilege, and then it is up to members. So, there

is nothing to stop the member opposite, or any other member in this Assembly, at

any point in time, if he or she believes strongly that there is a case exists

whereby their rights and privileges were somehow breached, either directly or

indirectly, or perceived to be breached, as the member alluded to, to putting

forward a substantive motion calling for a remedy.

The point of privilege has been raised. I think we need to look at it.

Whenever a point of privilege is raised it needs to be taken seriously, because

they are raised so infrequently. With respect to how we see this, I certainly

support the recommendation that the Premier has made that maybe the Leader of

the NDP, the Opposition House Leader and myself, as Government House Leader,

have a further conversation about it because in terms of today, the Opposition

House Leader advised that he advised me, and he did, it was around 12:15 that he

would be - he gave notice yesterday of a point of privilege, that it would be

coming.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to leave it, at this point, and see

if there is a way forward.

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

MR. PARSONS: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a

case of just leaving it. This is a point of privilege, and it has been made. I

asked for suggestions, and I appreciate the suggestions. In fact, the Premier

alluded to the fact that, if it is an error in judgement, that is fine, too. If

the Speaker says it was an error in judgement on his part, that is it for me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is not a problem here. If the Speaker says: Look, I did

this and it was an error in judgement on my part... - on we move, and there will

be no need to go anywhere with this. That option is there as well. However, we

can go to the option of the Privileges Committee, whichever way, but we just

cannot leave this dangling. It is serious and, because it is serious, we cannot

leave it dangling by its very nature.

If it was an error in judgement, and that is acknowledged by the Speaker, we

all have to accept that and move on. That is fine with us, too, but there should

be some resolution.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to be very clear, I was not suggesting that it be left in eternity;

but, as the member knows, or ought to know, I think we all understand and know

that points of privilege raised at 2:10 p.m on one day are not ruled on at 2:20

p.m. There needs to be some time to deliberate.

I think all I am speaking to is the process. I am not suggesting in any way,

shape or form - in any way, shape or form - that the matters raised by the

Opposition House Leader are not serious or should not be taken seriously; but,

in order to take them seriously, time and due consideration must be given to

them, as there are and have been with every point of privilege that has been

raised.

That is the point that I make, and I want to be clear with the Opposition

House Leader and members of the House from whence I come on that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one final point. I think the issue has been raised, and quite rightly

so, based on a public publication made widespread throughout the Province. It

has been properly put before the House at the first opportunity for

consideration. I would agree with both speakers that the matter, having been put

before the House, cannot be dropped, does not necessarily have to be dealt with

immediately but should be dealt with, I would think, rather quickly since it

involves the issue of the Chair.

If we cannot deal with it quickly, I think that calls into question us

carrying on. Leaving the matter dangling is, I do not think, appropriate. It may

be appropriate in the case of a member or a question of privilege raised. It is

not so appropriate in the case of the Chair.

I would hope that we could resolve it very quickly, maybe by a quick

consultation or by some other action that might take place, but I would like to

see perhaps even a recess for a few minutes to see whether the matter can be

resolved immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the members for their submissions, and the Chair

will recess the House. I think this matter should be dealt with immediately. I

anticipate that might take about fifteen to twenty minutes but, when we are

ready, we will ring the bells and the House can reconvene. We will then,

hopefully, be able to resolve the matter at that time.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the presentations by all hon. members on the point of

privilege raised by the Opposition House Leader.

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by

each House collectively.... and by Members of each House individually, without

which they could not discharge their functions...." - to quote Marleau and

Montpetit, page 50. In turn, Marleau and Montpetit is quoting Erskine May .

"Privilege essentially belongs to the House as a whole; individual

Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or

threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House. In addition,

individual Members cannot claim privilege or immunity on matters that are

unrelated to their functions in the House."

Since the incident under review deals with matters that occurred outside

parliamentary privileges or proceedings, they cannot be used as a basis of a

question of privilege. I refer members to Maingot, second edition, page 80, and

also to Beauchesne , page 13, 31.(3), "Statements made outside the

House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of

privilege."

By analogy, a picture is also a statement. Thus, the Speaker rules there is

no prima facie case of a breach of parliamentary privilege; however, the Speaker

wishes to further address the matter raised.

The Speaker, in his comments made on November 12, 2003, immediately after

being elected to the Office of the Speaker for the Forty-Fifth House of

Assembly, give guidance in this case to the Speaker on this day.

The Speaker is well aware of a wide variety of acceptable actions by Speakers

with relation to participation in partisan activity within the Commonwealth

Parliaments, and more particularly within the Canadian region. In some Houses

where Speakers are elected by secret ballot, the Speaker attends caucus meetings

and most other political events. However, on November 12, 2003, I stated in this

House that I would not be participating in caucus meetings and would only attend

some social events that are organized by the Progressive Conservative Party. I

have attended the AGM of the Party since 2003, but have not attended any of the

business sessions, for example. In this case I have followed the practice of my

predecessors in this office in this House. I have avoided lunches, dinners, et

cetera, that the Progressive Conservative Party has organized.

Thus, in this context, with reference to my commitments and standards that I

expect from myself, the decision to appear in a partisan political advertisement

was, on reflection, inconsistent with my own standards. The decision to

participate was made rather quickly and, as has happened to all of us on

occasion, we can and do make errors of judgement.

I offer this House my apology and give my assurance that, in spite of what

may occur in other Houses on this type of matter, I am resolved to live up to

the high standards of impartiality I set for myself on November 12, 2003.

I leave the matter of the appointment of a Privileges and Elections Committee

to the House leadership to decide.

Thank you very much.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I talked privately with the minister about the foster

child being removed from the Tulk family home in Pasadena at 1:30 p.m. on

Saturday with not even an opportunity for the Tulk family to say goodbye to

their foster son of two years.

The minister indicated to me, at that time, that the proper process was

followed in this case. I think he indicated the same in his interviews with the

media.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am raising this issue in our Legislature because, if

this is the process we have for the transferring of children from loving,

nurturing foster homes to other care, then our process needs to change.

Now that this issue has been brought to the attention of all MHAs in the

House of Assembly, I ask the minister if he is ready to take the lead on this

and have an investigation done into this matter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue that has been raised by my colleague opposite is certainly an

important one and a sensitive one. As the hon. member knows - who, in the past,

has been the Parliamentary Secretary in the Department of Health - there are

issues with respect to that particular piece of legislation which are private,

sensitive, and are within the knowledge base only of those individuals

concerned, and social workers and so on.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the removal process in this instance was a

very emotional one - there is no question about that - and I will give an

indication, perhaps, as to why. We are dealing with individuals - and I would

submit without exception - who are very close to this little boy. The foster

parents, or care givers in this case, clearly are credible individuals who have

a very loving relationship with this little boy.

We had professional social workers who were doing their job and felt, in a

very real way, they were acting in the best interests of this little boy. We

also have the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services representing the

Labrador-Grenfell region, who is acting in accordance with the law and with the

statute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I know the sensitive nature of the question that is being asked, but I would

ask the minister if he could conclude his comments now very quickly.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the breath to just continue to some extent.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, and I say in response to the question, is that

we are dealing with a sensitive situation; however, being responded to by

individuals who have a close relationship and want to do this particular

procedure appropriately and in accordance with the act.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I have requested a review. I am

expecting a detailed review of the circumstances, but I can assure the hon.

member opposite, that we are dealing - without exception in this particular case

- with individuals who want to ensure that the best interest of this particular

child are protected and in accordance with the legislation, which guides, Mr.

Speaker, the principles which ought to be carried forward in this very sensitive

issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This four-year-old child had originally been in three foster homes before the

age of two years old. Three foster homes in Sheshatshiu, none of which

apparently had worked out. This child had been placed with the Tulk family

twenty-five months ago for care while they were living in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned of the psychological impact that this could have

upon the child, and I think that needs to be given more priority. So, I ask the

minister: Has this child been assessed by a child psychologist prior to being

removed from the Tulk family home?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member opposite, in

particular the hon. member, appreciates the sensitivity of this particular issue

as it relates to guidelines and privacy issues with respect to this particular

act. The principles of the statute clearly indicate that the act recognize that

kinship or family ties are important to a child's self development and growth.

Secondly, that the cultural heritage of a child shall be respected and

connection with a child's cultural heritage preserved.

Mr. Speaker, these are the guiding principles upon which the decision was

made in this particular case. These are the principles upon which the Director

of Child, Youth and Family Services in Labrador Grenfell Region acted. Again, it

is upon that basis that a decision was made. I have indicated, and I have spoken

with my officials, that this particular little boy and his circumstances and his

affairs must be monitored closely by the appropriate director in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay and by the accompanying social workers.

So, in a sense, to response to your question without revealing any privileged

information, which may or may not exist in this particular instance, we have

requested a special monitoring. The issue is quite public. This little boy

requires that sort of attention and monitoring in response, I would say, and I

have asked my officials to ensure that there be close scrutiny, close

supervision of the circumstances, and that any report be brought to my attention

forthwith.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair, and asks members if they would keep their comments within the

sixty-second time limit.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: I think my questions have been brief, Mr. Speaker.

They are very important questions, I want to point out to my colleagues

today.

Mr. Speaker, it has also been brought to my attention that the social worker

who entered the Tulk residence and removed this four-year-old child, apparently

without even waiting for the child's belongings to be gathered, had, indeed,

been terminated from her employment by the Health Labrador Corporation after

working in Sheshatshiu for the past seven months. I have also been told, Mr.

Speaker, that she was not on the payroll of government at the time.

I have to ask the minister if he can explain the situation and what the

employment situation was of this social worker on the day that she entered the

Tulk home and removed the child?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular worker was under contract and was requested to carry out a

specific role and function on behalf of the Labrador Grenfell director. Again,

we have an individual here, Mr. Speaker, who was quite familiar with the

circumstances, quite experienced in this area, and was carrying out work as a

result of a designated responsibly by the director in question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the minister could give me the terms of the

contract, the duration of the contract under which this social worker was

employed by government, and maybe I could even ask that it be tabled in the

Legislature, under these circumstances.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, any designation, or any appointment, or any

direction, any information that may assist in this regard, I will certainly

undertake to provide upon finding same and upon obtaining same from the director

in question.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is important here to realize that the director, in

working closely with his or her social workers, was carrying out a function in

accordance with the legislation, albeit a sensitive issue. Removal of any child

is never pleasant, particularly - and I want to reinforce this point - when we

are dealing with individuals who have a close affection and a close relationship

with this particular little boy. Again, that includes the caregivers in this

case, it includes the social workers in this case, and it includes the Director

of Child, Youth and Family Services who was doing that particular job in

accordance with the laws and the (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the minister feels that because, in his mind, a process was followed,

it is acceptable. I say to the minister, that under child welfare legislation in

this country I think the principal law always is, it is what is in the best

interests of the child that should be looked at first.

That brings me to my final question, Mr. Speaker. In this case we have a

child who was in a loving, caring, nurturing family, not to say that this new

family might not offer that same nurturing environment, but I also understand

that once a child has been placed in permanent care that child is available for

adoption. If that is the case, why were the Tulks refused when they offered to

adopt this child?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: An issue, Mr. Speaker, that it would be most

inappropriate for me to discuss in a public forum. Any particular foster parent,

or caregiver, realizes that a child or, in the case of more than one, children

in the home of that particular caregiver is there on an interim basis. It is not

a permanent relationship, it is a temporary, interim basis. That is the case

here, Mr. Speaker. The appropriate authorities made decisions in accordance with

the act and in accordance with the law. In accordance with the legislation a

decision was made.

I have asked for a review, as has been suggested, and I anticipate receipt of

that information in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night the Eastern School Board is scheduled to release

a consultant's report outlining a multi-year plan for school reorganization in

the Eastern School District. Our office has received several calls from

concerned parents who believe their neighbour schools could be closed if the

recommendations in this report are enacted.

I ask the minister: Have you been provided with a copy of this report and

have you been briefed on its recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there will be a consultant's report that will be

tabled at the school board meeting tomorrow night. I have not received a copy of

the report but I will be briefed on the report and receive a copy tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, previous reports have targeted schools such as St.

Mary's Elementary in the West End of the City and Virginia Park Elementary in

the East End.

I ask the minister: Has government given any indication whether or not these

neighbour schools, along with others, will be targeted for closure as a result

of these recommendations?

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the consultant's

report has been completed, as I just said. It will be shared with the school

board tomorrow. I will be briefed on the report tomorrow, I will receive it

tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, this report was done independent of government, and I

want to make that point. It was not a government document, it is one that was

done by a consultant. We will all receive the report tomorrow. The information

contained in that report will be reviewed by government and by the school board

and by all the parents who may be affected, or the children who may be affected,

by this decision.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speculate at this time and indicate what those

recommendations may be in the report but, in due course, we will all have a look

at that report and be able to evaluate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this report will affect the lives of between

40,000 and 50,000 students in 125 schools in the Eastern School District,

including the Burin, Bonavista and Avalon Peninsulas. Parents are concerned that

consultation on this report will not be inclusive; it will be on an invitation

only basis for those who want to give a presentation to the board.

I ask the minister: Will government ensure that meaningful and inclusive

consultations are undertaken before the implementation of this plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what I want to state here is the fact that this is

a report coming from an independent consultant. This report may not necessarily

be adopted by the board. It may not necessarily be sanctioned by government.

There will be an open consultation process that concerned people, whether it is

parents or others, who want to have input into the consultation process will be

provided with that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, what I do want to state here is that this is an independent

report, and this government, along with the school board, would look at that

report, and this government is committed to doing what we feel is appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that we have had independent

reports before, that she and her government have overruled. Government overruled

the decision of the Central School Board regarding the closure of a school in

Exploits District during a by-election this summer. Government certainly has the

authority and the will to overrule boards if political pressure is strong

enough.

I ask the minister: Why won't you stand up for community schools throughout

the Province and ensure that these schools do not close or are negatively

impacted, instead of hiding behind another board decision or another report when

it is politically correct and politically expedient?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this government is committed to

doing the right thing and taking appropriate action with regard to schools. We

did look at the decision in Bishop's Falls, and the decision that this

government took was the right decision.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want it to be known that I will not be hiding

behind any reports and that I am committed to working with this government and

doing what is right in the field of education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

The Order of Newfoundland and Labrador was created in 2001 to honour

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have made significant contributions to our

Province. Anyone can make nominations for this award, and the selection was made

by an Advisory Committee made up of seven persons: four chosen by the Premier,

the Clerk of the Cabinet, the President of Memorial University, and Chaired by

the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The process has worked very well for the past number of years, and many

dozens of persons have been chosen to be awarded the Order for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Notwithstanding the non-biased and non-political nature of the selection

process to date, this government has gerrymandered the selection process by

kicking the Chief Justice of this Province and the President of MUN off the

selection committee. I ask the Premier: Can you explain why your government has

done this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the Order of Newfoundland first came in place there were no

recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result, then, nobody

was qualified in order to be part of the process. As a result, over the course

of the last couple of years - and a good job done by the selection committee,

and full marks to the Chief Justice and to the President of Memorial University

for having participated in that process - we now have more than a dozen

recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result, it is only

appropriate that some of the people who have been honoured by the people of this

Province with this huge distinction are now part of that committee.

As a result, we have taken the two people who performed a valuable role for

us over the interim period to now move in and be part of that selection process.

Those people will be from the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. As suggested

by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, perhaps there will come a day when all

of the people who are on that selection committee will all be members of the

Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of having recipients play a role in the selection

process is good, but this does not require the kicking off of the two obvious

non-political, non-partisan persons: the Chief Justice of this Province and the

President of Memorial University.

I ask the Premier again: Why do you insist, and this government insist, that

all seven members, 100 per cent of the Advisory Committee, have to be political

appointees: the four you always had, the Clerk of the Cabinet, and now two more

recipients to be chosen by the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Far be it for me, Mr. Speaker, to kick off the Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador from a particular

appointment.

What has happened, as I explained, is that these people have now obviously

served a very useful purpose for the people of the Province and they now have

been replaced by people who have had the distinction of being honoured with the

highest honour that this Province can bestow, and that is the Order of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The hon. gentleman opposite just referred to those people as political

appointees. They are not political appointees, Sir. They are people who earned

that distinction, and they earned it well. Now they will be rewarded by being

able to participate in a process of selecting some of their own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, our selection process was patterned after the

selection process used by the Order of Canada, which includes, right to this

day, as Chair, the Chief Justice of Canada and the Chair of the Federation of

Universities.

Why are we removing these impartial and prestigious positions from our

selection process and politicizing this respected and meritorious award? This is

blatant political interference and political influence. The abilities, the

talents, the accomplishments and the contributions of these recipients should

never be tarnished or tainted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: If having these independent and impartial positions on the

selection committee is good enough for the country on the Order of Canada, why

are they not good enough for our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the hon. gentleman opposite and his

colleagues are minimizing what we have done here. We have bestowed an indeed

greater honour again on the people who are members of the Order of Newfoundland

and Labrador to be able to participate in that selection committee.

Now, if I take his advice and we follow what Canada does, then we would not

have our $2 billion Accord money, or we would not be out trying to get custodial

management, or we would not have the Upper Churchill boondoggle that we have

now.

does. We are going to stand on our own and (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

The Aboriginal Justice project of the Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid

Commission has disclosed widespread problems with fundamental justice in our

Aboriginal communities in Labrador: an inadequate and underfunded court worker

program; a circuit court that does not meet the needs of people to obtain the

right to counsel in appropriate times; and, most disturbing of all, the concerns

about the translation services so that the individuals charged do not know what

is going on and have, in some cases, been pleading guilty to charges when they

did not even know what they were being spoken to.

What does the minister have to say about this report, and how does he respond

to the charge that Aboriginal people have plead guilty or been found guilty

without either knowing the charges they would have to meet or having the right

to make full answer in defense because of inadequate language services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this government is very concerned about

legal services for the people of Northern Labrador and, indeed, all Newfoundland

and Labrador. It is for that reason that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, through the Legal Aid Commission, in fact, requested that a study be

done because of concerns it had with respect to justice services in Labrador.

So, this report, known as the Jenny Reid report, was commissioned by the

Legal Aid Commission of the Province for the purposes of identifying what the

problems were in Labrador, to identify the gaps and services and to make

recommendations to the Legal Aid Commission and to the government as to what

steps we should take to make the necessary corrections. We now have the report,

and the report is now being analyzed.

I have been in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on six occasions meeting with members

of the Inuit and Innu communities. I have met with Jenny Reid. I have met with

members of the Legal Aid Commission. The government has already instituted steps

for Northern Labrador; eleven RCMP officers in Labrador, a new RCMP detachment

in Sheshatshiu, new courthouse in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador

in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the Aboriginal (inaudible) itself. We have lobbied

the federal government to provide 50 per cent of legal aid funding. But, most

important of all, Mr. Speaker, is that we are seeking an agreement with the

Aboriginal communities under the First Nation's Policing Program which will

provide us with at least $1.3 million for additional justice services in

Aboriginal communities in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind ministers to keep their comments within the sixty second

limit.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not question the sincerity and the concern of the minister, but what

causes me concern, Mr. Speaker, is the statement of a provincial court judge on

the radio yesterday, saying: you have a situation where the witnesses ask a

question. There will be a long conversation back and forth between the

interrupter and the witness and you will get an answer, yes or no - clearly

disclosing that what is going on during the translation is not the translation

of what is happening. It is a whole different story that does not necessarily

meet the needs of justice. As a lawyer, I know the minister will know that this

is not totally adequate.

Can he say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - in particular,

Aboriginal people - that they will not be unfairly tried by an inadequate

translation system in the future and that this will not happen and they will be

entitled to the same standard of justice as anyone else in the Province is

entitled to?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

And I certainly share the concerns that have been raised by the hon. Leader

of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, in April of this year I attended a gathering on Aboriginal

justice in Sheshatshiu, along with other members of the department and the Chief

Justice of the Trial Division of Newfoundland and Labrador. We, at that

gathering, and subsequently during the opening of the healing room in the new

Supreme Court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the issue of the needs for Aboriginal

justice in Labrador and one of the highest priorities, of course, was the need

for translation services. When we returned here, the Chief Justice and I had

communication and correspondence that we now had to assure that this matter was

addressed.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have appointed to the Legal Aid Commission, Ms Mary

Adams, who is a translator. We are certainly aware of the problem and we will be

taking the appropriate action. Again, hopefully, through a (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocation for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has expired.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are concerning government's

inability to have equipment and personnel in place for the winter driving season

that is upon us.

The former minister stated that personnel would be place in mid-November,

while the current minister said it would take until December 1. The ministers

have told us that equipment and workers were in place but was heard otherwise

from workers in depots all over this Province.

Can the minster tell us today: With a large storm looming on this Island,

that 100 per cent of their equipment and 100 per cent of personnel are in place

now that it is the first week of December?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, as I said in the House last week, we are, at

this point, fully operational throughout the Province, from the equipment and

personnel perspective, with the exception of the twenty people, I think it is -

maybe twenty, maybe less than that right now - whose positions have not been

filled as a result of retirements and/or vacating positions throughout the year.

Those positions are attempting to be filled. It is being handled by the Public

Service Commission. We would hope that interviews have been done. In some cases,

job offers have been made. What the status of those twenty positions are

exactly, I cannot say for sure, but there is a process that has to be gone

through with the Public Service Commission. That process is being handled in the

appropriate manner.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you can

only start when people retire. You start from the day they retire to replace

them. It is advertised. When a person resigns, then you look for a replacement,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just say to the minister: Why don't you tell the former minister who

publicly said that everybody will be in place by the middle of November? The two

of you cannot be right. So, one of you guys - just go ahead and correct your

views.

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking questions about this issue for three weeks,

and the answers we get from the minister conflict with each worker out there on

the highways, and there are conflicting views here today with what the minister

had said.

As recently as this morning, we heard of reports of trucks being shuffled

around depots due to equipment either being broken down or necessary maintenance

not completed.

Will the minister commit to an overall review of the closing of thirteen

depots to ensure that we do not find ourselves and the highways not prepared for

early winter, like we did before, and have 100 per cent of personnel working?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all of the depots are open. The thirteen depots that were closed

for the summer are all open. They are winter maintenance depots. They are open.

The equipment is as operational as it ever can be at any time in the year. The

fact of the matter is that equipment breaks down from time to time. Maybe if the

previous Administration had not slashed the budget for equipment replacement

from $8 million to $2.5 million when they were in government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - maybe if they had put the $3.5 million back in the budget

like we did in Budget 2005-2006 and bought thirty plows like we did this year,

we would not have equipment in the state of disrepair that we currently have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Last night, CBC television ran a story about the opening of the new College

of the North Atlantic Campus in Qatar. Prominently featured in the story were

Pamela Walsh, former President, and Moya Cahill, former Chair of the Board, who

were in Qatar as official guests of the Qatar Royal Family.

Premier, would you please provide the House of Assembly with an update on the

investigation surrounding the dismissal of both of these individuals from the

College of the North Atlantic, which has been ongoing for two months?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what happened with the President of the College of

the North Atlantic was, the contract had expired and it was the decision that we

would not renew the contract.

Mr. Speaker, if there are any legal issues pertaining to this matter, while

the matters are before the court, we will not be releasing information, but once

the matters have been resolved, of course, they will be a matter of public

record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for a twenty-five second question and a like number of

seconds to reply.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, despite the recommendations of the College in their White Paper

submission where they called for more input on who should be named to the board

of the College, the Premier decided to sack the entire board of the College of

the North Atlantic and appoint a new board blocked with Tories.

Premier, in your haste, you threw the operation of the College into turmoil

because of the lack of continuity. What impact has this short-sighted, crass

political move had on the College's relationship with the Qatari government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, time for a short reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one correction. There was one

person from the former board who remains on the present board.

Mr. Speaker, what is important here is to note that the board of the College

of the North Atlantic is made up of some very credible individuals who represent

every region of this Province. What is also very important about this new board

right now is that we have gender equity on the board. We actually have more

females on the board than males, and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: - Mr. Speaker, it is something I am quite proud of!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Oral Questions has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is where I am supposed to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2004-2005 Annual Report for the

Department of Transportation and Works.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we move to the legislative part, I want to move Motion 5: to move,

pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Tuesday, today; and, Motion 6, to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the

House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock tonight, Tuesday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader has moved, pursuant to Standing Order

11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 6.

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker believes that the ayes' have it.

The hon. the Government House Leader also moves, pursuant to Standing Order

11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 6, 2005.

All those in agreement, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

The motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I am asking the members on the government side and the members on the

Opposition side for their cooperation. I do not wish to name hon. members, but I

shall if I have to. Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 5, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries

Act, Bill 43.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral

Boundaries Act." (Bill 43)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that Bill 43 be now read a second time. Are there

speakers to the bill?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here today to speak to second reading

of

an Act called the Electoral Boundaries Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If we are to continue, we must have cooperation from all hon. members in the

House. The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is making a

presentation relative to a very important bill, Bill 43,

An Act To Amend The

Electoral Boundaries Act, and I would appreciate the cooperation of all members

of the House if we could hear the hon. minister.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 21, 2003, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

sent to this House of Assembly forty-eight members to represent their interests,

to look after their interests, and protect the aspirations and hopes of the

people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, the number of members who were sent in

that election and the names of the districts or constituencies or ridings that

they represent and the boundaries of those districts are set out in

an act, in a

law, of this Legislature, called the House of Assembly Act.

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced legislation in this Province that I think is

quite original for a province in this country. We know today when the next

election is going to be, in October of 2007. There will not be, Mr. Speaker, a

change in the number of members who come to the House in that particular

election. There will not be a change in the names of the districts that the

members represent, and there will not be a change in the boundaries of those

ridings or constituencies or districts unless this House amends The House of

Assembly Act.

Today, we are not amending The House of Assembly Act. Today we are

introducing an amendment to what is known as the Electoral Boundaries Act. In

the Electoral Boundaries Act the Electoral Boundaries Commission that is set up

under that legislation, when it completes the work that it is mandated to do

under the legislation, the Commission will present a report to the Justice

Minister who must lay the report in front of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

or the Cabinet, and also lay the report in this House of Assembly.

The report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, when its work is

completed, will be a recommendation to the House of Assembly or to the

government or to both, and it will then be up to the members of this House to

determine if they wish to accept the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries

Commission. If they do not accept those recommendations and amend The House of

Assembly Act, then the next election in October, 2007, will in fact have

forty-eight seats, and the seats and the districts will be exactly the same as

they are now.

The Electoral Boundaries Act, Mr. Speaker - it might be helpful to just give

an overview of the legislation. The act required that the Electoral Boundaries

Commission come into effect in 2003 and there was, in fact, a commission

appointed under

section 13 of the act. The commission was appointed in 2003, but

it was not appointed until August of 2003. Now, the act contains an interesting

provision, namely that the commission is mandated to complete the work it is

called upon to do in the legislation before the end of the year in which they

are appointed.

What happened with the 2003 commission, Mr. Speaker, as most members here

know, and as we have discussed from time to time in this Assembly, that the

commission being appointed in August did not have a chance to complete its work

before the end of the year because of the lateness of the appointment and

because of the election that came up. So, the commission, at the end of December

of 2003, had no power to do anything further. The government decided in light of

that, and in view of the fact that the government knew and the members know when

the next election will be, that instead of having the commission do its work in

2004, that the government gave a commitment that it would bring in amending

legislation so that the commission will be appointed in 2006 and do its work in

The government, or this House, in the spring session of 2007 can amend the

House of Assembly Act if it chooses to do so. I have been advised by the Chief

Electoral Officer that there will be sufficient time between that session and

the October election for him and his officials to do whatever they have to do to

prepare for the election.

Mr. Speaker, the commission consists of five members. The commission consists

of a chair appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

chair of the last commission was Mr. Justice John O'Neill, and then it is the

Speaker of this House of Assembly who chooses the other four members who make up

the commission.

MS JONES: Are they chosen?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair

asked if they have been chosen, but of course they have not been chosen as yet.

But they will be, once we pass this legislation to create the new commission. As

soon as that happens, the Chief Justice will be written by me and asked to

appoint a chair, and then the Speaker will be directed to appoint the four other

members of the commission. I assume that the Speaker will have consultations

with the party leaders in determining who make up the commission.

Now, the first amendment that will be required is to create a new commission.

What this bill will do will be to create a commission to come into effect in

2006, and there is a consequential amendment required under the 2003

legislation: a new commission comes into existence ten years after 2003 - which

means the next commission would have been in 2013. Now the commission will come

into existence next year, 2006, and every ten years after that. So the following

commission, of course, will be in 2016.

Mr. Speaker, the commission is required, then its mandate is to - well, first

of all, I should say the commission does not have any jurisdiction or authority

to recommend how many seats there should be in the Legislature. Right now, the

House of Assembly clearly states that forty-eight seats are required. So, the

commission now has to carry out its mandate to divide the Province up into

forty-eight electoral districts under the legislation. The commission does this

by - first of all, there is a statutory district set out. The area generally

north of Lake Melville, which I believe is the current district of Torngat

Mountain, is an Aboriginal district. It is made up mainly of Aboriginals, and

this is mandated in the legislation to be the first district.

The commission in the 2003 act is then required to subtract the population of

the Torngat Mountain District from the population of the Province and then,

using the remainder, to divide the remainder by the number forty-seven to

determine a quotient. Then the commission is required to divide the Province,

the Island and the Labrador portion of the Province, into forty-seven further

districts for a total of forty-eight.

In doing that work, the commission is allowed to move from the quotient. They

are allowed to move up 10 per cent or down 10 per cent. I will just find the

appropriate provision here, Mr. Speaker. The commission is entitled to move up

10 per cent or down 10 per cent, but in special circumstances the legislation

permits the commission to deviate from the quotient by much more than that, by

25 per cent in special circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the special circumstance deals with community interest

and, as a result of that, the districts that are on Coastal Labrador and in the

Southwest part of the Island, I think, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape

la Hune and the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the district of the

hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, there is a bit of leeway to the

commission, recognizing that there were no roads in the area to have the

districts determined on the basis of a quotient that is either 25 per cent

greater or 25 per cent less than is the norm under the legislation.

The commission, in doing its work, the 2003 commission, advised me, in my

capacity as Minister of Justice, that, following the rules set out in the

legislation, Labrador would lose a seat and, instead of having four seats, it

would be reduced to three seats.

The government immediately determined, because of this report, and the

uniqueness of Labrador, and the passion the people of Labrador feel for their

Province and their country, that it was important that we maintain the four

seats in Labrador. Therefore, another amendment in this legislation is to

mandate that the commission will come up with four seats in Labrador following

the existing boundaries as they presently exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as a result of that amendment, legislation

will also be amended to reflect that, since Labrador will now maintain four

seats, that leaves forty-four seats; so, the legislation is amended to determine

a quotation by dividing the number forty-four by a remainder that consists of

the population of the Province, subtracting the population of all of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that covers all of the amendments. Again, I should

emphasize the fact that the recommendation of the commission, when the

commission prepares its report, the commission also is required to hold

hearings, mandatory hearings, public consultations. The act requires a minimum

of one on the Island and one in Labrador, but I am sure that this commission,

which will have plenty of time to complete its work, will no doubt have public

consultations in different parts of the Province, at which time the Members of

the House of Assembly and people in the Province can appear before the

commission and give the commission the benefit of their opinions and their views

as to how the commission should appropriately divide up the Province.

After this is done, as I said earlier, the commission will present its report

to the Minister of Justice. The report will be tabled in this House. It will be

brought to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and then the hon. members of this

House can determine whether they wish to amend the House of Assembly Act and

carry out the recommendation of the commission, or otherwise.

That is the intent of the amendments. Apart from assuring that there are four

seats in Labrador, apart from setting up a commission in 2006, and making the

consequential amendment for the further commissions every ten years thereafter,

the legislation stays essentially as it was prior to this amendment being

brought forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments concerning Bill 43, and

respond to the minister's comments and perhaps propose a few questions that

the minister might be able to educate us on, anything that we do not know. There

are certainly a few questions that surround this piece of legislation.

I must say, first of all, I am very surprised that the amendments that we

have here do not include a change of the composition of the committee, given

what we saw happen here yesterday in this House where the Chief Justice of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was kicked off the Advisory Committee for

the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. I notice the government hasn't chosen

to keep the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador off the committee for the

electoral boundaries. In terms of proper people to be on a commission, I think

it was very good that the Chief Justice of this Province stays where he is as a

member of the committee for the electoral boundaries. I mean we are talking here

about the essence of our democratic system, an essential piece of it, i.e. what

are the boundaries going to be of a district and who will be the persons. Of

course, when a person runs for election in this Province, after you will know

what the geographic boundaries are which you represent? It is nice to see that

the Chief Justice of the Province is important enough to play a role in the

selection of the chair of that Electoral Boundaries Commission as opposed to

what we saw here, what the government thinks of the Chief Justice's position

vis- B -vis

being on the Advisory Committee for the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

find that rather inconsistent, actually, in their position.

A couple of questions -

MR. E. BYRNE: We can take him off that if you want.

MR. PARSONS: The Government House Leader's comments across the House

here, that is the exact kind of arrogance and telling comments that we heard.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: If I offended the member when I was shouting something

across the floor, it was said in jest. It wasn't meant to be anything other

than that. Everyone else was in having a bit of a respite from whatever was

happening, Mr. Speaker, so I certainly did not want to offend the hon. member. I

am looking forward to his commentary and, more equally, more importantly, I am

looking forward to having some response time to it.

MR. SPEAKER: There isn't a point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, Mr Speaker, in jest or not, the comment was made, and if a comment is

made across this House which I think educates or informs us as to what this

government is thinking, I will certainly feel free to comment on it. I do not

know if it was said in jest or not, but the comment was made by the Government

House Leader that we can take him off that too, if you want. Given that I was

the person who stood here in this Chamber in the last twenty-four hours and

argued about why the Chief Justice of this Province should not be taken off the

Order of Newfoundland and Labrador's Selection Committee, I find that comment

very telling, and I find it very inconsistent that the government has made the

move that they have.

Now, regarding the committee and the selection committee, again second

reading is a good opportunity to speak to the generics, the general piece of

this piece of legislation, and ask the minister any questions in a general

nature, and allow him an opportunity to compile any information that he needs to

inform us. Obviously we can read the legislation and we can do our own research,

but quite often we cannot find, necessarily, all of the answers that one wishes

to find. That is why we take this opportunity to do that.

I notice the minister commented to my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair, that the committee has not, in fact, been struck yet. One of the

obvious questions here is: Once the legislation is done, does the minister have

any particular timelines as to how that selection would be done? We are getting

towards the end of this year. I realize the committee will have all of 2006,

from the minister's comments. I am just wondering as to whether we are early

in the new year to get that selection process done, because I do believe that

the earlier an opportunity the committee is struck the more opportunity they

have to consider this issue, to ensure that we are back here by 2007 so that we

can do whatever government deems necessary to do here.

Of course, it is fair in the sense that everybody here gets a say in this

committee. The Act itself provides that there be a chairperson and that each

political party represented in the process plays a role in this committee. That

is, in fact, a very good system, it is very ideal. Usually, I do believe, the

committee encompasses people who not only have different political affiliations

but they generally reflect the demographics of this Province. For example, in

our Province, whether you live in a rural area or you live in an urban area is

often quite important and quite different. The member, for example, who

represents an urban area such as St. John's West or Waterford District, such

as the Speaker here, your obligations or duties - your obligations are the same,

i.e., to look after your constituents, any needs that they have, but the

timelines involved in terms of how you carry out those obligations and perform

your duties can often be quite different.

For example, in my own particular district, the biggest area in the district

is the Port aux Basques area. Other than that, I have communities as small as

twenty-three people that I can only access by boat. In order for me to get

around my district is quite a bit different than the Speaker, for example, in

his district. He can probably walk it in an hour with a Tim's in his hand,

whereas I have to travel thirty minutes by road in one direction and travel on a

boat for three hours to get down to Grand Bruit. What goes into the composition

of our districts, I would suggest, is quite different when you are talking urban

and you are talking rural.

That leads me to the question to the minister again: My understanding is we

have basically what you call representation by population, i.e., each district

is supposed to, unless there are special circumstances, have roughly the same

type of population within it. We do make some exceptions for certain areas. For

example, Torngat for very obvious reasons is given a special distinction. If you

were to do Torngat on the basis of representation by population you probably

would not have a Torngat. You would probably have one seat in Labrador if you

just used the representation piece, and that obviously would not be proper nor

would it be fair to the people of Labrador. I applaud government's keeping the

four seats in Labrador. I think it is a very wise thing to do, I think it is a

very necessary thing to do.

By the same token, it is very necessary, when we look at the Island portion

of the Province, to ensure that representation by population is not the be all

and end all on the Island either. For example, in my own case of Burgeo &

LaPoile, if one were to look at it from a population point of view only, you

could do a couple of things. You could say that Ramea, which is currently in the

District of Mr. Langdon who is the MHA for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la

Hune, should be included with Burgeo & LaPoile which is my district. You

could, for example, say that we will expand Burgeo& LaPoile to go up into

the Codroy Valley area which is currently held by the Member for Stephenville

East, the Minister of Education. There is a number of options that one could use

to break up that district. You could, in fact, say that Burgeo&LaPoile will

not exist and you are going to take a piece of it and stick it into Stephenville

East and you are going to take the balance of it and stick it into Fortune

Bay-Cape la Hune. But by doing that you have disregarded totally the geography

of the area.

On the west coast itself, you have everybody linked together by a roadway.

You have pretty similar type of involvements from Rose Blanche to South Branch,

but when you get down to the South Coast it is different again. The access to

those communities is absolutely different. You can drive to Burgeo, it takes

four hours to get there from where I live, three to four hours to get there, but

the other communities you access by boat.

It is good to see that government has left in here these particular issues

that the committee can consider. I guess that is where we look at the

differences in rural Newfoundland and urban Newfoundland. They are going to be

made up here by allowing the committee to use the quotient formula and you have

this variation principle of 10 per cent either way. In fact, I would go so far

as to suggest that I do not know, given the way our population is changing in

this Province, but we should have that percentage increased, so it is not a case

of just allowing the committee a 10 per cent variance, that the 25 per cent that

the minister alluded to should be the discretionary piece given to the

committee. The way I understand it right now is that the committee can draw the

boundary lines for up to a 10 per cent divergence one way or the other, but if

it is greater than 10 per cent it must come back to the House and the House can

consider whether or not the difference should be taken into consideration. Then,

depending upon a vote in the House, we could or could not have up to a 25 per

cent divergence.

My suggestion is that, in the interest of absolute fairness to everybody and

because we all know that representation by population does not fit in our

Province, whether it is in Labrador or whether it is on the Island, that the 25

per cent discretion should be given to the committee rather than the 10 per

cent. That takes it out of the political realm again. We do not have a case

where the committee says: Well, Stephenville East could have been from here to

here geographically, but they were only 12 per cent divergence so we could not

touch it, we were limited by that 10 per cent. The 25 per cent gives the

committee that much more latitude.

I would also suggest to the minister, and I strongly urge this, the sooner

the committee gets struck when this piece of legislation passes the better.

Secondly, when the report comes back from the committee I would suggest and

think that it is appropriate and fair to everybody that it should immediately be

made known to everybody what it says. Normally, we have questions of

transparency and accountability and openness and so on. If this committee

reports in November of 2006 and the House opens for its spring session in March

of 2007, and the Opposition and the NDP get a copy of this legislation that is

going to be proposed by government on the very last day, I do not think that is

being very open and very accountable.

We all know now that the election is going to be held on the second Tuesday

of October 2007. If we are not going to play politics with this issue of the

electoral boundaries, I would submit that the fairest thing to do is as soon as

the committee reports, the day that they give their - what Cabinet is going to

do with it is another issue. That is up to Cabinet. That is the prerogative of

government. If government takes that committee and decides whatever, that is the

absolutely the prerogative of the government to do that. All I am saying is that

in order to have utmost total fairness to ensure that everybody gets an equal

opportunity to consider what is in the report they should all get it at the same

time. We still have to deal with whatever government says they want to do with

that report.

That leads me to the second comment, that once government makes up its mind

what it is going to do I think there ought to be ample opportunity. The

Government House Leader, in fairness to him, we have never discussed a piece of

legislation in this House yet that he hasn't said to me: Do you feel prepared

to do it? If you are not prepared, let me know and we will make accommodations

so that it gets dealt with. I have no problem with, historically, what we have

done on the watch of the current Government House Leader, vis- B -vis

processing of legislation. I would like to get it sometimes earlier. Maybe he

had no control over that. I find quite often that we get it one morning and we

are debating it in the House the next day, and that is probably because we are

so cooperative as well. There have been lots of times when he has given us

something and we could use more time, but in the interest of getting things

processed we do go along with it and get it done in a timely fashion.

I am just saying, this particular piece I think is one of the most crucial

pieces of legislation we are going to have; every ten years, the electoral

boundaries. It is the foundation of it. It is one of those things that could be

ripe for political interference if one wished to do that. Now, I have had

conversations with the Government House Leader outside the House dealing with

this, and the comments I am getting - and I understand the Minister of Justice

is on record as saying the same thing outside the House, that in their view the

understanding is we are going to end up with forty-eight seats and we are going

to end up with pretty well some minor changes to the boundary lines we have at

the present time. You might end up with a boundary line going here or there.

That is what the hope is and that is what the thought is right now and that is

where everybody thinks we are going.

Obviously, if that turns out to be the case, I don't any of these

forty-eight people are going to have much to complain about. Somebody in the

public might say they want to be in a certain district as opposed to being in

another one. No doubt the committee will allow the public to have the

opportunity to have that input. If someone lives in a certain community and

feels they should be in another district, that is the opportunity for the public

to get involved. We are only in here as the representatives. We just happened to

get elected in any particular district that the boundary lines are drawn for,

but the ultimate sayers of where we should be here are the people, and the

people should take every advantage to go before this committee that the minister

is going to strike and voice their opinions. If the people of Burgeo, for

example, think they are better off being in the district of the current Member

for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, that is their prerogative to suggest that.

Absolutely! They should take full advantage to do it.

That is why I would also say to the minister - and I don't think there are

any parameters on it right now - that this committee should be told by

government, or asked by government, to be as broad and far ranging as they can

be in their public appearances, to allow people an opportunity to have input.

Don't, for God's sake, just do this thing in the Fairmont Hotel in St. John's

and in the Glynmill Inn in Corner Brook. Every district in this Province ought

to have an opportunity to make their case. You have to get out into rural

Newfoundland. Go to some of the nicks and tucks that we have in this Province,

so that these people, many of whom live in urban centres and probably do not

have a full appreciation of rural Newfoundland, the concerns of rural

Newfoundland, and the relationship that a person in rural Newfoundland might

have with their MHA versus what someone who lives in St. John's might have

with their MHA. It is absolutely different. I have experienced it myself.

The minister should encourage the committee to make sure they get the views

of these people. This is not simply about drawing lines on a map. This is not

only a surveying exercise where they sit down and they have the latest

statistical chart from Census Canada, and they sit down with a pencil and

decide: Well, this one is going there and that one is going there, and so on. It

is not what this is supposed to be about. The purpose of the commission is so

that the commission consults with the people, too. That has to be done.

In

summary, at this point I would appreciate it if the minister could tell us

when he intends to get the committee struck. Will it be definite as to when they

come back? I think it is hairy scary to say we hope to have them back before the

end of 2006. I think there ought to be a deadline as to when they must report

by. I think putting it out to December 31, 2006 is too long. I think when the

report comes back government should undertake to get the report released to the

other political parties that sit in this House, immediately, at the same time

that government gets it. I also think there should be some kind of undertaking

and public statement by the government that they are prepared to have the

legislation prepared on this thing well in advance of the opening of the session

in the spring of 2007, because it is so important.

The members here, I am sure, would like an opportunity to get the report,

read it and go consult with our people as well, everybody we represent. If the

suggestions by the committee, for example, are going to take some community out

of the current district of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am sure he is

going to want to go and talk to these people. The earlier we get it, as members

of the House, the more important.

I also think government should give some consideration - we will get into

greater detail on this when we get in committee stage. I do believe that instead

of the 10 per cent rule, where the committee is given discretion, because it is

my understanding - and I would like to be corrected on this if I am wrong here.

It is my understanding that the committee right now has the authority, the

discretion to say we can go 10 per cent one way up or down, right now, with

exceptions, and they have to justify it, for example - or your geography would

justify it, or a certain, I suppose, even economic setup or whatever region

might be a justification for it. But if you go beyond ten, you have to go back -

only the House can do it. From ten to twenty-five, only the House can make a

decision that we are going to vary it one way or the other. Now, I may be wrong

on that - and if the House does vary it, the House itself can only go up to a 25

per cent variation. So, I would like to be educated, if you would, by the

minister as to how that formula actually works, so that we all know we are

singing from the same hymn book.

That is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to

receiving some answers from the minister and proceeding for further debate and

detail on this later.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words about the Electoral Boundaries Act now before

the House, the amendment to provide for a new Electoral Boundaries Commission to

be established in 2006 for the next election.

I think it is required by this existing legislation that every ten years

there is supposed to be a review to ensure that the boundaries of our electoral

districts reflect the needs of the population, and one wonders why this is done

every ten years. There is a principle of our democracy in this country of one

person one vote. In fact, it is a constitutional principle that has been used,

in some respects, to challenge electoral boundary changes, where the 10 per cent

rule that my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader,

talked about, of the 10 per cent rule of up or down. People have challenged

through the courts, boundaries or setups where the difference between one

particular population in a district versus another was so large that it

distorted the principle of one person one vote.

In other words, if you had a district with 2,500 voters electing one member

to the House of Assembly and another district with 25,000, then the value of a

vote in the district with 25,000 voters is obviously one-tenth of a vote in the

district with 2,500 voters because they each elect a Member of the House of

Assembly and then when the laws are made and decisions are made, decisions as to

whether a government is in power or not, is made by a much smaller percentage of

people. Then when you take our system, our antiquated and anachronistic system

of first past the post, where it is only a plurality required - in other words,

whoever gets the most votes gets elected. You could have a situation where in

this theoretical 2,500 vote system, where there are three or four candidates and

the person with the most votes gets about 700 or less. You may have a larger

riding with 15,000 or 20,000 votes and only two candidates, and to win that

district you need to get - or you could get as many as 7,000 or 8,000 or 10,000

votes in order to get elected to a place like the House of Assembly. That is why

this is important, because it does have a lot to do with democracy and

representation. There does have to be rules, and yes, there have to be

exceptions, but the general rule that each person is entitled to one vote,

should also indicate that each vote should be of equal value.

I think everybody in this House, whether they are urban members or rural

members, understand that the obligations and the role, to some extent, of

members from rural districts is different. The expectations are different. The

level of dependence on the support and help and assistance of the Member of the

House of Assembly is different. That is often, in this Province, the result of

tradition and history, where a Member of the House of Assembly was not just a

political representative of a particular party who came to the House of Assembly

to vote based on a party platform or a party ideology but, in fact, acted as a

broker, if you will, for his or her constituents. This was the person who gave

you access to government services. This was the person who - and I know lots of

cases. If you needed a birth certificate you did not go to the department

involved to get your birth certificate, you phoned your member. You phoned the

member: I need a birth certificate. Can you send me out a birth certificate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: They probably still do, said the member for - they do not do

it to me, I am thankful. People don't phone me up and say: I need a birth

certificate. Can you send me one out? The Member for Grand Bank, apparently,

provides that service. I am sure she does not want me to tell all of her

constituents that, but these are some of the things that happens in this

Province and have happened in this Province for many years.

Let me say to the Member for Grand Bank, if that is what her constituents

expect and she wants to deliver that, then that is certainly up to her. If the

demands on a politician are such that a greater level of service is required, I

have to say that some of the issues, some of the problems, some of the

expectations, can be met by providing greater assistance to rural members, more

office staff, more ability to provide for those sorts of needs, and not

necessarily by saying in the constituency which you represent it is quite all

right to have - and I am only using this in theory, now - to say that you can

have the average being 10,000 and for a rural district only 5,000; because that,

in fact, distorts the democracy that we are in.

That is one of the first considerations when we are talking about electoral

boundaries. This is how the democracy is determined, because there have been

cases