MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome seventeen students from Holy Heart of Mary School in the District of St. John's East. These students are accompanied by their teachers: Ms Dianne Penney, Ms Sylvia Roswell, and Ms Mandy Swain, and their chaperones: Ms Christine King, Mr. Rick Heffernan, and Mr. John Pinto.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Topsail; the hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for Kilbride; the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for St. John's North, and the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this House today to pay tribute to a resident of Conception Bay South, Mr. Tom Dawe, who is a world renowned author and artist. On May 5, 2007, this past Saturday evening, Mr. Tom Dawe was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Hall of Fame.

Mr. Dawe taught a number of courses within the English Department at Memorial University and has authored a total of sixteen books. He is a creative artist of many talents, including those of drawing and painting. He has also written a number of books for children and was well-known for his radio broadcast on poetry and fiction.

In 1973 he was awarded a gold medal for visual arts in the annual Arts and Letters Contest sponsored by the provincial government. It is, however, as a poet, that he is best known. His poetry has been widely published, especially in Eastern Canada, but particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, from whose life, landscape and folk history it derives a large portion of its subject matter.

Tom Dawe published his first poem, The Sculpin, in the Newfoundland Quarterly in 1965 and has remained identified with the literary life of Newfoundland and Labrador during his entire career, frequently winning prizes for his poetry in the arts and letters competition. He was a founding editor of Newfoundland's premier literary magazine, TickleAce, and one of the co-founders of Breakwater Books.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Mr. Dawe on his accomplishments as an author and his induction into the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Gus Etchegary, formerly of St. Lawrence and now living in St. Philips. Mr. Etchegary will be inducted into the Canadian Soccer Association Hall of Fame today, May 7, as a builder.

The Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame recognizes the excellence of those that serve with distinction over an extended period of time.

Mr. Etchegary started playing soccer in St. Lawrence in 1945 at the age of twenty-one, and for fourteen years was an all-star fullback for a number of top teams. He then moved on to become provincial soccer president from 1966 to 1971. His playing and executive-builder career has brought him many honours, including induction into the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame in 1976, induction into the St. Lawrence Hall of Fame in 1977, induction into the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Hall of Fame in 1980, and the Burin Peninsula Hall of Fame in 1986.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Gus Etchegary on his induction into the Canadian Soccer Association Hall of Fame.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to show my admiration for a little girl in my district who should be an inspiration for us all. This little girl is eight year old Taylor Murphy, who was named the Janeway 2007 Champion Child last fall.

Taylor was diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis at the age of four months. Having been born in Grand Prairie, Alberta, her family decided to move home to Newfoundland to be closer to family and friends. Taylor was registered with the Cystic Fibrosis clinic at the Janeway and started on a routine of enzymes, vitamins, inhalers and daily chest physiotherapy.

As the Champion Child for the Children's Miracle Network, Taylor was the representative for the Newfoundland and Labrador Children's Hospital, the Janeway.

Cystic Fibrosis does not slow Taylor down. She is a very active eight-year-old involved in baking and drama classes in her community. She is also an active fundraiser. She continues to make her family very proud of her. Taylor is able to do all of this because of the continuous treatment she receives from the Cystic Fibrosis team at the Janeway.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Taylor and wishing her well in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Grand Falls-Windsor Concert Band which recently celebrated its twentieth anniversary. The success of this band can be attributed in great measure to the dedicated group of people with a love of music who first started the band.

Ray Aylward was the first director, and upon his retirement in 1989, music teacher, Michael Race, assumed this position. There are currently twenty-five regular members who perform at numerous town events such as the Kiwanis Music Festival.

Mr. Speaker, the concert band owes its start to Paul Hennessey, who was the first Mayor of the Town of Grand Falls at that time. With the financial support of the town and the mill's owner, the band got together and the town became the only municipality in our Province to have its own band. The town has continued in its support of the concert band over the past twenty years.

Not long after its first rehearsal in February, 1987, the concert band held its first performance for Lieutenant-Governor James McGrath's visit during a May 24 weekend. Their next public performance was at the Christmas concert on December 9, 1987. Since the band's beginning, more than 140 musicians have been members and have performed at many memorable occasions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Grand Falls-Windsor Concert Band upon celebration of its twentieth anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, this year the Canada Winter Games were held in Whitehorse, and one athlete from this Province who did very well is a young man by the name of Mponda Kalunga-Loksa, who has come to be known as George - probably with good reason. A Level III student at Holy Heart High School, George did everyone proud by winning a silver medal in boxing.

In itself, this is quite an achievement, but when we look at George's history, the winning of a silver medal becomes even more special. He was born in Alexandria, Egypt, but his family moved to Cairo. Then, when he was only three years old they were forced to go to a refugee camp in Tanzania. For six years the family stayed in this camp, along with 40,000 other refugees and the problems that would be associated with such a situation, problems such as rampant malaria, no electricity and no schooling.

In 1999 George, along with his three sisters and father, came to our Province from the refugee camp. Less than two years ago George took up boxing, and through hard work and dedication to his sport, and the assistance of his coach, John Stanley, he qualified for the Winter Games in Whitehorse. At the Games he defeated more experienced fighters from Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia to win the silver medal.

Mr. Speaker, this is a story of a young man who not only defeated his boxing opponents but overcame adversity and beat the odds.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating George Kalunga-Loksa on his silver medal achievement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a real pleasure today to rise in the House and pay tribute to a woman who has spent her life in service to others, and whose service has now been recognized by the Government of Canada.

Kathrine Bellamy, a Sister of Mercy and member of the St. Joseph's community on Signal Hill Road in St. John's, was invested last Friday as a Member of the Order of Canada, adding to her other honours of investiture as a Member of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and of being recipient of an Honourary Degree of Laws Degree from Memorial University.

Kathrine Bellamy, born in Bay Roberts, has spent her long and illustrious life as an educator, musician, social justice activist and writer.

Her hard work as a choir director who inspired young girls with an intense level of singing resulted in her choir being awarded the coveted Mathieson Trophy for Amateur Canadian Choirs in the 1960s. That same choir was then chosen to sing at Expo ‘67.

As a music educator, Sister Kathrine took an interest in the professional nature of her career and co-founded the Music Council of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, becoming its first vice-president. She also contributed articles on music and music history regularly to the journal of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, as it was called at that time.

When Sister Kathrine's time in the school system came to an end, she turned her attention to new concerns. Not content with having reached a place of honour in her profession, she took on the needs of people living on low income in the heart of St. John's. She was founder and coordinator of Emmaus House, an Anglican and Roman Catholic food bank, co-founder and first vice-president of the Province-wide Community Food Sharing Association and co-founder of Voices for Justice in Housing.

In spite of long hours of work as a teacher and then as an activist, Sister Kathrine also turned her hand to research and writing. Over the years, she has produced articles on the history of the Sisters of Mercy in Newfoundland and Labrador. This work calumniated in her recently published book, Weavers of the Tapestry, a book on the story of the Sisters of Mercy in this Province, a tome of several hundred pages. At the age of eight-four her writing continues.

Sister Kathrine is now researching the contribution of the Sisters of Mercy to music in Newfoundland and Labrador. As well, she is editing research materials gathered in connection with her last publication, preparing them as archival material for the Sisters of Mercy, to whom she gives full recognition for being there with her and for her every step of the way, and archival material for the Archdiocese of St. John's. As is obvious, this woman never stops; in spite of a number of bouts of serious illness throughout her life.

I ask the hon. members of the House to join with me in congratulating Sister Kathrine Bellamy, and the Sisters of Mercy of Newfoundland and Labrador, on a life of commitment that has benefitted both individuals as well as the whole community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today in recognition of National Nursing Week being held from May 7 to May 13, 2007. It is my great pleasure to acknowledge the over 8,500 nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses and Nurse Practitioners across our Province who provide quality care for their fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The theme of this year's celebration is: Think You Know Nursing? Take a closer look. The message highlights the diversity in the nursing profession. Today's nurses practice in a variety of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, communities, government agencies and the military. The role of nurses has grown and diversified as well over the last two decades. In addition to traditional nursing services, today's nurses are researchers, policy-makers, promoters of wellness, advocates for patients' safety and administrators.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure of hosting a coffee break for nurses, nursing leaders and various other stakeholders in our health and community services system. Over twenty individuals with an interest in the profession of nursing joined myself and the Provincial Chief Nurse to launch Nursing Week celebrations in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to supporting our strong workforce of nursing professionals. Building on last year's commitment to add thirty-nine public health nursing positions over two years, this year's Budget invests approximately $1.6 million to hire the remaining thirteen nurses. Additionally, in Budget 2007, we announced funding for a new graduate orientation program for nurses in front-line practices. This program will enable new graduates to make a positive transition to the workforce and provide them with the additional support through mentorship.

Furthermore, through our regional health authorities, we are enhancing recruitment efforts for nursing graduates and ensuring they secure permanent positions within our provincial health care system. I look forward to working in conjunction with the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union and the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, to ensure that the voices of our nursing professionals are heard and addressed. Together we have built a very positive relationship, one which I hope will continue into the future for the good of our Province's nurses and the well-being of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me today in paying tribute to the dedicated nurses across our Province who provide a quality of care for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I, too, rise in recognition of National Nursing Week, May 7 to May 13. It is a privilege to recognize the over 8,500 Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses and Nurse Practitioners. As a matter of fact, I believe it was a previous Administration who introduced the Nurse Practitioner Program to the Province.

When I read the theme, Think you know Nursing? Take a closer look, I think it is important that we do take a closer look and maximize, at every opportunity we have, to expand the role of nurses in the Province. They play a very valuable role, and in every opportunity we have to expand their scope, we should look for ways to do that.

The minister also mentioned about the recruitment program for nursing graduates. It is important that we do look for ways to recruit young nurses to this Province. It is also important that we look for ways to retain our current nurses. We need to be a little creative, I believe, and work with the profession and look for ways to retain so that these nurses can stay and work in the Province where they live.

In recognition of National Nursing Week, I would also like to thank the over 8,500 nurses for their valuable contribution to the quality of care they provide to the residents of the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy.

It is a real pleasure to stand and congratulate the 8,500 Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses and Nurse Practitioners. I do not think we can ever thank them enough or congratulate them enough for the work that they do, both in our hospitals, home care and all the other various settings in which they do their work. I think it is great that the government is enabling new graduates to make, as it says here, a positive transition to the workforce. I am also glad to see that the government has a sense of the need for permanent positions. Anybody who is in touch with anyone who is working in the medical profession today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: I want to recognize the extremely hard work that is being done in the medical system, especially in our institutions, in places where nurses are overworked because of lack of nursing spaces and I encourage the government to take real action on getting new permanent positions in large numbers in our systems.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, once again this year I had the honour of participating in the annual flag raising ceremony for North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, or NAOSH Week. With the local chapter of the Canadian Society of Safety Engineers, we raised this flag to once again show our commitment to occupational health and safety.

Every year, employees and employers across Canada, the United States and Mexico participate in events in recognition of NAOSH week during the first week of May. This special week is set aside to promote a greater awareness for the importance of preventing workplace accidents and occupational illnesses.

This year's theme is Safety and Health, A Commitment for Life - Start Today. This theme is an excellent reminder for everyone that our lives depend upon a safe and healthy workplace. One way we can achieve this is by focusing our attention on ensuring safe and healthy work practices and procedures are a part of our everyday routine.

Mr. Speaker, I have to especially recognize the hard work the Canadian Society of Safety Engineers does to promote NAOSH Week every year. If it were not for our local chapter, we may not be celebrating this week today. Ten years ago, the local chapter developed NAOSH Week as a way to highlight this important issue. Evidently, the need to recognize this week was not lost on the rest of North American as the celebration quickly spread throughout the Province, Canada, the United States and Mexico. Once again, this Province showed innovation and determination to emphasize the need for health and safety in our workplaces.

However, I cannot stress enough how important it is for all of us to continue to be vigilant year-round in order to make our workplaces safer. This one week is set aside to bring attention to workplace health and safety, but it has to be something that each and every one of us commits to every day. We only have to think of our families and friends to encourage us to start today.

Mr. Speaker, workplaces all over the Province are celebrating and recognizing NAOSH Week through many activities which promote safe work practices. I encourage everyone to do something in their workplace this week which recognizes the importance of this issue. By working together, government, employers and employees can ensure that our workplaces are safe. If we all make this commitment, we will all do our part to ensure workers return home to their friends and their family every day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We, too, on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, join with the North American Occupational Safety and Health Week celebrations that are taking place right now across our great country. We, too, offer our support and commitment to Occupational Health and Safety.

It seems like just celebrating for a week is a little bit of an understatement as to what the importance of a safe workplace is all about. Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province go to work every day and receive a paycheque, but there is more to going to work than receiving a paycheque. There is also the obligation of receiving a safe working environment when they are there earning that bit of money.

Mr. Speaker, my own family has suffered a loss of a brother and brother-in-law to industrial accidents. So, coming from a personal standpoint, I can say to the minister that this is a very important issue in our Province and I encourage the government to make sure that the Occupational Health and Safety regulations that are presently in place are enforced. The amount of inspectors that are out there, there is not enough I can say to encourage that they be increased and, and as our Province develops -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: By leave

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, as our Province develops with our oil and mining industries, as it has in the early 2000s and late 1990s, I encourage that government make every effort to make sure that all our loved ones come home safe and sound from their workplace.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy.

Obviously, this is a wonderful thing to do, and a wonderful thing to celebrate, the week for Occupational Health and Safety. It is something we cannot become too concerned about. I spoke to these issues last week, actually, after we celebrated the Day of Mourning on April 28.

I note in the minister's statement today that she encourages everyone to do something in their workplaces this week which recognizes the importance of the issue. Well, last Monday I asked the government to look at the fact that they have a report in their hands, Five Deaths a Day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

- a report, Five Deaths a Day, to which they have not yet made a response. This report has some wonderful recommendations in it that would improve the situation here in Newfoundland and Labrador that hopefully would stop us from having eighteen deaths a year.

I would encourage the government that, the something they need to do is to tell us what they think about that report and start putting some of the recommendations in place.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at 2:30 this afternoon, Newfoundland time, 1,400 schools throughout Canada will be united in song. Today is Music Monday, an annual event that celebrates music. In this Province, sixty-eight schools will join their counterparts throughout the country to play the same piece of music at the same time.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, the value of music in the curriculum. There is an important link between school music programs, communities, and the cultural vitality of Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of us were brought up with the sounds of traditional music in our homes. Our communities foster musical talent. This explains why so many of our young people display such an interest in, and talent for, music.

Music education is alive and well in our schools. Mr. Speaker, Budget 2007 allocated $2.8 million as part of the $10 million Cultural Connections Strategy. Over the past several years, this has allowed the department to hire twenty-three music teachers aimed at the K-6 level. We have supported the ArtsWork Conference which is starting in Corner Brook this Saturday.

Money was also provided for the Artists in Schools Program which will connect music, drama and visual artists with students. For example, Mr. Speaker, we partnered with the Labrador School Board this year to support the George Zukerman Ensemble. This group, which included local musicians, toured the majority of schools in Labrador.

Through cultural connections we have also introduced a music equipment program. School districts can access funding on a cost-shared basis to purchase or repair instruments or other equipment.

We have a new music curriculum for K-6 students. The music curriculum for the intermediate grades is under development. New curriculum at all levels will have increased emphasis on Newfoundland and Labrador cultural content. We have also established a travel allowance program to support student groups so they can perform at venues and events.

These are all important initiatives, Mr. Speaker. They are a clear indication of the importance this government places, not only on music education but on the music of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something we are all proud of, that we hold close to our hearts. We will continue to promote it in our schools, so students will have a better sense of place and a greater confidence to carry them proudly into the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister of an advance copy of her statement and to say that we on this side of the House congratulate the sixty-eight schools here in our Province who will be taking part in today as Music Monday.

As a matter of fact, just before I came to the House of Assembly, I had the opportunity to speak to my twelve-year-old grandson who was taking part at Coley's Point Primary, where all the other schools are coming together, and he said, "Pop, boy, you should have been here today." He is probably getting ready for October, for me, I don't know.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on a more serious note, it is wonderful to see all the schools coming together. When you travel to the schools, not only in my district but throughout the Province, and we see the choirs and the house bands and the individual musicians that are being developed, we are so proud in this Province; because our music and our drama and our visual arts, it is a way of our culture and heritage. Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the group travelling to Labrador so that music can be taken to some of the schools on the Coast of Labrador.

Each and every spring in Amalgamated Academy they kick off spring with a great program. They call it, We'll Rant and We'll Roll, where musicians from the school and the community get together with traditional Newfoundland music.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side want to congratulate all those who are taking part today and say: Have a wonderful Today Is Music Monday.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I will be as positive as my colleague who just spoke. Thanks to the minister for the advance copy.

I cannot congratulate the government enough for the work going on around music education. As a musician myself, it is something very dear to my heart and I know what it means to have a good musical education in school. We cannot do too much.

Last Saturday, a week ago, I went to the Arts and Culture Centre for a performance by the Montreal Symphony Orchestra and I was impressed by students from Nain who were there. I think that is the kind of thing we have to do, bring musicians to the students all over the Province, encouraging them, as musicians, as students, and also giving them opportunities to come into St. John's and Corner Brook and other centres that have things like the Montreal Symphony.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: I will clue up.

I also know that the School of Music does a wonderful tour with opera, bringing singers from the School of Music into the schools and doing some very creative presentations of opera that get the children realizing that this is something they can enjoy. So, I encourage the minister and the ministry and government to keep doing this. I really believe we can never put too much money into our educational system in general, but especially into music.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated on numerous occasions that the sale of FPI assets would only take place if and when the Province gained control of FPI's quotas. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister stated on Monday past in this House of Assembly, and I quote: The Premier and myself have made it absolutely and abundantly clear that if government is to approve the sale of assets of FPI, the quotas and the licences must rest with this Province or some arm of it. This is a condition of the sale and it is one that is absolute and one that government is absolutely committed to.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it now appears that the federal government will not be handing over FPI's quotas to the Province but, instead, will only give assurances that these quotas will be landed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

On Friday our minister, the Minister of Fisheries, said that this assurance does not go far enough and this guarantee was only as good as the person who signs it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will FPI or any of its assets be sold if the government of this Province does not have unfettered access or ownership of FPI's quotas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the answer to the first question was pretty definitive, and the answer to the second question is the same.

Unless the conditions laid down by the government - the Premier and myself, on behalf of the government, over the last number of months - unless some way is found to satisfy those conditions then the Province will not be giving its approval for the a sale of the assets of FPI.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries stated in last Thursday's The Telegram that government had discussed the option of nationalizing FPI. Can the minister tell us today why this option was dismissed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think when I responded to that particular matter in a scrum, I believe it was, it was in response to a suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that the government should follow through; that I believe it was his position that the only thing left for the government to do would be to nationalize or expropriate the assets of FPI.

I indicated that we had given consideration to that, but there is no assurance, Mr. Speaker, particularly in light of the position now taken by the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, there is no assurance that we can hang our hat on that even if we were to do that - not to say that we would, but even if we were to do it - there is no assurance that, as a result of that process, the quota and licences, the groundfish quotas and licences, would rest with the Province. With a lack of that assurance, there would be nothing gained for the Province in the long term by taking that particular route.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week we discussed Ms Joan Cleary and the generous severance payments that should never have been paid. Interestingly enough, this was not the first incidence of questionable severance payments paid by the Bull Arm Site Corporation.

Last November the Auditor General wrote both the Minister of Natural Resources, the current minister, and Ms Cleary, to raise concerns about severance payments to the former site manager. The Auditor General stated at that time, and I quote: Although the former site manager's contract contained a clause that stated, quote, agreement may be terminated by either party giving at least five days notice thereof in writing to the other, in 2006 this individual was paid a three month severance package totalling approximately $30,500.

Our review - that being the Auditor General's review - of the contract indicated there was no obligation to make this payment.

The Auditor General also recommended that the money be recovered.

I ask the minister: Why was this recommendation ignored? Have you made any attempts to recover the severance payment made to that site manager, which the Auditor General felt ought not to have been made? As well, are you undertaking the appropriate actions with respect to Ms Cleary's circumstance to recover the $40,000 in taxpayers' money that was made in a similar fashion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have to go back to my department and check on the measures taken with regard to the former site manager.

With regard to Ms Cleary's contract, Mr. Speaker, appropriate action has been taken every step of the way to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week government stated that they had legal opinions indicating that Ms Joan Cleary must be paid the $40,000 in severance. On Friday, Minister Dunderdale, in the local media, stated that there were not, actually, any legal opinions prepared or correspondence existing. If there was no legal opinion, and we know there was no oversight by this board - and Ms Cleary was paid over $100,000 that year while not holding a single meeting as President and CEO of the Bull Arm Site Corporation. In addition, we found two instances where the Public Tender Act was broken by Ms Cleary and only then did government acknowledge they had the grounds to fire her.

Minister, we questioned your due diligence last fall and determined that you did not perform your ministerial duties. We now learn of a general severance package given to Ms Cleary, after similar circumstances were previously brought to your attention by the Auditor General. Minister, why are you not doing due diligence as minister, and when can we expect you to do the honourable thing and resign?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I received Ms Cleary's resignation I brought it to the senior officials of my department who, in consultation with justice, made the decision on how to action the resignation. I remained arm's-length from that process. There was no political interference in that process and her resignation was acted in accordance with her contract and government policy and practice.

The Leader of the Opposition has made a great deal about their efforts to gain information around this piece and he has constantly misrepresented the facts. He raised the issue in this House on November 28. Ms Cleary was asked for her resignation on the seventh. He knew only of the issues around the security shed. It was me, as minister, and this government, who made the declarations around the winterization contract and we made it absolutely public what was happening upon our review. We were clear, we were transparent and we were accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one supplementary, given the minister's comments here. We found the information concerning the former site manager and the severance package, which was contrary to what the Auditor General felt should have been done, as a result of a Freedom of Information request that we filed with the minister's office, not as a result of anything that this minister did.

Again, in the spirit of openness and accountability, I ask the minister: Will you table in this House the documentation from either Ms Cleary, her correspondents or her representatives, whereby she would have even asked for the severance, or was this something that you left to someone else to sort out? That was the question last Thursday.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, when I received Ms Cleary's resignation I brought it to senior officials in the department to action in an objective and unbiased way in accordance with the terms of the contract and in accordance with government policy and practice.

Mr. Speaker, I have here eight pages since 1992 of non-compliance with the Public Tender Act by the people opposite when they were in government, and I ask: Who was held accountable? Who resigned? Who was fired? Mr. Speaker, there would not be a soul left over there if they had to take the same stance and the same approach to government practice and policy as this government done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that justifies you giving $40,000 to one of your political cronies of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon we learned Persona Communications flipped their company to Bragg Communications Inc. of Nova Scotia for an undisclosed amount of money. This is the latest saga in the untendered fibre optic deal with the Premier's close friends and business associates. Mr. Speaker, last month the Auditor General expressed concern that this deal was in a state of flux, continually changing and details were constantly changing since first announced.

I ask the Premier: Is the deal finalized? Has any taxpayers' money been spent or advanced, and could you please table a copy of the details of any deal that has been completed with regard to this fibre optic deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, let me reply first with a letter from the Auditor General to me on April 27, 2007.

Dear Sir: Further to my letter of April 3, 2007, to Minister Taylor wherein I outlined concerns about documentation, I am pleased with the process that has recently been established which will provide my office with the necessary information to complete my review of the fibre optic deal.

I also acknowledge your letter of April 25, 2007, wherein you indicated that Cabinet has waived its privilege of Cabinet confidence for the purpose of providing my office with access to all relevant Cabinet papers. Given the recently established process and access to Cabinet documents, we anticipate getting on with the task at hand and completing the review as quickly as possible.

With respect to your letter of April 24, 2007, please be advised that it was not my intention to create such a perception.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, still no answer to the question. The Premier can get up and he can read what he wants. I asked you a simple question, to table the deal, or if the deal was complete because the Auditor General did mention to you in the letter that he wrote you previous to that one, that the deal was still influx, that it was still changing. Yet, you refuse to answer the question today.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but be skeptical about this whole fibre optic deal and the $15 million. It was nothing more than an attempt to prop up the share value of Persona and look after the interests of the Premier's friend, Mr. Dean MacDonald. EastLink, a company owned by Bragg Communications, happens to own a fibre optic link from Cape Breton to Halifax. In government documents that you tabled here in the House of Assembly last fall, or earlier this spring, it states that $9.5 million will be spent by this Province and the consortium that is running this fibre optic deal for new fibre optic cables from Cape Breton to Halifax.

I ask the Premier: Now that this new company already has fibre optic cable in Nova Scotia, will the Province still contribute to funding for the consortium of a second cable through Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I understand it correctly, what the Leader of the Opposition has just proven is that in fact that $15 million did not pump up the value of the deal because they already had a significant part of it already built. So that is an answer to the first part of your question.

What do we need to do? The Opposition asked for the Auditor General to review the Persona arrangement. What did we do? We brought in the Auditor General and we gave him all the documentation that he needed. They then asked: Would we provide Cabinet documentation? We said no, because of the law it would be inappropriate to provide the Cabinet documentation. We then decided, for the benefit of the public and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to make sure that this was not tainted, that the smears and the slurs and the tainting and the negativity that was put on it by the Leader of the Opposition would be displaced, so we opened up the Cabinet documentation. They objected because Dean MacDonald was involved in the company. Now Dean MacDonald is going to be out of the company, they are not happy with that. This company was formerly owned by American interests, it is now going to be owned by an Atlantic Canadian company. They are not happy with that. NATI and CONA and MUN and all kinds of other organizations, the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, they are happy with it but you are not happy with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What else can we do, Mr. Speaker? This is a wonderful project for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and at the end of the day what the hon. gentleman opposite does not understand is that we own an asset here. We own $15 million worth of IRUs. We own a piece of that property that Persona or nobody else can sell because we pay our money and we own a piece of it, no different than a condominium. So, at the end of the day, we have an asset that cannot be disposed with.

Now we are part of a complete Atlantic link and that makes it even stronger again, but they are still not happy with that. I cannot do any more, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier a simple question: Is any of the $15 million that we have put into this project going towards putting a line from Cape Breton to Halifax now that the new company, Bragg, already has a line across there?

You did not answer that question when I just asked it. You did not answer that question when I asked you that question in the fall, I say to the Premier. You can get up and talk your way around it all you want. I think that the people watching you today realize you do not answer questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, Group Telecom was another company that received a government contract and was flipped when the deal was completed, I believe the Premier knows quite well, as he and Dean MacDonald were the authors of that sale as well.

I ask the Premier: Were talks ongoing regarding the sale of Persona to Bragg during government's decision to commit the $15 million in the fibre optic deal, and was this $15 million investment a condition of the sale of Persona to Bragg?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when Group Telecom was built by the original company that I was involved in, we did a contract with government to displace a previous contract that government had with Aliant, that actually saved the people of Newfoundland and Labrador $2 million, so there were significant savings to the people.

The people sitting there opposite, the people in that government, approved that transaction as being a legitimate transaction, so there was nothing wrong with it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You approved it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has been provided with all the documentation that the Auditor General has. They will see from that documentation that there is no indication whatsoever that there were any negotiations going on with Bragg Communications. If there were, we would not know anyway; it is none of our business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That certainly does not give me much comfort.

The Premier talked about the contract that he did with the previous government. What he forgot to tell the people of this Province today is that you flipped that company, or that contract, immediately upon the signing of that deal.

I will tell you another thing, Mr. Speaker: there was no one on this side of the House who had anything to do with that, because it is my understanding that there was only one individual who had anything to do with that contract, giving it to today's Premier, and that was the former Premier, Mr. Tobin, because it never went to Cabinet, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, time is moving quickly.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What safeguards have been put in place to protect our investment of $15 million in the fibre optic deal now that Persona has been sold to Bragg?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the hon. gentleman opposite, and obviously he does not understand it, the Province owns the IRUs. They pay the money for the IRUs. It is similar to owning a condominium in a project. They have actual outright ownership.

With regard to the allegation and the inference that I flipped some company or I did something improper, I sold Group Telecom, which was an affiliate of Cable Atlantic, and I sold Cable Atlantic so that I could offer myself for public service. That is exactly why I did it, and nobody knows that any better than them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is why it was done, and when I disposed of those assets I stood for public office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a joke! I say to the Premier, that company was flipped long before you put your name on a ballot, and you collected the proceeds of it.

Mr. Speaker, in the fall we asked how many fibres we were getting for the $15 million and the minister basically said he did not know. Mr. Speaker, in documentation that we have gotten since then, it has been confirmed that we are the largest investor in this project with 29 per cent of the total funds committed. Yet, we are only receiving four of the forty-eight fibres, a measly 8 per cent.

I ask the Premier: If this is such a good deal, why are the people of this Province contributing the largest amount of money, yet receiving the least benefit for this fibre optic deal?

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition does math, but thankfully he wasn't the Finance Minister under the previous Administration.

We are in for $15 million, Mr. Speaker. Our contribution to the project has been assessed and it was determined what an appropriate number of strands were. He says four strands. It is not four strands. It is four strands across the Gulf. There are eight strands across the Island. There are another couple of stands to go up the Northern Peninsula when that project is done up there, which is unrelated to ours. This is $15 million of an $82 million project, Mr. Speaker, and no matter what way you cut that, that is a long ways from the 23 per cent that he is suggesting that we are into it for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we got a good deal. It is recognized as a good deal by everybody who has looked at it thus far, and it will be borne out at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows no more about this deal than he did last November. He talked about us owning fibre going up the Northern Peninsula, when it says in the documentation that you passed over to us that the line up the Northern Peninsula has nothing whatsoever to do with this deal. It will be in addition to this deal and we will pay extra for it, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we have asked time and time again in this House for a breakdown of the money put into this deal by Persona, each of the three individual companies. How much did Persona put in, MTS Allstream put in, and how much did Rogers put in? However, for some reason, this government refuses to even give us a breakdown. We know that we put $15 million in. We do not know how much each of these individual companies put in themselves.

Now that the lead proponent, Persona, has flipped its company with what we would expect to be a nice profit, I ask the Premier: Will you give the detailed breakdown of what each company was putting into this deal, and could you please confirm whether or not the $15 million of taxpayers' money invested was part of Persona's share?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I tell you this, Mr. Speaker - I will answer his last question first - the $15 million had absolutely nothing to do with Persona's share. Persona's share is substantially more than the $15 million, Mr. Speaker.

As for why the actual breakdown of ownership has not been divulged, Mr. Speaker, it is the same today as it was several months ago when I answered that same question back in November and December. That information is not released publicly because it is proprietary information; however, Mr. Speaker, all of the information related to this has been provided to the Auditor General and any new information that comes forward will also be provided to the Auditor General so that a thorough analysis and evaluation and costing of this can be done to determine, once and for all, at the end of the day, this is absolutely a good deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about proprietary information. What is wrong with saying how much the four partners put in? We already know how much we are putting in, as one of the four partners. What would be wrong with telling us what each of the other three are putting in? Why do you have to hide that information from the general public? What is it? What impact could that have on a company? I think you are hiding something because you know full well that we are putting in a portion, if not all, of Persona's share, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, this whole deal gets more suspicious by the day. The Premier has continuously refused to advise the people of the Province who his trustee is, overseeing his blind trust.

I ask the Premier: Do you or your trustee have any shares in Bragg Communications or any ownership of that company or any shares or ownership of Persona?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker, but what I will do is see if I am allowed to find out in my blind trust and I will certainly provide you with the answer. But certainly not on my instruction, I am not aware of any ownership whatsoever. To my knowledge, there was no ownership, but I will check and I will make sure. But, from what I understand, Persona is a private company and Bragg is a private company. That is your answer. How could I buy shares in those companies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, a simple question: Why is the Premier so protective over the name of his trustee? Will you tell the people of the Province the name of the individual or individuals who are looking over your blind trust? Will you give us the name or the names, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not required to disclose the name of my blind trustee. How would I ever get a blind trustee if I ever disclosed the name and allowed him to be completely ransacked and berated by that crowd over there any time they feel like it? So, no, Mr. Speaker, I am not required to give it and I will not give it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I say to the Premier, and he should know this, the trust is supposed to be blind. What harm would it tell if you were to tell who your trustee was?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am just not required to disclose that, Mr. Speaker. And, quite frankly, it is none of your business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

There are 49,000 mothers in the provincial labour force with children under twelve, but only about 6,000 regulated child care spaces. Government appears to have only a three-year plan for creating a few hundred more. This, in effect, will not deal with families needs for child care.

So, my question for the minister is: When will the government commit adequate funds to a non-profit system to meet the need for more child care spaces in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will recall the answer to the question similar to that she posed last week, when I said at that time, in the last three years this government has increased the number of spaces by some 40-odd per cent.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is a major commitment, considering the fact that we made a commitment last year in an announcement that we would continue to grow, we would continue to invest. When we formed government some three-and-a-half years ago, the Province was investing a little over $11 million in that particular sector, in child care services in this Province. This year that number has grown to close to $18 million, reflects the significant investment in dollars, significant investment in the number of spaces available, and we will continue to grow and expand and provide the services that the children of this Province require.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not directly relate his answer to the numbers that I put out. The numbers that I put out indicate that we need a lot more than what is happening and we also need them in regulated not-for-profit sectors, not in unregulated private sectors. So I would like the minister to think further about what I asked.

More and more parents are looking for high quality preschool programs where their children can gain the skills they are expected to have when they reach kindergarten. Other provinces, such as Saskatchewan, have realized the importance of preschool in giving children a good start and they have established a public preschool system.

My question for the minister is: When will this government realize the importance of preschool as part of the lifelong learning continuum and include preschool early learning programs in the formal education system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to two things. One, she makes reference to regulated, and this industry is regulated. We, as a government, made sure that the regulations are in place to appropriately govern the conduct of people who provide those services and to ensure that it is focused on the development of the children. I think when you look at the kind of growth that we have seen, both in the for profit and in the private sector in this particular area in the last four to five years, I think you will recognize that we are continuing to expand, continuing to grow. Whether or not we have enough today? No, Mr. Speaker. Will we continue to add to it tomorrow? Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said a moment ago, we will continue to expand, we will continue to grow and we will continue the kind of investment we have made in the last three years.

One thing is for certain, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member opposite and everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, that expansion will reflect quality programming, focusing on the children, focusing on their development needs and acknowledging the significant part of their lives. That period between birth and starting the kindergarten program, that is a very significant part in that child's life and we recognize that. So, she can be assured that it will be quality, it will be regulated and it will be done in an appropriate fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the second time that the minister has responded to me in the past week or so with regard to the 40 per cent increase in seats. As I asked last week, and I am going to ask again, would the minister please table in detail where the 40 per cent of the seats are located? Where they are located, if they are located in not-for-profit, in private, in individual homes? I am looking forward to this information to be tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the minister to let me know when that will happen.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member opposite would want to know, this is important information. I will just repeat what I said to her on Thursday of last week. This is the first sitting of the House since I have answered her question last week and I said at that time that I would be very proud to table in this House a profile of the growth in this sector since we formed government, the kind of investment we made, and the number of areas where we have had increased capacity. So, I would ask her to be a little bit patient. I will endeavour to try to have this tomorrow; if not tomorrow, the day after. I made a commitment, an undertaking in this House that I would table it, and that commitment still stands. I will table it. Hopefully, it will be tomorrow, but if not tomorrow, the next day.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Before we proceed, the Chair wishes to rule on a point of order raised by the Government House Leader on Thursday last. He drew reference to words that were used by the Opposition House Leader earlier in the afternoon. In that particular matter, it was in Question Period and the words were used, and I quote: Why was this resignation scenario cooked up between the minister and Ms Cleary to ensure she would receive $40,000 of taxpayers' money?

The Chair has reviewed the context and the presentation made in the House, and the Chair rules that these words are unparliamentary and I ask the Opposition House Leader to withdraw them.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the words, cooked up.

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

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

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

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 5)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider Certain Resolutions relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 6)

Mr. Speaker, finally, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 10)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal the Certified Public Accountants Act And The Chartered Accounts And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act. (Bill 7)

I also give further notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities. (Bill 12)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

I give notice that I will introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. (Bill 8)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice under Standing Order 63.(3), it being Private Members' Day on Wednesday, that a private member's motion will be made by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. The member will read the motion.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The motion will read: WHEREAS the fishery is the mainstay of the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS FPI was originally established to be the flagship of our fishing industry of this Province; and

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

WHEREAS the sale of the marketing and secondary processing division of FPI to a Nova Scotia company would not be in the best interest of FPI workers or the fishing industry as a whole; and

WHEREAS this government has been unable to negotiate effectively with the federal government to gain control over FPI quotas, which was supposed to be a precondition to the sale of FPI or any of its assets;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the establishment of an all-party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, before moving to Orders of the Day, I think Your Honour will recall that when we rose before we entertained the entertainment motion on Thursday, my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, had finished, I believe, or at that point finished at least making a submission to Your Honour on whether or not an amendment to the motion to appoint a new Chief Electoral Officer, whether or not that amendment was in order, and I had indicated that I would perhaps have a word or two to say about that before your Honour took the matter under advisement today, and I will be very brief - very, very brief.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, I think he said before he called Orders of the Day. He has to call the Orders of the Day so we can proceed to deal with Motion 5.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if I could just briefly say this in terms of the arguments made by the House Leader in support of the amendment that he wants to debate - and I am going to be very brief, as I said, Your Honour - it is my submission that the amendment as proposed by the Opposition House Leader is out of order. It is out of order not because it is against our Standing Orders. It is out of order not because it is contrary to the precedence of the House of Commons of Canada or the House of Commons in Great Britain. It is out of order, Mr. Speaker, because if the amendment were to be debated and passed, it would impose a condition on the appointment of the Chief Electoral Office that is not required by the Elections Act of 1991.

That is the reason why the amendment is out of order. To impose such a condition, Mr. Speaker, on the appointment would be tantamount to approving an amendment to the act itself. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be accomplished by a resolution. Everybody knows that if you are going to have an amendment to an act of this Legislature, there is a way to do it, and that way is outlined in the Standing Orders.

I should also note, Mr. Speaker, subsection 4.(2) of the Elections Act, 1991, states that the Chief Electoral Officer holds office during good behaviour and may only be removed from that office by a resolution of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having recognized that, it is arguable therefore that when a member believes that the Chief Electoral Officer has acted in a manner that is contrary to the requirements of the act, then that member would be free to propose a resolution to the House calling for the removal of that particular person.

Mr. Speaker, really, then, in summary, the amendment to the resolution proposed by the Opposition House Leader, in my view, is out of order because in effect it tries to effect an indirect amendment to the Elections Act, 1991, and therefore cannot be entertained as in order by the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear a very brief comment by the Opposition House Leader. We have already had significant commentary on both sides, but in fairness we will hear some concluding comments by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that, and I believe that was the understanding on Friday, that I would be given an opportunity to respond to the Government House Leader.

With all due respect to the Government House Leader's submission, I think he is premature. The question that we have to deal with here, and the Chair has to deal with, first and foremost, is: Is the amendment in order? That is all we are talking about here. We are talking about drafting technicalities, and is the amendment in order?

I think I outlined quite clearly and adequately on Thursday as to why the amendment is in order, both pursuant to the Standing Orders - there is nothing here saying it is out of order. There is nothing. In fact, they have precedent here which says it would be in order, from this very Chair, this very Speaker, when we dealt with and I read into evidence that particular amendment when we dealt with the Atlantic Accord. So, we have precedent from this House where that type of amendment is in order.

I say again that all you are doing here, if the thing is in order, which there is no doubt in my mind that it is, and I gave the substantive authorities to say that, the issue raised by the Government House Leader then becomes: Do we or do we not agree with the statements contained in the amendment? That is a different issue. That gets debated when and if you rule that it is in order. Then we decide whether we agree or do not agree that the appointment of a new Chief Electoral Officer should at least have equivalent verification as a DRO would have under the act. That is the whole point of this here. Not trying to change any laws; not trying to change any laws at all.

I say to the Chair again, and in response to the Government House Leader's position, this amendment is well within order. If they want to vote it down after, that is a different story. That is a discussion, and that is where you give your argument as to the validity of the motion or not as a motion or as an amendment, but the first step and the only step we are dealing with here is: Is it in order? There is absolutely nothing that I can find saying that it is out of order. If it is, I would certainly appreciate seeing the reasons from the Chair.

Thank you.

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

This House is now in recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Speaker thanks the House Leadership for their presentations on the proposed amendment under consideration. Careful consideration has been given to the viewpoints presented to the House by the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader.

I also wish to recognize that in addition to standard consultations with the Table Officers, the Speaker has also extensively reviewed the appropriate parliamentary literature.

The resolution as placed before the House by the Government House Leader is very direct. It reads, "Therefore, be it resolved that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests."

The amendment as proposed by the Opposition House Leader would delete all the words after the word "that" and substitute the following, "Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests after it is verified that he meets the requirements for the appointment equivalent to a DRO under section 21 of the Elections Act."

The Elections Act, 1991 gives direction on the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer and the House of Assembly Act provides a similar function with regard to the Commissioner of Members' Interests. Both Acts deal with the appointment process for the relevant positions and outline the separate and distinct roles of the Executive Branch and the Commission of Internal Economy.

The main motion before the House is very precise in that it calls for the appointment of Mr. Paul Reynolds as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. The Chair acknowledges that this type of direct and concise motion is not easily amended.

The Chair notes that the intent of the amendment is to link the appointment of Mr. Paul Reynolds to the outcome of a verification process. Such an amendment would clearly make the main motion to be subject to the results of such a determination.

The proposed amendment expands the original motion by placing thereon a conditional qualification on the appointment process that was not anticipated in either The Elections Act, 1991 or The House of Assembly Act. The legislation passed by this House does not give direction on the matter of qualifications. The Speaker must assume the silence in the enabling legislation on the matter of qualifications to be the expressed wish of this House and its elected representatives.

The Speaker would like to reference a similar amendment introduced in the House of Commons during the Free Trade Debate in 1987. The main motion was direct and precise in that it asked the House of Commons to endorse the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement as being in the national interest. An amendment was introduced which would have had the effect of adding words to clarify the ratification process by adding a requirement that the approval of the free trade proposal be determined by the Canadian population in a general election.

In a ruling dated December 17, 1987, Speaker John Fraser referenced earlier decisions in the House of Commons; specifically, a decision of Speaker Roland Michener on June 11, 1958, and decisions of Deputy Speaker Lucien Lamoureux on June 4, 1964 and a further ruling by Speaker Lamoureux on May 6, 1966.

Speaker Fraser, in his ruling on the amendment to the free trade resolution noted the following, "Assuming the amendment and the motion were accepted, we would have the endorsement by the House of the free trade agreement subject to a further endorsement by the population at the next general election and, in my humble opinion, this is foreign to the main question."

Therefore, after the most careful consideration and with due consideration of viewpoints offered by the House leadership, the Chair must rule that the amendment, in expanding the scope of the resolution, to be foreign to the main question. Moreover, the amendment, if passed by the House, has the potential to be an indirect negative to the main motion. Thus, passing the amendment may constitute a circumstance which would be analogous to voting against the main motion.

However, the Speaker notes that, should the House wish to consider the proposition contained in the amendment, it need only to be formulated as a separate and substantive motion with due notice as required in the Standing Orders.

Thus, the Chair rules that the amendment as placed before the House by the Opposition House Leader to be out of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

I do believe that you were speaking in your twenty minutes back on Thursday, and you can continue to speak.

The Chair will consult with the Table to find out exactly how much time remains.

MR. PARSONS: I assume I had three or four minutes left. I am not exactly certain.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, seconded by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word, "that" and substituting the following therefore: "Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests only upon the completion of an independent public competition deems him best qualified of all applicants for this position."

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. the Opposition House Leader for putting forward his amendment. The Chair does not have a copy of the amendment. When the Chair gets a copy, we will recess the House for a short while so that the Chair can have the appropriate consultations.

The Chair will recess the House so that we can have the appropriate consultations.

This House is now in recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed the second amendment put forward by the member sitting in Opposition and the Chair recognizes the fact that this particular amendment is very similar to the previous amendment and the same rationale has been used by the Speaker in giving consideration to it. Therefore, after careful consideration by the Speaker and by the Table Officers, and with due consideration to the matter before the House, the Chair must rule that the amendment in expanding the scope of the resolution expands the main question, and is foreign to the main question.

Moreover, the amendment, if passed by the House, has the potential of being an indirect negative to the main motion. Therefore, the Chair rules the amendment put forward by the Opposition House Leader to be out of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order.

I want to make it quite clear, I am not in any way questioning Your Honour's ruling, and I accept it without issue.

When you made your comments in reference to the initial amendment that I filed, you also ended by making a comment about, it would have stood as a substantive motion under our Standing Orders. I am wondering if that same rationale would apply to the second amendment as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Opposition House Leader is correct, that any particular amendment can, of course, be proposed to the House by any particular member as a separate motion and would therefore stand in its own right. Therefore, the only way which we are going to amend this particular motion that we are discussing, the main motion, would be if we were to have a substantive motion put before the House and have it discussed and let it stand on its own merits.

MR. PARSONS: In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I am going to - if the government would be agreeable to having either of the amendments that we put forward be debated in this House as a substantive motion with consent, as we have often done in this House when we deem it to be of importance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair also notes, of course, as he did in his commentary, that such motions under our Standing Orders would require notice and that the appropriate notice given then of course can be dealt with by the House Leadership and the Chair would be merely the facilitator.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to continue with my minutes, if I could, under those circumstances.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader, who I do believe has several minutes left in his allotted time.

MR. PARSONS: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. In fact , I thought I had two or three minutes left here.

Again, I would like to, in my remaining time, propose an amendment to the main resolution that is before the House. I notice some of the members opposite seem to have a problem with following procedure here. Maybe you would like to speak to it, if you so wish, but otherwise I would appreciate having an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the main motion on the floor here concerning the appointment of the (inaudible) be amended by adding immediately after the word, interest, the following: To perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not seen the proposed amendment. Again, we will follow due process. If I could have one of the Pages pass me the proposed amendment. The Chair now has the amendment and the Chair will recess the House to give it due consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to rule on a proposed amendment put forward by the Opposition House Leader that would add, at the end of the motion, the following: To perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan manner.

There was an addendum, in other words, put on the main motion. That particular addendum was ruled in order by Speaker Parent.

In considering the amendment put forward, the Chair has had consultations with the Table Officers, and has had consultations with leading parliamentary authorities by telephone this afternoon - leading Canadian parliamentary authority.

The Chair finds that the proposed amendment is not foreign to the main motion nor negative to its intent. The proposed amendment does not raise a new question. The amendment may be redundant to the intent of the main motion, but that of itself does not rule the amendment out of order.

The amendment does not offend the generally accepted rules of parliamentary practice, and the amendment makes explicit what is implicit in the main motion. Therefore, the Chair rules the amendment to be in order.

Under our Parliamentary rules, that would mean that the mover of the amendment would now have time to speak to the amendment.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) time, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocation for speaking to the amendment would be, I understand, twenty minutes.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you. I just wanted to confirm.

Maybe if I could have a copy of the amendment as well. I believe I gave my only copy, actually, to the Table.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This issue, of course, the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer for our Province, is a seminal question. It is important to all of us, not only who sit here as parliamentarians, but it is important to everybody in this Province.

We are going to have an election on October 9, this year. That was set by way of fixed election legislation that was dealt with in this House back, I do believe, in 2004. The concern and the reason why this particular amendment is being put forward, and the words we asked to have here as an amendment again were, "to perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan manner".

That is a pretty general statement, but it is pretty obvious why such a statement is necessary. We are here in this House dealing with a resolution that is going to appoint someone to be in charge of, and responsible for, the non-partisan application and interpretation of the Elections Act.

Everybody in this Province, whether you be Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or anyone else, we are only here, us members, as participants in the electoral process at this time. The reason why this is important is not because of how this member expects to be treated by the person who has been proposed, but it is how everyone in this Province, everybody - the voters more so even than the persons who are participating in the actual system - need to have the confidence of knowing that everybody who has put their name on a ballot box, every system and procedure that is going to be used in running of an election, is going to be absolutely above reproach and without question.

That is why this amendment is being proposed here. The question is quite simple: How do we test, how do we determine, that the person who has been nominated here will be absolutely impartial? That is the question here: How can we as a House, and how can we as a people in this Province, have the assurance that person will be absolutely impartial?

Well, the first thing you do, of course, you can ask the individual. I asked the individual personally. I was not prepared to come in here in this House and talk about Mr. Paul Reynolds or anyone else and say he is not the right person or he is the right person. I said, back when we had this debate earlier, in May of 2006 when we were talking about the then nominee, Chuck Furey, I have no problem with a person who was a politician.

Mr. Reynolds, in my understanding, was never a politician in that sense, as I said with Mr. Furey, but I said I had no problem with that, about parking your politics at the door. I meant it and still mean it, but I was wrong in one aspect that I did say at that time. Wrong, I guess in the sense that I was not fully informed; because I made a comment at that time that the appointment of a position such as this is a lot like the appointment of a judge. I made that statement and said I see no reason - the same as our current Chief Justice, Mr. Wells, was the former Premier of this Province. He had politics. He was a politician, but I see no reason why he would have been not appointed to the bench because he was of a particular political stripe, no more than I would say Mr. William Marshall who sat in this House as a Conservative member for years with distinction, he left politics and he went to the bench and served the bench in this Province with distinction, absolutely. So there are two examples of where people who had been in the political system went on to have another career somewhere else.

I made the comment, I said that is a lot like we are doing here with Chuck Furey; but, really, it was not, when I look back in hindsight. It was not the same process, and I would like to point out why it was not the same process.

Once someone goes to the bench there is a process, a far more detailed process than we have here. We have here, under the laws - now, maybe the process is not right. It is totally, absolutely the Premier's prerogative to bring the name forward. We all know that. That is in this act, how we do it, and he did it and he has total right to do it, but, I say, there was no consultation. It says in the act that it be done in consultation. Now, what does consultation mean, first and foremost? I guess you can say: Well, we picked up the phone or we had our Chief of Staff pick up the phone on the afternoon that you announced it, ten minutes before, and say: Here is who we are going to put there. Thank you. Good bye.

Now, that might constitute consultation with some people. I would use the words, that is advising someone what you are going to do. That is not much consultation. I do not know if the Leader of the NDP was ever consulted or told about it. I do not know. She will speak for herself. I know there was no consultation here in terms of the sense of the word consultation. That is how it happened, folks. The word was sent out, that this is who it is going to be. In fact, within ten minutes it was in the press, the release was gone. Now that is the consultation that we had here. Do not try to hide behind any guises of there was some process of consultation between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP. It did not happen.

The other question - back to the judge thing again, in comparing. When a person applies for the bench, there are a lot of processes in place, once I came to think about it, that we did not have here. For example, you can only be appointed a judge if you make an application. Whether it is provincial or federal, you cannot even go to the bench until you, in writing, express your wishes and say you want to be such and outline your resume. I do not think there was any such process here of an application. There certainly was no public process. I do not remember seeing anything in the newspaper where this government said: We need a new Chief Electoral Officer and anybody who is interested, make your application. That was not done. That would not take away from the Premier's right to make a recommendation. That would only be opening it up so that anybody and everybody who felt that he or she could be a Chief Electoral Officer would have the right to apply. That was not done. There was no application process, like there would be in the case of a judge. I use the comparison of a judge, of course, because that person, he or she, once they assume that role, must be absolutely impartial and apply the law equally and fairly and equitably to everybody who comes before them. I do not see much difference in terms of the role that a Chief Electoral Officer is playing. So, we did not have any kind of public process here to determine who was interested. We did not have it, and we did not have any consultation. Now, those are two reasons.

We also never had an interview. If you are going to be appointed to the bench, there is an interview process. You have to give your name and your references as to some people you have worked with. The Member for St. Mary's, I am sure, is aware of this as well. You have to say who your references are and that committee, the judicial committee, federal-provincial, whichever, actually calls all these people. Every member on these committees calls your references and says: Such and such is applying for the bench. What do you think of him? It is done in the strictest, total confidence. The Premier had that right to do that. He could have consulted with whomever he wanted. We do not know. I do not think there was any kind of vetting or consulting with anyone in the case of Mr. Reynolds. That was not done. In fact, there is an assessment done of the person. The committee actually does an assessment on a scale of 1 to 10, on a number of criteria, about 200 criteria actually, to determine if that person is fit to serve in that role. We did not have that here. There was no assessment done. There was no consultation done. There was no application done and there was no counsel vetting anybody done.

In fact, under the judge's piece, you have to comply with Revenue Canada stuff. It says right in there: One of the basics you do is check out and make sure this person does not owe any money in taxes. That is an impediment to the appointment.

When you compare the two processes - I was absolutely wrong - they are not the same. The vetting process for the bench is far more detailed than this process. There is no process, which brings me back to the comment again on what this amendment is based on. How do we, as a people, get an appreciation of this gentleman's impartially? How do we have a comfort level here that this individual is non-partisan?

I said to him last Thursday when we were in this House, because I called him and said: Look, the caucus that I am a member of asked me these questions. They know you are political. There were a few comments made in The Telegram. Are you still political? Can you let us know what your political involvement was because it is causing them some concern? There is too much of a closeness between you, in time, and your appointment.

For example, Mr. Furey, I think - he was different again. Chuck Furey was a member of the Liberal Party of this Province; no doubt about it. I said in my comments about him earlier, I didn't know the man, really. I was in Cabinet with him but wasn't chummy, wasn't buddy-buddy sort of thing. I told him, I speak as I find; he had no problem with that. He wasn't one of my closest colleagues, shall we say, but I voted for him.

MR. REID: He was out of politics how long then?

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Furey was out of politics for two, three or four years before he got appointed.

MR. REID: Five years.

MR. PARSONS: Five years.

In fact, anybody on the other side who listened to CBC commentary, whether it be on the telly or on the CBC, we had some serious concerns over on this side during that period, when he was a commentator, if he was indeed a Liberal. In fact, he was apt to tell it like it was. Mr. Furey told it like it was, and he tore a few strips off us, too, no question about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why he got appointed.

MR. PARSONS: Now, I am not suggesting that had anything to do with his appointment, that he changed his colours, but it is certainly different for the situation of Mr. Reynolds, in timing. Because, folks, when I called Mr. Reynolds and wrote that letter to Mr. Reynolds on Tuesday - he had been put forward on Monday in the press release - when I wrote him on Tuesday and I subsequently spoke to him, he admitted, and he has admitted in writing which we have here before this House, that he stayed a member of the Virginia Waters PC executive even after his appointment.

Now, folks, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out, is partisanship a possible issue here? We are looking at somebody to go into a position. I am just saying, look at the evidence. We did not create that circumstance. I do not have to stand up here and fabricate something about Mr. Paul Reynolds to show what his politics was. He was up front and told me that.

That might even be a good point for him, that he told me. He admitted it, it did not have to be squeezed out of him, but it says something about his judgement. It says something about his judgement, because surely this appointment did not get made on Monday without the Premier's office and Mr. Reynolds having some conversations. Surely, somebody would have told Mr. Reynolds, or Mr. Reynolds would have said: Well, Premier, I am the Vice-President of the Virginia Waters PC Association. Even the optics do not good on this, Sir. Shouldn't I resign my position, at least?

Do you know what? For whatever reason - oversight, arrogance, whatever - he did not do it, and that causes a problem. Because, if you want to put the wrong twist on this, it sounds almost like the gentleman said: Well, thank you very much; because the Premier is appointing me and we have the numbers, those are the only people I have to answer to.

That is the whole problem about appointing somebody as Chief Electoral Officer, if they happen to feel that way. That is a problem, because you do not only park your politics at the door; you park your preferences at the door.

In fact, I read from the newspaper - Mr. Reynolds was here last week - I was utterly, utterly shocked when I read in The Telegram - not my words, his words. He says: but I think you in the media and all people concerned are familiar with how the Premier of this Province operates. He is a man of the utmost integrity. I think he sees me in a role similar to himself - have high standards in that direction.

Then it goes on to say: as of Tuesday afternoon, Reynolds was still a director of the PC Association.

We did not fabricate this. I did not say things or make public statements that made one think about one's impartiality. These circumstances all existed because of the doings - only, solely, wholly - by the person who has been nominated, and that causes people to have problems. He hires and he fires people under the act who are going to run elections in this Province.

For example, we have special ballots that caused a big issue the last time around, who could do them, who could be part of the process or not part of the process. In fact, I was anticipating that we were going to have a substantial piece of legislation brought forward in this sitting of the House dealing with some election issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I am glad to hear from the Government House Leader that is intended.

Mr. Reynolds, of course - and, like I said the last day, we are not under any false pretenses here that he is not going to end up being the Chief Electoral Officer. That would be foolhardy for us to suggest that. It is a numbers game, folks. It is a numbers game. The government have more numbers, the government want the person there, and we cannot possibly overrule them on the numbers game, but that does not take away from whether it is right. That does not make it right. It does not make it right, that simply because you have numbers you can put people in places where you have these questions of their impartiality.

I say to the members opposite, too, and I listened to all of them who spoke last week - the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for St. John's Centre, the Government House Leader - you gentlemen have the benefit, no doubt, of knowing Mr. Reynolds personally. You can speak of him based upon knowing the man personally. I do not have that benefit. I can only speak to what I see, and I pointed out those two things that I see.

I appreciate the fact that he openly, readily acknowledged his connection with the Conservatives. I appreciate that. He did not try to hide anything, but it was there. The fact that a person who is known to you, you could get up and talk about and praise him to the heavens as to why he should be in this position. It does not take away from the fact that this person must be seen by the people of this Province to be absolutely impartial. We have not seen that.

We have questions in this House, for example, about the Premier - you talk about the commissioners' interests piece. We have been asking in the Opposition here, repeatedly, of the Premier: Who is the trustee of your blind trust? The Premier, as of today, shouts across the House: None of your business. That is the comments he made across the House today, folks.

Now, here we are in a Province where we are going to appoint someone again. We are asking a question and the Premier says: None of your business; not going to know. The Leader of the Opposition asked a very valid question. He said: Premier, what does knowing the name of your trustee have to do with what is in your trust? There is no connection. None of our business. He is absolutely right, it is none of our business what is in his trust. That is the man's confidential, personal, private doings. That is what that is there for, but does that take away from saying who your trustee is? Why does that take away from (inaudible) your trustee? Where is the accountability and the openness? The people of this Province are going to continue to ask that question because as long as the Premier refuses to say who it is, there is suspicion, doubt in the minds of the public as to: Why is he not telling us? That question is out there in people's minds, folks.

Anyway, I understand, Mr. Speaker, my time is approaching its end. I will certainly turn this over - I guess we have speakers remaining over on this side, certainly, to the amendment as well. I understand the Government House Leader is going to be speaking to it as well.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I will briefly say a few words to the amendment as proposed by the Opposition House Leader. The amendment, I think, is self-evident. The amendment just adds the words and asks that the person proposed to be appointed to the position of Chief Electoral Officer, quote: To perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, we would not be here as a government proposing the appointment of anybody to the position of Chief Electoral Officer if we expected them to perform their duties in a partisan matter. It is implicit in the resolution that the person appointed to that position will, in fact, perform their duties in a non-partisan manner. As a matter of fact, it is implicit in the resolution appointing the hon. gentleman that if some member of this House - nay, Mr. Speaker, some member of the public. If some member of the public had reason to believe that the person filling the position did not perform their duties in a non-partisan manner - in other words, were partisan, were engaged in party politics, were part of the party process in making decisions affecting the Chief Electoral Office and the functions of that office, it would be incumbent on a member of this House to bring a motion before the House that the person be dismissed. That is as plain as the nose on your face, Mr. Speaker, that it is implicit in the resolution that a person park their politics at the door if they had any.

There was no amendment made to the resolution appointing Mr. Furey, that he perform his duties in a non-partisan manner. I have no indication that he did not. If I had any indication that he did not, I could have sought a remedy from this House, if the Legislature was in session, asking that he be dismissed, that he be given the flick, that he be gotten rid of because there was evidence to suggest that he did not perform his duties in a non-partisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, it is academic, it is elementary, that the person appointed to this position would be expected, not only by the members of this House but by the general populous of Newfoundland and Labrador, to perform their duties in a non-partisan manner. It is elementary that when a person is appointed to the bench that the public expects that they perform their duties in a non-partisan manner. It does not matter about screening or interviews or consultations. That is why if a partisan person, a person with a partisan background, involved in political - the only way you can become involved in political life in most jurisdictions in Canada, with the exception of some of the territories of Nunavut, is to be part of a party. You cannot form a government by being an independent, but in Nunavut you can form governments by being independent. Members are not elected as part of a party.

So, the only way you can be confidently involved and adequately involved in public life in most jurisdictions in Canada is be part of the party system. That is why after people leave partisan politics, and if they are going to be appointed to two positions that have partisanship associated with them, people call it patronage, some people end up being judges, some end up serving on boards, quasi-judicial boards like the public utilities board, some end up serving on the Immigration Refugee Board of Canada. All kinds of quasi-judicial boards people end up serving on. There is no motion - there is no qualifier appointed or attached to your appointment saying that when you take this job you park your politics and become non-partisan. It is expected that you do it. It is a given that you do it.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Reynolds was so forthcoming about it, that as a result of a letter from the Opposition House Leader he said it. He said: In my role as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests I want to assure you personally and your caucus - I do not know if they had that commitment from his predecessor or not. I do not know if they asked for it, but this gentleman was so forthcoming that he said: I assure you personally and your caucus that all MHAs will be treated with fairness, on an impartial basis, and with strict adherence to the act.

Mr. Speaker, I would expect nothing else of Paul Reynolds. That is Paul Reynolds, the man that I know. I would expect nothing else of him, only to be right jack blunt, upfront and say: If I am going to do this job, I am going to do it in a fair, unbiased, impartial manner without fear of anybody. I am independent. Once I am appointed by the Legislature I am independent. I will perform my duties in fear of nobody. I will take direction from nobody. If I have to hammer the Premier, as leader of the government of the party that I supported when I was active in politics, I will do it. Just as I would expect the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, Clyde Wells, who was a partisan politician, I would expect him to hammer, no matter who it is, without fear of retribution, whoever appears in front of him, because he has to do his job impartially, unbiased and without fear, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: This amendment to this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is nothing. It means nothing. It does not accomplish anything. It does not make the resolution more acceptable or non-acceptable to anybody because we all believe in it. We all believe - we, on this side of the House anyway - that Mr. Reynolds, on becoming Chief Electoral Officer, will perform his job in an unbiased, non-partisan, non-political way.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this resolution for the government to vote against because it is implicit in the resolution that the man will do it. So, Mr. Speaker, we would vote on the resolution now if the House wants to. We would vote on the amendment now if the House wants to.

Now, I know, I suspect from the headlines in today's paper, that the resolution is here for another reason. I suspect it is here for another reason, and the f word, the filibuster word and all that. That is fine. Those are the rules of the game. I have played by them for about thirty years here and I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem with that. So, if the Opposition wants to debate the amendment so that they can all have another kick at the cat, so to speak, that is the way -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fill their boots.

MR. RIDEOUT: Fill their boots - that is the way it works - and then go back to the main motion, that is the way it works.

We know the rules, Mr. Speaker, but in terms of the amendment let me say this, and let the word go forth, Mr. Speaker, to anybody who might be listening, to all those mom-and-pop chesterfield people that the Opposition House Leader talks about, if they are out there now listening, let them understand that we have no problem with this amendment. It is implicit in the resolution that the person appointed to the position will perform his or her duties in a non-partisan, unbiased and an impartial manner. We would expect -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is common sense.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is common sense. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. I mean, anybody can figure it out, Mr. Speaker. Somebody as stunned as me can figure that out, Mr. Speaker, that you do not have to - you know if you are going to accept that position, if you had partisan politics, if you engaged in partisan politics in the past, it is over, it is done with; you park it at the door and you get on with doing your job.

Our responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that we appoint somebody who is capable of doing the job; and, Mr. Speaker, I submitted, and everybody in this government believes, that Paul Reynolds is capable of doing the job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We therefore, Mr. Speaker, will support this amendment when it comes to a vote. If it comes to a vote today, we will support it. If it comes to a vote two weeks from now we will support it, because we believe that Mr. Reynolds is the right person. He will do the job and he will do it in a fair, unbiased and non-partisan manner, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make a few comments with regard to the amendment to the original motion. It has been, I guess, entered before the House by the Opposition House Leader. I just want to refer to some of the comments that have been made and a few comments that I have of my own.

We are all well aware, like the Government House Leader just mentioned, how motions are made and amendments are made for various reasons. I have seen that, I guess, operate from both sides of the House. We know that the motion was put forth by the House Leader that Mr. Paul Reynolds would be appointed the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. We know that subsection 4.(1) of the Elections Act, 1991 provides for this to be done by a resolution before the House of Assembly. We also know that under subsection 34.(2) it states that it be done on a motion by the Premier followed by consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and any other parties involved with the hon. House of Assembly.

That has been brought forth here this afternoon, no doubt, the Premier came up with the name of Mr. Paul Reynolds. The Leader of the Opposition, in my understanding, received a phone call from the Premier's office. I have to say, like the Opposition House Leader said, there was very little consultation, if you want to call it that, but he did receive a phone call saying the name that would be put forward before the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we know and we have discussed what the duties are, of the individual who will be hired: To carry out the administrative conduct of elections, enforcing the fairness and impartiality and compliance with the act, and maintaining, investigating and reporting with regard to the compliance of the Members of the House of Assembly when it comes to conflict of interest legislation.

I listened to members opposite when they spoke. Some of them mentioned how they worked with Mr. Reynolds, and no doubt they probably know the gentleman far more than I do. Other people served with him, whether it was on councils or on various committees within the Wedgewood Park, St. John's area. Many of them knew him as a friend and they spoke very, I guess, spoke their minds on how they knew this gentleman, whether it was as a personal issue or through business or what have you. Others, no doubt, mentioned that they knew the gentleman politically, and I have no problems with that.

I can honestly say that the comments that I make here today have nothing to do with Mr. Reynolds as the individual. From all indications that I know - I have heard talk of the man over the years - he is a fine gentleman who has served his community and many organizations to the fullest of his ability, and I commend him for that, a gentleman who originally came from an area of the Province that is very close to the district that I represent.

Mr. Speaker, when you look over his biographical information - and I will just go back to the comments that the Government House Leader made when he stated that there was nothing political about it; he came forward with the positions that he held and so on - in the information that I have here with regard to Mr. Reynolds, it tells where he received his education, the part of the Province he came from and was born. It goes on to talk about the private sector, the volunteer work that he was involved in, and lists all of the boards and organizations.

I am going to tell you - and this was dated April 23, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. - there is nothing on this whatsoever, and I am not saying it should have been there, but there is nothing there, I can assure you, that outlines his political background. It tells everything else about the gentleman. I guess that is fair as well.

We knew he was a person who was involved in the political arena to some degree, not being an elected official but served on various executives and president of the party and so on, but it was in the letter, I guess, when he responded to the Opposition House Leader, where I personally saw it, when he wrote the letter and explained what his involvements were.

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, no doubt about it, the individual is a qualified individual from all aspects. I do not have any problems with regard to the gentleman, like I just mentioned; however, when it comes to the position that he is being appointed to, I guess that is where you have some concerns with regard to the way it was dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, we know, like I said, since 1949 - I think the Leader of the Opposition went through each and every individual who has been selected to this position over the years since 1949. I think he mentioned there was probably one other point in time when someone with a political background with regard to the position probably was appointed.

What it comes down to, Mr. Speaker, is that anyone with a political allegiance, I believe, should not hold this position, even though back when Mr. Furey - and, like I said, we know Mr. Furey had a good political background. He was a Member of this House of Assembly. I have to be honest. At that particular time, after I heard some of the members from the government side, some members on the Opposition side, when they made their speeches, I think the record will show that I voted in favour at that time; but after that and leading up to this particular time - I mean, Mr. Furey was there for one year. I have to be honest, after listening to people and sizing up the situation, the way it transpired, even though I voted for it, I still have some concerns as to the way it was done at that time.

The other thing I want to point out, when we reference political appointments - I remember in the by-election of 2001, the same time the Premier and I ran, it was two by-elections at the same time. I remember very clearly, Mr. Speaker, not only our Premier of today, but all members who were in the Opposition at that time, traveled through the District of Port de Grave and there were many issues, no doubt about it, but the message they were sending out loud and clear - Mr. Speaker points at himself and says, not him. All jokes put aside, they went through the district saying: Look, things have to change in this Province. Political patronage - this is going to be a new vision, a new leadership, this should not happen anymore.

I heard some hon. members saying today: I suppose you guys never, ever did something like that over there. That was the way of the past apparently. When this government took over in 2003, what we are seeing now and on other occasions was not supposed to happen anymore. Whether that is right or wrong, the record will show that is what happened at that time. However we have seen a long list, I guess, of people who had been appointed, whether they were relatives, friends, political acquaintances, business acquaintances or what have you. It is still continuing today.

When Mr. Reynolds name was put forward at that point in time, no doubt it was put forward by the Premier, and we have heard that as well. We also know when this happened, I do not think the process was properly followed, because he was appointed or the announcement was made on April 23 and it was just after that when Mr. Reynolds announced that he would be resigning from the position that he held.

I know this has been mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, but I couldn't help but notice it, in the note that was in the paper, that Mr. Reynolds said he would be fair and honourable to all people, and I guess, time will tell. We know that eventually this motion will pass before the House, Mr. Speaker. He went on to say that he felt the Premier wanted him there, to appoint him to this position, because he felt that he was more or less an individual like him and it was the proper way to go.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at some other issues, I know there are not the same rules and regulations that are governed to appoint the CEO, but even when we look at the application form for the enumeration workers who are going to be selected around this Province for the upcoming election, it states very clearly, even for those individuals which is only a minor - not to belittle it - is only a minor position for a very short period of time, that sixty days before they are appointed they cannot be in the service of any political party, they cannot be employed by a political party or another person, they cannot even be employed by another person, who is doing work for the interests of a political party.

During the general elections, the deputy returning offices, the poll clerks, the election clerks, all of those people - and I have seen this happen in my own district and prior to being elected myself to the hon. House of Assembly - those people cannot be part of a political party or even be perceived as part of a political party. I have seen incidents where we have had rallies in the district of Port de Grave and individuals who wanted to be a poll captain, an agent or a driver on polling day, or wanted to become a DRO or a poll clerk or what have you, they were more or less told that it was a common thing, that look, you cannot go to those political rallies if you wish to get one of those positions. You cannot attend any political meetings whatsoever to become a DRO or a poll captain. The same thing with being seen in a headquarters. Even if you had a parade in your district, they were not allowed to take part in the parade. If you were seen there, you would lose your position.

I bring this up for a reason, Mr. Speaker, because to me again, not to belittle those positions, I think they are very minor when it comes to the position of the Chief Electoral Officer that we are talking about here today. Even in those positions, it is a key point that they are making on the rules and regulations, that you cannot be affiliated with any political party up to that point in time.

We have heard, from time to time, with regard to the positions and the work that has to be done during elections - and I am not saying that Mr. Reynolds or anyone else who would get this position - but the perception is there that when you know someone is, I guess, a part of a political party of the past, the perception is there not only amongst us as politicians, but the general public: Will they play the game straight? Will they not play the political game? Hopefully that would not happen, but that is the perception that is out there.

The amendment that my hon. colleague, the Opposition House Leader, put forward, says: to perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan manner. Mr. Speaker, that is where we are coming from on this side. Even during the judicial recount, not only in Humber Valley but at any particular time, the people who carry out those recounts also have to be seen to be non political.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the closing comment that I would make is that I have no problem with Mr. Paul Reynolds as an individual, Mr. Speaker. The only issue, hopefully, that will be dealt with by all hon. members when we vote on the main motion is to see to it that the individual is not to be deemed or seem to be involved, not because he was a part of a political party of the past but being perceived to be, as he takes over this position, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I will conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker, and let someone else have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention this afternoon to speak to the main motion nominating Mr. Paul Reynolds as the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. I now find myself speaking to the amendment.

I do not think, Mr. Speaker, the tenor of my comments will be any different, because I see this amendment as really a bit of a redundant thing, having no affect whatsoever either way on the overall motion. At the end of the day, whether we vote for it or vote against it, it really does not make any difference.

The Opposition House Leader spoke a few moments ago saying it was all a numbers game with us over here with respect to getting Mr. Reynolds appointed. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is more of a number games with regard to this amendment as well, because certainly it adds nothing to the debate when we could be here today, Mr. Speaker, debating much more important things; not that the appointment of Mr. Reynolds is not important, but the matter of this amendment is certainly for that purpose only.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I can see why the Opposition puts forth this amendment is I think they are really afraid to debate the Budget. They want to put off as long as possible debating the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: That is the reason they are putting this motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, my first awareness of Paul Reynolds goes back several years to the late 1970s, early 1980s, when we were both in municipal politics together. He was the Mayor of Wedgewood Park and I was the Mayor of Placentia. We were fledgling municipal politicians at that time; as a matter of fact, in an area of politics that was fledgling in itself, in that the development of municipal politics in this Province was just beginning. It was pioneering, sort of thing, and Mr. Reynolds and I ran across each other quite often in municipal circles, especially in the Federation of Municipalities and so on.

He was a very esteemed Mayor of Wedgewood Park. We were always impressed at the way in which he stood out at federation meetings and the manner in which he articulated his position, and questions and issues at federation meetings. He was one of the people that you looked to, to respond when an issue came to the floor. In our estimation at that time, he was one of the leaders in municipal politics of that day.

He was also one of the leaders in this Province at that time in developing the whole Department of Municipal Affairs. With input from the various municipalities around the Province in helping the department to set its policies, Mr. Reynolds played a significant role. I also remember, Mr. Speaker, how well he articulated the position of retaining the community, the town of Wedgewood Park, as a autonomous municipality; a battle which, of course, he eventually lost.

Wedgewood Park was an exemplary municipality, one of the most affluent and most well run municipalities in the Province. It was a jewel in the Crown as far as the City of St. John's was concerned; much coveted by the City of St. John's, and, of course, which they eventually gained. Paul Reynolds was front and center in all of these discussions, very well respected and looked up to in this Province as a municipal, political leader. To add to that, he spent some time on the City Council of St. John's. If he can survive that, Mr. Speaker, then he is eligible for any job we can throw at him. It has brought forth great leaders, like: Paul Reynolds, Shawn Skinner and John Dinn.

I am not familiar with Mr. Reynolds' business life or his business attributes. I am told, and do believe, that he has met with considerable success. He was in a managing position at Ultramar for several years. I have no head for business or finances and, consequently and subsequently, I would hold myself out to judge his business ability. I say that with all honesty because I have never been involved in business, never been a businessman, so I cannot speak for his business - as a matter of fact, on the side, Mr. Speaker, as far as business and finance goes, when the previous Minister of Finance resigned around Christmastime, my wife and I were speculating who he would be replaced with in Cabinet. My wife said: One thing for sure, it will not be you. So, I do not hold myself out in anyway to judge Mr. Reynolds on his business attributes.

In addition to being a municipal politician and a contributor to his community, he was involved in a number of things in the community as well. Recreation commission, he was a director of the YMCA. He was a director of Crime Stoppers, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Run for Health, a member of the Port Corporation, driver's licence review board, Pippy Park Commission. All of these are no wishy-washy positions, Mr. Speaker. The fact that he served in those positions attests to his ability.

Now, we are not here today to discuss whether or not he is going to do his job in a non-partisan manner. That is a rather silly amendment to put before the motion. The fact that he has been appointed for this job - we are only concerned with his capability, his ability to do the job. It is implied in that, Mr. Speaker - his ability to do the job, he is going to do it in a non-partisan manner. There is no doubt in Mr. Reynolds' capacity to be able to do this job. His reputation as an able administrator and community worker demonstrates true leadership characteristics. That is what we are looking for in this position, a well known and respected individual and professional who can handle this job and handle it very well.

Do we dismiss him, or do we dismiss anybody from any public position because of his political affiliation? Well, if we were to do that, Mr. Speaker, we would have to eliminate the greater percentage of the individuals in Newfoundland, because just about every adult in Newfoundland has a political affiliation one way or the other. Some may not be as strong as others. Some affiliations may be more visible than others, but everybody has an affiliation to a political party in Newfoundland.

There are those people in my district who will never vote Liberal until their dying day. There are also people in my district who will never vote PC. They will go to their death.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COLLINS: I concur, like the song, year after year their numbers get fewer, but they are still there. Their hands would fall off and rot if they voted the other way. The affiliations are there. In the case of Mr. Reynolds, affiliation is quite visible. That is no different than the person who votes. He happened to wear his party colours on his sleeve in his participation with political society.

As has been mentioned in this House several times, so too does several justices of our Supreme Court who are in the trail division and the appeal division. When I appeared as a lawyer, appearing in front of a Justice of the Supreme Court, I am not concerned about what political stripe he was. I am concerned of the job that I have to do for my client and how it is going to be received, and if I can get over the other guy. I am sure the judge in that Supreme Court does not look down and see that lawyer as being a PC or a Liberal. Non-partisanship is implied, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem standing in front of any judge, regardless of what his political affiliation was - we have a lot of them - they are unbiased, impartial and non-partisan. That is what we expect and that is what we get.

The Speaker's position every year, every term, comes from the governing party. We do not put in there that he carry out his job in a non-partisan manner. I do not know of any side here who questions the impartiality of the Speaker because we are talking about the position. I will have no problem providing my position to Mr. Reynolds, my commissioner's interests statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, based on his reputation, based on his contribution to society, based on his personal character, I have no problem voting for Mr. Paul Reynolds for the position of Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. Whether or not he is non-partisan does not enter the picture. It is implied. Whether or not I will vote for the amendment, I will wait until the end of the day and see how it goes. It really does not bother me if the amendment goes through or not, because if it does not go through it is implied in the main motion.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a charade in terms of debate, in terms of adding this amendment to the motion. The motion is that we nominate Mr. Paul Reynolds, and non-artisan is implied. I am in favour of Paul Reynolds. I have no problem with him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak not just to the amendment but particularly to the amendment, I suppose, because we are talking about a really important position in our Province; that, of course, of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests.

For anyone to suggest that this is a position that can be filled by anyone who has a party affiliation just as well as it can be filled by anyone who has maybe been a lifelong career servant is dreaming in technicolour, Mr. Speaker. I say that because the irony of all of this is that when the press release came out about the new Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests there was no mention whatsoever of his political affiliation.

If it was not an issue, I do not know why it would not have been included in the press release under his biographical information. In fact, even Mr. Reynolds' own biographical information does not include any of his political affiliation. That, to me, says volumes there, if it was something that somehow the government thought, well, maybe this is not such a good thing. This is a position that should be filled by someone who is non-partisan.

Whether or not Mr. Reynolds can fill that role I do not know. I really do not know. I do not know Mr. Reynolds. The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's just mentioned how long he has known him, how much he respects him, and - give him the credit. If he knows him, then by all means get up on your feet and say that, but at the end of the day you also have to appreciate that there are those of us who will be affected by whomever holds this position who does not know Mr. Reynolds and who cannot stand here and say that he is a great man, that we have no worries about whether or not he will be non-partisan. We do not know that, so why put any of us in a position where we have to question whether or not this gentleman will be non-partisan? Why go down that path when it is totally unnecessary?

There are so many people out there who could fill this position, who have not been so highly affiliated with any political party. In fact, there are people who probably we have no idea how they vote, people who are involved in the career civil service who, if you were to ask me what their political stripe was, I would have to say I really do not know and it is none of my business. It is that type of individual, it is that person, who we need to be filling this particular role.

It is the position that we are talking about here, not the individual. We need someone filling this position who we can all feel comfortable will do the job that needs to be done. I think that when we look at democracy and the fact that this position must be filled by an individual who will have to ensure that our elections are run on the up and up, that it is beyond reproach, that when you are talking about a Commissioner of Members' Interests, we need someone there who is going to look at the documentation without a jaundice eye, who is not going to say, well, look at this or look at that, or this person has this or that person has that. We all need to have that level of comfort, and that level of comfort comes with having an individual who is non-partisan, and that has been the practice since time immemorial.

I point to Mr. Furey, our last Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. Yes, he was politically affiliated for quite some time. He was a Liberal Cabinet minister, but Mr. Furey had not been involved in politics for five years when he was appointed to this position.

Now, that is quite different from Mr. Reynolds' political affiliation when, in fact, he resigned from being I think it was the President of Virginia Waters PC Association the day after he was appointed to this position by the Premier. I say appointed to the position by the Premier because, even though it is here before us in the House of Assembly and we all get to vote, we know that majority rules, and even though there was a call that came from the Premier's office - I am not sure who made the call, I know it was not the Premier - to the Leader of the Opposition, there was no consultation. There was no opportunity to express a view that: Do you think this is the right thing? We would prefer that you probably revert it to the process of having someone from the Public Service fill this position. That just was not the case.

We were told - the Leader of the Opposition was told - that it was Mr. Reynolds that the Premier wanted in this position, and Mr. Reynolds it will be. That is the way that this government has operated for the last three-and-a-half years. This is the way it is going to be, whether you like or not.

So, we can stand here on our feet and we can question what is happening here today, just like we have questioned other decisions that have been made by the Premier and the government, but at the end of the day all we can do is question and try to appeal to the government to get them to understand that it is not only those of us in this House of Assembly who are concerned, but it is the people we represent.

We are talking about elections in this Province. We are talking about making sure that democracy is at work. We are talking about making sure that elections are run in the manner in which they are intended to be run, that there is no issue when it comes to special ballots, that there is no issue when it comes to by-elections.

At this point in time I sincerely believe, as I am sure others do, that we need to have an individual who will do that and not be questioned about whether or not he did it based in a non-partisan manner.

Now, I do not know Mr. Reynolds, and maybe you are right. Maybe, as the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's says, he is an honourable man - I have no doubt about that - but I do not know Mr. Reynolds well enough to be able to stand here and vote for him as a person who should fill this particular position; and, if I do not feel comfortable about that, then I want to be able to voice my views on that, as I am sure other people do, and suggest to the government that here is an opportunity to do what is right here.

When the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's stood on his feet today and said: You know, there are more important things we should be dealing with - with all due respect to him, at this point in time this is what we are dealing with, and this is important. This deals with elections, and we have an election coming up in this Province in October. We should all feel comfortable, everybody in this Province should feel comfortable, that it is going to be handled in a manner that is beyond reproach.

Today, I have to tell you, I do not have that level of comfort only because I think the position needs to be filled by someone who is not affiliated with a particular party, someone who is not carrying their politics on their sleeve. Not one individual in this House today can say that Mr. Reynolds does not carry his particular brand of politics on his sleeve.

We all know where he has been, we all know where he has come from, we all know the different positions he has held in the PC Party. He wears it proudly. He said so. He is quoted in the newspapers as talking about how proud he is to be affiliated with the PC Party, and that is his right. I do not question that. That is his right, but it is also our right to question whether or not we think someone who wears his political stripe on his sleeve so proudly should be in a position that should be non-partisan.

Anyone thinking this through would have to agree that, whether or not Mr. Reynolds can carry out this job in a non-partisan way, the perception is what is important here as well. For anyone, who knows what this job is meant to do, anyone who knows the duties and responsibilities of this job, anyone who understands that the person in this position will have to deal with every member in the House of Assembly when it comes to their members' interests, their conflict of interest statements, anyone who knows that this particular position is so important in ensuring that elections are carried out in a manner that cannot be questioned so that at the end of the day the individuals who are elected as members to represent the interests of the populous at large, anyone would have to question whether or not someone with such close political ties will really do the job that needs to be done. Maybe he will. As I said, I do not know him well enough to know whether he will or not.

That is not the issue here. The issue here, and as the amendment said, is that we need to have someone who is non-partisan. Whether you believe it or not or whether you want to believe it or not or you refuse to admit, there is no way - no way! - that anyone, or I believe at least, that anyone who has been involved so long with a particular political party, who has been speaking very openly and very proud of his involvement with any political party, can do this job or be seen to do this job in a transparent way. That is what this is all about. It is about transparency, it is about ensuring that this particular job which is so important to all of us here and to the people that we represent, that this job is carried out in a manner that is beyond reproach.

I listened again to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's talk about, you know, a judge and how they get to be judges and whether or not their past political affiliation has any bearing on the job that they do. To try and compare the two is beyond me. In fact, when he started to do that I thought: Is this a lawyer himself who is speaking here, who is suggesting in any way, shape or form that the appointment of a judge is comparable to the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer? A judge goes through a very detailed interview process, a process that takes forever in some cases it appears. I would expect the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's would know that and would admit that; but, no, he stands in his place today and suggests: Wait now! A Chief Electoral Officer is comparable to appointing a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: At the end of the day, there is no comparison here. We would like to see that comparison, though, and we would like to see an interview process. Why not? Why not make it along the lines of a process that you would go through to appoint a judge? Maybe it does not have to be as extensive, but this is an important position. We believe, on this side of the House of Assembly, that an interview process would be appropriate. Why not have an all-party committee interview for this particular process? Why not? It would take away the doubt. The government would not have to face any questions about whether or not the individual is qualified to do this position or whether or not there is any degree of question about whether or not his political stripe is coming into play here.

It is a prime opportunity for the government to do this in a way that would be acceptable to everyone because I would think it would be acceptable to the government members as well. How could they question the opportunity to have someone appointed to this particular position of Chief Electoral Officer, to have an opportunity to actually interview someone for the position? At the end of the day, the best person obviously would be chosen. Maybe it is a process that the government should consider instead of going down the path of saying: No, we are going with this person who has been involved with our party for years, who is very proud to be a member of our party. Instead of going through all of this and the perception that goes with that, take this opportunity to actually have an interview process, an all-party committee to interview the individuals who are interested.

Why aren't we advertising the position? I am sure there are a lot of people out there who are more than qualified and who would welcome an opportunity to fill this particular position, because it is a position of great importance to the Province and to the people of the Province. Why wouldn't you advertise it? Why wouldn't you just suggest that, yes, we are going down that path, let's forget where we are today. I am sure Mr. Reynolds would understand. No one likes to be appointed to a position when they have gone through all of this and the commentary that has been made and the questions that are being raised. I am sure he would welcome it. Most people would welcome an opportunity to compete for a position and then let the chips fall where they may. Why not give this man a chance to compete for this job instead of appointing him to a job and then have all of these questions being raised about him. No one likes to have that happen to them.

Let's think about Mr. Reynolds here. The government should be thinking about what is best for him, as well as what is best for the Province and what is best for the people of the Province. When you are trying to fill this position of Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests, put someone in there who can do the job in a non-partisan manner. You know, if Mr. Reynolds applies and there is an all-party committee that interviews him, and at the end of the day he wins that competition, then more power to him. At least he has gone through the process, like a judge would do, contrary to what the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's has said. Let's do it in the same way that we take care of our judges when we need to appoint a judge. Let's go and do it in a responsible manner, instead of just suggesting we are going to appoint someone who has had a history with a political party, who is now being expected to take that hat off, put it aside, never to let it come into play again, never to let it influence any decisions he or she might have to make, never have questions raised about whether or not they can be non-partisan. We should not even be debating this today because it should be done in a manner that ensures that the individual who is going to fill this position is one who is non-partisan. We do not know that to be the case today.

As I said before, I do not know Mr. Reynolds, and he may be quite capable of taking off that PC hat and laying it to one side, and when any issue arises in a provincial election, or in a by-election, when the votes are counted and it is close, that he will never do anything that will lead one to believe that he favours one party over another. Maybe he can, I do not know, but why should any of us have to doubt it? Why should any of us be put in this position where we doubt whether or not that non-partisan attitude will come into play? We do not know. It is not fair to us, it is not fair to the people of the Province and it not fair to Mr. Reynolds to be in this position today. It was completely avoidable, if the Premier had picked up the phone, called the Leader of the Opposition, and said: Why don't we put in place an all-party committee? Why don't we advertise the position? Is that something you think is a good thing to do? Because that is what I would like to do. We will advertise the position. We will see who is qualified out there, who is interested in applying. Then we will go through an interview process and we will get the best person possible to fill this job, the best person in the Province to be the Chief Electoral Officer, the best person to be the Commissioner of Members' Interests.

That may very well have turned out to be Mr. Reynolds, but we do not know and we will never know, unfortunately, because even though we have our amendment here and we are discussing our amendment today, an amendment that calls on the individual who is filling this position to be non-partisan, we will never know because at the end of the day when the vote is taken, of course, the majority will rule. We will have the Premier getting his way, and we will have those of us who are questioning what is going on here being left to question, and that is all we can do. All we can do is raise the issues, raise the issues and try and get through to the government that these are serious issues that need to be dealt with, that they should not be just brushed off, that they should not just be something to be swept under the carpet and never to be dealt with again.

Unfortunately, you are getting headlines in the papers: election posting raises concerns; appointment causes backlash. Mr. Reynolds has to be concerned about this. I would not want to accept a position where headlines were saying: appointment causes backlash; election posting raises concerns.

That is not fair to him, it is not fair to us, and it is not fair to the people of the Province, to be in a position where the Premier decides who it is going to be. When the vote comes down, the government will decide.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her speaking time has lapsed.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot help but wonder what we are doing here right now, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that just a little while ago there was an amendment put forward that this side of the House supports. I do not know how we are debating something that we already said we support. We are ready to vote on it. We have already said we are ready to vote on it. We are saying, let's vote on it and let's get on with government business.

The fact is, what that leads me to believe this afternoon is that this obviously must be playing politics. It just has to be. It has to be trying to extend the time that the members opposite get to speak on a particular issue.

I can tell you now, Mr. Speaker, if the members are looking for something to speak on, we can certainly speak about the fabulous Budget that this government just brought down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: In fact, Mr. Speaker, we can continue to speak about that until July or August, if we want, or September or October. We can stay for as long as you want to talk about the great things that are in the Budget, but apparently members opposite want to talk about this, what they call a political appointment.

Mr. Speaker, I started thinking about what the members opposite are talking about, and their concerns and so on and so forth, and the fact of the matter is that I do not know of anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Certainly, any time that I detract from the member's time, by all means we certainly agree to him finishing; but, just so people understand what is happening here - because the member obviously does not - we do not call the business of today. The Government House Leader determines what business will be conducted in this House. Now, the Government House Leader started on this resolution concerning the Chief Electoral Officer. I was given notice of it this morning, that is what we were going to discuss today, number one.

Number two, with respect to why anyone over here chooses to speak simply because the government side is in agreement with the amendment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member, if there is a point of order, if he would be kind enough to move to the point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, the point here is that, just because the government may agree with an amendment proposed by the Opposition does not mean that the members over here do not have the right to free speech. That is what this is all about, and that is what the member apparently does not understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is certainly no point of order. You know, the fact is that all I am saying is very simple, and I am sure if the members opposite can understand it but it is very simple, the Government House Leader has already said that we certainly do agree with the amendment. We have no problem with the amendment. Let's get on with the vote. That is all we are saying. We agree with it. We do not want to continue on and just play politics with this. We agree with it, but if we want to debate it - and I understand if the members opposite want to take the time to debate this. I have no problem with that, and I am sure everyone on this side of the House is quite happy to take the time to debate this particular issue.

I can tell you now that when I look at this political appointment thing that they are talking about, every person in Newfoundland and Labrador - pretty well every person in Newfoundland and Labrador - has some association with some political party, and that is a fact; everyone does. I will go a little step further. I will say this: Every employee of government probably has some affiliation with some political party. That does not mean we are going to turn around and say: Oh, you cannot be appointed to a position within government. My goodness gracious, what kind of a mess would we have in this Province if we decided, because somebody had some particular political tendency, that we would not be able to have them be appointed to a particular place in government? That would be so foolish that we cannot even do that.

When you look at Mr. Reynolds' resume - and, again, I think it was the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's who actually spoke and said: This guy, Mr. Reynolds, came out and he actually sent his resume; he sent it over. He did not try to cover up that he was a particular member of the PC Party. He did not try to cover that up. He wrote it all here. He said it all, this is up front, I want to be up front with this. Absolutely, I was, no question about it.

Again, the Government House Leader referred to this, the last line in the last little paragraph that Mr. Reynolds wrote on this particular resume and the letter that he actually sent to the Opposition House Leader says - and I will repeat what the hon. House Leader said, because I think it is important. He said: In my role as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interest, I want to assure you personally, and your caucus, that all MHAs will be treated with fairness on an impartial basis and with strict adherence to the act.

That is a reassurance from Mr. Reynolds. I am sure that is a fact, and that he will do exactly as he said. The fact of the matter is that it does not matter where you look; you are going to find that there are always people who have political stripes, as I said.

Let's go back to the former Chief Electoral Officer. Who was that? Mr. Furey. Who appointed him? Again, this particular government. If I am not mistaken, I remember Mr. Furey having some kind of tie to a particular party in this Province. I can also tell you this, Mr. Speaker -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. ORAM: If the Member for Grand Bank would allow me, I can also tell you this: The fact of the matter is that, from that I remember, he actually was a member of the Liberal government. I remember that.

There is another thing that I find a little bit funny, a little bit strange, and that is this: Why is it that when we came up with the name, the last name for the Chief Electoral Officer, I never saw anybody coming out from the opposite side saying: Oh, we want to put an amendment now. Oh, we don't like this. We don't like this because this fellow, this guy who was there before, he is on our side, as you might want to try to say.

I can tell you now, in my dealings with Mr. Furey - and I had many dealings with Mr. Furey - I can tell you this -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. ORAM: If the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair would allow me, I want to tell you that when I dealt with Mr. Furey, I found him to be a very honourable gentleman. I had no problem. He took his party politics and parked it at the door when he took over this position just as I am sure Mr. Reynolds will do. I found him to be an honourable man. I can tell you now, Mr. Speaker, I have great faith that Mr. Reynolds will do everything he can to ensure that every member on three sides of this House are represented in a proper manner.

Let's face it, Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about appointments, when you are talking about professional people who are going to be appointed to a particular position, the first thing they do is - they are not going to play petty politics with things like this. They realize how important this is to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. You know, when you see people who are willing to put their name forward to do work for government, to do work for the people of this Province, and you have a bunch of people on the opposite side who want to try to discredit and try to make this particular individual look bad if they can and try to make it seem as if he is going to do something that is untoward, I think that is very, very sad. I think it really speaks quite loudly of how the members opposite really think about people. I can tell you today, just as we took the time and had complete and total trust in the former officer, we had complete and total trust in knowing he would do what was right, we feel the same way about Mr. Reynolds.

All we are saying to the members opposite is: Folks, don't worry too much about it. Don't get your head all out of joint over this. We trusted the last Chief Electoral Officer and we are asking you to do the same. We are asking you to look at this person for who he is. His resume speaks for itself. He has done a lot of good work in the community, he has been involved on a lot of boards and so on and so forth, and he has a reputation that, in my opinion, is second to none.

Then I started to think about other appoints in the Province. Of course, the first thing I thought about was, I wonder what particular political stripe is our Chief Justice. Does he have a political stripe? I wonder does he. The fact is, yes, he certainly does. Well, I don't think if we have any issues within the courts that he is going to be bias toward a particular political party. Not at all. The fact is, we understand that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, every resident in Newfoundland and Labrador, every person in Newfoundland and Labrador, has some sort of political stripe, they have some sort of political engagement, and the fact of the matter is, just because they do, does not mean we cannot appoint them to a particular position within government.

How silly would it be, how we would tie the hands of so many individuals in this Province who could actually do a fabulous job in this Province? Can you imagine tying people hands because of the political stripe that they carry? Can you imagine that? I say, the members on this side of the House are saying that we do not look at things like that. We will not play petty politics with the silliness. We will not get up here and spend hours and hours speaking on something that means absolutely nothing. We certainly do have faith. I will tell you what, we have faith in every Conservative member in Newfoundland and Labrador; absolutely.

I am going to tell you this too: When it comes to appointing someone to do a particular job in this Province we believe that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province is qualified to do the job that needs to be done when we feel fit and see fit to put them in place. We believe in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because they are the people we need to put in place to do things. We are not going to look for all of these negatives.

The fact of the matter is that, when you look at the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador - I certainly have a lot of respect for him, I have a lot of respect for that seat. When you look at that position that he holds, it is a position of great authority, but the fact is that he did have a particular political stripe. I can tell you, that particular political stripe was not from this side of the House. We work with him, we certainly do, and we certainly would not think for one moment, Mr. Speaker, that he would even try to do anything that would be untoward. He is not going to be partisan, Mr. Speaker, he is going to do the job that he was hired to do. He is going to do the job that is right for Newfoundland and Labrador, just as Mr. Reynolds will do the exact same thing. He is going to do the job that is a correct job, that will ensure, Mr. Speaker, that when an election takes place in this Province it will be done in a proper manner, that it will be done in a manner that is completely in line with what needs to be done. We certainly believe that.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the clock - I see that it is 5:25 p.m. - I move that we adjourn debate for today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Hodder): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just before we rise, finish business for today, I want to inform the House of Committee work that will take place this evening. I understand that the Department of Finance and the Estimates relative to the Public Service Commission will be considered by the appropriate Committee at 7:00 p.m. this evening here in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Five-thirty.

MR. RIDEOUT: Five-thirty? That is by agreement then?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay. I understand there is an agreement as well that the Resource Estimates Committee will consider the Estimates of the Department of Business right after the House finishes, again at 5:30 p.m., I believe. That is by agreement.

Tomorrow morning the Resource Committee will consider the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. I believe that everybody has been informed and there has again been concurrence, that that will not take place until 10:00 a.m. because of some scheduling commitments. I believe there is an agreement that it will take place at 10:00 a.m. here in the House.

Before I move the adjournment motion, I understand that my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, has a point to make.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we have the two processes here, we have had a motion that we would adjourn the debate put forward by the hon. the Member for Terra Nova and a separate motion would be to adjourn the House for the afternoon. So, the Chair would like to call the question on the motion to adjourn the debate.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

I do believe, by recognition across the House, that the Opposition House Leader wishes to rise on some point.

MR. PARSONS: First point of order, I do believe you said adjourn the debate, not close the debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I did. Adjourn the debate.

MR. PARSONS: I just wanted to confirm that.

Just a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had some further discussions with the Table Officers and I believe the Chair has been informed that I would be making this point of order before we closed. Again, it is concerning two notices that we would like to pose, substantive motions under the rules of this House. We would like to have them tabled and the question arose I guess, whether we could or could not, and what is the appropriate procedure for doing so? Quite frankly, I do not think there has been a determination or any guidance given or advice concluding what is or is not the proper procedure. That is why I raise it today as a point of order.

I am referring in particular, for the Government House Leader's purpose, to Standing Order 55. We talk about, "Notice shall be given at a previous sitting of a motion for leave to present a Bill, resolution or address, or for placing a question on the Order Paper; but this rule shall not apply to Bills after their introduction, or to Private Bills, or to the times of meeting and adjournment of the House. Such notice shall be laid upon the Table before 5 o'clock or 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, as the case may be."

Now the House closes today of course at 5:30 under normal rules, 5:00 I guess would refer to a Private Member's Day at 5 o'clock. Anyway, we have two substantive motions and we would like to have them tabled so that they will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. I do not know if that is acceptable to do it under Standing Order 55 or not. So, I look for direction from the House as to whether that is or is not appropriate, or should I do it tomorrow under the Notices of Motion section? Would that be okay? If I did not do it today, would it be okay to do it tomorrow?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is not a normal procedure - not that it is not normal but it is not something that we have done on a normal basis. So, I really do not know the answer to the question. I would defer to Your Honour, and whatever Your Honour's ruling is in that regard is certainly acceptable to me.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been consulted in the last few moments by the Table Officers on this matter. Since I have been in this House, since 1993, I do not believe that section 55 of the Standing Orders has been used.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) stop the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we agree to stop the clock?

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement has been reached.

To that end, we had some consultations a few moments ago with one of our colleagues in one of the other jurisdictions as to how they handle these particular matters, and the Chair would need to have some consultation again. If it is agreeable, the Chair will make a decision after the House closes and then we could have it on the Order Paper tomorrow. If not, then we would have to go the regular route. Is that acceptable?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, that is fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. So the Chair will make a decision after further consultation.

As the Standing Order is now written, it reads, "Such notice shall be laid upon the Table before 5 o'clock or 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, as the case may be."

The question we have is, what does it mean when you say: shall be laid upon the Table, and what interpretations does that have in parliamentary sense?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.