MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon I would like to welcome twenty-six Grade 6 students from St. Bonaventure's College in St. John's, in the District of St. John's East, along with their teacher, Ms Linda Little, and parents Linda Jackman and Carolyn Skinner.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the opportunity to attend the provincial Enterprise Education Olympics in Gander. At this event, more than 100 high school students from throughout Newfoundland and Labrador showcased their business skills and plans in projects that have been under development for the past year.

Mr. Speaker, I have always known that our students are a remarkable group of young people, but I was still amazed at how well-researched, creative and professional each of their projects was. There was a pet memorial service called Beyond Your Pet. There was a stationary service called Kloud Nine, and a music company called Loud Distribution.

These are just a sample of the businesses these young people created, but is indicative of the ingenuity of our students. Each and every student demonstrated real commitment and knowledge about their business creations - and these were more than simple projects. Many of these students are successfully marketing their projects and making good money from their endeavours as we speak.

I would like to acknowledge the sponsors of Enterprise Olympics who recognize that this event was more than a weekend away from home - it is an incubator of entrepreneurial success. In particular, I want to thank the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union for their generous contribution to this worthwhile competition. I also want to thank the YM-YWCA, the main sponsor for this Enterprise Olympics for thirteen years. Without them, there would be no Enterprise Olympics.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the teachers throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Their support and commitment is critical in ensuring the success of this important program.

Through Enterprise Education, students have learned that there are diverse opportunities in this Province. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is truly an entrepreneur's dream. If the past weekend is any indication, these young people will capitalize on these opportunities. They will be our innovators.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this weekend I met the future business leaders of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask all members of this House to join with me in celebrating their talent and resourcefulness. We wish them very success into post-secondary and beyond.

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 rise today to extend congratulations to the Town of Harbour Grace for the upcoming seventy-fifth anniversary of Amelia Earhart's solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1932.

The people of Harbour Grace have good reason to celebrate this milestone in aviation history. It was from the grassy airfield on a plateau above the historic Conception Bay town that Earhart took off on May 20, 1932. The next day, she made history when she landed in a bog in Northern Ireland to become the first female to make a solo transatlantic flight.

Mr. Speaker, visitors cruising along Veterans Memorial Highway pass within a few feet of the airfield where that and many more other historic flights originated, without knowing how close they are to such an historic site, but all of that is about to change this summer when a monument is unveiled to Earhart about a kilometre west of the airfield.

The Town of Harbour Grace has purchased two acres of land for the development of an Amelia Earhart Park near the intersection of Veterans Memorial and the access road which connects the highway to Harvey Street West.

Mr. Speaker, a statue, donated through the generosity of Mr. Roger Pike, will be the centrepiece for the park and will be unveiled July 24. Earhart was born on that date in 1897, and would have turned 110 on that date this year.

The statue unveiling in July will kick off four days of festivities, which will wind up with the 145^th running of the Harbour Grace Regatta on Lady Lake, just north of the airfield.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to the organizing committee and the celebrations commencing the seventy-fifth anniversary of the flight for the first woman, Amelia Earhart, to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Mr. Bradley Doyle, a Level III student at Mobile Central High School.

As part of Bradley's curriculum in a Level III course, he was required to develop a business venture on his own; both develop and execute the plan through a business proposal. The seventeen-year-old took on the venture of organizing the first ever Antique and Muscle Car Show at the Southern Shore Arena from May 26 to May 27.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit the show at the Southern Shore Arena on Saturday, May 26 and viewed the various vintage cars, including a 1967 Dodge Dart GT, 53 Mercury M100 and a 65 Pontiac Grand Prix, just to name a few. It was indeed an impressive show in excess of twenty cars and trucks.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed evident that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in our rural communities and I congratulate Bradley Doyle on his initiative and ingenuity that he applied as a Grade 12 student at Mobile Central High.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all members to join with me in congratulating Bradley on his business initiative to organize and run a car show as part of his high school curriculum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the dedication of the Dorothy Johnston Long Term Care Unit at the Connaigre Peninsula Community Health Care Centre at Harbour Breton. I was able to share in the dedication ceremony with the Board of Directors, management and staff of the Central Regional Health Authority; management and staff of the local Health Centre; husband, Edward, and daughter, Gina, and other family members, friends and co-workers of the late Dorothy Johnston.

Mr. Speaker, Dorothy Johnston was a pillar for developing the health care system in the Coast of Bays Region. She began her working career as a staff nurse, was recognized as a leader and advanced in her career becoming Director of Nursing, and later Senior Operating Officer. The development and provision of primary health care to the region was a final focus of Dorothy's working career.

Dorothy was dedicated to providing appropriate health care facilities and services to those she served. In recent years, as she fought her long-term battle with cancer, Dorothy remained steadfast in her position and became a strong advocate and supporter for cancer patients and survivors in the region.

Mr. Speaker, it will be one year ago tomorrow that Dorothy succumbed to her battle with cancer at the young age of forty-four. However, her impact and presence remains very strong in the health care system, the communities she served and the entire Central Newfoundland region.

For those of us that had the pleasure of knowing her, the dedication of the Dorothy Johnston Long Term Care Unit is indeed a wonderful tribute of her endless dedication to the provision health care services and support for cancer patients and survivors throughout the entire region.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me to thank those that played a role to allow for the dedication of the Dorothy Johnston Long Term Care Unit. May we all be inspired with the fond and loving memories that remain of the late Dorothy Johnston.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the owners and operators of Sunset RV Park in Argentia.

On Friday, June 1, I attended the official opening of Sunset RV Park situated in Argentia overlooking the waters of Placentia Bay.

This park is not only scenically situated, but strategically as well, to accommodate the RV traffic from the Marine Atlantic Ferry. It is a state-of-the-art facility containing forty sites, fully serviced with water and sewer and 30 amp electrical service.

It has a full comfort station with washrooms and showers and has immediate access to the Argentia Driving Range and the Argentia Backlands Walking Trails.

Sunset Park is owned by the Argentia Management Authority and operated by David and Susan Bartlett, who are also the owners and operators of Fitzgerald's Pond Park. The development of the RV Park was funded by the Argentia Management Authority and built by Edward Collins Contracting Ltd.

Mr. Speaker, the Bartletts already have confirmation for over 800 nights in total for both parks for this season and already have over 100 reservations for next season.

Sunset RV Park will greatly enhance the development of tourism in the Placentia area and reflects the ongoing contribution of the private and local sectors in driving our tourism industry.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the A.M.A., and also David and Susan Bartlett, and wish them every success in their endeavours.

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 express a sincere thank you to the Southern Antique Classics Car Club for their contributions to the residents of the Burin Peninsula.

On June 16 and 17 the Southern Classics Antique Car Club will host their fourteenth annual antique classic car show: Classies 2007, at the Marystown Arena. Participants in Classies 2007 will travel to the Burin Peninsula from all over the Province generating much needed business to the local economy.

Since 1993 this event has allowed the Antique Car Club to donate in excess of $70,000 to the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre and other local charities. The club has pledged to again donate proceeds from this year's scheduled car show to the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in showing appreciation to the members of the Southern Classics Car Club for their continued dedication and commitment to improving health care on the Burin Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to announce that Ms Dana Martin of Queen's Cove is the provincial winner of the Canadian Securities Administrators' Financial Fitness Challenge Contest. Dana is an eighteen-year-old high school student who will be attending Memorial University in the fall. Winners from each Province and territory will be awarded a $750 prize.

Dana was one of 12,000 young people from across Canada who entered the contest during April to prove their financial fitness knowledge through a series of on-line questions. The challenge was open to Canadians age fifteen to twenty-one years old. Participants were asked questions and provided information on budgeting, saving and investing, and they were encouraged to learn more about smart financial practices through our other Web sites.

Mr. Speaker, the success of this contest again this year shows that our young people are taking more and more interest in their financial knowledge, and that is encouraging. Contests such as the Financial Fitness Challenge are designed to raise awareness about positive and healthy financial practices, and by targeting young people we are ensuring that, as adults, they will use and follow the responsible investing behaviour they learn now.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Dana for her success, and I am sure that all hon. members will join with me in wishing her all the best for the future. I am confident that Dana will have a bright future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, join with her in congratulating Ms Dana Martin for her achievement. We also acknowledge the efforts of the Canadian Securities Administrators for putting this contest in place, even though it is an on-line program. It certainly gives everybody the opportunity, from ages fifteen to eighteen, to become involved. It is never too late to learn about managing your own financial assets wisely.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to congratulate Dana and wish her all the best in her future endeavours. May her future at Memorial be bright and successful.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for her advance copy.

I am quite pleased, also, to congratulate Ms Dana Martin. The minister mentions others who took part and did not win. I would like to say congratulations to them for taking part, and hopefully they will work at this again.

The important thing is not the winning, though Dana did win and there is a winner, but the important thing is the participation. I thank the minister for bringing this to our attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I received a letter from a constituent who writes to say: In 2001 I was diagnosed with breast cancer, and in February 2001 received radiation and tamoxifen. Could you direct me or tell me if all our samples were retested? I have not been contacted, but I think we should all have been contacted to reassure us. I am concerned, if the positives were not retested, how many of them could have been wrong. It is a concern to me. Was my treatment the right one?

Mr. Speaker, today I ask the minister, given the seriousness of this situation, and the uncertainty surrounding it for all women in this Province who have had breast cancer, I ask the Minister of Health: Why isn't it that all women who have breast cancer were not contacted to alleviate their fears if, in fact, they know that they have had breast cancer and at the end of the day they do not know whether or not they were positive or negative, or whether they are all being retested?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House several times, and Eastern Health have communicated continuously on a public basis, in 2005, in July 2005, when they realized they had some difficulties with the ER/PR test procedures and the test results that were coming out, they, in fact, started a process to redo all of the negative tests. So, all of those tests that showed they were negative were redone, and they were all sent out of the Province for the retesting process.

As has been communicated by Eastern Health to members opposite and to the general public, in the fall of 2005, in October 2005, all of those individuals who were in that category were, in fact, contacted, whether their test results came back as having had a false negative, or that their treatment had changed, but that process of contacting all of those individuals who had their negative tests redone were contacted in the fall of 2005.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what world the minister is living in, but I can tell him that there are women out there who had negative tests done who, in fact, some of them have not been contacted as of today.

Obviously, this lady had positive test results and she is still concerned because she is asking the question as well: How do I know if my results were the right results?

I am saying to the minister: Isn't it time that the Department of Health and Eastern Health, and any other health care board in this Province, get involved and look at both the positive results that were done as well as the negative ones, and let these people know. Let's do away with the uncertainty. They are under a great deal of stress and they do need to know.

Mr. Speaker, on two occasions in this House the Minister of Health said that patients affected by the review of the radiologist's work at the Burin Peninsula Regional Health Care Centre will be contacted directly once the report is reviewed.

I ask the minister: Now that thousands of reports have been reviewed, will you tell us how many of these reports contain errors, and if all of the patients affected have been contacted as he said they would be?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand it, based on a release by Eastern Health today, and if you look at the Web site, they indicate that as of 9:00 a.m. on June 4 they have approximately 3,300 reports completed. As I understand, the process, which I outlined in this House, was that as the radiologists read the reports they are reporting directly back to the physicians who requisitioned the reports and they, in fact, are making contact with their individual patients.

The member asked, what has been the outcome of those test results? Eastern Health are obviously providing that profile to me so I will have a better understanding of what their findings were as a result of those retest processes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: So, Mr. Speaker, we do not know, at this point, if all of those who have been reviewed have, in fact, been contacted directly. The minister has said it is going through their physicians, and the physicians will contact them. Well, that is part of the problem we are finding here, Mr. Speaker, that in a lot of cases these physicians may have retired, they may have left the Province, so who is going to contact these individuals if, in fact, that is the case?

Mr. Minister, today the deadline has passed, the ten day deadline that you gave Eastern Health to have these results completed, so I am asking you: What is the new deadline?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just so I can speak to the point the member raised first in her preamble, I want to make it abundantly clear that all of those individuals, forgetting where their physicians may have moved out of the area, or something like that has happened, any of those individuals, of that group that was done by this particular radiologist, as their exams are reread, their reports are being sent back to their family physicians. If their family physician is no longer practicing in that region, the health authority itself has those files and they are being sent back; those reports are being sent back to the health centre. The health centre and Eastern Health Authority have assumed the full responsibility to ensure each and every one of those individuals are contacted.

Obviously, the family physician who is dealing with the patient is in the most appropriate position to be able to make some adjustments in treatment, if necessary, and to have that kind of dialogue with respect to the patient's ongoing treatment, if necessary, so it is appropriate that the family physician be brought into that process.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the physician has moved on, then Eastern Health will make sure that they have that responsibility taken care of.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health are on target to have this done by the end of this week and they have indicated that they are going to be able to comply with that kind of deadline.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a lot of issues in health care in this Province, and what has happened with the faulty hormone receptor testing is but one of them. What is happening with the radiologists is certainly another, whether it is on the Burin Peninsula or now in Gander as we are hearing. Understaffing is another issue that was raised by medical professionals at this weekend's NLMA convention. We have already heard from nurses who are upset. The government stripped their sick leave and salary benefits. Now we hear directly from the medical association that similar wage and benefits issues are not helping the recruitment and retention of doctors. This has led to understaffing, and understaffing may have been one of the main factors leading to incorrect testing results.

I ask the minister: Why is your government willing to sit idly by and implement wage freezes and sick leave reductions while our health care system is bleeding its top professionals to the mainland?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in this House several times in the last couple of weeks, this Province today has the highest number of physicians that we have had in our history. In this Province today, we have one of the better nurse to population ratios that exist in this entire country. Each of our health authorities have had some degree of success in continuing to recruit physicians and continuing to recruit nurses.

This year Eastern Health, as I understand it - Eastern Health and one other authority, I think it was - have recruited a total of 160 new nurses in recent months. They have been able to convert some 200 casual nurses to permanent nurses, enhancing the schedule and enhancing the working conditions of nurses in this Province. I tabled in this House the other day a list of nurse positions that we have recruited in this Province. We have seen increases in the total overall percentage of nurses today versus when we formed government three years ago, I say, Mr. Speaker. So, each of our authorities have had some degree of success in recruiting nurses. The ability to able to recruit and retain -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recruitment and retention is always a significant issue for health authorities today, not only in this Province but right across the country. We are not unique in that set of circumstances, I say, Mr. Speaker, but we have had some degree of success with that and we will continue to have successes. I indicated earlier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister of the protocol we follow, in that we attempt to keep our answers to one minute.

The Chair passes it back to the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only assume from the minister's answers that as far as he is concerned, the concerns that were raised at the NLMA convention this weekend were inaccurate. We are talking about doctors and nurses who are on the frontline, Minister. They know what is going on. I do not know what you are being told, but clearly, to talk about things like, it is better than ever, is not good enough. The fact of the matter is, there is a shortage in our Province and it is part of the issue, part of the problem, I think, why we are seeing the results that we are seeing today in our health care sector and why women today are faced with such uncertainty, and other people as well, with what is going on in terms of tests.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there are a lot of problems in our health care system and the root of these problems can be directly traced to staffing shortages and the lack of state-of-the-art equipment. We have heard the minister's political answers, as we just did, in trying to blame everyone else but himself for these shortfalls.

I ask the minister: Are you and this government willing to take any responsibility for the problems that are currently plaguing our health care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, our government is prepared to take full credit for the investment we have made in health care in recent years. This past year, I think we had a 10.2 per cent increase in our Budget for health care, the second highest in this entire country, second only to Alberta. Last year, again, a ten-point-something percent increase in our health budget. We will take credit for that, I say, Mr. Speaker.

We have seen increases in the total overall percentage of social workers we have in this Province, an increase in the total overall number of physicians we have in this Province and an increase in the total overall number of nurses we have in this Province, since we formed government.

We will take credit also for the announcement we made in this year's Budget to build a new facility in Labrador City. We will take credit for having made the announcement to redo the facility in Flower's Cove. We will take credit for what we are doing up in Grand Bank. We will take credit for the investment we are making in Clarenville. We will take credit for the investment we are making in Corner Brook.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: We will take credit for the investment we are making in Grand Falls-Windsor. We will take credit for the investment we are making to Gander. We will take credit for all of those investments, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, talk about playing politics with our health care system and the people of this Province. This is not about taking credit, minister, this is about taking responsibility for your inaction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The Minister of Health has been the Parliamentary Secretary of Health and the Minister since 2003. As we are now aware, many issues in our health care system were kept silent by this minister and are now finally becoming public.

I ask the Premier: Instead of using a deputy minister for a scapegoat, why are you not demanding the resignation of this minister who, obviously, cannot handle this health portfolio?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Let's make sure we understand what we are talking about here. The member opposite is contributing to the fearmongering that I have been alluding to in this House many times. One of the things, Mr. Speaker, we have is a quality program. All the members opposite need to do, if they are interested in finding out what happened this weekend - did the member opposite read the editorial in The Telegram this weekend? If you look at the editorial in The Telegram this weekend, I say, Mr. Speaker, look at what it says.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Look at what the editorial said this weekend. The editorial in The Telegram this weekend acknowledged that we have capable, competent people in our health system, providing quality programming and we have an excellent health system. We have dedicated and committed people in this Province. We have people who are making a difference in the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have people in our system today who are making a difference in the quality of life for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For the member opposite or anyone else to stand in this House and to try to suggest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair asks the minister to follow protocol of the House.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Minister, it is not fearmongering when you get a letter from your constituent asking you: Where do I turn, because I cannot get the answers? I have not been contacted.

You can stand and take all the credit you want for who is in the health care system, but it is of no credit to you. You have been there since 2003, either as a Parliamentary Secretary or a minister, and what have you done? Absolutely nothing! It is time the Premier asked for your resignation instead of using a deputy minister as a scapegoat.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: In the absence of a question, she had an opportunity for a speech, so I guess I will get an opportunity for a speech as well.

Mr. Speaker, very clearly, at any given time in our history - if you look at today in 2007, if you look at when they were in government in the early 1900s, whether we go back to 1999 or 1991, or go back ten years or go back fifteen years or go back whenever, go back at any point in time, if you look at the history of health care in this Province, Mr. Speaker, there will always be times when there will be issues that are challenging for the moment. What becomes really important is not the challenge, is not the problem, but how the leadership in the Province provides a response, I say, Mr. Speaker.

In the cases before us now, what we have seen recently, is this government taking a very positive, very aggressive action -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the ER-PR issue, look at what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. We are coming to grips with the issue. We have called for a Commission of Inquiry -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, there certainly has been a chill hanging over the offshore oil and gas industry since this government shelved the Hebron-Ben Nevis deal. As a matter of fact, since this government took office we have seen the continuous decline in exploration expenditures in our offshore. For example, in 2003 the bids totalled over $672 million; in 2004 they dropped to $71 million; in 2005 they dropped to $39 million, and in 2006 they dropped to $32 million. The minister knows that this year the industry has not even expressed any interest in bidding land parcels in the highly prospective Jeanne d'Arc Basin or Orphan Basins.

Minister, I ask you: What impact has the Premier and your government's confrontational approach had on the oil industry's decision to not invest in Newfoundland this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The activity in our oil fields remains very, very high. We have, in terms of new finds, all of the fields have either doubled or tripled the amount of oil that was originally thought to be there.

In terms of land sales, Mr. Speaker, last year, in our land sale, for the land in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, we received the second-highest amount per hectare than we have since 1998.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the question was regarding exploration. The minister knows the industry has dropped in the last five years by $650 million, at least in exploration work.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of interest has certainly cast a shadow over the future growth of this sector. There have been no new discoveries made in our offshore in over twenty years, and with this government's approach there may not be any anytime soon. Unfortunately, the industry is still waiting for government's much promised Energy Plan and natural gas royalty regime, and they are unwilling to invest until this plan is clearly outlined.

I ask the minister: Why has government sacrificed this year's bid for calls when the Energy Plan is ready and is only being held up for political consideration on the verge of an election campaign?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There will be a call for bids for lands, for exploration this year. Four of them will be off Labrador, where there is increased seismic activity, and industry has proposed that those lands be put forward for nomination.

The Energy Plan, Mr. Speaker, is near completion. The natural gas royalty regime, the draft regime is out to targeted industry players who have expressed an interest in developing the gas here in the Province. They have it in their hands and we are waiting for feedback from them.

Mr. Speaker, there is lots of good activity going on in this Province and we are moving ahead with the development of the oil and gas industry. It is not being hung up by the Energy Plan. The Energy Plan will be the umbrella that all of these activities will fall under.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister just indicated that four of the parcels of land auctioned this year were located in offshore Labrador.

I would like to ask the minister: When will the natural gas royalty regime be released publicly - I will ask her again - and what direct benefits will be outlined in that plan to deal significantly and specifically with Labrador gas resources and the benefits of that resource to the Labrador people?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I said in my previous question, the draft gas royalty regime is in the hands of targeted industry, industrial customers who have expressed an interest in developing gas resources off the Coast of Newfoundland and off the Coast of Labrador. When we get those results, and get that feedback which we can incorporate into the Energy Plan, we will be putting it out to the broader industry and then to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As far as gas or oil exploration, whatever it is, or discovery, off Labrador, Mr. Speaker, whatever is developed there will be done in the best interests of the people of Labrador and the people of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr Speaker, it is absolutely ridiculous that we still do not have this energy and gas royalty regime plan. We have Hydro setting up an energy corporation now and we still do not have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question, maybe the minister can give me an answer to this. We are aware that the drill rig Eirik Raude has left the Province and is no longer drilling here. Maybe the minister can tell me how many jobs are lost as a result of the Raude leaving our offshore area.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Eirik Raude spent the amount of time that they were contracted to do, doing exploration off our coast. They were not expected to be here any longer. As a matter of fact, they encountered a number of technical problems, Mr. Speaker, which caused the drilling to take twice as long as they had expected in the beginning. They have gone to review that piece of work. Their intention is to come back and to continue that exploration. They want to make sure that they have all the technical information they collected thoroughly reviewed and analyzed so that they can anticipate any challenges they might have the next time around and correct them so that drilling gets done in an expedient way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know why the Raude is not here, because no one has taken up exploration plots of land of the Province these days, but the minister did not tell us how many jobs were going to be lost.

We also know that, while the Henry Goodridge is drilling today, we have been informed by workers on that rig that they will also be leaving the Province, that this particular rig will be leaving the Province.

I ask the minister: When is the Henry Goodridge due to leave, and how many jobs will be lost as a result of that rig leaving the Province as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have over 17,000 people in this Province directly employed in the oil and gas industry. It is a vibrant part of our economy. Twenty-three cents of every dollar we earn in this Province comes from the oil and gas industry.

There is a world shortage of rigs, so contracts are extremely important. They are extremely hard to negotiate beyond the times that they have. Mr. Speaker, development plans are going ahead. We are in negotiations now, in discussions now, with regard to the extension to the White Rose. We are expecting, again, an amendment to the development plan for Hibernia South. There is significant activity going on in the oil sector, Mr. Speaker, and we expect it to continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have over $600 million in revenue gone in exploration since 2003, when this government took office, we have two rigs shutting down out there with hundreds of people getting laid off, and the minister cannot tell me what the job loss is going to be.

Well, maybe she will tell me this: How many contracts will be lost for local businesses in this area as a result of this slowdown in exploration work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is always unfortunate when a slowdown is incurred in any part of our economy, but the bottom line is that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be the principal beneficiary of any development of our resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, since we started the development of oil and gas in this Province, the oil companies have earned over $11 billion, the federal government has earned $5 billion, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have earned just over $1 billion.

Now, anybody can do the math and figure out that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, under that scenario, are certainly not the chief beneficiaries, the principal beneficiaries, of the development of that resource. That has stopped. From now on, when there is development in this Province, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be the principal beneficiaries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Too bad the minister did not have that philosophy when she sat around the table, giving the contract to Quebec, out in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week in this House of Assembly the Minister of Transportation and Works stated that the electrical, mechanical and steel subcontracts related to the long-term care facility in Corner Brook were going to be done in this Province. The minister then tabled documents that were supposed to back up his claim. It is obvious that the minister did not read the documents, Mr. Speaker. His own documents confirmed that the electrical, mechanical and steel contracts were awarded to Quebec-based companies.

I ask the minister: What percentage of the $57 million contract will be done in Quebec?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last week, yes, indeed, sir, I did table these documents in the House of Assembly for the Member for the Bay of Islands. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to monitor this project. This project -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair misinterpreted the member sitting. I ask the minister if he could complete his answer quickly.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, just to complete my answer here, we are not going to say to Air Labrador, you should not take the $25 million contract. We are not going to say to Trans Continental, go back to Quebec. We are not going to say to Kruger, go back to Quebec. Mr. Speaker, we live in a global economy and we are not going to live in a bubble as we have for the last fifteen years under the leadership of those on the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under our time constraints the Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair cannot be interfered with.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment stated in this House that there were conciliators involved and mediation taking place between the strikers and their employers at the Voisey's Bay mine site, where strikers are still walking the line.

Can the government give the House an update on the conciliation process and how much closer the two sides are to a settlement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, I can say that the Labour Relations Agency, through its conciliation officers or mediators, is going to continue to work with both sides to bring together a resolution.

I certainly cannot report publicly as to where both sides are, what is going on in these negotiations, but I can commit that the Labour Relations Agency will remain with this situation and do what they can to bring this to a successful resolution.

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 did want to know whether or not the process was still happening. I understand not being able to give details. Thank you.

I have another question though, again for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

I understand from statements that he made in the House last week that his department will be looking at anti-replacement worker legislation through the work of the Labour Relations Agency and the Strategic Partnership Initiative. However, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has the responsibility to foster a balance and equitable labour atmosphere in this process.

I ask the Minister: What is the government's position on anti-replacement worker legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at this time, as the hon. Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment had indicated, there is an ongoing process, and I think for government to speak and give a position before that process finalizes and reports to government would be premature.

Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing process. Government certainly set up that process and will review and analyze what information comes through there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the minister, that if my party were in power, people would know what our position was on anti-scab legislation.

Mr. Speaker, right now we do not have anti-replacement worker legislation, as we know, and therefore the government is powerless when it comes to companies bringing in replacement workers. Tension continues to grow at the Voisey's Bay work site. United Steelworkers Local 9508 have filed another grievance because a replacement worker unexpectedly turned off the lights once while a worker was in an inspection conveyor tunnel, and, again, with a few seconds of warning. This was a potentially life-threatening incident.

Will the government find a way to speak to these employers to get them to remove all replacement workers so that the union and company can negotiate in good faith?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated in the first answer, the Labour Relations Agency is certainly responsible for conciliation and mediation when there are labour disputes in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. House that the Labour Relations Agency will continue their work and will, through their medication officers, do what they can to bring this to a successful resolution. Certainly, as mediation, they work with both sides in an impartial way to make sure that there is a fair and consistent manner to deal with all issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked me a question about some very specific numbers and I agreed that I would get those for her and table those. I have them for her today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that I will move that the House not adjourn on Thursday, June 7, at 5:30 p.m., nor should the House adjourn on that same date at 10:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answer to Questions for which Notice have been Given.

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It pleases me to deliver a petition to this hon. House on behalf of residents of the District of Burgeo & LaPoile. It concerns a matter I raised briefly yesterday in a response to a ministerial statement by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that is dealing with the use of our parks in the Province and recent rules and regulations that were put in place concerning the making of reservations. I guess the easiest way to explain the situation is by reading the prayer itself. It reads:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation is responsible for the operation of thirty-two provincial parks, including J.T. Cheeseman Park which is located on the outskirts of the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques; and

WHEREAS the Department of Environment and Conservation introduced a new reservation system this year which allows residents and visitors to make reservations and confirm campsite availability online or via a toll-free number; and

WHEREAS this reservation system is handled by a call centre out of the Province of Quebec; and

WHEREAS there is a $10.60 fee associated with using this reservation system every time you use it and which fee is not applied to the cost of your campsite; and

WHEREAS the maximum period you can make your reservation is seven days, therefore if someone has two or more weeks vacation they could have to relocate to another site and definitely have to pay another $10.60 to reserve their current or another site; and

WHEREAS there are twenty designated campsites allotted at J.T. Cheeseman Park for drop in visitors and visitors must take one of these twenty sites and not use one of their own choosing; and

WHEREAS the number of visitors to J.T. Cheeseman Park this year is down drastically because of the new reservation system;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to eliminate the cost of this reservation fee, extend or eliminate the seven day maximum time limit per campsite and let drive-in visitors choose from whatever sites are left or convert back to the old system.

And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

It makes it pretty clear to the minister, and I mentioned this to him yesterday, this reservation system is causing a lot of havoc. We are having an environment week being announced this week by the minister, and here we are not allowing our own residents of our own Province to make proper and efficient and cheap use of the environment that we do have.

A lot of people in that particular area, for example, that is their annual vacation, that is their relaxation, that is their recreation, to take their trailer and pull it up to J.T. Cheeseman Park and spend the weekend with their family and their friends.

To do that now they have to call Quebec, and pay $10.60 for the privilege of doing it. Now, I do not know about most people who live here in the Avalon region, but $10.60 for the reservation fee could go a long ways towards your other social amenities on a weekend, rather than being invested into the fee structure of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that the new reservation system is not working. It is digging into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and it ought to be cancelled immediately.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of this Province with regard to the shortage of doctors to serve the medical needs of the people in many areas of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented several petitions pertaining to this issue, and I have to say that the major concern is the retention of general practitioners and nurses in the various areas. I have mentioned before, in the particular area that I represent, we are going to lose two more general practitioners this summer. The numbers of people now who do not have a general practitioner, that list will be added to, and I can assure you that it is very difficult. Many people have to travel here to St. John's to see a general practitioner, and many of them have to go without one.

I guess the retention of doctors and nurses, we have heard so much in recent days with regard to the shortage of nurses, the problems that they encounter with regard to their vacation time and so on, I know I have brought it to this hon. House before, when it comes to the nurses at the Carbonear General Hospital in particular, many of those people there in the next recent years will be up to retirement age and we have very few nurses coming on stream. Many nurses probably are training, but many of them are leaving our Province.

Another issue with regard to the health care is, I know many people are calling from time to time with the cost of oxygen. Many people do not get the coverage on that. I know I have several in my area who are asking that we would bring this to the Department of Health to have this reconsidered and see that some of the extra cost that they have to encounter, which is a tremendous amount - many of them, I guess, have oxygen connected twenty-four hours a day and they have the small canisters to take with them when they do some travelling, and it really, I guess, goes through the cost tremendously, but the main issue, Mr. Speaker, is the retention of doctors and nurses.

I believe that the people deserve more, and I call upon the minister and the department to make sure that whatever can be done, if we can train our doctors and nurses here in our Province, we have to come up with a means to keep them here so that the medical needs of our people are adequately addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise in this House to present a petition on behalf of 122 residents of Fairhaven, in Placentia Bay, and I will read the prayer of the petition.

WHEREAS the Fairhaven Road is in a deplorable condition and in need of repairs; and

WHEREAS this road is an important transportation route used to transport school children and other traffic;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to urge government to find the necessary funds to repair this road.

And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, Fairhaven is a community in Placentia Bay. Fairhaven, the community itself, has two fish plants, and most of the people within that community derive their living from the sea. Mr. Speaker, the students from Fairhaven are transported by bus to the school in Chapel Arm or to Crescent Collegiate in Blaketown, and the road is in deplorable condition. This road was paved roughly about eighteen or nineteen years ago and we see that, with the closing of the depots and all the things that this government has done, they cannot even find enough asphalt to be able to fill in the potholes. I guess it is a result of, we see the tremendous reduction that this government has done in roadwork in this Province over the years since it got elected.

In the District of Bellevue, Mr. Speaker, this year there was roughly about $750,000 allocated for roadwork within the district. Most of that is being used to do bridges on the Trans-Canada and other routes within the district. Very little of it is going into resurfacing of the roads within the district, and Fairhaven is a road that should be on the priority list within the department to be done. I do not know why, Mr. Speaker, the district received very, very little in terms of - if you will check with the department - the priorities within the roadwork. Normally, Bellevue district and Baie Verte district are number two in terms of needs for roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Mount Pearl can shout and bawl all he likes, but in the District of Bellevue itself, Mr. Speaker, the provincial roads system, there are as many kilometres of road in the District of Bellevue as there are in the Province of P.E.I. There are a lot of roads to be done in the District of Bellevue, and when this member got elected in 1989 there were roughly 180 to 200 kilometres of gravel road..

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal government that did the road originally in Fairhaven

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will be back.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague yesterday, in my absence, presented a petition on behalf of Ramea people on the groundfish processing licence. I am not going to read all of the petition. I will just read the last part:

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to revisit their current position and subsequently approve the groundfish processing licence for Ramea.

Mr. Speaker, over the eighteen years that I have been involved in provincial politics, I can honestly say that the people of Ramea - if there is any community that deserves a chance, they do. When I think of people like Reg McDonald, Lesley Cutler, Mayor Lloyd Rossiter, former Mayor Wilf Cutler, Councillor Paul Green, Clyde Dominie, Ian Stewart and others, I think of the situation, as their member, when I went to Ramea and saw a portion of their plant fall into the harbour. It was a feeling that I will never be able to fully explain, what an impact it had. I know, for them, it must have been a part of their lives that they themselves felt would be very difficult to explain.

Rather than be in a situation of despair, rather than sitting down and not doing anything, they called the community together. They worked at it, and they completely tore down the part of the plant that had been dilapidate, fell into the ocean, and built a great plant out of practically nothing, with some help from both levels of government.

To show the ingenuity, a few years before we had put a new water treatment plant into Ramea. Through working with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he gave us the electrical system that was in the old water treatment plant. They took that particular electrical system and put it in the fish plant. To see it, to realize the work they had done - all free labour, by the way. People like Joe Organ and those guys that went down, who had worked with Hydro in Ramea and completely did this particular plant. It is really something to see. The part that I think for the people of Ramea, and I think also it is a matter probably for all of us to examine, Ramea is an island community. Like many of the island communities, they are having difficulty. Ramea is no different. Once we have a situation where we have a policy where one fits all - I do not think you will ever have a situation where people in Ramea or in many of the other isolated communities will ever have a fair chance.

I was listening last night as I was driving in over the highway, to a member from Nova Scotia, a Mr. Casey, who said today that he was going to vote against the provincial federal party, his government, on the final vote on the Budget unless they fixed the equalization agreement that it had for their province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to the hon. the member?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Casey was saying, Mr. Speaker, that if the federal government did not change the equalization plan, that he would vote against it. He made a statement that is exactly the same as what I am making here. He said Canada is a diverse nation. What is happening in Alberta, what is happening in British Columbia, you cannot transpose that into Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. They are different, and in this situation I see the same thing. They are an island community. They have to be treated differently than the norm. So I would call upon government, Mr. Speaker, to re-examine the situation and to approve a groundfish licence for the Town of Ramea through their co-operative.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The Speaker wishes to reference a matter raised late in the sitting on June 4, with regard to a decision of the Deputy Speaker in his role as Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole.

In the process of debate in Committee of the Whole on Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991, the Member for Bay of Islands, with advance notice to the Table, moved an amendment. Prior to the ruling of the Chair, the member began the process of debate focusing on the rationale of the amendment. The Chairperson interrupted the member to indicate that he had received prior notification of the amendment, had reviewed it with the Table Officers and thereupon ruled the amendment to be out of order.

The Opposition House Leader raised a point of order to say he believed the Member for Bay of Island should have been given greater opportunity to explain the rationale for the amendment before the Chairperson gave his ruling. The Chairperson expressed his view that the matter had been decided and therefore there could be no further discussion on the propriety of the amendment. The matter was then referred to the Speaker and the Committee of the Whole was raised immediately.

It has been a long standing practice in our parliamentary system that amendments may be placed before the House at almost any stage and, under parliamentary procedures, prior to the commencement of any debate thereto, the Speaker or the Chair of Committees will immediately or following a recess for consultation give direction to the House or Committee as to the acceptability of the proposed amendment. Debate on the propriety of the amendment as far as its parliamentary acceptability is concerned should be minimal and entirely at the discretion of the Speaker or the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole.

Similarly, when members raise points of order, any discussion pertaining thereto is entirely at the discretion of the Speaker or the Chairperson.

Rulings of the Speaker have been accepted as final and may only be appealed by way of a substantive motion. A ruling of the Speaker cannot be appealed by way of a point of order.

The matter of an appeal from the rulings of the Chairperson of Committee of the Whole to the Speaker was raised by the Opposition House Leader. Our Standing Orders comment briefly on this matter in section 60, subsection (3). The section reads, "The Chairperson shall maintain order in the Committees of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the House...". A question of order cannot be directly equated with a decision on the propriety of an amendment.

In this matter, the Speaker wishes to reference a decision of Speaker John Fraser in the House of Commons in Ottawa on April 28, 1992.

"When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiatives of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be." Quotation is referenced from M & M, Marleau and Montpetit, page 662.

The Speaker also notes that any amendment must be relevant to the clause it is proposed to amend. Marleau and Montpetit, page 651. Likewise, a sub-amendment must relate to the amendment; it must not enlarge on the scope of the amendment by bringing up a matter that is foreign to it." Marleau and Montpetit, page 651.

Members should also note that the principles of Bill 21 were adopted at second reading; thus an amendment to a bill that has been referred to the Committee of the Whole is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The Speaker is satisfied that the ruling of the Chairperson of Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendment put before the Committee be in accordance with acceptable parliamentary practices.

However, the Speaker also notes section 60 of the Standing Orders as quoted earlier. Our Standing Orders are rather out-of-date in many matters. The Chair notes that an appeal of this matter, it was first encountered by this Speaker in his parliamentary history in yesterday's sitting. Thus, this Speaker, in deciding this matter must reach back to a time when our Standing Orders were created, shortly after Confederation in 1949 and, in this matter will reference the 4^th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Published in 1958, § 232, page 197.

In the case of an appeal to the House, it is the duty of the Chairperson to leave the Chair immediately. The matter is then referred to the Speaker of the House. The Speaker may review the matter and then ask the entire House to reach a decision on the decision of the Chairperson. In this matter, the Speaker submits the following question to the House, "That the decision of the Chairperson be confirmed." On this matter, there is no discussion on the appeal whatsoever.

Accordingly, the question before the House relating to a decision of the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole on the admissibility of an amendment proposed to Bill 21 submitted by the Member for Bay of Islands is, "That the decision of the Chairperson be confirmed."

The Chair puts that question to the House now.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chairperson is upheld.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make this quite clear, that I am not questioning the decision of the Chair. My concern here, as Opposition House Leader, is that I have seen two things happen in this session and I do need guidance because they have been diametrically opposed to it, and that is why I am asking the guidance of the Chair. I appreciate you hearing me out because this is supposed to be a democratic system we are operating in here, and I, quite frankly, given the two different rulings that I have heard, I do not know what the rules are anymore. If you would allow me, I would like to explain why I don't. I think it is logical why I do not understand, and I would appreciate some direction as to how we are supposed to operate.

For example, the issue that we dealt with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker will entertain the comments that have been made by the member on the point of order as long as they are restricted to seeking an explanation, and I think that is the intent.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: That is exactly my intent, Mr. Speaker, but I have to refer to the fact situation at hand in order to explain that situation. I am not trying to make another stab at getting the ruling overturned. That is not the purpose of my comments. The purpose of my comments is, I have seen two different things happening here in the House and, to me, they are opposed. I do not understand which rules I am supposed to follow any more.

For example, last evening when we were here in Committee we proposed an amendment to Bill 21. The Chairman of Committees - we were in Committee - ruled that the amendment we put forward was not in order, and the reason he gave that it was not in order, he cited Beauchesne at page 176, §579 and he said the amendment was not in order because it set forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the item under discussion.

Now, that was the reason he gave for saying that the motion was out of order. I can only rely upon the facts that the Chairman of Committees stated. It is in Hansard. I am not making this up. Now, you tell me today that the Chairman of Committees had no right to accept an amendment anyway. I am confused there. He certainly thought he had a right to make a ruling, because he made it and he gave his reasons for his ruling. He cited §579 from Beauchesne.

The other difficulty I have is, we proceeded then, and I asked the Chair again: Is there any way in this House, if a person is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Chair, that we could appeal it to the Speaker? I was advised by the Chair of Committees that I could. We proceeded to say that we would. The Committee rose, and we came back and I instructed the Chair that I would like to raise that issue on appeal.

Now, I don't know, maybe I am missing the boat somewhere on democracy, but once it was agreed that we have a right of appeal it is an automatic part of a right to appeal that you have a right to be heard.

Now, the Chairman of Committees told me I had a right to appeal. You, the Speaker, agreed that I had a right to appeal. We adjourned to come back here today; me, certainly, under obviously now the incorrect assumption that, if the appeal was allowed, I was going to be allowed some opportunity to explain the reasons why I thought the decision of the Chair were incorrect.

Now I find today that, thank you very much, you have your appeal, we have not heard from you but you are not going to get it heard anyway. To me, that is a smack in the mouth of democracy. If we are going to be allowed and given a right to appeal and yet we are going to be told to sit down, you cannot speak to the appeal or the reasons for your appeal, that seems like a super big muzzle to me. What is the point of having an open dialogue and discussion and debate if you are not allowed to speak to the reasons for your appeal? - and I am not even getting to that point.

The other thing is, that happened in Committee. I do believe the motion concerning Mr. Reynolds was also in Committee. I put forward, in Committee, regarding Mr. Reynolds, the resolution. I put forward not one, not two, but three amendments that were accepted in Committee. The first two were denied, and the third one was ruled in order. Now, that flies in the face of your comments today that the Committee cannot accept amendments. He just said today that a Committee could not accept the amendments - the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: If I am incorrect, Mr. Speaker, in what I am saying here, that is not an issue. I accept if I am incorrect, but my point I am making here is that we are confused. To me, the purpose of this House is, if we have differences here, we find out what the rules are here, we make our points. If you win on a point, you win on a point. If you lose on a point, you lose. It is not a case of win or lose. The more important piece about this is, we have to understand what we can and cannot do, and I am at an absolute loss when somebody stands up, as a Speaker or as a Chair, and just simply says: No, not going to happen. - and do not allow you an opportunity to explain.

We went through a process last week, again, two weeks ago, in the case of Mr. Reynolds, when we made the amendments. The Speaker sat and allowed the Government House Leader to get up and give his reasons as to why he thought the amendment was not in order on the Reynolds motion. The first time around we were allowed, both the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader were allowed, an opportunity to state our case. The Speaker then took it under advisement and came back and made his ruling.

Now, to me, that is what democracy is about. If you raise a point, and it is a valid point, you ought to be able to be allowed to explain and give your reasons for your point, but here we are today being shut down. They are saying: Thank you very much. I heard what you said but I am not going to listen to you. You are out of order. I am not even going to go beyond that.

That is totally contrary and flies in the face of what democracy and what rights of appeal are all about. If we are going to operate under that system, we do have a very flawed set of rules. That is the point I am trying to make. If I at least make my arguments and you tell me at the end of the day: Thank you very much, Mr. Opposition House Leader. I heard your points, a, b, c, d. You are wrong on all of them and here is why I think you are wrong, and you are out of order. - that would be fine, but I do not even get to first base. I do not even get in the ball game. I am told that I am not even allowed on the field.

That is my concern here, Mr. Speaker. I think you are interpreting the rules of the House too strictly if you forbid anybody to even give their reasons for why you feel you want to make a motion. I do not know where else under the rules, other than under a point of order, when we get the opportunity to explain that frustration and ask for some guidance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a word or two on the point of order as raised by the Opposition House Leader.

I sat and listened. I did not interrupt, except when I was provoked by the Member for Bay of Islands, but I certainly did not interrupt the Opposition House Leader.

Listening to the Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, this seems to me like a not very thinly veiled questioning of the Speaker's ruling.

MR. PARSONS: Absolutely not.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that is my interpretation. I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman. It is my interpretation, having sat and listened quietly and let it perk through the little bit of gray matter that I have here, that this is a not too thinly veiled questioning of the Speaker's ruling. I say that for a couple of reasons, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, this is a democratic institution, no question about it, but, Mr. Speaker, it is a democratic institution with rules. It is not a democratic institution that happens to operate on a whim. It is a democratic institution that has rules.

The Member for the Bay of Islands, last night, presented the Table, as I understand it - the Table Officers - with an amendment. The amendment was looked at by the Table Officers and the Chair, the Deputy Speaker, the Chair of Committees, or Committee of the Whole, and it was found, on advice and with the concurrence of the Chair, to be out of order. The Member for the Bay of Islands got up and started to speak to the amendment.

Once it was ascertained by the Chair that the Member for the Bay of Islands was speaking, was debating the amendment, the Chair did what he had to do, which is advise the member who proposed the amendment that, in his view and on the advice from the Officers of the Table, it was out of order. That is all. There had not been a provision. The member had not started to say: Well, I think it is in order for this, and I think it is in order for this reason and some other reason. He got up and started debate. The Chairman, rightly so, interrupted him and said: I am sorry, I cannot entertain debate on that motion because, having sought advice from the Table Officers on the amendment that you proposed, I rule that it is out of order.

The Opposition did not accept that and appealed to Your Honour. Your Honour has now dealt with that here on the floor of the House, and I believe that any questioning of that is a questioning of the ruling of Your Honour.

Now, that is how I see it. I therefore respectfully submit, Your Honour, that there isn't any point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For greater clarification, the Chair will repeat the ruling made by Speaker Fraser. This deals particularly with the issue of amendments that occur in the Committee of the Whole House. That reads as follows, and it is found in the Hansard for the House of Commons, April 28, 1992.

"When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negate the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown,..." - in other words, it cannot cause money to be spent that is not provided for in budgetary allocations - "...it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be."

On the issue of the appeal, the issue of the appeal to the Chair, the appeal yesterday evening was the very first time, in my fourteen years plus in this House, that we have had this particular circumstance arise. It is provided for in section 60 of the Standing Orders, and the rules are there to go back to those particular times when these rules were written. We went back to a procedure that is not fully contained now in the current, 6^th edition of Beauchesne. To do that, I went back and followed the procedure.

The Chair, in terms of the Chair entertaining discussions in today's sitting, I refer the members of the House to page 251 of the 6^th edition of Beauchesne, it is called Parliamentary Rules & Forms, and §911 says, and I will read the first section, (1) "The Chairman maintains order in the Committee of the Whole, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the Speaker. No debate is permitted on any decision."

So, yesterday afternoon or yesterday evening, when the ruling was made, the Chairperson of the Committee was within his rights to decide that he would not entertain any debate. Debate is purely at the discretion of the Chairperson or the Speaker.

(2) "In cases of an appeal to the Speaker, it is the duty of the Chairman to leave the Chair immediately and report the point of order which has been decided. The Speaker must then rule upon the matter. No discussion is allowed on the appeal. Should the Speaker be absent, the Chairman takes the Chair of the House and another Member makes the report of appeal to the acting Speaker who will at once rule upon the question."

In fact, when the Chair is absent, there have been cases in Ottawa when the Chairman of the Committee moved from the Chair at the Table to the podium and then made a ruling on his own - the appeal was of his ruling, and the same Chairperson, acting in a different capacity, actually ruled on that particular ruling.

There is a lot of precedence here that can be followed. The precedence that we have followed is very straightforward. It says here, "The Speaker must then rule upon the matter. No discussion is allowed on the appeal."

That is exactly the process that we have followed.

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 8. Second reading, I believe, was adjourned by agreement on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation, as I said, Bill 27. I believe we are ready to move on with the debate. The last speak was the minister, so the debate would go to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, okay, we will just wait for a second then.

The critic for the Official Opposition would be logically the next person. Both of those bills are in her name. Do you want to start sustainable development?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, okay, we will just wait, I think, Mr. Speaker. It is only a minute or so and the official critic for the Opposition should be here and then we can resume debate on Bill 27. So, by agreement, we will wait for a moment or so.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 8, second reading on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-electric Corporation. This bill was introduced by the minister yesterday but debate did not proceed. So the logical order would be the critic for the Official Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House would continue second reading on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-electric Corporation.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have had an opportunity since the minister announced second reading of the bill yesterday in the House of Assembly, to have a look through Bill 27 and also Bill 28, as both of them are interconnected in terms of the changes that will take place within Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and also within the newly formed energy corporation.

Mr. Speaker, this morning myself, along with the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the NDP, did have an opportunity to be more fully briefed by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and by the officials in the minister's own department as to what the context of the changes are in the legislation and what it is they are formulating in terms of an energy corporation under - as what we know it today - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a couple of things that are worthy of mentioning in terms of these significant changes. At the present time, we are dealing with Bill 27. What Bill 27 does is, in fact, repeals the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Act as we would have known it, as a regulated utility of the provincial government operating as a Crown corporation that would have regulated all of the utilities in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether they be commercial, domestic, industrial or anything otherwise, under that particular act. What this new bill does, under Bill 27, is it repeals that original act and it replaces it with a much broader mandate, a mandate in which they can extend the operations of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro into a broader more perspective development, such as an energy corporation.

What was explained to us, Mr. Speaker, is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as a utility regulator as we know them today, will be maintained as a subsidiary of this new energy corporation. In fact, there will be different subsidiaries of this corporation, of which Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be only one. Other subsidiaries will include CF(L)Co, as we know the Churchill Falls Corporation, which now runs and handles all the affairs of the developments related to the Upper Churchill. Also, we will have subsidiaries that will look at the Lower Churchill development project, which will be set up as a different company, a different subsidiary operating, again, under the parent energy corporation. That particular subsidiary will focus only on the developments of the Lower Churchill project; the feasibility, the marketplace, the financial capital piece. Whatever it entails, everything to do with the Lower Churchill.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there will be another subsidiary, as I understand it, that will deal with business development. Under business development is where we will see probably the most substantial change in terms of how this energy corporation is going to operate because their mandate, under that subsidiary, will allow them to look at wind power development projects, oil and gas development projects, and research and development. Some of which will be entirely new for the corporation, as we have known it in the past.

Mr. Speaker, while the two bills are interconnected, Bill 27, which is what we are debating right now, actually repeals the act of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I just want to repeat this so it is understood, that it replaces it with some broader mandate perspectives. Bill 28 then takes that a step further and incorporates it as part of a larger energy corporation.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak, first of all, to the changes that will take place in terms of how Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will operate. One of the primary concerns, of course, for us, was that if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro becomes a subsidiary of this new energy corporation, how does that affect any profits, royalties or dividends that are accumulated through this particular company? That was a question that we had, and we had a significant discussion with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro around that because as you know, right now, ratepayers in the Province - their rates are determined by what the assets, what the values, what the revenue generation is of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a utility provider. So, all of the rates, while they are set by the Public Utilities Board, which is an arm's-length board of government and of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - while rates for consumers in the Province are set by the Public Utilities Board, their decisions are often influenced by the financial situation or stability of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at any given time. That was our concern.

Mr. Speaker, I have been through, actually three Public Utility Board hearings in my political career already, in terms of battling Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on rate increases in the Province. So I understand fully how it works, and that is that any time there are factors which causes Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to be less profitable in terms of its revenue generation, they go to collect that money from their industrial customers or their commercial or domestic customers in the Province, and they do it through this rate application process.

We were somewhat concerned, of course, that if Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which we all know is generating a profit year over year in Newfoundland and Labrador today, making it the successful energy corporation that it already is. We know that has been because they have been able to generate profits, invest it back into their system, been able to maintain some stability in terms of the rates that consumers pay in the Province. So, our concern was that if all of a sudden they could take these royalties or these profits or dividends, and invest it into oil and gas, or invest it into wind power, or invest it into some other development projects, and then maybe, just maybe, it could end up being a bad investment - those things happen as well - what would that do in terms of affecting the stability of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a corporation?

Well, we have been told, Mr. Speaker, that it does not impact it in terms of a negative way. What happens is that the royalties and the profits of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be protected. They will be protected. They will be not be used to invest in the projects in terms of where they will get no return, where they will get no payback to the corporation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we were given the assurances this morning by the CEO of Hydro, and by the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, that, in fact, all of the dividends and all of the profits that we now see through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation would be maintained into the long term in terms of the profits it generates itself, that they would not see those particular monies going and being invested in the projects at the risk of having to go back and make those claims for extra revenue back from rate payers in the Province.

That was a very significant issue, because anyone who is watching what is happening with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro today, and the fact that it is moving into a very broader mandate and a broader perspective, should be concerned about those things, because you are not just looking at a hydro corporation that is investing money, because they will be investing with private consortiums as well, they will be investing in privately-developed initiatives in which they will have equity shares and returns on that equity, but, at the same time, it is an entirely different concept of developing energy as we have been involved in through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in the past.

While some of it is somewhat complicated, I suppose, when you really get down and look at it, it is quite simple; and, to simplify it as much as we possibly can, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro right now, as we know it, will continue to operate as a regulated utility, at arm's length from the government. We will still have everything done through the Public Utilities Board in terms of rate setting that we presently do, but what will happen is that the corporation will have an expanded mandate.

Mr. Speaker, under that mandate, I guess, is where we tend to raise some of our questions as well, because oil and gas development for a corporation like this is an entirely new sector to be looking at. While it is going to operate as a subsidiary company under this new energy corporation, there are still going to be certain amounts of investments that will be made. I guess our concern is in terms of how those investment will be done. Will they be done under direction of government and Cabinet? Will they be done under the direction of a board of directors that is appointed by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? That leaves you with questions because - let's use the gas resource of Labrador as an example.

If tomorrow you were going to see a development in that natural gas reserve off Labrador and you had a company, say Petro-Can or someone that was coming in to develop that particular resource, and all of a sudden you have the energy corporation in the Province, who now operates a subsidiary company of oil and gas, out looking to invest in that particular project, who has the authority in terms of saying how much they can invest, when they can invest and so on? Is it the government or is it Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Maybe the government could be out negotiating with this company, and maybe government will decide that we are going to take a 10 per cent or 15 per cent equity share in that development and we are going to negotiate that. Can they then turn around and say to the new energy corporation, we have negotiated a 10 per cent equity in a new gas reserve and we want you to put forward the money for us to invest into that corporation?

I am not sure, I was not entirely clear, on how that part of it worked. I think that, whether government makes the decision or Hydro makes the decision, it is important to know the process. Because, if they are going to have revenues or royalties available to invest in projects like this, and government says, okay, we are going to take a 10 per cent equity, it is going to cost this amount of money and we want this investment to be made by the new energy corporation - because government has the authority to do that. Under the legislation that we are going to approve, government will have the authority to do that because, in essence, government does operate the entire energy corporation, so they would have the ability to be able to do that. There could, I guess, in essence, be projects, as I understand it, in which government would be investing as an equity partner, and also the energy corporation, in addition to investing on government's behalf, could also be investing themselves as an energy corporation to own equity in a project. That is the way I understood it in terms of the information that they were laying out for us.

Mr. Speaker, I think this new energy corporation is a good concept in terms of broadening the mandate in the development of energy related resources in the Province. The only thing that I would caution is that I would not want to see private sector investment shut out of the Province when it comes to energy development, because I think that is important as well. Now, government has to maintain some control, I certainly support them having some ownership, but I think there has to be a partnering as well.

I think back to the project that Ventus Energy was looking at, the wind power project on the Churchill reservoir. That project, Mr. Speaker, would have been billions of dollars, $2 billion, I think, in investment in total. It would have created hundreds of jobs, and when you get that kind of investment prospect being tossed around and up for discussion between the energy corporation and government, I think they need to be open to discussions around those kinds of partnering and those kinds of initiatives. Because, even under this act in the new bill it is legislating the new energy corporation to be able to borrow up to $600 million in financing under a government guaranteed program, which gives them working capital right from the beginning to start doing some of this, but at the same time I do not think they should shut the door on all private sector investors or potential partners that could be out there.

I know that is not going to be the case with oil and gas because, as the CEO of Hydro indicated today, they are not at a level, of course, where they can start developing their own oil fields out there, but they can partner in a lot of aspects of it, whether that be in the construction and development part of it or whether it be in the exploration part or whether it be in the refining part or whatever the case may be. There are a number of elements to the development of the oil and gas sector of which they could be an investor and be a part.

They obviously have admitted to us that they know that they cannot go out there and take on a full oil and gas development project at this stage but , Mr. Speaker, I hope they will use the same logic in terms of looking at where they invest in the wind power, for example. Because, while wind power might be a substantially lower investment for the energy corporation, they should not rule out the potential partnerships either, the same as they are going to do in the oil and gas sector of it, under the new energy corporation. I want the same rules and regulations to apply so that if you are looking at a development such as wind power on the Churchill reservoir, and you are looking at a partnering company like Ventus Energy, well then at least the option is there for negotiation, to discuss it, to look at: Is there a way that we can partner with them to do this without just shutting the door on them completely? I hope that it is going to be that kind of openness and that kind of invitation in terms of the developments within this new energy corporation.

The research and development piece, I think, pretty well speaks for itself. I mean, a subsidiary of the company that looks at that is a positive piece, because in order for any energy company to be able to be successful, they have to continuously be on top of their research and development aspects of it. Whether they invest in the Province or out of the Province, that is going to be a very important and key aspect to all of this.

Mr. Speaker, even as an energy corporation within the Province - like in the oil and gas piece, I guess we are going to have to wait for the Energy Plan to be released before we actually know what the royalty regime is going to be, before we know what the equity programs are going to be or expectations of the government. It is really difficult to look at this new energy corporation without having all of that kind of information. It makes it very difficult in terms of being able to understand what their place will be, in terms of a negotiation with an oil company, with a wind power company or with some other company, without actually knowing what the expectation is going to be from these companies that want to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, it is unfortunate, but if the Energy Plan was available to be released, this would be the opportune time to be doing it because it would fall right in line with the new energy corporation and the legislation that we are debating here today.

Mr. Speaker, not withstanding the fact that we do not have the Energy Plan and we do not have an outline in terms of what the equity shares and royalty shares are going to be, I guess a couple of things I would like to say, and that is that with this new energy corporation, I do support the fact that they should have ownership in terms of any investments that they make. If they are going to invest in a wind power project, if they are going to invest in a development and construction project of oil and gas, or even in a refining project of oil and gas, then they should at least have ownership for the investment that they are going to make. Whether that is a small percentage or a huge percentage, I think that should be an automatic piece to this in terms of how it should be done. In doing that, they maintain a certain amount of control or input over what happens. That way they can basically, I suppose, have some input into the longevity of these projects, the amount of investments they are making in the Province, things that affect the hiring content, the subcontracting of different projects. At least it gives them that autonomy to be able to do some of these things that they would not otherwise be able to do without having an ownership investment or an equity investment in a particular project.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in looking at this particular bill - I guess for a lot of people out there, they have not been able to look at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in the context of a larger energy corporation. I think it is important that government would put out information to the public on how these changes are going to take place and what this new company is going to look like. I know most people are probably like myself. You have grown to become accustomed to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for what it is, a regulated utility company that provides a service to the people in the Province. We have not entirely looked at it in the context of having more of a presence in the energy sector, or being one of the major players in terms of any new developments.

I think it is important that government would, on the passing of this bill, provide the information. It is unfortunate, because it should have probably been provided before the legislation came to the House of Assembly so that people could have actually had some input. But, notwithstanding that, I think that - and one of my colleagues suggested it this morning in the briefing that we were in, that maybe the information should get put out to the public in some shape or form. Whether it is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that does that, or the government through its Department of Natural Resources, but it is important that people be informed and be aware of the transactions that are taking place here.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there are some large developments that will be looked at as part of this new Energy Corporation. I would think that one of the largest projects that is now on the horizon to be considered would be the Lower Churchill development project. As you all know, this is a project that will generate about 2,800 megawatts of power, including the Gull Island project, but 2,800 megawatts of power that can be generated for market right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know this will probably be the largest singular development that the new Energy Corporation will embark on in the early stages of its incorporation - or incubation, I should say.

The Lower Churchill development project, while so far we have heard a lot of talk about it, we have not necessarily seen a lot happening on it. Now we do know that the environmental work is ongoing and has been ongoing for the past two years in partnership with the Innu Nation. There has been quite a bit of it, but we know that a lot of the environmental work has gone on, on the Churchill River and a lot of the necessary components that need to be completed for a project of this scale and magnitude.

Mr. Speaker, some of the things we did not see. We did not see any environmental registrations for the construction of lines between Churchill Falls and Goose Bay. We did not see any environmental registration for the development of transmission lines between Churchill Falls and Labrador West, both areas of which we know needs to have additional transmission capacity. That kind of concerns me, because although we are moving through all the other environmental phases of this project, we are not at the stage where we are looking at the environmental implications of building those transmission lines. I would like to have that registered and done because the reality is this, if they are going to be able to move forward in the Lake Melville area or in the Labrador West area, they need to have additional generation of power. That can only be provided through developing additional transmission capacity into those communities.

While the project itself is not finalized and not ready to move forward, there is no reason not to register those two components for an environmental assessment and feasibility study, because that will need to be done at some point if these lines are going to be built. So, why not do them now while we are doing all the other environmental work in relation to the Lower Churchill development project?

Mr. Speaker, we also have heard very little in terms of market access for that project. I know that through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro they have been examining a number of markets; two, I understand, primarily. Of course, one of these would be through Quebec, which allows us to be able to transmit power into Quebec and then into the New England States and New York and all that area of the United States. I know that is one of the angles they are looking at. Mr. Speaker, I know that because we had to look at an access study in terms of the amount of power that can be transmitted through Quebec and the capacity that they can handle on their lines. So, we had to apply for access, and in applying for access as a Province, we also had to do the study to discover what the capacity would be and, of course, we are paying for that right now in the Province. I forget the figure but I think it was somewhere around $20 million - and I can be corrected on that - that was announced maybe a year ago now to start looking at that study and looking at those lines.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that in looking at that particular route they are also studying the opportunity, if there is an opportunity in transmitting power that way, if there is an opportunity to transmit some of that power into Ontario, if there is an opportunity to transmit some of that power into New Brunswick.

Mr. Speaker, they are also looking at a second route, which is the Maritime route. We have had some discussion, I guess, in the public or in the media about that. I guess that would be a little different concept in terms of running a transmission line that would come down through Labrador, across the Strait of Belle Isle, then across the Island, and then across the Gulf of St. Lawrence. You are looking at probably two subsea development lines in order to make that particular project work and to get it to the market that you are intending to. We understand that this is one of the options they are looking at, but we also know that option restricts them more in the amount of power that they are going to be able to transmit. I think they have already determined that the maximum capacity that they might be able to transmit through those provinces, given the capacity that they already have available, I think especially in New Brunswick, would be around 700 megawatts of power. That is only a portion of what would be available with the development of this site on the Lower Churchill.

While all of that information is being looked at, and while market access has been one of the key components for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a part of this Lower Churchill development project, well, I guess that will now come under the auspices of their new subsidiary company, which will be the Lower Churchill Project, I think it is going to be called, and that will come under the auspices of their new energy corporation.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be interesting to see how all of this gets determined under the new energy corporation because, as you know, the Premier has already been out there saying that we are going to go it alone on the Lower Churchill Project. Now that this project becomes a subsidiary company of the new energy corporation, what does that mean in the context of the commitments that the Premier has made, that we will go it alone on this particular development? Does that restrict this new subsidiary company from going out and raising capital to invest? Because, as we know, in the legislation that we are reviewing and voting on today, we know that they only have the ability to borrow up to $600 million in investment. That is the only authority that they have been given, under the law, to borrow up to $600 million in investment. We also know that is not going to be enough money to develop the Lower Churchill Project.

So, when you know that restriction is there in terms of the financial borrowing power, and we also know that the Premier made a commitment that we would go it alone in terms of the Lower Churchill Project, then we have to look at it in the context of: How do you raise the capital? Whether your market access is going to be through Quebec or whether it is going to be through the Maritime route is going to be irrelevant in terms of raising the capital, in my opinion. No matter which route you go, it is going to be a substantial investment and an investment that is going to reach over $600 million.

One of the questions and concerns that I have is: How do you raise the money to finance a project of that scale? Are they going to be now permitted to go out as an energy corporation and solicit financial investment from other companies, or are they going to be restricted by the Premier's commitment that we are going to go it alone - meaning, in my opinion, that they are going to finance it and develop it 100 per cent?

That is a question for me and I am unable to be able to sort through it in terms of what the answer might be because the bill does not allow, in my opinion, an interpretation of it. From the briefings that I have had, it does not allow them to be able to borrow the amount of money that will be required, themselves, as an energy corporation, to invest in a project that size.

I need to know: Is this now going to be opened up so that they can go out and look for partners, look for investors, look for financial capital? Will they be giving out equity shares in terms of the Lower Churchill development project? Will they have to give out equity shares in order to raise that capital? Is that going to be one of the things that will be permitted as part of this new concept?

We were not given the kind of information that we needed in order to be able to understand that fully, but I guess what we do understand is that any time that you look at a project this size it is going to require billions of dollars, not millions, and those billions of dollars will have to come from somewhere.

The other side of it, Mr. Speaker, as I understand, is that this energy corporation will operate like most businesses operate. Although it is going to be a Crown corporation, although the profits are going to stay within the corporation, and although it is going to managed through the Legislature and through a bill of this House, they are going to operate like any private company. That means that they will not be responsible, as a corporation - even though they are looking at developments like the Lower Churchill, developments that are going to be in the backyard of Labradorians, developments that are going to affect these particular Aboriginal people who live there, part of their mandate as a corporation, as I understand it, is not going to be to negotiate one-offs with any of these groups, or negotiate benefits agreements or impact agreements with any of those groups. It is my understanding that all of those pieces will still be done by the government; and, if they are still going to be done by the government, obviously the cost of those impact and benefits agreements has to enter into the feasibility of these projects somewhere along the line.

Even though they look at a development like the Lower Churchill and say they have already decided what their market access is going to be, they have decided how many megawatts of power they are going to develop, they have decided how much they are going to sell it for, well, then, you also have to enter into the equation what the benefits agreements are going to be for those people who are adjacent to the resource, those people who have legitimate land claims and rights in those areas, and what the cost is going to be to offset those particular litigated pieces in the context of a fuller deal.

I am not entirely understanding how that connection is going to work yet. I can only assume, and maybe the minister can clarify this when she stands, but I can only assume that once there is a project identified, or a development identified, then the necessary components, both on the side of the government and the Hydro Corporation, will operate simultaneously, and that, as soon as the government has achieved what those benefit payouts are going to be, that would be communicated to the Hydro Corporation and then incorporated as part of the feasibility or the investment of this particular project. So, that is not entirely clear in terms of what will happen but certainly we will wait to hear the response and the answer as it relates to that.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, no doubt, I just talked about one project there in terms of the Lower Churchill that would fall under this new company, but there are many others. When you look at oil and gas in this Province, right now we all know that any investments that have been made by governments or companies in the oil and gas sector have certainly paid off in the long run. We know that any equity investment, as well, that governments can take or the energy corporation can take in those oil and gas development projects are going to pay off in the long run in terms of providing more revenues and more royalties for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, when you are starting off a new company like this, they are going to be somewhat restricted in terms of where they can invest and in what projects. When you are looking at exploration in the oil and gas industry right now, in order for this new energy corporation to automatically take a role in that exploration piece, they need to have some working capital. They need to have some investment capital in order to start off but they certainly see themselves as looking at roles that they can play in terms of the development and construction of the oil and gas industry. Also, they can see themselves playing roles in the production and the refining of oil and gas within the Province.

One of the problems we have in the Province right now is we do not have any new oil and gas developments that are on the horizon, and that is unfortunate. Because the Hebron-Ben Nevis project did fall through and did not get to be developed, or start to be developed this year, what we have is a complete gap in terms of the development and construction of the oil and gas industry in the Province right now.

The fact that the new energy corporation is going to now be mandated and have the ability to invest in that sector of our oil industry, it has no relevance in today's developments, Mr. Speaker, because there are none. There are none happening right now in the Province. That is unfortunate, because the Budget that came down only a few weeks ago, the entire Budget was built around oil and gas revenues.

In fact, $600 million in new revenues this year was accrued to the provincial government, to the members opposite for their spending in this Province, came directly out of oil and gas. It was new monies that were achieved based on increased production levels in Hibernia and Terra Nova. It was achieved because of pay out in some of the oil fields. It was achieved because the price per barrel of fuel went up. Mr. Speaker, that is where the new monies came from. The $600 million in new money that the government achieved this year from oil and gas came from those three particular oil developments that are ongoing in the Province. Now, today, we do not have a new development to focus on. We do not have a new development that is ongoing in our oil and gas sector. As a result of it, four to five years down the road we are going to suffer for this. We will, and we are immediately suffering in terms of the contracting companies out there that need this working capital and need to be able to continue on with their operations in the Province.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a slow down in the exploration industry, like we have not seen in the last three to four years. In 2003, we had over $670 million being invested in exploration in the oil industry off the Coast of Newfoundland in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin and the orphan basin; two of the most primary land development sites for oil and gas in Newfoundland for the last twenty years, I say to members, for twenty years. You go back, and in that twenty-year period there was almost never a time where there was not major investments in land development in those two areas in terms of the oil and gas industry. This year, what happened? We went from $672 million in the exploration industry in oil and gas in 2003, down to this year, with only one land offer for development off the Coast of Newfoundland, and last year with only $32 million total in exploration in the Province. Now that is a loss of almost $650 million in revenue. So, it is all right that we are forming an energy corporation because maybe under this energy corporation the people over at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as we know it today, will have more success in trying to negotiate some deals with the oil and gas companies to bring some revenue into the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why this is not a larger concern for the members opposite, because you only have to look around. They all spend time here in St. John's, not that a lot of this oil and gas revenue or the contracts associated with it ever benefits people much outside of the Eastern Avalon, but if you look around the Eastern Avalon Peninsula today and you look at all the companies that have been built up over there in Donovan's Industrial Park and other places in this city just to supply the oil and gas industry, it is enough to blow your mind. It is enough to blow your mind. They are the people who are employing the hundreds and thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are graduating through our college systems every year; those who do not move to Alberta.

So, it should be a primary concern, whenever you see an exploration industry that drops from almost $700 million in one year to three years later down to less than $30 million, it is a concern. As a result of it, what we are seeing is a lot of these businesses closing. We are seeing a lot of these businesses closing but we are also seeing a lot of them trying to maintain a storefront operation but having to lay off a lot of workers, and that is unfortunate.

I know a couple of individuals who were laid off recently who had to go out to Ft. McMurray to find work for the summer in the oil sands out there, because their positions were being terminated.

It is all right that we are looking at some form of a different concept in terms of securing some business and some opportunities in the Province under this particular sector, because the government opposite has not been very successful in making that happen, I say.

Mr. Speaker, exploration is one part of it, but when you have companies that actually go out and make finds - and they do so. They take on the exploration, they make the investments, they make the find and they do it under the auspices that these are the regulations, these are the terms and conditions I have to meet, this is what is expected in terms of royalty regimes. Then, when they are ready to move into the next phase, the development phase, the rules of the game start changing. That has been the big deterrent for the oil and gas industry in this Province. That is why we have seen the exploration drop off the way that we have. That is why, this year, we have not seen oil companies out laying claims to lands in the primary areas for oil development operations in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence - and I can't stress this enough - in the absence of an energy plan and a royalty regime on oil and gas, how do you honestly expect any oil companies in this Province to go out and option up for claims like was asked to be done this year? I was not a bit surprised when there were only five bids that came in, and four of them ended up being in Labrador. They are taking their business somewhat away from what is happening on the Avalon Peninsula, they are looking at a new area and they are starting to invest up there. Believe me, I am more than happy to see it and have it happening, but at the same time, that, as well, has to be regulated.

Here we are, for the past year we have had the minister talking about an energy plan and a royalty regime for oil and gas. To go out and ask for bids in the oil sector this year, without even releasing the plan, without showing these companies what was going to be expected of them from the government, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, was very premature. It was premature and, in fact, it wasn't very well planned or thought out by the government or by the minister. If they truly wanted to have more interest in those developments in the Province this year they would have had that information laid out before the oil companies, long in advance of them out there looking for their bids.

Mr. Speaker, under this new energy corporation there will be several subsidiary companies and the oil and gas component will be only one, one of those particular subsidiaries. They will have an opportunity to look at everything and to invest in everything from exploration to development to construction to production to refining, anything and everything that has to do with the oil and gas industry. In addition to that, they will have opportunities to look at their own research and development. They will have opportunities to look at developing wind power. While they have already come out and said, and I want to repeat this, because what they have told us in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is that they know, as an energy corporation, that they are not going to be able to go out there tomorrow and start their own oil and gas project. They can look at being an investor in these projects, taking an equity share, having some ownership or control.

Mr. Speaker, I hope they are going to look at wind power in the same context. I hope that they are not going to say to the private sector investors that are out there today wanting to invest in wind power development in the Province, that: I am sorry, we do not want your business. We are going to do all of this now under our own energy corporation.

I hope that is not going to happen, because I think that there is an opportunity for partnership as well. Government can still have some equity, government can still have some ownership, government can have control, government can set the royalty regimes, government can set the regulations. They can be a major player in the development of any of these projects but, at the same time, they should not be saying to companies like Ventus Energy that we do not want to have a discussion with you - who is prepared to spend up to $2 billion in this Province, which is equivalent to what the Atlantic Accord is, $2 billion in investment to develop a wind project on the Churchill Falls reservoir.

Those kinds of companies, they need to have a voice. They need to be able to come to the table with this new energy corporation and with government and talk about what they are proposing, look at mutual ways that they can agree to be investors, to be partners of some sort to have those developments done. I do not think it is good enough that you would just shut the door on that type of an investment; because, if you do, you are going to restrict the energy developments in this Province in a major way. Even under this new energy corporation they are restricted in terms of the amount of money that they can borrow, and the government has placed that restriction on them by virtue of this act, in terms of what they can borrow at one particular time. That will affect the kind of investments and the amount of investments that they can participate in. If you are not going to have any partnerships in these developments, well then, of course, there are going to be some projects that are going to be put on the back burner and not going to be able to happen over a period of time. We wouldn't want to see that necessarily be the case.

Now, Mr. Speaker, also under this new corporation, I haven't talked about it very much but there is also a subsidiary company called the Upper Churchill Project or CFLCo as we know it. That is the project right now that is run out of Churchill Falls that deals with the power development on the Upper Churchill and the sale of that power to outside markets. That is going to be a separate company under this energy corporation. I guess that is for a number of reasons. We didn't get into a discussion with them, but anyone who has followed that particular deal and knows how the revenues and the profits work on a year-over-year basis through CFLCo would understand that in the next few years it is not going to necessarily be a really profitable venture for the government or the energy corporation for that matter. Mr. Speaker, that will be just one of the other subsidiaries and the other one will be under the regulated utilities company.

It is going to be interesting to see how all of this works out. Again, I think there are very few people out there in the Province who actually realize or even understand how this new corporation is going to operate or function. I am sure they are going to have questions as well in terms of how all of this is going to work.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the legislation that is before us, it is not a lot different in terms of how things will operate, other than the fact that their mandate has been expanded. They do have some different objectives here. Some of the powers of the corporation will be somewhat different, but nothing that would cause you, I don't think, Mr. Speaker, to raise any eyebrows in that sense, or seems to be outside of what would be normal in terms of a corporation like this.

Mr. Speaker, there are going to be lots of opportunity for this new corporation in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think that we, as a Province, have only just begun in terms of focusing on what our real energy ability is in terms of that resource. I think there is going to be a strong requirement for more electricity and more hydro power right here in our own Province as well. While the company is out looking at market access on big projects like the Lower Churchill, I think that there is somewhat of a market right here in Newfoundland and Labrador that needs to be fostered and developed as well.

I know in Labrador right now, Mr. Speaker, we have probably four new potential, I will say, opportunities for mining. Some of these finds have been very substantial, in the Lake Melville area, in the Labrador West area, on the North Coast. Some of these finds have been substantial in the context of probably being able to generate their own mining operations over a period of time. I know that a lot of the exploration work they are doing is still in the preliminary stage, and I have talked to a number of these companies.

They have certainly, Mr. Speaker, tremendous optimism for the amount of resources there and the ability to be able to develop a mining operation around it. They are doing all of the necessary work that they have to do, obviously. It is a big investment for them, but I think that these people are experts and they know, Mr. Speaker, that there is an opportunity here for them to develop mining operations around what they are finding today. I think that government has to carefully consider that in the context of any developments on the Lower Churchill and what the forecasted need for power may be in Labrador over a longer period of time, what the opportunities may be; if we see a deal between Bloom Lake and Wabush Mines, what the requirement for additional power is going to be there, and how that power is going to be provided.

That is the reason I am asking questions like why we have not seen environmental assessments on transmission lines going into Labrador West or going into Happy Valley-Goose Bay from the Churchill Falls project. Because, while they may not be prepared or ready to build those lines today or tomorrow, it is important to have that piece of the work done, because I think it is a necessity in terms of making it happen over the long term. If they can go out and do the environmental assessments on transmitting the power in every other direction, as well as studying the availability and access to the markets, and what the capacity is going to be on lines everywhere from New Brunswick to the United States, well, then, they should be able to also look at that as a necessary component.

I think, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be opportunities here for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and for this new energy corporation. It is going to be interesting to see how all of this will play out in the context of what kinds of projects outside of those that we see, evidently, right now, today, that they will invest in, but I am sure that any initiatives that they do invest in will be open to the scrutiny of the public in terms of whether they think those investments are being made appropriately or whether they are not. I guess over time we will have an opportunity to be able to look at that and to see that.

One of my primary concerns in looking at this bill was making sure that the rate payers in the Province were going to be protected, that their profits and their revenues that they were paying into their regulated utility company through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were not going to be used to be invested into some oil and gas project or some wind power project in which they would see their returns lost and, as a result of it, they would end up paying more money for the cost of the electricity coming into their homes or into their businesses.

We have been assured by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that would not be the case; that, in fact, all the revenues are going to be protected under the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation; that, in fact, any revenues for rate payers would not be impacted at all and that any investments that they make would not be connected, or directly connected, to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in that, if they did lose or make a bad investment, the rate payers would not be subject to having to pay more money for the cost of their utility as a result of bad investments by the broader energy corporation.

Those were the kinds of assurances that we were looking for in terms of looking at this particular bill, so I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens, and the kind of investments that are being made. Who knows? They may generate more revenue so that the rates could even come down at the end of the day, because it is our understanding that the profits that do go into this energy corporation, and the monies that are made as profits, can be distributed over any of the subsidiaries over a period of time. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, perhaps any major royalties that they make on their investments in the oil and gas or wind power or some other project we might be able to see the use of those particular dividends to bring down the rates of people who use Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro utilities in the Province over the long term.

Those would be the comments that I would have with regard to this bill at this particular time. I am sure that there are other people who have comments, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize to my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi but, before we carry on with debate, there are a couple of housekeeping matters that I need to attend to. I need to move Motion 3 and Motion 4.

First of all, I will move Motion 3, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 this evening, Tuesday, June 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, being today.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Motion 4, that again, pursuant to Standing Order 11, the House not adjourn today, Tuesday, June 5, at ten o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, today, 2007.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

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

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to the bill that is before us.

I need to point out - and I will do some explanation especially for the sake of those who are watching us through electronic media - that in dealing with this bill it is impossible to talk about Bill 27 without also making reference to Bill 28, which we will be discussing later on. The whole reason for Bill 27, the reason it is before us, is because of the fact that the government is proposing establishing a new energy corporation, and that new energy corporation will be created through Bill 28. The creation of that new corporation requires changes to the current Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. In dealing with Bill 27 we are dealing with a bill that is recognizing the new structure of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which is necessitated because of the formation of the energy corporation.

I think it is important for us to understand what it is that we are dealing with, and important for me to explain that, so that if somebody is just starting to watch us they will have an idea of what the discussion is about.

There isn't a lot of difference between the legislation for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro now and the legislation that existed prior to Bill 27 coming to the table. There are some changes necessitated specifically because of the change in the objectives of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as we move into the new phase.

Before getting into that, I would like to make reference to the briefing that was held this morning, and I would like to thank the Minister of Natural Resources for setting up the briefing for the members of the House of Assembly. The briefing was by officials from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as well as officials from Natural Resources and officials from the Department of Justice. Those officials worked with some of us from the two Opposition parties in helping us come to an understanding of the two bills and an understanding of what the new corporation was about and, in that sense, what the new Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was about. I have to say, they did a very good job in laying out everything for us and answering our questions so that we had a clear understanding at the end of our session with them of what all of this was. That session this morning gave me a sense of comfort with regard to the direction that we are moving in, in terms of what the two companies are about.

I think the thing that became really clear, and you can put it in one sentence, which is what helped me when I was finally able to put the whole thing in one sentence, is that the whole purpose of the new energy corporation is to allow the Province to get into investment into energy projects through a corporation that is not part of the delivery of power, and in that way protect Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and protect the users of power from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro so that they do not end up having to pay more money for their electricity because of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro getting into investments with the new corporation. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will not be the one getting into investments into energy, it will be the new corporation. So, having two totally separate, legal entities is extremely important.

It is interesting in reading the two bills, that except for the very end of Bill 27, you do not recognize that this bill relates to another bill, and the companies being spoken about in Bill 27 relates to a company that is being spoken about in Bill 28, until one gets to the end of Bill 27. When one gets to the end of Bill 27, you get the reference to the new Energy Corporation Act. What you see happening there is that you have the disposition of shares there for the ownership going in under the Energy Corporation Act. Then you have clauses dealing with the fact that this new energy corporation, that is going to be set up, will actually be holding the shares for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That is the only point at which the two bills, and therefore the two companies, come together. I will come back to that because there are a couple of questions I have around that.

As I said, it is impossible for me to speak to Bill 27 without referring to Bill 28. I think anybody else who is speaking to it is in the same boat. What we now have are two legal entities but those two legal entities are part of one reality, and that reality is, of course, the government because they are two Crown corporations. These Crown corporations are now in place, or will be put in place by these bills in order to deliver the energy plan that government has been talking to us about for a couple of years now. Certainly, since I have come to the House I have been hearing about the energy plan. Since I was elected as Leader of my Party I have been hearing about the energy plan. I find it a bit disturbing that we continue to have the discussion without having the energy plan in front of us. I am trying to figure out the relationship between the bills and the energy plan. It seems to me government has a sense - it obviously must, it has been working on it and talking about it for almost two years - of where it wants to go with energy and it is setting up, through these bills, the corporate mechanism to be the engine for moving the energy plan forward. It is disturbing for me, that we have to look at these bills and realize we have this new corporation happening and still wondering what is it that the government is going to try to do through its energy plan. That is not clear to me.

Obviously, the government wants to get into investment. We know that. It wants to invest in energy projects. It wants to invest in energy projects in oil and gas. It wants to become a player in that field in one form or another; mainly, I would imagine, through investment. The government also wants to look at other methods of energy generation. There seems to be, and it was presented to us this morning, a real commitment to looking at wind energy, which is great. Obviously, the government wants to invest in that direction. But, it is a bit disturbing for me that as one of the parties in this House I am not going to be able to get an opportunity to speak to the energy plan because I understand, through the media, that what the government's intention is, is to bring out the energy plan when the House is not sitting, and to bring it out as part of their campaign prior to our election on October 9. That means that we here in this House do not get a chance to speak to the plan. So, that is disturbing.

I will, during my time of speaking to Bill 27, and during my time of speaking to Bill 28, use that opportunity to share some of my thoughts about what I think should be in an energy plan.

In dealing with Bill 27, I do want to say that my party is happy that the government has taken a step towards consolidation around energy issues. I think we are almost showing like we are growing up by the formation of the new energy corporation, which will be covered by Bill 28. We are sort of behind a number of provinces when it comes to doing this, Hydro-Quebec being one example, BC Hydro being another example. We can go right across the country and find the examples, on provincial levels, where the type of corporation that our government is now planning on putting together exists. Now, each of these corporations has different faces to it, and I will speak to some of those as well, both now and when I speak to Bill 28.

What the government is doing is a step in a direction of what our party started to call for back in 2003, through our former leader, Jack Harris. At that time, we called for one energy corporation in our Province, and that energy corporation would be involved both in production and delivery and distribution of energy. It would also be involved in investment. It would also be involved in looking at alternative methods of energy generation. That company would be the overall umbrella.

One of the things that was part of the package that Jack Harris first started talking about when he delivered the NDP energy plan was that the new company that we envisioned would also include Newfoundland Power. I want to speak to that for a minute because this is missing from the government's plan. This proposal that came from the NDP back in 2003 is missing from the current plan that now this government has in place.

The reason why the NDP suggested and continues to believe that Newfoundland Power should be part of the energy corporation and the new body that the government wants to put in place, the whole new structure, is that, that is the place where the most money is made from the distribution of electricity, because it is the largest distributor of electricity, as we know, in the Province. So, it would make all the sense in the world for the new energy company to have, under its umbrella, Newfoundland Power.

We do not know if government gave consideration to that, if government looked at what it would mean for the new company to actually buy Newfoundland Power, what it would mean both in terms of the money for buying and what it would mean for the future income that the new energy company would have, because that was one of the main reasons for our recommending that Newfoundland Power be part of the umbrella company that we were envisioning and proposing back in 2003, that the revenue generated from Newfoundland Power, which comes from the people of this Province, should come into the Crown corporation, that right now we just have a small number of customers that have energy distributed to them by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We would like to see all the revenue from the distribution of power, all of that revenue, being in the hands of a Crown corporation, and that would mean taking over Newfoundland Power in order to do that.

I am sorry that the government did not push their idea in that whole direction. I think that it would have meant a stronger body when this new company gets formed, that it would have more revenue at its hands, that we would have all of the revenue, or most of the revenue, from the distribution of power coming to the Crown corporation and therefore being used by the Crown for the ongoing good of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, that is one disappointment for me.

When I look at Bill 27, and I have looked at it in detail and I have compared it to the old act that covered Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I recognize that obviously the main reason for the bill is to reflect the new structure. One notices one significant thing. There is not a lot of difference, but one significant thing that, of course, is not in Bill 27 and is in the old bill covering Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is the object that the corporation may, in the Province and elsewhere, engage in activities related to the exploration for development, production, refining, marketing and transportation of hydrocarbons and products from hydrocarbons. That object which was an object of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will now be an object of the new energy corporation. It will not longer be an object of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It will still happen, the Crown corporation will still be responsible, but it will be the new Crown corporation that has the responsibility for making sure that happens.

Most of the objects of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are the same. Hopefully, I'm not boring people, but I think it might be important for the public out there to hear what the objects of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are.

These objects are: To develop and purchase power - and I will speak to that in a minute - on an economic and efficient basis; and in particular to engage in the Province and elsewhere in the development, generation, production, transmission, distribution, delivery, supply, sale, purchase and use of power from water, steam, gas, coal, oil, wind, hydrogen or other products used or useful in the production of power; and to supply power at rates consistent with sound financial administration for domestic, commercial, industrial or other uses in the Province.

Now, those objects have been the purview of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro except for the purchasing of power. This is a new thing, that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be able to purchase power. That wasn't named in the old bill that covered Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Notice - and I will say it again - that one of the objects is, of course, the distribution of power. That is why I say that this was an opportunity, with the restructuring, to bring all the distribution of power in the Province under the Crown Corporation. It would have made all the sense in the world and it would have brought revenue in that we don't have at the moment, because of the distribution of power by Newfoundland Power.

Just going on here, Mr. Speaker, I do have some more points that I want to make. There are many issues that have come up as I have read both Bill 27 and Bill 28. I will get a chance to speak to some of them when I speak to Bill 28, but I want to start speaking to some of them now.

There are a lot of plans going on and that is what came to me this morning as we were listening to the people briefing us. There are a lot of projects being talked about, a lot of plans going on, a lot of stuff that is going on behind the scenes. I am hoping that as this process continues, that we can have an opportunity for ongoing briefings so that more of what is going on will become public, that more of what is going on will become obvious to people and they will know what the plan of government is.

It was already mentioned, but I will mention it again. This morning a recommendation was made to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and also to officials who were at our briefing from Natural Resources, that the public needs to have more information. Not small groups or not particular groups, but in some kind of general way the public needs to have more information with regard to what the government's overall plan is. Now, I imagine the government is going to do a lot of that when they are doing the campaigning for the general election because they have said publicly that they will be presenting their energy plan prior to the election. So, I guess there is going to be quite a bit of publicity at that time. It is unfortunate that government is choosing to do it that way. I would prefer an educational process, an information process that is not tied to the political agenda, which it is tied to when you are attaching it to an election. I am sorry about that. I am sorry government is doing it that way. As I have said, I wish that we had an opportunity to discuss the energy plan here.

One of the things for me is missing, and I will talk about later on in greater detail but I want to mention it now. What I see missing at this moment is no reference in Bill 28 - which I will talk to later - to energy efficiency. There does not seem to be a commitment anywhere, in anything that I have read, with regard to energy efficiency. I know there is reference to alternate methods of producing electricity, talking about wind power, for example, but there is much more to energy efficiency than that, and that is something I want to get into. People in our Province are very concerned about energy efficiency.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: If I just may clue up, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

As I have said, I will get to speak again to Bill 28. Some of what I was just going to start on now, I will wait until Bill 28.

I will just clue up by saying, I do think we have a step in the right direction with the changes that are being made to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the formation of the new energy corporation that will allow us to move in a more cohesive planned way. I do see some limitations, and I look forward to having another opportunity later on today to speak to those.

Thank you very much.

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

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated, I believe in the House yesterday, that my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, had to be away on public business for the day, and I think probably part of tomorrow as well. So, on her behalf, I am pleased to move the closing of second reading on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-electric Corporation.

I want to thank my colleagues from the Opposition for their participation and for the suggestions that they have put forward. I attempted to listen intently, and I do, in fact, have officials watching the proceedings and listening so that if there is a matter that needs to be responded to on the floor or in Committee, when we get there, then I will be in a position to do that.

I just want to generally say, at this point in time, that there is no intention that this corporation be limited to borrowing of $600 million in total. That is a matter that will be attended to by the Legislature from time to time to increase - it is not meant that the $600 million, for example, would be the amount of cash that this corporation would be able to raise to invest in the development of the Lower Churchill. So that will always be a moving target, depending on what projects that the corporation becomes involved in from time to time. It may well be that the borrowing limits for the corporation will have to be increased, and I believe we do that for Hydro, as it currently exists, from time to time.

I believe, as well, there was some concern about the investments of the corporation and how that might impact ratepayers. I believe it was imparted in the technical briefing this morning that there is not. This corporation will be a stand-alone in that sense and that its investments will not have any negative impact on ratepayers in terms of the usage of electricity.

I think that was a couple of the major items that were raised by members as they spoke. So on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would like now to move second reading of Bill 27.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-electric Corporation be read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act Respecting the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-electric Corporation." (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-electric Corporation," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 27)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province. (Bill 28)

Similarly, as we did in Bill 27, this bill was introduced by the minister yesterday and the appropriate procedure now I believe would be to accord the opportunity for first speaking to the bill to the critic for the Official Opposition.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to have a few words as it relates to Bill 28. When I had spoken in the last bill, which was Bill 27, I outlined that these two bills were indeed connected, and I think the Government House Leader did so as well in his closing comments.

In Bill 27, in essence what they were doing was amending the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Act or repealing that act and replacing it with this new bill. What is happening now under Bill 28, is that Bill 28 is allowing the government to set up an energy corporation. In that energy corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be one of the subsidiaries for that particular corporation. So the act that we have just passed under Bill 27 was the act for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. This act on Bill 28 is, indeed, the new energy corporation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said when I spoke in my remarks last time, this energy corporation is indeed a new corporation in Newfoundland and Labrador, operating under the auspices of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; operating with a number of subsidiary companies of which Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be one.

This morning we had an opportunity, myself and my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, to actually sit and be briefed by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and by the senior officials in the Department of Natural Resources. In that briefing, Mr. Speaker, it was outlined to us very clearly. I must say, they had a detailed outline in terms of the corporate structure that this new energy corporation would take.

I am going to speak a little bit on that right now because the corporate structure of the new company will allow them to look at developments outside of what they have normally done, and it will also help them look at unregulated developments which, as we know, through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, have always operated as a regulated utility providing services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and so on.

Mr. Speaker, under the new company what you will have is an energy corporation operating under the auspices of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Then, under that energy corporation you will have Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as we know it today, a regulated utility company providing services to consumers in our Province. Also under that we will have CF(L)Co. CF(L)Co is the corporation that has been set up to manage the Upper Churchill development project. Then we will have, also, under that corporation, the Lower Churchill Corporation. As you know, this is a corporation set up to look directly at the development of the Lower Churchill project, to look at everything from financial capital to investment, to environmental impacts, to market access, to how much energy they can produce, and so on and so forth. That will all be done under this other subsidiary company called the Lower Churchill Corporation.

Also under this new company you will have what is called the wind corporation. The wind corporation will look at wind development projects. As you know, in the last two to three years Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have looked at small scale wind development projects on the Island of Newfoundland. In fact, they partnered with some companies, and in other cases they went out on their own and did a pilot project to look at wind development. They have also looked at research of wind in Labrador. For example, for the last year they have been collecting data on the Churchill Falls reservoir to collect data around wind power, to assess it. Already they are telling us - although they do not have a final report or all the final data, I do not think - that there is tremendous potential there and obvious potential for the development of wind power. That would be a part of this corporation as well, and the other subsidiary company will deal with the oil and gas corporations.

Under the oil and gas piece of it, Mr. Speaker, they have told us that they will be looking at investments or equity shares in oil and gas projects. Whether that is in the exploration phase of the project, whether it is in the development phase of a project, the production phase or the refining phase of an oil and gas project, they are looking at how they can take equity shares in those particular sectors and how they can grow the revenues of their energy corporation and have larger ownership in terms of the oil and gas sector. Mr. Speaker, that is basically what Bill 28 does. It also outlines what the powers of this new energy corporation are going to be.

Now, one of the issues that I raised in debate already is around the borrowing power of the company. Although the Government House Leader, when he stood in his place a little while ago, said that the new energy corporation is not going to be restricted in terms of the amounts of money that they can actually borrow, unless I am interpreting the legislation wrong, it spells right out here in Bill 28, under section 28, "The total of money to be raised by the corporation by loans..." - that is - "...shall not exceed $600,000,000 in Canadian currency or its equivalent in the currency of another country."

It also goes on to say, "The total of all loans to the corporation to be guaranteed by or on behalf of the Crown shall not exceed $600,000,000 in Canadian currency or its equivalent in the currency of another country."

Mr. Speaker, the way this is worded in the actual legislation indicates to me that there is a restriction on borrowing power and that, in fact, the corporation will only be permitted, under legislation, to raise money from loans to not exceed that amount of money.

If the Government House Leader has a different interpretation of that law, and how that is going to be applied, then he needs to tell me, in the legislation, where that is outlined, because I have not been able to understand that it says anything differently. Maybe he will be able to answer that question for me when he comes back or when he rises to speak on the actual bill itself.

That is going to be a very important component because, when you are talking about raising money in terms of investing, and if you are capped in terms of how much borrowing power you have as an energy corporation, then the next question becomes: How do you raise the money to be an investor? How do you raise that money? That is a very fundamental question and component to this, especially when you are dealing with things like the Lower Churchill development project and the fact that government is already on the books as saying that they are going to go it alone on the Lower Churchill project. If that is the case, and they are going to go it alone on that particular project, then where are they going to be able to raise the capital if their new energy corporation is not going to be permitted to do it? The capital investment will have to come from some place in order to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak with regard to a couple of things that will happen under this energy corporation. First of all, you have to realize that the track record of the government opposite when it comes to dealing with oil and gas companies has not been a very good record, and I think that the amount of expenditure or investment that we are seeing in the oil and gas industry in the Province right now today will certainly solidify the comments that I am about to make.

We have seen in the oil and gas industry itself, Mr. Speaker, exploration investments in this industry drop from over $600 million in 2003 to only $30 million last year, and this year even less than that. The reason for that is the fundamental question. The reason for that is the fact that there has not been a good relationship between this government and the oil and gas industry, and that is really unfortunate because that is the one industry in this Province that is driving the economy. That is the one industry that is turning in dividends to the government that is allowing them to go out and make all the great announcements that they have been making leading up to an election.

The amounts of money that they have been investing in their roads, in their municipal infrastructure, in their private contracts to solicit deals for the Province, in their health care facilities, all of that money is coming from the oil and gas sector and from deals like the Voisey's Bay Nickel Project, which we know members opposite voted against, the Voisey's Bay Nickel Project. They said it was not a good deal, and now, today, they are enjoying spending the nearly $150 million in profit that they took off that project last year.

Let me get back to the oil and gas, because this is very important. The oil and gas industry right now is driving the economy of this Province. In the last year we have seen an additional $600 million in revenue accrue to the coffers of the provincial government, and it came directly from oil and gas. Mr. Speaker, it came because we were able to have payout on certain oil and gas projects. It came because we were able to increase the capacity, the amount of barrels of oil, that was being pumped on an annual basis in some of these projects. We achieved that, Mr. Speaker, because the price of oil in the marketplace had provided for a larger rebate for us in Newfoundland and Labrador. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, contributed to the bottom line of the government and them being able to bring down a budget this year that had significant expenditures and yet a surplus of $261 million.

Now, when you look at it in that context, you would think that government would be out there trying to build bridges and partnerships in the oil and gas industry, but that is not what we have. In fact, we have something completely different. We have an industry, Mr. Speaker, that under this particular government is not growing or thriving in any way. In fact, what we have today is exploration in that industry drop by over $600 million a year in investment. With that drop in investment, Mr. Speaker, goes less jobs, less money circulating in the economy and less contracts with businesses. All of these things are impacted.

What else do we have? We have two rigs. We have one rig right now, Mr. Speaker, the Eirik Raude, which was having some maintenance work done on it. That rig has now been shipped out of the Province. To my understanding, it is in Mexico working; not doing any work in Newfoundland and Labrador, not doing any work here because we have no exploration work to be done because the companies are not investing. We have the Eirik Raude that has been moved out of the Province. We know that there is significant job loss because of that rig being taken out of the Province, and we know that there are contracts being lost.

What else do we know? We know now, Mr. Speaker, that the Henry Goodridge will also shut down this summer and that rig will be taken out of the Province. Those are too drilling rigs offshore in our Province that are being taken out of commission, being sent somewhere else, and our people are going to be displaced from the jobs that they have. One has already been sent out of the Province and the other one will go before the end of the summer. As a result of it, we will have hundreds of people who will be laid off and we will have contracts lost. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Because the government opposite failed to develop a rapport with the oil and gas industry that allowed us to see a continued growth in our exploration industry.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that they had a bad deal with Hebron-Ben Nevis - changing the rules in the middle of a deal, in the middle of a development project, is not the way to have a good government. In fact, since they have done that, which has been well over a year, they have still failed to bring in a royalty regime for oil and gas in this Province. They went out a few weeks ago and they asked for bids, bids to develop the lands for oil and gas in this Province, and do you know what they got? They got five bids. Four of them happened to be in Labrador in the gas industry, which I am more than pleased to see. One bid, Mr. Speaker, off the East Coast of Newfoundland.

We all know that the Jeanne d'Arc Basin and the Orphan basin have been two of the primary areas for land bids for oil companies for almost twenty years in this Province, where we have seen the most exploration and development occur in the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. What happened this year? This year there were no takers, they did not put up the bids. Why? Because they waited for well over a year.

Since the government opposite showed Hebron-Ben Nevis and their companies, Chevron and those companies, the door and exited them out of the Province, and out of the oil and gas industry here, since they have done that they have still failed to produce a royalty regime for oil and gas off Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result of it, these companies do not want to bid. They are bidding blindly. Look what happened to the Hebron-Ben Nevis project and the negotiations with Chevron. Look what happened. They were bidding blindly.

Mr. Speaker, since that has happened the entire industry in this Province is transforming, and what is sad is that the members opposite are enjoying the spending frenzy of the one-time dollars that they are earning on current oil and gas projects that were developed by Liberal governments, I say, Mr. Speaker, and they are blinded by that. They are blinded by their spending frenzy going into an election year on those one-time royalties they are getting from oil and gas and they are not seeing the impact for the long-term; what is actually happening; the millions of dollars that we are losing in our exploration industry year over year; the millions of dollars that we are losing because we have no new developments happening.

For the first time in twenty years in this Province there are no new developments in oil and gas. That is a sad commentary, I say, for the government opposite and it is all because of their own actions. In fact, Mr. Speaker, let me read this article that was in the Financial Post, actually only last month. It was in the Financial Post on May 5 of this year. This is what it was saying: St. John's was a signature away from Alberta-style prosperity, barely a year ago, with a lineup of big oil and gas projects, a cascade of high paying jobs, membership in the exclusive club of oil-producing hubs feeding off the global energy supply crunch, tantalizingly just out of reach. Where is it today, Mr. Speaker? Where is that today? They go on to give a commentary to where it is today. We are nowhere near the Alberta-style prosperity in the oil and gas industry because we do not have the exploration, we do not have the new projects on the horizon and we have a government that has failed terribly in that particular sector.

What else do they go on to say? Others worry that the Province's energy industry is losing its momentum, infrastructure and people, and that oil companies with opportunities elsewhere will not return until Mr. Williams is gone. Like a bitting Northeasterly wind blowing in suddenly from the Atlantic, St. John's change in fortune came virtually overnight, a year ago in March, when an oil company consortium, led by Chevron Corporation, the California based oil giant, failed to lock up a feasible agreement to develop the Hebron-Ben Nevis, a $6 billion heavy oil project with nearly $800 million barrels of reserves. It would have been Newfoundland's fourth major offshore oil project and kept its oil sector in growth mode well into the future. The talks failure shocked the community. This is what is being said in the Financial Post.

Now, Mr. Speaker, any oil company out there worth their salt in investing in our country today is reading the Financial Post, I can tell you that. What they are reading is not all that glamorous when it comes to the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are reading about a Province that was on the edge of prosperity in an oil and gas industry and had a momentum flowing that would have taken us right into and through the twenty-first century, and where is it now? Because of sour deals and bad negotiations, because of terrible leadership and the unwillingness to foster partnerships in the oil industry by the government opposite, we are suffering. We are losing the fourth project in oil and gas in this Province. We are losing a project with $800 million barrels of reserves. We are losing an investment, over the next three to five years, of $6 billion in this Province.

We have heard a lot of talk about the Atlantic Accord and all of this stuff and the loss of revenues in it. Well, what about the loss of revenues in deals like this that are going to provide investments of $6 billion over a period of two to three years? It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that we are establishing this energy corporation with a subsidiary company that will be able to look at oil and gas. Because, when you really get down to what has been happening in oil and gas in this Province under the present government's leadership, it has been absolutely nothing. They have to mandate somebody else to take this on as part of an energy development initiative because they are certainly not doing it themselves.

Mr. Speaker, no matter where you go, you can look at all of the things that have been happening in this Province in the oil ane gas industry and you can look at the fact that there has been an increase in the cost of crude per barrel that has derived a lot of dividends to this particular development in the Province, but you can also look at other things; things like payout on Terra Nova, things like expanding the amount of crude that is being pumped through Hibernia. All of these things have added to the bottom line, and here we are today enjoying the spending of the royalties of those three particular oil and gas developments in the Province, with no new development on the horizon, no new project in production, no new project being developed, no exploration work occurring. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the next few years we will definitely be feeling the pain of that lack of initiative on behalf of the government in this Province today. It is all right to hit your fists on the table and say all or nothing, but when it is really nothing, Mr. Speaker, and there is nothing happening, the real crunch of that is being felt by a lot of people as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, this energy corporation will take on a part of that responsibility, to negotiate with some of those oil companies, to negotiate its own investments because under their subsidiary company they will have the ability to invest in oil developments in the Province and be able to invest in various aspects of oil developments and be able to take equity shares or investment shares, or whatever they negotiate as part of that deal.

The other thing that they are going to be able to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at things like the Lower Churchill project, which they already have. They are already the lead on this particular development, and have been for some time through the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation.

As I talked about earlier, one of the major components that they have been looking at, especially in the last year-and-a-half, is market access for the development of the 2,800 megawatts of power that exist on the Lower Churchill project. Mr. Speaker, they are looking at market access into the United States, of course, into the New England States in particular, where there is a huge market for power. But, in order to wield that power into the U.S., they have to be able to transmit it somewhere through the country, and they are looking at two ways of transmission. One of those routes is going to be to transmit it through the Province of Quebec. First of all, they have to apply for access and be granted access, but then they also have to look at what the capacity is to be able to transmit that power. Right now, we are paying for the study here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our tax dollars are paying for a study to look at the capacity in Quebec, to be able to transmit this power through the Province of Quebec.

The other route that they are looking at is the Maritime route. The Maritime route, of course, would look at bringing this particular power down through Labrador, across the Strait of Belle Isle, across the Island of Newfoundland, and then right on across to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Of course, in order to do that, not only are you looking at a huge distance but you also have to study the ability to transport that power, what capacity you can transport. You still have to have access through the other provinces. Also, you have to look at developing two subsea routes for the transmission of this power because one has to come across the Strait of Belle Isle, the other one has to go across the Gulf of St. Lawrence. So, you are looking at two underwater subsea transmission lines that would have to be built for the transport of that particular power.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Lower Churchill project is a 2,800 megawatt development project, when you include the Gull Island project as part of that as well. So, in order to do that, you need to have a tremendous amount of capacity, providing that most of it will be transported. It is my hope and my wish that a portion of it is going to stay in Labrador, in particular, for the development of alternative projects, and I think there is going to be lots of projects to develop in the years to come. So, we are going to actually need that supply of power ourselves in Labrador.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Maritime route right now looks like, according to Hydro officials, that it could transport only up to 700 megawatts of power which would leave, again, over 2,000 megawatts of power to be sold into a market of some substance somewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is going to be tremendous potential and I hope that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, under their new energy corporation, is going to look very seriously at this. I think there is going to be tremendous potential for the use of this energy in Labrador itself.

If you look at what is happening in Labrador right now, we have a number of new mineral finds. Four of those finds could potentially be developed into mining operations over the course of the next five to six years. Those mining operations will bring with them substantial benefits, Mr. Speaker, and also will require substantial amounts of power.

Even if you look at the project that is being negotiated now between the Bloom Lake mineral find in Labrador West and Wabush Mines, if they were to form a partnership or a deal on the development of that particular resource, then immediately we are going to see a demand for more electricity just in the Wabush area to be able to substantiate that particular operation.

There are many other mining operations as well, Mr. Speaker, that have potential in Labrador right now, as well as the potential to put in refining and smelting capabilities for some of these mines over the long term. There is going to be a power requirement in Labrador just within itself to be able to look at this.

Of course, I think government has to seriously look at what they are going to do in Holyrood. I mean, Holyrood is no doubt one of the biggest polluters of the environment that we have in the Province right now today. While they have made some changes in terms of changing the type of crude that they burn in their system there to reduce some of the emissions by a percentage, there are other things that will have to be considered as well. I think that is the reality. I think government itself has been able to face up to that as being a reality. Whether they look at spending the millions of dollars required to put scrubbers into that system in Holyrood to reduce the emissions to a more acceptable level, or they look at an alternative power arrangement - that alternative power arrangement may only be able to come from a project like the Lower Churchill Project right now.

Hopefully this new energy corporation will undertake to look at some of these things in a very serious light in terms of where they invest as an energy corporation and also in terms of their investments paying off for the people of the Province, not only from a financial perspective but from an environmental perspective as well. Any time they can develop to reduce those kinds of things, then that needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, that is going to be a very key project under this new corporation and I would think one of the projects that they are going to be dealing with in very short order as it has been ongoing for the last few years already. I am hoping that when they look at this they will look at it in the context of how their investment could go to provide for environmental returns for the Province as well, and how their investment can be more environmentally friendly to the people and not just produce dividends for the shareholders as well.

Also, when you look at other developments in Labrador, we cannot help but look at the natural gas projects. Now that we are talking about the Lower Churchill, we may as well talk about the natural gas. Four of the five parcels of land that have been offered up under the bidding process this year for exploration ended up in Labrador. Four of those sections ended up in Labrador, looking at natural gas reserves. So, Mr. Speaker, those natural gas reserves are going to be key in terms of developing a gas industry in this Province but, more importantly, I know that there are a lot of things that have to be looked at here and we are just getting companies to move into the exploration phase in terms of determining what quantities are there, how they can look at bringing it onshore and so on. I know that is going to be a big question, whether they can do this in a compressed gas format, whether it has to be a pipeline format or whatever the case may be.

What I do know about natural gas, in my limited knowledge of it, is when I travelled to Whitehorse and to Alaska, the few times that I have been there. One of the major industries in that area is the development of natural gas. All their gas is being delivered to their markets through the pipeline that comes right down through the Rocky Mountains, I think it is, down through Whitehorse into British Columbia and into Alberta, I think, is the route that it takes.

Mr. Speaker, natural gas has, no doubt, been one of the key industries for that northern region of Canada which takes in all of the Dawson City area, it takes in the Klondike region, it takes in all of the Whitehorse region; they partner with Alaska, a state of the United States of America. In fact, the last time that I was in Whitehorse I actually met with the senator for Alaska who happened to be there at the time that I was visiting. One of the key reasons that he was there was to negotiate on this new natural gas development project that they are looking at building in the north, a project that will require thousands of tradespeople, that will be ongoing over a period of five to six years and will develop tremendous job opportunities and benefits in that particular area. So, I have a little bit of limited knowledge about the kinds of benefits that can accrue because of a gas industry. I also have some limited knowledge about what some of the environmental impacts can be as well.

Any time that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is going to look at those types of projects, they also have to look at what the cost is to the shareholders, and the gains to the shareholders, not only in terms of dollars and cents but also in terms of the environment, both in the short term and in the long term as well.

Mr. Speaker, there are some real benefits in this. I guess I, for one, I have a district that operates entirely on diesel generated power for the most part. We do have some hydro power that comes in through the Lake Robinson connected system, which is out of the Province of Quebec. We have a partnership agreement with the Province of Quebec where we buy a percentage of our power from the Lake Robinson system. We wield it into a transmission line through Quebec, which comes over the border into my district and supplies half of the district with a reserve of hydro power, but the rest of my district is on diesel generated power. Mr. Speaker, the cost of that power has been a real deterrent to people in the region for a long time. The reason, I guess, I have gotten to know a little bit about hydro power and how it all works over the years is because of the research that I have done in trying to bring down the cost of power to the people in my district who rely upon diesel generation.

Mr. Speaker, one of the key problems for us has always been - as you know, when you are looking at diesel generated power, you are looking at the cost of the fuel that goes in to generate that power, you are looking at all of the other related costs that go with an isolated system, flying in workers, bringing in people, getting parts in, and all of the rest of it, so it is has never been a cheap entity for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to operate. That is why, over the years, I found myself at the Public Utilities Board hearings, across the table from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro employees and their lawyers, I say, on a number of occasion, at least three in particular in my political career, trying to stop rate increases for people in my district and, in fact, applying to have those rates decreased, which I have done in the last recent years.

Mr. Speaker, finally we are going to get a break - a small break, but we are getting a break. This year we are going to see, over the summer, an implementation of a new hydro rate formula in Labrador for people who are on diesel generated systems, and that formula is going to fall in line with the Labrador grid rate. What that means is that right now, in areas in my district where they pay anywhere from nine up to thirteen cents a kilowatt hour for electricity, their rates will drop down to somewhere around four to four-and-a-half cents a kilowatt hour, but that is going to be capped at 1,000 kilowatt hours.

Just to give you an example, if I burn1,000 kilowatts a month, and my light bill then should equal up to about $100 a month, at the end of the month, then I will save about 50 per cent of the cost; but, Mr. Speaker, if I go over 1,000 kilowatts per month then I pay the higher end for the number of kilowatts I go over. So, in essence, most people today, regardless of how much power you burn, if you are over 1,000 kilowatts, your savings will be somewhere around $50 to $60 in a month, which is not bad.

The problem that I have, and I have expressed this to the Premier, in my conversation with him since then, is that it does not apply to the business community. We still have businesses in my district that pay the highest rates in the Province. In fact, if you are looking at a fish plant like the one in Mary's Harbour, for example, operated by the shrimp company, even on a preferential rate system they are paying up to thirteen cents a kilowatt hour. If they were somewhere in Goose Bay they would be paying probably less than four cents a kilowatt hour.

Then, of course, you are looking at other businesses like a local garage that might be operating in Port Hope Simpson paying up to eighteen cents a kilowatt hour for power, whereas in Goose Bay or Labrador City that same business would be paying again anywhere between three and five cents a kilowatt for power. So, it is a huge difference. In fact, it is three times more, and that needs to be reduced as well.

Under this new energy corporation, one of the things that I was pleased to hear is that any investments that they make that provide royalties, revenues and dividends for this company, that can be invested back into other areas of the corporation. So maybe, Mr. Speaker, just maybe, with a Lower Churchill Project on the horizon, just maybe, with gas project potential off Labrador, that we, too, can see all of these rates fall in line with a Labrador grid system over a period of time; however, personally, I think it should be done now. I think the royalty that is coming out of Labrador right now just on the Voisey's Bay Project along with the hydro resource on the Upper Churchill is enough to pay out the compensation to be able to lower those rates. We are only talking maybe about $3 million to $5 million a year annually in subsidies, whereas the government is bringing in, this year alone, $200 million in new revenue just off resources in Labrador. So, the $3 million to $5 million that they would spend is very small compared to the $200 million in new profits that they are bringing in this year.

It is a very small sacrifice that they can make for the people in that part of the Province and I will certainly continue to lobby for that, as I have been over the years. I think the Premier knows that, and I think the head of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation knows that, and I am sure the Public Utilities Board knows that, that I certainly will not be giving up until we have a rate regime and an availability of power that is acceptable for the people in that part of the Province, just like we do everywhere else.

Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the actual bill itself in terms of the corporation. I talked about how the corporation structure is going to be set up and, of course, the next step for them is to have all of this in place and ready to become operational by January of 2008. Of course, they already outlined that they would develop a comprehensive financing plan for this company for the non-regulated investments, including discussions with rating agencies. That was a concern for us.

Under this new company, one of the concerns for us was how it was going to impact the ratepayer. As you know, through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the rates are pre-established through a public utilities board and any revenues that are generated as profits for that corporation stay in the corporation. Our fear was that if those profits started to be invested into other development initiatives and it was a bad investment or an investment went wrong and they did not get their return on that investment, how would that affect the ratepayers in the province. Would they be subject to increased rates for their utilities or would they not? We have been assured by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and by government, that would not happen. That is one of the issues we had that has certainly been identified as being taken care off and dealt with in the context of this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, this new corporation is definitely going to be an entirely new initiative of the government. I have no problem with streamlining our energy sector corporations under one company. In fact, I think it is a good idea. I like the fact that it is still going to be a Crown corporation. I like the fact that it is not going to be a private entity, although they will have the ability to partnership with private companies, and they will have the ability to make investments as if they were a private entity. I like the fact that it is owned by the people because I think it is important that we have shares and we have equity and returns on the investment that we are going to make.

When you look at energy resources, it is as much a natural resource as you are ever going to get. When you are talking about damming our rivers to develop Hydro power, you are talking about major environmental changes in areas where people live and reside, and therefore there should be a maximum return on that for the people of the Province and there should be ownership and equity and investment for the people of the Province, because any time you have to make those kinds of compromises there have to be substantial returns.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no problems with all of this being incorporated under one body as an energy corporation, but I, like a lot of other people, will have concerns as we see where their investments go, as we see what kinds of returns we get on the money that they are putting forward. Of course, my main concern is always that we do not compromise the regulated utility company that we now have in our Province, that in my opinion is a good model for how electricity and Hydro power should be regulated and delivered to the people of the Province.

I know, back a few years ago, there were a lot of issues around privatization of that particular company. I was not supportive of privatization of that company at that time and I am not supportive today. I probably will not be supportive simply because it is a utility company that people are highly dependent upon. It is not like having your cable or having your telephone, maybe something you can do without, but your electricity is something that is invaluable to you in terms of being able to live in this Province and operate a household, a business, a community, or whatever the case may be. I think that is a utility that should be regulated, provided for and serviced through the government of the Province, and I maintain that perspective. I think that broadening that mandate, through this energy corporation, is a good move and is a wise investment on behalf of the government. If the investments are made appropriately in the oil and gas, or wind power, or whatever the case may be, then we could substantially see some returns on that, that would be favourable to the people.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the only comment I want to make is that I am hoping that through this new energy corporation government will develop a different attitude towards the developments of the oil and gas industry in the Province. That has been one of my major concerns, knowing that oil and gas is definitely the driver of the economy for this Province, it is allowing us to make the investments that we make today. I think it needs to be taken more seriously and be more of a concern to the Province in terms of where we are going in our exploration industry and our development industry for oil and gas throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

On that note, I will conclude my comments on Bill 28.

Thank you.

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

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

I am very glad to be able to speak to Bill 28 and continue some of the thoughts that I had earlier this afternoon.

The first thing I would like to talk about is something that I alluded to earlier, and that is the structure of the two companies, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the new energy corporation. In the information that was given to us in the briefing this morning we were given a chart, we were given two charts actually. One chart is the current proposed corporate structure when the two new companies are in place, and the second chart was the potential future corporate structure. It is not a huge structure, as anybody can see from where they are seated or anybody watching television can see; it is not a huge structure, neither the current nor the potential.

What it does is shows, of course - I need to explain it in order to get at what I want to talk about. In the chart you have the Province first, because, of course, the companies are Crown corporations. Directly from the Province, you have the new energy corporation as the holding company as the place where the shares of the other companies are held. Then, coming from the new corporation you have, right now at this moment, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, a regulated utility as a separate entity coming down from the energy company, Churchill Falls Company, CFLCo, coming down as another body under the energy company, Lower Churchill Development Corporation which is a corporation currently in place, and the Gull Island Power Corporation. You have four separate corporations that come under the umbrella of the energy company.

What was explained to us this morning in our briefing is that at this moment the plan is to have the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro also be the Board of Directors and the CEO of the energy company. It was explained to us that this is going to safeguard that the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are the same interests as the energy corporation.

Now, there is nothing in the legislation to indicate that anywhere. There is nothing in the legislation in Bill 28 or in Bill 27 to indicate that there should be this connection between the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the Board of Directors of the new energy company, or the Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the Chief Executive Officer of the new energy company.

If maintaining the same board of directors and the same CEO is what the government sees as the way in which to make sure that the concerns of the consumers in the Province are protected with regard to rates, electrical rates, then it would seem to me that there must be some way in the legislation to make this connection, that there should be something in the legislation that makes that connection. If the government thinks that it is only now at this moment that it needs to happen, and it does not matter if in five years time that is still the case, then I want to be sure that the reason for their doing it now is going to be protected in five years time.

When I think of how big the structure could become - and that would be fine - I do have to ask how does the energy company, which is the company that will hold all of the shares, how does that company maintain good oversight over all of the subsidiaries that come under it? There is nothing in the legislation getting at that. The chart that I just held up - and I will hold the potential one now - looks pretty small at the moment and you would say, well, that is not a big deal, but then I look to Hydro Quebec, which is an equivalent of what we are starting here. Now they have been around for awhile, and I look at a chart that is probably about five times more complicated than the chart that we have. How do we make that connection between the first company and the rest of the companies.

One of the things that we were told in the briefing is that those in charge of putting all of this together inside of government and Newfoundland Hydro want to keep everything as simple as possible and to not have too much duplication. My question is: As the number of subsidiaries increases, how can one board of directors continue being the board of directors of all the subsidiaries? Right now, they will not be. Right now, it is only Newfoundland Hydro and the energy company that they would be the board of directors of. But, as new subsidiaries get formed, how do we maintain the overall management so that the same vision is there throughout?

That is what was said to us this morning, that right now there are just sort of four arms coming out from the new company, and the goal of the current management is to have the same vision flowing through each of the four arms. They think that by having the same Board of Directors in Newfoundland Hydro and the energy company that they can make that happen. Now they did not explain how that feeds through CFLCo or how it feeds through the Gull Island Power Corporation, for example, but it is a concern that I have, and I guess it is a question to the minister, of how the goal that was shared with us this morning is going to be maintained as the structure becomes more complicated, as we have more subsidiaries.

I will be interested in having further discussion, maybe when we are in Committee, around this and talking to the minister about this. I think the goal is a correct one. I think it is right for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to say to us, and for the officials from Natural Resources to say to us, that they want to have as little duplication as possible. I can see how in the current structure they can probably do that and that it will be a cost-saving factor by keeping it as simple as possible in terms of the number of individuals involved, and by having the same board. I do not know how it can be continued and I cannot imagine, when I look at the chart for Hydro Quebec, for example, that with all of these major and minor companies that are all subsidiaries, how they can have just one or two Boards of Directors. Now I could be wrong, and I do not know what the structure of Hydro Quebec is with regard to their Boards of Directors, but with this complicated a chart I am not sure how it can be maintained. I am wondering what is in the minds of those who are putting this together with regard to that structural challenge. It is a challenge, I am not saying it cannot be meet, I am just wondering if people are thinking that far down the road.

The next thing that I want to speak to is what the new company is supposed to do. I am talking about the section in the legislation that is called the objects of the corporation. Just as I read out the objects of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I would like to read out the objects of the new energy corporation as well. The objects of the corporation are to invest in, engage in and carry out activities in all areas of the energy sector in the Province and elsewhere, including - and then we go through the list - the development, generation, production, transmission, distribution, delivery, supply, sale, export, purchase and use of power from wind, water, steam, gas, coal, oil, hydrogen, or other products used or useful in the production of power. That is the same actually as what is in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The exploration for, development, production, refining, marketing, and transportation of hydrocarbons and products from hydrocarbons - so we are talking about oil and gas. The manufacture, production, distribution and sale of energy related products and services, and research and development - now it is a pretty comprehensive list.

What concerns me - and I would like to say to anybody who is watching us and who is interested in seeing that themselves, of course if you have access to a computer and have access to the Internet, which you can find either at home or go to one of the libraries and you can do it, you can go on-line to the House of Assembly and you can get his bill yourself and read it. What I see missing in that whole list of the objects of the company is a sense of issues around energy conservation and energy conversion and energy efficiency. Now, one could say that under research and development, for example, that is included. It could very well be that under research and development somebody says, either the board of directors or the CEO or another staff person: Oh, we must make sure that in doing research and development we look at energy efficiency. I do not think that a focus on energy efficiency should be left to chance. I think that it actually should be in the bill, that the bill should identify a concern around energy efficiency.

Just as the bill talks about development and generation and production and transmission, just as it talks about exploration and where that exploration is, and it is with regard to hydrocarbons, just as it talks about manufacturing, I think that the bill should also indicate that an object of the company is to develop energy efficiency plans or energy efficiency ways of going in the whole area of energy production. I really do think it should be in there. If that were to happen, we could have a company under the energy corporation, a smaller company that could deal specifically with energy efficiency. Now, it is interesting that in a small province like New Brunswick, they actually do have a company, Energy New Brunswick, that is devoted to energy efficiency. Their whole goal is to make New Brunswick more energy efficient.

One of the things that could happen, for example, under the research and development mandate of the new energy corporation is that the corporation could commission a baseline study of our potential here in Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to energy efficiency. What would be our potential in saving energy, both on the residential level, on the commercial level, the industrial level and transportation? They did that in New Brunswick through Energy New Brunswick. What they discovered in New Brunswick is that they had a potential of saving 37 per cent of energy in residences. They had a potential of saving 22 per cent of energy commercially, in commercial establishments. They had a potential of saving 26 per cent of energy in the industrial sector and they had the potential for saving 13 per cent of energy used in transportation. Having done that baseline study, Energy New Brunswick then set its goals to put programs in place that would get at those potential savings of energy.

If the new energy company were to put energy efficiency under the research and development object that the company has, perhaps the research would show that what we need to develop is a little company just like New Brunswick did, that does nothing but work on energy efficiency. Then that company would come under the umbrella of the new energy company, just like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is under it, just like CF(L)Co is under it, just like the Lower Churchill Corporation is under the new company. Then we could have an energy efficiency, maybe a Newfoundland and Labrador energy efficiency company, and that could be part of it. Then that company, it would not be the holding company. It would not be Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but that company would then take on objectives around changing consumer behaviour, using educational programs, doing market transformation, delivering energy efficiency programs, building an energy efficiency services industry because there is a whole industry out there that can be created. That industry would also then create jobs. That industry, in itself, would become an economic reality. That, in itself, would bring in money also.

The potential for what can happen, because of now having the umbrella, is just enormous. If we are going to have research and development as part of the company as we are, then we have opened the door for all kinds of new directions in which we may move. I really cannot emphasize enough how much I believe that we should not leave energy efficiency just up there for grabs and say maybe, maybe that might happen. I do not think it should be a maybe. I think it should actually be in the bill, that this is one of the objects of the new company.

The other thing that I want to speak to is the fact that the company does not - I spoke to this earlier but I want to talk about it again - include Newfoundland Power. Something which we, as a Party, believe is a lost opportunity. Now that we are doing this massive restructuring, now that we are putting this big plan in place, now is the time to look at Newfoundland Power being part of this picture. I am putting it out again because we do believe strongly that it really is a logical way to go. If we have revenues that could be used to take over Newfoundland Power, we then would have a larger revenue arm that would feed into the holding company, that would feed into the new energy corporation, and that then would be extremely beneficial for down the road with the investments that the new corporation will want to make into the new areas that the government wants to move into.

So, I put it out again because I think it is something that needs to be explored. Maybe the formation of the company will help with that exploration. Maybe this idea will get taken on by the new corporation. Maybe having this new structure in place may open up the concept of taking over Newfoundland Power.

I would like to come back and talk a little, tiny bit more about some of the very simple things that people can do to help with energy efficiency. Retrofit programs, we have talked about retrofit programs before. These are an essential part of the energy New Brunswick program, for example, and it has been highly successful. Retrofit cannot be something that we do for a couple of years and say, okay we have done it.

There are so many buildings, especially older buildings, homes and commercial buildings that were built at a time when energy efficiency was never thought about. We could be doing retrofitting for decades, literally decades, because when one looks at what has to happen with one building sometimes it can be overwhelming. This would be such a wonderful way in which to go, with the corporation taking responsibility, government taking responsibility working with families, working with companies.

There are so many more energy efficiency appliances. There could be a program put in place with regard to what appliances even come into a province, what appliances people buy. Maybe there could be breaks for people, tax breaks for people who buy energy efficient appliances.

There are many, many ways in which to go. We have to look at - we are not in as bad a situation as a province like New Brunswick, where they depend in a big, big way on oil generated electricity. We have a lot of hydroelectricity but we do have examples like the Holyrood plant, and we need to start taking bigger steps towards cleaning up what is happening with the Holyrood plant. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is looking at it but there is much more that needs to happen. It is not acceptable that we have that plant out there generating the emissions that are coming out, which we still do not have a good idea about.

So, we have a long ways to go, and I am delighted that the government has taken the step to put this new corporation in place. There is no doubt in my mind that we need it. I am delighted that we have been assured by government and assured by all the officials this morning, of the ongoing commitment to the Crown corporation. Obviously, in order to meet government's needs, the Crown corporation is the way to go.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that her speaking has expired.

MS MICHAEL: If I may clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, by leave.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

I think that final point is my main point. I totally agree with government, that we have to maintain our Crown corporation. If government is going to continue, and I would say whatever party would be in power we would want to continue, having control over this resource, the resource of our electricity, as we get into alternative modes of electricity as well, for the benefit of the people in the Province and also in order to get more access to revenue from the oil and gas industry, I think that is probably a major driver for the government, the oil and gas industry, and getting equity into the oil and gas industry, and that is fine. If that is their driver for putting this corporation together, I understand that.

I would also like the government, then, to use this opportunity to have other drivers. For example, the energy efficiency, if that could be a driver as well then I would be quite content.

I will be interested in hearing what the minister might have to say in response to our concerns about the energy efficiency aspect.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the Government House Leader moving to close debate in second reading?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 28, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, who is away on business, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and close debate on Bill 28, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues from the other side of the House for their participation and the exchange of ideas in the debate on this particular bill.

There are just a couple of matters that were raised. Again, they were raised, I guess, in debate on Bill 27 as well because these bill, while different bills, are very close, but the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the critic for the Official Opposition, again raised the issue of the $600 million as the borrowing requirements authorized by the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation under Bill 27. That borrowing approval, as I have said previously, is for the general operating purposes and investment of the corporation. It is not meant to be the investment and the only investment that will be part of any Lower Churchill development, for example, or in any one particular project.

The way that the legislation is set up is that there will be a borrowing ceiling under legislation for this particular corporation. It is set for the moment at $600 million. To draw down on those borrowing requirements, the corporation will have to seek the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a project-by-project basis. If and when the borrowing requirements are exhausted, then the corporation must come to this House and seek to have the borrowing requirement increased. Therefore, the role and the responsibility of elected members on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is protected and preserved, as it ought to be, in granting an increase, if there is going to be an increase, in the limits on a project-by-project basis to this new corporation.

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I believe, raised the issue of the board. It is not meant that there, at any and all times, be one and the same boards for those corporations. As a matter of fact it is quite, in the thinking, that they may well be separate boards, that you may want to bring in even some people from outside, perhaps, who knows?, who have particular expertise in certain fields of energy development in the oil and gas industry, for example, in hydro-electric business background, to be the drivers on the board of this particular type of corporation.

Now, some of them may serve on both boards - that is quite possible - but it is not meant, the legislation is not meant, that the boards would mirror each other or be exactly one and the same at all times.

There are other matters in terms of energy conservation and that sort of thing that are certainly all important to people, and matters that are on the government's radar as matters of concern and policy matters that will be and can be addressed by the minister from time to time.

Having referred to those matters as I believe perhaps the primary points that came out of the debate in second reading, on behalf of the minister I therefore am pleased to move second reading of Bill 28.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 28 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 28)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is close to what would be the normal point in the day when we take a brief break for dinner. I think we will now take that break, with agreement, and return at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Order 9, second reading of Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25 entitled, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province." (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to stand this evening and introduce Bill 25. I guess I could start off - some people, I guess, would be wondering how this all ties into our resources and environment. Probably the best place for me to start is to speak specifically about our environment.

If there is a topic that is more prevalent in, I suppose, the entire Island community and nationally and internationally right now, it certainly revolves around our environment. In the Province, I would guess that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are as much in tune with their environment as anyone in the world.

I think if you consider Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, how they value their moose licence, the time that they spend out in boats and in the outdoors, anyone would readily recognize how important and how valued the environment and natural resources of the Province are to the people of the Province. As a result, we are introducing an act to protect that environment but also recognizing the economic side of our society. In order for us to proceed as a society, we certainly need the economics of it but we also have to ensure that as we develop our economy, that we also make sure that our environment is protected.

If you want a definition as to what sustainable development means, this is it. It means the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. So, I guess, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is putting in place an act that would ensure that our children and our grandchildren have in their lives, and continue into the future beyond them, to maintain what we value so much in our Province right now.

Last June, at about this time, I travelled around the Province with my staff. We met in ten different locations within the Province, from Labrador up through the Northern Peninsula on down to the South Coast and here in St. John's. If there is one that came through over and over, it is the fact that people are very adamant and very protective of their environment, and they want to make sure that what we have today is there for future generations.

We heard stories - I can recall one story, in particular, as we were talking about a rare plant that exists on the Northern Peninsula and a plan to protect that plant. Because of its rarity, it is only on the Northern Peninsula that it grows, but adjacent to that we have a logging operation. We have to ensure - and I have gone forward with protective measures on plants in that regard.

One story that I remember in particular, a gentleman got up in the middle of the presentation and his words to me and my staff were: For every tree that you do not allow me to cut down, then you are taking $20 from my pocket. There were people in the audience who debated the merits of protecting that plant and protecting the forest around that plant to ensure it exists into the future. There is an economic side to that plant, we can establish businesses - and we have seen a couple of examples of that in the Province.

If we look at Mistaken Point and we look at Burnt Cape, we have developed businesses around those attractions that they have there. If we use the example of Burnt Cape, I think it is a perfect example of what sustainability is all about. Sustainability is about finding balance. We have to make sure that we have people we can employ and we also have to make sure we have the economics that will sustain a living for people in a particular area.

Burnt Cape was, at one time, slated to be a quarry but the plants were there and those plants became protected. As a result, we are now looking into an interpretation centre that is on site. You see bed and breakfasts popping up around sites such as this, and that means it can be protected in the future and the economics of it is that this business will, hopefully, grow and flourish because of that. As I said, the key to all of this is finding balance. If we are going to go into a particular area and establish a mine, the mining company that would go in there would have to ensure that there are certain things in place, both from the social side of it, the economic side of it, but also very importantly, the environmental side of it.

In bringing forth this Sustainable Development Act, we will establish a framework within which we, as a people, can ensure that the objectives of sustainable development are met. The words that I have said already are balance and harmony in resource development policies that short-term economic decisions are not made in isolation of long-term and environment and social implications. It is just as simple as that.

This Sustainable Development Act, while we have measures in place now under the Forestry Act and the Mining Act, what this will in fact be, will be an umbrella under which all departments in government will have to work and consider sustainable development principles as we move forward.

Now, how will this whole process roll out? Well, first and foremost, we have committed money in this years Budget to the tune of $600,000 to establish a round table. This round table will be made up of stakeholders in the community. We anticipate that there will be individuals on that round table from industry, certainly would have to be a part of it. There would also have to be representation from environmental groups. We may have community organizations that would be represented on that. We will have government officials on that.

As an example, there has been a call in terms of the Outdoor Bill of Rights, and there are individuals out there who are putting forward a proposal on the Outdoor Bill of Rights. So, within this round table, this would give that group the opportunity to ensure that their views are represented at this table and then that gets brought back to government for consideration as to how we move forward with this.

Secondly, from the round table on sustainable development, we are going to have, within two years, a strategic environmental management plan that will be developed. This plan will lay out, in a transparent manner, Mr. Speaker, how development should happen in the Province. This is not something that would be just done free of hand or slight of hand. This is going to be something that is going to have to be based on scientific evidence, economic and social evidence taken into consideration - I go back to the word again and try to point out, finding that balance.

Just a while ago here on the Avalon Peninsula we met with a group of loggers and a sawmill company who said: You know, something has to happen or we are going to go out of business. Now we do not want to see a sawmill operator go out of business nor do we want to have every tree cut down in the surrounding area. So, we cannot have one without the other, so to speak - or, if we can, we are going to have to find ways that we can support displaced workers. In this particular case, what we have to do is we have to find that middle ground. It is always about finding the middle ground, ensuring that the sawmill operator can continue but also ensuring that our trees, our rivers and our ponds are well protected and taken into the future.

Likewise, Mr. Speaker, we will be putting in place and developing indicators to measure the progress that is made under the Sustainable Development Act. Anyone who has been involved in setting up logging firms, logging companies, been into mining, know that once they get into that process they have to go through a list of stringent activities and orders before they can actually begin operation. A lot of work has already begun in this regard and, as a result of it, now our Sustainable Development Act will encompass, be an umbrella legislation, an act that will bring all of this under one guise.

I guess we could take a look at some of the happenings that have happened across various departments. The fact that different departments have already gotten into this, we are well ahead of the game. Most importantly in all of this, is that we will support a round table as it brings together as many stakeholders as we possibly can to develop and further this legislation. I do not know if there is much more I can say in introducing this. I have said this a couple of times, but I would just like to repeat it before the Opposition comes into debate here. Again, it is a very complicated process. I can put it rather simply to individuals in the House. It is not to have development at any sake, it is to ensure a balance. If we are going to have resource development and the economic side of it, we also have to bring into play the environmental and social side of things. Most importantly, I guess, it is to maintain what we presently have, but equally as important, is that we protect what we have today to carry it on forward so that our children and our grandchildren will be able to still continue to enjoy the freedoms of the air, the land and the water well into future generations.

I look forward to the debate, Mr. Speaker, and any questions that come forward I will attempt to response to them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just going to have a few words as it relates to Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province.

Mr. Speaker, acts regarding natural resources and sustainability is not new. This is something that is happening right across the country actually. I think the minister may be following the lead of the Prime Minister on this one as the Government of Canada has been looking at this and doing a certain amount of work on it, not only in the last year through Prime Minister Harper, but in the subsequent years leading up to that in terms of advancing the sustainable development of Canada, not only in her own nation but also abroad. I think anyone who has been watching the news will see that it is only in recent days that the Prime Minister of our country has been over in China and talking to the Government of China about sustainable development in terms of conservation and environmental management. So, this is not new. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was in 1997, I think it was, that the Liberal government at the time had comprised a working group similar to what the minister is looking at right now. In fact, it is almost identical to what the minister is looking at right now. Back then, there was a working group as well to look at sustainability in terms of resource development in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, there was a round table established on the environment and the economy, and that round table was to advise the government on sustainable development and to prepare a framework for government to develop a sustainable strategy. Mr. Speaker, it was that strategy that was used during those years throughout government to guide new developments. That is why you seen things evolve, like the land claim settlements that you had in Labrador with the Labrador Inuit people, a lot of that came from the need for sustainable development practices around mega development projects in the Province.

If the minister went back through a few years he would find out that there was a working group, there was a round table discussion on the environment and the economy, and that there was a strategy, indeed, put in place. The people who sat as part of that working group were people who represented the environmental sector throughout the Province, or related to that particular sector. It was their guiding principles or recommendations, as part of that particular round table, that formed the framework agreement. That framework agreement was then used through groups like the Economic Policy Committee, like the business development branches of government, to be able to do sustainable development practices in the context of major projects. Maybe the minister will get an opportunity to look some of that up, but I can tell him that what he is bringing forward is not new. He is only just putting it in a legislative format because many of these things have already been done to a certain degree, but I guess in putting it together in a legislative format you need to outline what the basic practices and principles are going to be.

Any time that I look at a bill, Mr. Speaker, which tells me that we are going to have sustainable development of natural resources in the Province, the first thing I look for is the principles of responsibility; responsibility to the people, to the environment, to the communities and what that responsibility is going to be. The principle in all of this will, no doubt, be the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as they are to be the stewards of this resource when it comes to protection and environmental conservation.

The other principle I look for, Mr. Speaker, is the one that speaks to respect for cultural heritage in this Province. That is the reason you have groups like the outdoor group who is looking for an Outdoor Bill of Rights. I think it is something that the minister and his government committed to do since the election of 2003. That was going to be part of their platform, to have an Outdoor Bill of Rights in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, we have never seen the Outdoor Bill of Rights, but what I would say to the minister is that if you are going to have an act like this, respect for cultural heritage as part of that sustainable development of natural resources has to be paramount in making that happen. Therefore, groups like the outdoor rights group would have a legitimate place, I say to the minister, in any kind of discussion or group or round table, or in comprising any kind of framework that would go into implementing this bill into action. The other thing I would say to him is that they have a right in terms of having a say and having input and being consulted in the context of natural resource developments, as well.

I also refer to Aboriginal people under that category because, as you know, in Labrador in particular, we have three particular land claims that have been placed by Aboriginal people. One is more in a reserve status but the other two are in land claims that have been outlined in terms of geographical boundaries. In terms of those having respect for cultural heritage in this resource development, these groups, too, need to be consulted.

Mr. Speaker, in my mind, when I look at a bill like this, it does not mean that you have to have status in a certain group or organization in order to have input into sustainable development of natural resources. It means that if you have a stake in this area, if you have a concern, if you have an historical attachment, then you have to be consulted, you have to have input and your welfare and the impact upon you and your people has to be considered.

Under this bill, I would not, for example, see the exclusion of people such as the Metis Nation simply because they do not have a land claim accepted by the federal government or negotiated by the federal government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, under this legislation I could see it being written into law that the Metis Nation, in particular, would be one of the key groups falling in line with respect for culture and heritage, that would be consulted on developments in Labrador, especially developments like those of the Lower Churchill Development Project, those of the construction of highways, those of the development of other natural resource sectors, such as mining, and I could see them being consulted as it relates to this particular bill.

The other thing I would like to say under that particular section, is when you look at developments that we are seeing right now - I think the minister talked about a rare plant project, in terms of protecting that rare plant project against forestry development or other kinds of development. I see that as being an important component here, but I also see the bigger picture of our forest as being an important component that would fall under this legislation as well. Therefore, I would have to beg the question as to how sustainable management plans in various departments of government are going to fit in under this new legislation? I will get to that a little later on.

I was talking about the principles that I would like to see upheld as part of this. One is the responsibility on behalf of the government. The other one would be respect for cultural heritage. The other one would be regarding conservation and accountability and effective natural resource management. I speak about that because if you look at groups like the Newfoundland and Labrador Legacy Nature Trust, they are a group of environmentally related people who have been set up - they saw a need. They are an organization that went out there and wanted to bridge a gap between conservation in our Province and the need for development in our Province and be able to bridge that particular gap as a service organization. That is basically why the Newfoundland and Labrador Legacy Nature Trust started, but, Mr. Speaker, they have raised money for conservation and environmental stewardship in our Province for a number of initiatives. They have been very successful and very vocal, and I would like to see groups like this. Where do they fit into the context of what the minister is looking at here? Have they been sought out for input? Are they involved at all? They are a group out there who wants to see effective management of our natural resources in terms of conservation. So, these things are going to be very important.

Mr. Speaker, I think what this bill is looking for is basically the tools to be able to go out there and ensure that sustainable development is looked at in the context of our natural resources. While I know that the tools are needed, I think commitment is the greatest thing that you can have, and that if government is not fully and truly and openly committed to this process, it is not going to work from the beginning because all of us have to be conscious of development projects that we are doing in the Province. We have to have development today that meets the needs of today's society without jeopardizing what the ability of future generations will be to meet their needs as well. We have to be very conscientious of that. That is our job as stewards of the environment at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, I think what this bill is doing, and is looking for, is basically the tools to carry forward with this particular process. I understand that there is going to be a committee formed, a working group that is going to be formed. I guess I have to ask the question: The individuals who will be represented on this, are they going to come from various sectors, such as government, business, environment or whatever the case may be, or will they be groups that will be of just an environmental background nature that will be comprising this particular committee?

I understand they are going to serve on a volunteer basis and that there will be no remunerations paid to these members, but if they are people who are going to review sustainable development practices in the context of our natural resources, that is a huge task to undertake by any board or any group that is operating on a volunteer basis. I have to question, in terms of what resources are going to be available to this particular group? Because if you are looking at a project - and I will use the Lower Churchill project again because I know the project and I know it is a project that will have tremendous environmental significance to the people who live in those areas and that there are a number of interest groups that have concerns. In the context of a development like this, really, what input does a volunteer group have in terms of the sustainable practices that are going to happen around this project?

We know that today, for example, the federal government came out and announced they would undergo an environmental review of the Lower Churchill project. That will be a comprehensive environmental assessment that will go on there. In the context of Bill 25, this group, this round table group that is being set up by the minister, what is their role in the context of a development like this? What do they bring to the table? What do they bring to the table in terms of environment and conservation practices that have to be looked at in the context of this development? I do not know. What is their role? Will they do the role of meeting with Aboriginal groups that have concerns, meeting with trappers whose traplines could be flooded as a result of this particular project proceeding? Are they going to be weighing out the environmental damage to these individuals and their properties as it relates to the natural resource development of that river? These things are not clear to me in this bill.

I know that part of their job will be to design an environmental management plan, I believe it is called - an environmental management plan. They will have two years to develop that environmental management plan. In the meantime, what will this sustainable development round table do? We know it is a longer term piece. We know they are going to be appointed for five years initially, that their appointments can be renewed for another five years. We know they are going to be a voluntary group of individuals who are going to be appointed without remuneration, so we need to know what resource staff is going to be available to them. We also know they will have up to two years to be able to develop an environmental management plan - I am looking to see if that is the right name of which I am calling it - a Strategic Environmental Management Plan for the Province.

Now, I could see that being something that they could work on as a group within this nature but in terms of looking at all the other aspects, sustainable development strategies advising the minister on different projects. How are they going to advise the minister on projects the scope of the Lower Churchill development project? That is what I would like to know. I have not been able to get my head around it based on what is in the bill. A lot of the things here I can see working, holding seminars, going out and promoting sustainable development. I can see them being able to do all of these kinds of things, but when it comes to large scale development projects in our Province, I do not know how they would fit into this.

For example, let's take the Holyrood generating plant as one example. We know that the Holyrood generating plant is producing some of the largest amounts of emissions into the environment in this Province of any singular development that we have. We also know that from previous reviews and studies, that we have to do work to be able to cut down the amount of emissions that are being generated there. We know that it is an environmental polluter in our Province. Okay? So, how is this working group that is going to be set up, this round table, going to undertake to look at that particular project in the context of sustainable development practices? I do not know that. Are they going to have the resources, independently, to go out and hire environmentalists and hire people to come in and look at this particular operation and to tell us what needs to happen here?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay. So government will be doing that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay. The minister says he will clarify this for me after, but this is a question that I have because if this particular act is going to work, that is the kind of information they are going to need. If they do not have the resources to do it in house, they need the resources to do it externally, by hiring the appropriate people to come in and look at this and see if it can work or if it cannot work.

Then, of course, we have other developments, Mr. Speaker, like we have seen recently with the Rambler Mine in Bay Verte; a mining operation that ceased activity, where they moved on, where there were a number of pollutants left in the area, and it was left for a period of time. Eventually, we are getting to a phase now where those sites are going to start being cleaned up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay. They are going to be cleaned up as a result of what? As a result of a study that was undertaken which indicated that in some cases, within two kilometres of residential areas, there were major pollutants in the area and toxic waste that had been dumped.

How does this committee, in the context of all of that, look at this kind of a development where a company has moved on, in this case, and how do they report this to the minister? Do they make a recommendation to government that this has to be cleaned up? Do they make a recommendation to the levels that it has to be cleaned up? Will they have that kind of information at their fingertips to be able to work with? Now in that particular example the study and assessments are done but there are many examples where it has not been done.

I am going to talk about the fishery because the fish stocks are probably one of the most valuable natural resources that we have had in the Province, next to our people. Mr. Speaker, we know from experience, just as being a living, breathing resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the fishery has fallen due to the environmental plundering of a resource that was never appropriately managed in a sustainable fashion. Who is at fault for that? Well, you can point fingers everywhere. You can point them at the provincial government, at the federal government, at the fish harvesters, at the fish plant workers. You can point them everywhere, Mr. Speaker, because everyone, to a certain degree, had a role to play in lobbing for the overextending of that resource and the continuous fishing of it in unsustainable management practices. All of us, but who was the main person who was responsible for the management of that resource? It was the federal government. It gets back to my very first point that I mentioned to the minister, and that is the principle of responsibility. In this bill, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would have the principle of responsibility. Just like in the fishery, the federal government had the principles of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the fishery because the fishery itself is a resource still, in my opinion, in this Province that is not being managed in a sustainable enough fashion to be able to guarantee that resource is going to be there to meet the needs of future generations in the fishing industry in this Province. If there is anything that this working group would be doing, it would, hopefully, be undertaking to look at the sustainable management of industries like that and make those recommendations, and go even further than that, even further than making the recommendations but going as far as ensuring that the recommendations are implemented in order to be able to meet what the conservation needs are in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to managing the fishery, I have to say, I was disappointed. I am disappointed today to know that the only aspect of the fishery, in terms of quotas or allocations or operations that we actually had any control over in the Province, was through the FPI Act and now we have just lost control of that. That was a decision of the current government to sell out that resource to a private consortium of companies to allow part of that company, under the FPI Act, to now be controlled by a company out of Nova Scotia; other aspects of it to be controlled by companies out of Iceland, other aspects of it to be controlled by investors out of Norway.

I am going to say this, Mr. Speaker, what control we have had over the fishery has been lost through the changes in this act that is going to be coming forward in the House of Assembly in the next few days. Because of the changes in the FPI Act, or I should say the doing away altogether of the FPI Act, that will, in essence, be the end of a legacy in Newfoundland and Labrador of us having any control over the fishery. That is a sad commentary.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, under this particular bill I would have thought that the fishery would have to be one of the key components here for sustainable development practices. That does not just extend to the fisheries that are outside on our offshore jurisdictions, but also in our inland waters as well, that all of these fisheries have to be managed and conserved appropriately for the people of the Province.

Now, maybe the minister can tell me how this working group he is establishing, that we know is going to be there for at least five years, that we know over that time they have two years to develop an environmental management plan, but also tell us how they are going to look at the job they have to do in the context of the fishery. What areas are they going to look at in terms of the fishery? Are they going to look at inland waters? Are they going to look at offshore reserves? What kind of conservation management practices can they recommend that are doable in terms of this act where it relates to the government, or are they just going to look at the impact on fisheries from other developments, because that is entirely two different things, two very different things? I am talking about sustaining the fishery itself as a resource, as a natural resource, and doing it directly, not just the impact on the fishery from other sectors.

For example, we could talk about gas development, as we did today, off Labrador. Obviously, any gas development projects that could be taking place there we would have to look at what the impact is going to be on the fishing industry. No doubt about that. So this particular committee, I am sure, the working group that the minister establishes on sustainable development of natural resources would be tasked with that kind of a responsibility, but, once again, will they have the expertise to be able to carry out that work? What will their role be in looking at a development of that magnitude and size? Will they have access to the expertise to be able to do the reviews, the summaries, make the recommendations, indicate where the impacts could be on the environment and so on? That is the part that we are still missing.

I guess the minister will tell us when he stands, if this group comes forward and says to the provincial government, and to him as the minister, that we have serious concerns about this and that this is something we need to do. Is government going to ante up the money to do the environmental reviews and assessments that will be required in cases like that? We need to know that, because without that data, without that information, I cannot see this being able to work, other than to do the other components that are listed in the bill, and that is to go out and promote sustainable development, to go in the Goulds and have sessions on stewardship in our Province, stewardship of our resources and be able to sponsor seminars, workshops and things like that. I could see them being able to do a lot of those things. What I cannot see in this bill is how they are going to sink their teeth into the real development projects that are ongoing in this Province and be able to impact it in terms of insuring that it is developed in a sustainable manner. That is the part that is missing, for me, in all of this.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister is bringing forward this bill because it falls in-line with what is happening right across the country right now. Every province is looking at sustainable development practices in the natural resource sector and so is the federal government. Certainly, all the discussion around global warming and climatic changes in the environment has certainly stemmed a lot of these actions by governments right across the country, there is absolutely no doubt about that, and ensuring that governments are accountable and take their responsibilities seriously. I just hope it is not going to be another layer of bureaucracy that does not really have a functioning role in terms of producing results. I do not want to see that happen. I do not want to see this being another level of bureaucracy where a person who is looking to develop a trailway has to put in an application to this round table to have it reviewed, only for the sake of them making a recommendation to someone where it is going to be falling on deaf ears. I do not want it to be another level of bureaucracy in that kind of a way. Maybe they can give us some guidance as to whether that will be the case or not, because when you read the bill that is certainly what it seems like, when you have to make your applications, submit your proposals and have it reviewed by this particular group and so on and so forth. It is good to have a review process but that can be done internally within the Department of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, it also has to be sustainable development in terms of, not just at the cost to the environment but at the cost to people as well. I live in an area of the Province where I have seen a lot of developments over the years that have been at cost to people. I have seen developments that have ended up going through comprehensive ten-year environmental assessment processes.

I refer to the low-level flying in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and the protest by the Innu people of the impact upon their culture and upon their people and upon the environment. I saw those people, Mr. Speaker, the Innu people of Labrador, go through a comprehensive ten-year process of dealing with the environmental issues and the environmental impacts on their people and on their community as a result of this activity in Labrador. I have seen millions of dollars being spent over the years by the federal government to be able to put all of this in place. I have seen a number of very productive pieces come out of that. Although it was a long drawn out experience, although it was one in which the Innu people had to go and take matters into their own hands and launch protests on a day-by-day basis, but at the end of the day they successfully achieved what it was that they were looking for. The process that it took from there was an interesting one because it was a process by which you had an environmental monitoring committee formed that was to deal directly and solely with that issue, that was to deal directly and solely as a liaison with the Innu people of Labrador. They had representation on the committee and on the board. They had all the financial resources they needed to hire the experts they needed from all around the world to do the reports, the surveys and comprise the information.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, I think it is probably the model for environmental management in terms of resource development or any type of development that I have seen in the Province in my time. Even though that goes back to, probably about twelve years ago now, that environmental management committee is still in place. It is still in place. It is still monitoring the activity. It is still representing the environmental issues of the people and of the environment in the context of that development and it has been a model. I have yet to see anywhere else in this Province - and I am sure there are others in the country, I am just not aware of it. I have never seen a model like this anywhere else in the Province as it relates to a development initiative. While it was a long time in coming and it was a struggle for the Innu people to achieve it, at the end of the day what they have is one of the best practices I have ever seen in environmental monitoring of any type of development ever in the history of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am all too aware of what the environmental damages can be towards people and communities. I live in Labrador right now where you have court challenges going on in the court by the Metis Nation over developments of highways through Labrador, where there were causeways built across rivers and the proper sizes of culverts - and the proper distances and the proper environmental practices, in their opinion, were not used, and they feel that it could have impacts on the fish population over the long term. There are court cases going on right now around those types of developments in Labrador simply because proper environmental procedures and environmental management practices were not established in terms of being able to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, we have also seen things as it relates to the Upper Churchill project. People in Labrador still talk about it today. They still talk today about how their homesteads were flooded and how their trapping grounds were flooded with the development of the Upper Churchill project; how there were kilometres and kilometres of land that was lost and how there were acres and acres of wood supply that was flooded, timber that was gone, of no use. Just pure environmental plundering, Mr. Speaker, I say, with the development of that particular project.

People in Labrador who go back to that time and whose families go back to that time of living on the river, they remember all of these things and they remember them fondly. I do not think ever again, in our history, should we see projects developed like that with no consideration for the environment or for the people who live in that particular environment area. Hopefully, we never will, but whether this bill goes far enough in terms of addressing some of these issues is still questionable, because you can put whatever you want in legislation, you can write everything you want into a bill and put it on a piece of paper but when you go to carry it forward, if you do not have the commitment to it in terms of government taking the responsibility and if you do not have the resources to go with it to make it work, it is not going to work. That is my concern here, because even though I talk about the low-level flying, the Upper Churchill's, the highways being built and the hydro projects at Holyrood, we also know that there are many more mega projects on the horizon that are going to be looked at like this.

We already heard Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro talk about wind power projects. Now people look at wind power as being the environmentally friendly energy source that can be provided in today's society. Yes, it is, but it still does not come without any environmental implications, because it does. Those things have to be reviewed as well.

There are all kinds of issues that are centered around these particular developments. Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about sustainability in a resource sector, you are also talking about all resource sectors. Whether it be rare plants, whether it be rivers and streams, whether it be the fish that are in those rivers or the trees that are in the forest, it affects every single aspect of it, including the people who live there.

I guess that brings me to my next question for the minister, and that is how this particular bill, Bill 25, will fit in the context of other sustainable management plans that have been developed inside of government? I will take forestry for example, because in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Department of Forestry, we have forestry sustainability plans. What that does, Mr. Speaker, is it looks at what the timber reserves are out there in any particular given area. We will take the West Coast of Newfoundland for an example. It looks at what the timber reserves are on the West Coast of the Island. It looks at what can be sustained on a year-over-year basis in terms of an annual cut, in terms of how much wood you can take out of that area without compromising that particular timber stands.

Now, we have not been particularly good at managing our wood supply over the years in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think that is any secret. Over the years we probably plundered a little bit too much. We have probably taken more than the growth could sustain over a period of time, but the same demands are not there today in the wood sector as it was fifteen or twenty years ago, I will certainly admit to that. Anyway, there are sustainability plans.

Right now, on the West Coast of Newfoundland, when Kruger is told how much wood they can cut each year for the next five years, or when an individual operator like the operator over in Deer Lake was told how much wood he can cut for his mill over the next few years and in what area he can cut, that is all based on a sustainable management plan for forestry. That is done by ecosystem managers within the Department of Forestry. Now, in determining what those cuts are going to be, they look at, first of all, what the growth factor is, how fast the wood can regenerate in those particular areas and if it can sustain that amount of cut over the next five or ten years. The other thing they look at in cutting that wood is: How does it impact the rest of the ecosystems in that area? For example, what will be the impact on the moose population? Will there be an impact on the fox population in that area? Will it have an impact on some of the bird populations in that area? Will it impact some of the insect populations in that area?

Mr. Speaker, these are all things that have to be weighed out by these ecosystem managers when they comprise a plan for the Department of Forestry in terms of sustainable cuts for loggers, for pulp and paper mills or for anyone else. So, I have to ask: How do their plans fit into the context of Bill 25? Because if they go out and comprise a plan and say we are going to permit this fifty hectors of area to be cut over this year and we are going to allow you to take 20,000 cubic metres of wood out of this area, does this group have the right to sit down and say: We think that this is not sustainable? Do they have the option to veto those decisions which are being made in those other management plans? Can they look at this and say: Well, you did not consider what the impact was going to be on the red fox population in this particular area? So now the count is going to go down, therefore, Mr. Speaker, they might be recommending that the allowable cut would be something different.

I guess I am using this example because I am asking the question: Do they have the power, under Bill 25, to interpret and make recommendations on other management plans that are being done inside of government for sustainable development? Can they veto a plan that is being done by ecosystem managers on the West Coast of Newfoundland for a forestry development plan for the next five years? I do not know if they can or if they cannot. For one, I do not know if they are going to have any expertise in this working group, or this round table group, to even consider things of that nature or not. If they do, do they have any veto power there as well? If they think there needs to be more sustainable regulations put in place, can they change it so that it is? Maybe they do not like the plan at all and they are going to take it out. I do not know the answers to those questions but I would like to know.

Maybe when the minister rises to conclude his comments he will be able to tell me that, because we know that you need to be able to provide some valuable guidance into the concept of sustainable development. If they cannot do that, if they cannot provide guidance in terms of those particular other management plans as well, they are going to be restricted in terms of the powers that they have. I do not know how this is going to fit. I think the concept is a good one, there is absolutely no doubt about that. I do think the concept is a good one and I think that it can work. I think if it follows the principles that I have outlined, in that it takes into the fact the principle of responsibility by the government, meaning that government is not only responsible for ensuring that this act falls in-line and does what it is intended to, but that it is responsible to provide the resources to ensure that it is carried out in the way that it should. If it follows the principle of respect for culture and heritage in the Province I think it can work, but those people have to have input. That has to be considered, and not just considered in the context of where there is a group established or if there is a body that speaks for a particular area or resource, or if there is a land claim in that area, but I think it has to be done in respect for the culture of all the people in the Province so that it does not infringe upon the rights of individuals, nor does it infringe upon the environmental impact on these people as well.

We have to have conservation that is accountable to the people. It is no good to go out and have a group that is going to be just a paper trail. All they are going to do is go - I mean there is nothing wrong with having a group that goes around and promotes stewardship of the environment. There is no harm in going around and having a group that promotes sustainable development of our natural resources, but if that is all this group is going to be, well then they are not going to be accountable in terms of having sustainable management practices in large scale developments in our Province.

We have to enure that there is effective resource management of our natural resources. That is one which is of primary concern for me, and I have already outlined two or three of the cases. I have to say, I live in an area of the Province that is very environmentally conscious in many ways, although there are areas that are economically deprived in many ways, too. We want to have development but we certainly do not want it at any cost. If you ever hear of developments going on in Labrador where you do not hear environmental concerns being raised, well I would like for you to tell me about it because I have certainly never experienced it in my lifetime. If there is one thing that we have become somewhat good at up there is being stewards of our own environment, to a certain degree. Probably not inasmuch as we should be sometimes but we have always raised the questions. We have always asked the questions.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you even look at the recent highways that were built through Labrador, there were comprehensive environmental assessments done on every single section of that road. There were public hearings held in every single community. There were opportunities for feedback and every issue was tackled and addressed appropriately. There were some exceptions and differences of opinion, and people took that very seriously. They could not be mediated between the groups and the government. Where is it today? Now it is in the courts, and I guess the courts will sort it out over a period of time, but one thing we have become good at up there is being environmental watchdogs and stewards of the environment, and I hope that continues.

Maybe, just maybe if this legislation has the power and ability, maybe it can help guide groups and individuals like this who need guidance in terms of being able to field the appropriate information they need in terms of making rational decisions in some cases. I am going to tell you, this is going to be very important when you look at some of the developments that could be taking place in the Province, because if you look at small-scale hydro power projects, for example - that is just one example, but every time there is any kind of a hydro development project it has an impact on the natural environment and the habitat of the animals that occupy that environment or live in that area, whether that is fish, animals or mammals or whatever the case may be; along with other things, like lichens, mosses, rare plants and all the rest of it.

One of the things that I have discovered in the last little while, and I guess this is a bit close to home, too. We have kind of made an industry out of environmental protection because we have been able to - over the last few years in my district in particular - look at rare plants and rare species of lichens, mosses and things like this, and been able to look at it in the context of preserving it and of studying it. We have had botanists and biologists and all kinds of people who have some expertise in this - of which I have none, I am afraid to confess - but have expertise in this stuff who have been able to come in and help us recognize that these things, within itself, can be an economic revenue generator as an industry. We have taken a great deal of time and we have taken a great deal of care to protect those particular areas and species of plant life and so on, and been able to develop around it an awareness, a literature that goes with it and an understanding of what it is. In fact, it is has drawn quite a bit of attention.

In fact, it was only last year we held a conference - an international conference, I might say - where we brought in people from right across the North Atlantic rim, from places like Iceland, Norway, England, Germany and Ireland. They came in and talked about the similarities in the vegetation in those particular areas and the need to be able to protect it and sustain it.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of real benefits that can be seen from an economic perspective in terms of protecting the environment. It is not just protecting it at the expense of economic development, and lots of times that protection is in the interest of economic development of preserving something that can generate, not only a symbolic value to the Province but also a monetary value as well in many of these areas. Of course, that would certainly be the case when you look at developments and how they impact, oftentimes, upon our animal populations and our fish populations in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just get back a little bit to focus on the bill. This particular bill, as I said, is looking at a number of things, and one of the key parts is a Newfoundland and Labrador sustainable development round table. Again I will just reiterate, that is a group of fifteen people who will be appointed for five years and will be mandated by the government to look at sustainable development practices in the Province.

My main concern is ensuring that they have the resources and the expertise to do the work that they are going to be tasked with, and in addition to that, to ensure that government is going to be responsible and accountable in carrying out the kinds of recommendations that could come from this. There is no point in having something that is just written on paper and enacted as a piece of legislation to meet a particular need but not being put to any great use.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that pretty soon we will see an outdoor Bill of Rights as well because I think that the outdoor rights activist group is one of the key groups in terms of preserving the environment in our Province, but, furthermore, preserving a way of life which is a very natural aspect of the environment of Newfoundland and Labrador, preserving a way of life for our people to ensure that we have access to our basic hunting and fishing privileges that we have always enjoyed, that we have access to areas of the Province where we can walk on the sand, walk on the beach, roam over a hill and so on, and be able to do so as we traditionally and always could, without restriction, without laws and without environmental implication, Mr. Speaker, from large scale development projects. Maybe that is the group that the minister might want to consider looking at in the next little while in terms of implementing something.

While this bill, Mr. Speaker, is looking at sustainable development of natural resources in the Province, it is not unlike the concept of sustainable development practices that is being developed right across the country right now and being enacted in law, including by the Government of Canada. Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's approach to sustainable development, I guess, has been ongoing for some time. I would not want to stand here and judge tonight how successful they have been in the past, especially when it comes to the protecting and management of the resources in our waterways, and I refer specifically to the fishery, no doubt. Mr. Speaker, it does fall in line with what has been happening across the country.

I also have to say that what the minister is proposing here in a working group is not a new concept. The round table on sustainable development has existed in the Province before. It seems like this is being reenacted again this time in a more legislative approach. Of course, that round table, at that time, was set up to look at the responsibilities to the environment just like this is right now, to ensure that we have sustainable development that meets today's needs of our people without jeopardizing the needs of future generations. Mr. Speaker, that is always going to be a challenge - but I am sure that this bill can provide guidance in terms of that aspect - whether it will have the resources to be able to carry out the kind of things that need to be done.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we all have, even without legislation in this House, a responsibility to be stewards of the environment, and the government has a responsibility of stewardship to the environment as well as industry. We do not need to have a bill anytime to ensure us that is our responsibility, because indeed it is. We should always have respect for the cultures in our society even if it is not in legislation. Every single development that we do in this Province impacts on somebody who has a history here, who has a culture here, as a people and that should always be looked at. We should always have inclusiveness, I want to say to the minister, and that means not shutting out people based on whether they have a land claim or whether they do not. The need for inclusiveness in the decision making process on environmental issues, I think, is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, we are no different than anyone else in this country. We, as a Province and as a people, have global responsibilities as well. Although I mentioned when I started off my speech about the Prime Minister this week being over in China and talking about the environmental damages, the emissions and the pollutants that are coming in of the industrialization development that is taking place in China, we also have a responsibility as global citizens. There are no boundaries to the environment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should always think globally and not just locally. We should all do that. That should be a key area of concern for all of us. The environment, as I said, does not have any boundaries. What happens in one part of the world impacts what happens in another part of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in having a plan for a sustainable development and a strategy for the environment when it comes to natural resource development and I do not think anybody else has any problem with it. But if you are going to do it make sure that it is done properly and appropriately, it has the resources that it needs, it has the teeth that it needs to be able to carry this forward and that it just does not become a bill to which we play lip service in the House of Assembly but never gets enacted and practiced in society when it comes to our developments.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that my time is nearly expired I will conclude my comments at this time on Bill 25.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Collins): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province.

I have been waiting for this bill for quite a while. As a matter of fact, one of the first things I did when I became Leader of the NDP last spring, it was during the early summer actually, I made contact with the minister and wanted to meet about the sustainable development discussion paper. Over the summer, I did have those meetings. I know that on September 12, I sort of put my thoughts into a letter to the minister.

I really do wish I could stand tonight and say that I am really pleased with the document that is in front of us, but I have to say that I am very disappointed. The only image I can give is that it is a mechanical document. It tells us how to do things, how to put the round table in place, the mechanics of doing that, the mechanics of the implementation, the mechanics of strategizing, et cetera, but there is no heart in it, there is no content.

If somebody does not know what sustainable development is other than - I agree with the definition that is here on page 4 of the document in section 2 (j). It is the standard international definition: "sustainable development" means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." That is the accepted definition. If somebody does not know anything else, and if they do not know how people throughout the world are trying to make sustainable development work, they do not know how people in their own country, if they are from Canada, are going about trying to make sustainable development work, if they do not know the history of at least the last thirty years of people doing sustainable development, using that language, they will read this piece of legislation and they will have no idea what sustainable development is about. That is what I am so disappointed about.

I do know that the minister and his people in his ministry, in putting the sustainable development discussion paper together, did consult other provinces, they did look at - by consultation I mean they did look at legislation in other provinces. I know they definitely looked at the legislation in Manitoba. I think they probably looked at a few others as well. I think they probably looked at Nova Scotia. I hope they did. I know I have done. I know that some of the documents they consulted, especially the Manitoba legislation, are absolutely comprehensive. I read the Manitoba legislation and I fully understand what the goal of the government is. I fully understand what the goals of the people of Manitoba are. I fully understand what doing sustainable development in Manitoba means. It is a framework. The legislation gives a framework for doing development in such a way that future generations in 100 years time will also still be able to do the same development, that they also will be able to benefit from the resources around them in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I cannot express how disappointed I am with the document. When you go to page 6 and look at 6(h) and you see - the duties of the round table are spelled out in number 6 and 6(h) says, "at the request of the minister, review legislation, policy, and programs for consistency with natural resource sustainable development principles and guidelines.." The first question that is begged by that is: What are the principles and guidelines for natural resource sustainable development. One immediately assumes that the guidelines and principles are going to be in this document, but they are not there. If there is one thing that I want to speak really strongly about and almost beg the minister to do - and I mean that sincerely - is to listen to, to consider and to really open himself up to making change in this document. I am really asking the minister to put in a similar section to what is in the Manitoba legislation; and that is a schedule at the end of the bill, a schedule that spells out the principles of sustainable development and a schedule that spells out the guidelines for sustainable development.

Minister, I just do not why you did not do it. It is just so logical for it to be in there. There have to be guidelines for the round table. They have to know the spirit out of which they are working. If not they would have to invent it all, and the thing is, it does not have to be invented. This stuff has been going on for several decades now. People have done all kinds of writing. For myself personally, going back to the early eighties when I was involved in my first environmental assessment process, this is the kind of stuff we were looking at.

The minister said, and I was really glad he said it, when he did his preamble, that sustainable development is about having the economic and the social work together. It is about more than that. It is the economic, the environmental, the human health and social well-being. All those pieces have to work together. He said something like that when he gave his introduction to the bill, but, honest to goodness, you read the bill and there is nothing in it that says that. There is nothing in it that gives that heart of what sustainable development is all about. That is why I really believe it is absolutely incomplete without having statements in the bill around sustainable development and the guidelines and principles for sustainable development. It is such a simple thing to do.

If, for example, we have this legislation and if another department in government other than the Department of Environment wanted to find out what is the government saying about sustainable development, I really think the department should be able to pick up the bill on sustainable development and get an idea of what the government is looking for. It is not going to find anything. The department that does that is not going to find anything.

I am not going to belabour the point. I am not going to go through what all the principles of sustainable development are. The basic principle is that all those parts that affect people, the economic, the environmental, human health, social well-being, all of that has to be considered with any development that is going on, and one cannot take over the other. I agree with the minister, that we have to have balance, but the bill should be telling us what it is that we are balancing and the bill is not doing that. I am really confused that the decision was made not to put in what is in every other piece of legislation that I am aware of, and that is put in the principles and guidelines. It is the minimal of what should be in the bill.

I am going to speak to some specifics in the bill, because I do have a number of things that I would like to make some comments on.

The round table itself: I think it is important that the bill recognize the makeup of the round table in terms of limiting how many people on the round table are there from the government sector. I think, obviously, government has to be there and community has to be there and various aspects of the community. It definitely has to be overall representative of the community, but I think there should also be a limit to how many people from government are on the round table. I noticed that in one of the pieces of the legislation - I think it is in Manitoba - they recognize that there might be Cabinet members on the round table and they limit the number of Cabinet who would be on the round table. I think there needs to be a bit more detail with regard to the round table in terms of how representative the round table is and the balance between public employees and the volunteer members of the round table.

I know that the document says that the Executive Council shall name the minister who shall be responsible for the round table on sustainable development, but I think it is important to name a department that is responsible for the round table. Again, because the department, I know, did use Manitoba, I am going to come back and use an example from Manitoba. For example, they named the Department of Conservation. Now that is not a department we have. Our equivalent probably would be the Department of Environment. They named that department as the department that is responsible for the support of the round table. I think it would have been good if our bill had done that because the Manitoba document gives quite a list of what the Department of Conservation is responsible for. It is responsible for everything from providing the Secretariat administrative and research support right through to administering the fund. There are quite a number of responsibilities for the Department of Conservation.

I would have thought that our bill would have recognized a logical department to be the department that offers this support to the round table, because, I tell you, if I were a person out there who was asked to be on the round table and I read the legislation I would not feel very happy just going by the legislation in terms of knowing how much support I was going to get. Maybe the minister has details on that, that he can share with us. It is quite possible that he does, I do not know, but if he does I will be happy to hear what the details are. Just looking at the bare bones of this legislation, there is very little in it to tell me, as a potential member of the round table, how we are going to do our work. I think that needs to be spelled out.

Once again, looking through the bill, because I do want to do more details from the bill, when you look at section 10 of the bill, the Sustainable Development Strategies, it says, "10. (1) The minister shall assess and develop a statement of indicators on the state and condition of the natural resources of the province from which sound decisions and reports may be made on the sustainable development of natural resources in the province and shall provide that statement of indicators to the round table. (2) After receiving the statement of indicators under subsection (1), the round table shall, (a) consult with members of the public and ..." "(b) prepare and submit to the minister a report on those indicators..."

I would like to suggest to the minister that I really do think that is backwards. I really think that the indicators should be gathered from the experience of the community. Using an example that I have used before in the House, and I will use it again, it is equivalent to the environmental assessment process when one is putting the guidelines together for the environmental impact statement and you are looking for the indicators that will help you set up the guidelines for the environmental impact statement, and panels, where panels exist, will go out to the community and do scoping sessions. The purpose of the scoping sessions is to find out from the community what their thoughts are around indicators. You do not use that language when you are out there but that is what you are doing. It seems to me that here in the bill, in putting the indicators together, that those indicators should come from the community. That is the work of the round table and they bring that to the minister.

If the bill has in it principles and guidelines, which I think the minister can do with, of course, his staff - we understand that we use the word minister but we mean it is the whole ministry. Principles and guidelines can be put together because there are recognized principles and guidelines for sustainable development. That is not something that has to wait. That is something that should be put into the bill, then the round table knows what it is working under. The indicators can change according to a community, they can change according to a province, so that is why there needs to be consultation in putting the indicators together. Experience of a number of decades now, experience both here in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Canada and elsewhere and on a international level, experience has already come up with the principles and guidelines.

My recommendation to the minister is that principles and guidelines go into this document and the minister rethink how the indicators are put togther. In the bill, you do have consultation with the public, but I think that is the first step. Consultation with the public is the first step. You do not pass to the public something that is already written and say: React to it. That is not a good way to go. You let them speak first and then develop the indicators from there.

The other thing that, I think, just needs to be beefed up, I guess is the only word I can use, in section 11 is that whole thing around the plan. The plan shall establish sustainable development goals. The plan shall establish in accordance with principles and guidelines established by regulation, natural resources sustainable development policies. Well the thing is, the principles and guidelines should already be there.

The directions for the plan are very, very vague because the details have not be given to them around principles and guidelines. I know I am sounding like a broken record but I have to keep coming back to it because it is so basic. That is what would be so basic to the bill, would be having principles and guidelines attached with it.

I may sound like I am making a general statement, but I am not, and I will back it up after I make the statement. I do not know why the government is afraid of putting more detail into legislation. I felt that today, for example, with the bill on the new energy corporation, when I questioned why there was nothing in the bill with regard to energy efficiency, I have to admit that I got a very weak response for the House Leader around that. It is obvious that the government does not intend in putting anything on energy efficiency in there. For me and for others - I am not the only one - in setting up an energy corporation in today's context one of the things you have to have in there is energy efficiency. I do not understand why the government seems to be hesitant and loath to putting in the heart of something, where it stands on something. With principles and guidelines that is not even where does the government stand. That is what is recognized practice in sustainable development work. What is it that we recognize as being essential? It really bothers me that it is not here.

As I said, anybody who does not know much about the practice of sustainable development will pick up this legislation and will know nothing. They will know absolutely nothing. You could get a round table where you have a difference of opinion around principles and guidelines and if they do not have direction in the legislation you can have real problems with your round table. Even though the minister said that he would really try to have a round table that is going to be representative you are going to have a lot of different positions possibly on that round table. You may have people coming out of different experiences not having the same understanding around sustainable development. It is not something where you can say, oh, you can say what you want and you can say what you want. There are principles around sustainable development and the round table should be abiding by them, but if they have nothing to go by then you could have a round table that gets stuck, that does not know where it is supposed to go and does not give you what you are looking for. That would be my concern.

I am going to name some of the principles of sustainable development to give an idea of what I am talking about. For example, one of the principles - and this is a recognized principle, the minister has already said it himself - is integration of environmental and economic decisions. He has already said that. Well then, why isn't it in the bill? Another principle of sustainable development, stewardship -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member her speaking time has lapsed.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, to sum up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

I guess the minister knows what my summing up is going to be after everything that I have said.

We need the legislation. I am glad the legislation is here. I am delighted that the legislation does have in it the setting up of a round table because this will be a round table under legislation. It will not be a fly by night thing. It will be under legislation. I would like to see a department named as responsible and I absolutely believe that the bill should not be passed without principles and guidelines attached.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were a number of questions put forward by both members. I will try as best I can to respond to as many of them as I can.

I will start off with some comments made by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. She spoke at one point about the fisheries. If there is ever a resource that should point out to us quite clearly that we need some sustainable development legislation, it has to be the fisheries. If we look at our Province, maybe there is a history. If we look at the definition of sustainable development meaning development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, we have to look no further than the fishery to see that the present generation that we have are not able to avail of the fisheries as we did twenty years or thirty years ago. So, if there is ever any doubt about the need for sustainable development legislation I think it is the fishery.

Secondly, there were comments made about funding support for such things as a round table. I think as important as anything else in this entire legislation is the fact that we need to get a message out there about education, because while some of us in this House may know what we are talking when we mention sustainable development and the drafting of legislation around that, there are as many people out there who are quite puzzled as to what this is all about. As much as we need money to support the entire process, probably as important if not more important is to educate the general public about what it is all encompassed in sustainable development legislation. We need to be able to show people - and this is a lengthy process - that, that tree or that growth of trees, trees that are still standing, could be as valuable left standing as they are going through a paper mill or sawmill; so, getting that message out there.

The member talked about past practices, and I think when she spoke about some of the processes that they have gone through in terms of the larger projects in Labrador and she talked about getting out there and consulting and involving the entire community, I would agree with her in many ways. This is about being a responsible government. There is nothing more important than that. As we enter into this, I am certain that there will be people on all sides of this debate and there will be disagreement, but it comes down to that government has to be responsible for managing its resources into the future. Sometimes we end up taking tough decisions and making tough decisions in government departments, but in the end we certainly hope that the decisions that we make are in the best interests of the people of the Province to ensure sustainability into the future.

She talked about the respect for culture, the respect for resources. I jotted down, as she was talking, some other words: effective resource management. She talked about legacy trust. Just this past weekend I was out in my colleague's district, out in Carmanville, and we opened an information centre there focused around a wetland stewardship project. I am telling you that the people who were involved in these projects understand - I think they may not allude to it as this, but they certainly understand - what it means to sustain a particular area. They have recognized that the birds and the fish and the water in this particular area need to be protected, not only from the economic side of it but from the perspective that it is our right and we must protect this particular area.

Both members spoke about the group makeup. We have stated in this Act that the round table will be made up of ten to fifteen people. Now, will they get support? Certainly they will. I mean we have boards across the Province that we look to. Let's take, for example, a board such as with CONA. This is an example of a board that operates without remuneration. What is it they are there for? They are an advisory board. Likewise in this, these are the people who when we talk about the ministry and when we talk about the department, if we are making decisions around sustainable development, whether it be forestry, logging or whatever, these are the people we will go to for advice. Will ten to fifteen people be enough on that board? Not likely. But this board then will have the authority that, if they need to seek guidance or information from the larger community, then that is exactly what they will do. If we are dealing with something as it pertains to logging, if my officials and I sit down and decide that we want further information, well this is the group that we would be able to go to, to say that we need further information on that.

As an example, we have a caribou management committee set up. That is exactly what we do. They advise me and my department officials. We take information, we bring it to them, they analyze it and they report back. This is the type of thing that we will be looking at. Certainly, they will have access to professional staff across various departments.

Then the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked how would this work in terms of other management or acts across various departments. We know we have a mining act, we have a forestry act. What this will basically do is, we will draft the principles and the regulations around that and look to the round table to then react to what we put out. This sustainable development act will be an all-encompassing act that all other departments will have to take into consideration when they move ahead with their own plans.

I think the member said that maybe we have not always acted in the best interests of future generations in some of the resource developments. I think she alluded to forestry in which, in fact, we may have gone in there and cut down trees without consideration for things that are surrounding it. Now then, under this legislation that is going to be something that is going to be more precise. We look to the future as being that if we have an issue that arises around a forestry management area or whatnot and then we look to the round table for consultation, then there are professional staff that we can use to help departments come to an understanding of how this Sustainable Development Act will be encompassed and included in their own management plans. We will complete the draft sustainability indicators and, as I have said, the round table is an advisory board.

When the Member for L'Anse Clair mentioned about the Aboriginal groups, well, I would certainly expect that we would have these groups included. Likewise, as I mentioned in my introduction, we have a group that is putting forward an outdoor Bill of Rights. I would expect that their representation will come out at this round table. As I have said to some reporters and people who have questioned about this, under this legislation we will encompass the issues that they bring forward. The round table is not going to be a committee that is going to be getting down to whether they have veto rights or so on and so forth. This is strictly an advisory board.

For the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I did look at documents from across the country and I think she alluded to Nova Scotia. If I recall correctly, sustainability in Nova Scotia focuses more specifically on land use sustainability. I looked at the one from Quebec. From across the country, there is a mixture of how people are moving forward with this.

In our case here, what we looking to is that at the outset we are not going to be overly prescriptive - that is a good word to use - that we do indeed want our round table to be fully comprising of as many interest groups as we can from across the Province and that, as we develop our strategic environmental plans and as we develop the regulations around sustainable development and as we bring in issues that will cross various departments, that we want involvement.

One of the things, I think, that we have seen on many occasions - it may have gone back a number of years, but we had groups established, quite often, that looked at the environmental side of it and we looked to forestry or mining and said, you were not doing this and that, but we soon realized that if we were going to make any headway with this at all we had to have the industry represented at the table. In this case here again, on the round table, I specifically see that we have to have representation from industry. It is like two sides battling out an issue. You can stay apart as long as you want and argue and debate and send letters and everything else, but it is not until we bring people face-to-face do we find a resolution to the issue. I guess that would be a scenario that we would certainly be looking forward - that is the plan of our round table and it is the plan as we move forward with this entire Sustainable Development Act.

If you look at it, what we are developing here is a framework under which we can bring in sustainable development. We will draft the indicators, as I have said, and then, very simply, we put them out to the round table and then they will bring forward their comments and advise my department as to the direction that we should move in.

I just would say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that I would hope, at the end of this entire process, she will be getting exactly or most of what she is putting forward. The most important thing in this entire process, and it goes back to a definition, and I guess the test of time will be - it is very easy for me to get up here and to quote a definition, it is very easy for someone opposite to get up here and quote a definition, the test is in the end results.

I would say to anyone, you can put out a document any time, you can put a group of people together any time and put together a document. We have often heard it said over and over that documents get produced, they get laid on a shelf, they gather dust and nothing else results from them. We have been accused of that numerous, numerous times.

Well, I would say the process that we are going through here, if we do this in a proper fashion, with the supports that have been suggested - not have been suggested, that we have recognized needed to be in place. I mean, we have put in the funds here through out strategic sustainable science division and the financial supports are there to put this process in place. If we are putting $600,000 in this one-year commitment to establish this committee, to offer this support to the round table and developing of the strategic environmental management plan, then it shows that those supports will be there if and when the round table needs them or if we need them through the department, and the individuals will be there to support this entire process along the way.

To everyone involved in this, this is the beginning of a process that in the end I feel confident will see us recognize, first of all, most importantly recognize, that we need to protect the resources that we have today to ensure that our children and our grandchildren have them well into the future. There is the economic side, there is the social side, there is the environmental side. To put it quite simply, Mr. Speaker, if we become a society where we see our resource as nothing less than money makers, we become a very sad society.

We in this Province - there is no one, I think, in the world, who recognizes anymore and values anymore, their fish, their water, their air and their land. This Act, I am convinced, will lead us into a direction where we will ensure that this sees us into the future for our children and our grandchildren.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 25 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development of Natural Resources In The Province. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development of Natural Resources In The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 25)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain bill. Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on these bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR(Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee of the Whole to consider Order 8, Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation Act.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 41 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 41 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 41 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 41 inclusive carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 27, An Act Respect The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 27 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Committee consideration on Bill 28, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province, Order 7.

CHAIR: Bill 28, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 37 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 37 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 37 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 37 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in legislative session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 28, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 28 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 9, Committee consideration of Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province.

CHAIR: Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 15 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 15 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 15 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 15 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in legislative session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province, carried without amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 25 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 27, 28 and 25 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 27, 28 and 25 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now by leave.

The Chair recognizes that leave has been granted.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 27, An Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27, An Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 27 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation." (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27, An Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 28, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 28, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 28 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 28)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 25 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to call motion 2, and I move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, the debate on the following question:

WHEREAS subsection 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991 provides that the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer be filled by resolution of the House of Assembly; and

WHEREAS subsection 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act provides that a Commissioner of Member's Interests be appointed by the House of Assembly on the motion of the Premier following consultation with the Leader of the Official Opposition and representatives of other registered political parties having representation in the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests and on any amendment or amendment in amendment proposed thereto shall not be further postponed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair refers hon. members to Standing Order 47.

It has been moved, pursuant to Standing Order 47, debate on the following resolution. The Chair will dispense with the whereasas and move to the therefore clause: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Member's Interests and on any amendment or amendment in amendment proposed therefore shall not be further postponed.

This is known as the closure motion and we will now call for the question.

All those in favour of the closure motion pursuant to Standing Order 47 say "aye".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra minded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

On motion closure motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Speaker recognizes the Government House Leader who will give an indication we shall go into debate on motion number 1, it is appropriate to place the closure concept in some perspective. Closure is the curtailment of debate by way of time restrictions for which notice has been given. The House continues to debate on the Order Paper. In circumstances where the motion has not been amended, the time restrictions are very routine in their application. Each member eligible to participate in the debate would speak for a maximum of twenty minutes and the Speaker would thereafter call the Question. In any case no member could rise to speak after 1:00 a.m. unless an amendment be placed before the House. Any member who has spoken to the main motion could not speak again. Members should reference Marleau and Montpetit on page 562 for further commentary. Members are also advised to consult a ruling by Speaker Tom Lush on April 8, 1991.

However, when the House has an amendment under consideration, the rules become more complex. The Chair notes this is our current circumstance. Thus members who have spoken to the amendment may not speak again until the amendment has been resolved. This restriction applies to the following members: the Opposition House Leader; the Member for Grand Bank; the Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and the Government House Leader. These members may not speak again until the amendment has been decided by the House.

When motion 1 was last called, the debate was adjourned by the Member for Terra Nova, who in speaking on the amendment, had ten minutes left in his allocation. That member can choose to continue his address for the balance of his time; however, should he decide on that option, he would be restricted from participating when the main motion is called if we get to that particular point in the debate before the time restriction of 1:00 o'clock.

The Speaker will recognize the members in the standard rotational manner, alternately from one side of the House to the other as regular procedures. If no further speakers rise and if the 1:00 a.m. time curtailment has not yet been reached, the Speaker will call the question on the amendment and the House will decide. If there is time remaining, the Speaker will then call the main motion. Speakers who have spoken previously on the main motion or who have spoken on the amendment under the closure rule may not speak again. Previous speakers on the main motion are: the Government House Leader; the Opposition House Leader; the Leader of the Opposition; the Minister of Environment and Conservation; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Bay of Islands; the Member for Mount Pearl; the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; and the Member for Kilbride. The Speaker also notes for clarification that it is technically possible for further amendments to be proposed; however, no member may speak more than once under the closure rules.

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader who will call motion 1.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will call motion 1, and that motion is being debated pursuant to provision of Standing Order 47.

MR. SPEAKER: To continue debate, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is exactly 9:00 p.m. The rules have been laid out by the Speaker and I guess we have the next four hours to try to convince the government to change their minds on motion 1. That is the resolution put forward that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests.

As the viewing audience might have already guessed, we are into the last few hours of this very important motion. Government always has this tool that they can exercise. If they cannot get a certain bill passed, or a piece of legislation, or a motion in this case, they do have this tool that they can use at any point, but they must give proper notice. The Speaker has already laid out what we need to do in order to facilitate the debate over the next four hours.

Now, this is my first time speaking on this particular motion. This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to debate this issue in the House. I want to say from the outset that whatever I will say in the next nineteen minutes has no ill will or hard feelings towards Mr. Paul Reynolds, because, to the best of my knowledge, he is a very fine individual. He is from Harbour Grace; I am from Carbonear. I know that he is looked at very highly in his community and surrounding area and is known to be a fine individual, but this is not what we are debating tonight, whether or not he is a fine individual. It is an awkward position, it is a very awkward position, that government has placed this House of Assembly in tonight because government are asking us, as members of the House of Assembly, to do something that we do not usually do. They are asking us to turn our minds in an opposite direction from what we have been accustomed to doing all our entire life.

When I looked across Canada and I saw what other provinces do when they are appointing a Chief Electoral Officer, no matter what province you look in all across Canada, it is always somebody that is totally neutral, never having any party affiliation; totally neutral. If you look across Canada, and I have done this, I have looked at the research that was done prior to this motion coming to the House, and in every province across Canada they hire someone for this job who is non-partisan, generally a lawyer or a public servant, but never anyone who is connected to a particular political party.

That is the issue that we are having great difficulty with. It has caused a lot of problems right from the outset because the Premier actually made this appointment. You say to yourself: Why would the Premier go out and make this appointment knowing full-well that Mr. Paul Reynolds was head of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and an active member of a district association? On April 23, which is a nice while ago, the Premier actually made that announcement, that he was asking the House of Assembly to approve the resolution appointing Paul Reynolds as the next Chief Electoral Officer, CEO for the Province, and should the resolution not be passed May 1, and it was not, Mr. Reynolds would occupy the role on an acting basis until the House votes on the resolution. Mr. Paul Reynolds has been occupying his position, on an acting basis, every since the first of May.

Now, that is a very high paying position, being the Chief Electoral Officer of the Province. It is somewhere in the range of $130,000 a year. It is a very high paid position and with the high pay comes a high degree of responsibility, a responsibility of doing the right thing, being fair and exercising good judgement to all concerned.

You know politics is a funny game. It is all about perception, and the perception of having somebody in an office of that caliber leads a lot of people to believe that: Why would the Premier do that? Why would the Premier put us in that position to have to be judging whether or not Mr. Paul Reynolds is going to be fit for that particular job? Why would the Premier put us in that position? I understand that he wanted to do a political favour to Mr. Paul Reynolds for his years of good service to the Progressive Conservative Party, but why wasn't there another position, another executive type position, that the Premier could have offered to Mr. Paul Reynolds; in having to put a square peg in a round hole and asking us, as members, to keep our heads turned around in a 360 degree circle and give approval to this appointment when we know in our own hearts and minds that this is really not the right thing to do. We all know that Chuck Furey was in that position, but even that was uncomfortable. That was really uncomfortable as well, knowing that your own colleague who was part of your government was now going to be head of the Chief Electoral Office of the Province. That was unnecessary as well. That was really unnecessary for our current Premier to appoint Chuck Furey.

It is not a matter of whether or not he was capable to do the job, or what qualities the individual brought to the position. None of that is questioned at all. In fact, I believe Chuck Furey was able to do a great job. He had all of the credentials necessary and it appears that Mr. Paul Reynolds has the credentials necessary to do the job. But, is it necessary to put somebody into that position, which is supposed to be non-partisan, and make it an awkward judgement call for the members of the House of Assembly? There must have been another position that the Premier would have been able to give to Mr. Paul Reynolds besides this one if he wanted to do a political favour.

There are two parts to that position: One is the Chief Electoral Officer and the other one is the Commissioner of Members' Interests. There are two sections to that. Yes, the Commissioner of Members' Interests must be approved by the House of Assembly, but the Chief Electoral Officer can be in an acting position. What government has done here tonight - they realize they cannot go on any longer with Mr. Paul Reynolds in a position where he is not really approved by the House of Assembly, because it is into law actually, that all members of the House of Assembly, by April 1 of every year, have to complete a booklet, almost, I would think - well, it is that size. There are a lot of questions asked to Members of the House of Assembly. For instance: what they make as a salary; what their spouse makes as a salary, how much money do you have in the bank; how much money do you owe; do you have any interests in businesses outside your job; does your spouse have any interests; did anybody give you an outright gift of over $500 last year, not a donation an outright gift. You have to declare all those things. Of course, if you operate several businesses in this Province you can sometimes put your businesses in a blind trust, as many of the Members in this House of Assembly have done.

It is really a bit awkward when you have a Chief Executive Officer who we know was the head of the PC Party and you have to spill your soul to this person. These are the things that you have to tell that person and put in on a book, that you would only tell your banker if you were applying for a loan. You have to bare your soul financially and you have to put it in a booklet and pass it in to the Chief Electoral Officer.

We found out this week that Mr. Paul Reynolds was really acting on the second part of the job illegally. He did not have any legal right to ask any Member of the House of Assembly to actually produce their conflict of interest statement for him. He did not have any legal right or authority to do that, because several Members of the House of Assembly did not file their conflict of interest statement on time, April 1, for various reasons, and as a result of that, Mr. Paul Reynolds sent out a letter. The Leader of the Opposition produced that letter a couple of days ago here in the House of Assembly and that was laid on the Table for examination in public view.

Mr. Paul Reynolds acted illegally by asking members, the ones who had not submitted their conflict of interest statements, to do so promptly. When that was brought to the Speaker's attention, even the Speaker was not aware that Mr. Reynolds was asking for this information, but when the Speaker became aware, he issued his own press release, and the press release that the Speaker released was that the Department of Justice, who actually swore Mr. Reynolds in with the Oath of Office, misdirected him, gave him wrong information. I was taken aback by that, because the Department of Justice knows full-well what the Commissioner of Members' Interests is allowed to do and what the Chief Electoral Officer is allowed to do.

It is interesting too, when you look at the motion tonight on the Order Paper it is in two sections, that motion is in two sections. It shows that there are two parts to that job. One part you can be an acting member and the other part you must have the full approval of the House of Assembly. I find it odd that the Department of Justice that gives opinions on every matter that comes before the Department of Justice - everything government needs to seek advice on is vetted through the Department of Justice. I really cannot comprehend how the Department of Justice would give legal advice to Mr. Paul Reynolds telling him that he was able to be in full control of the second portion of his job. I really find that difficult to comprehend. I would like to know which lawyer in our Department of Justice gave that information to Mr. Paul Reynolds.

Really, in effect, no member in this House of Assembly was under any legal requirement to file a Conflict of Interest Statement April 1, 2007 and hand it over to the Commissioner of Members' Interests. In fact, they do not need to do it today. They will not really need to do it until Mr. Paul Reynolds is sworn in, or not sworn in, approved by the House of Assembly and that will be 1:00 p.m. tomorrow morning. At that point, Mr. Paul Reynolds, if approved, will be in a legal position to ask any member of the House of the Assembly here for their Conflict of Interest Statement; after tomorrow morning.

Like I said when I started out, this is an awkward role for us as members of the House of Assembly to be even debating here tonight. None of us should be ever put in this position, because there are lots of people out there, career civil servants, who could be in this job like they are all across Canada. We are a very small community in Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to making political appointments. We all understand and we all accept that governments do these sort of things, but this is really blatant, to be appointing the head of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador to this particular job.

Now, it is no reflection on the individual because I know of him and I know that he is a fine individual, but when you look at the fact that this is a high paying job, it is roughly $130,000 a year, there is an election coming up in about four months, just over four months time, and there is a lot of work to be done, there is an impression in the minds of people out there in the Province: How much of a big stick does government wield here in this Province? How much of a big stick does government wield when they can take somebody who was the head of the PC party of Newfoundland and Labrador and put them in a non-partisan position and expect everyone in the whole Province to believe that there will be no political influence here?

Perception is everything when you are a politician. That is the reason why there is going to be a report here in a couple of days time done by Chief Justice Green and it is going to be telling us MHAs and making recommendations to the Legislature, to the Premier, to the Speaker on how we should conduct our business in the future because things have gone astray. They are going to bring in a whole new Administration system so that we MHAs can be more accountable in the future. When that is done we should have a system, according to the Premier, according to the Speaker, that will be probably copied by every province in Canada and maybe beyond.

Now here tonight, this is new territory because the Premier of the Province who wants us, as MHAs, to abide by the new recommendations in running the Legislature now wants us, as a Province, the only one in Canada, to pick someone for the non-partisan role who was formerly the president of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an unusual comparison, an analogy, for a Premier who wants us to set foot in a new direction for a Legislature, but yet he is expecting us to accept someone who has political ties.

When the booklet was sent out to everybody who was on the enumeration list and we had to give the information to the enumerator as to where we lived, our age and how many people were in our household, on that particular card it said: The office of the Chief Electoral Officer, an non-partisan office.

Now, I wonder how would the government of today feel if we were the government and we were proposing to put someone like Fraser Piccott, for instance, who was the President of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, or Danny Damaresque - would you like to see any of those individuals as the Chief Electoral Officer in the Province and the Commissioner of Members' Interests?

All the things you would normally tell your bank you now have to put it in a booklet, and we have been doing that for years. That has been a requirement and all of us have done it, and never minded doing it, but now you have to put all of your financial information in a booklet and pass it along to a supposed-to-be non-partisan officer who is in that job of chief electoral officer of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That office has a huge budget because they do a lot of work and there will be by-elections and general elections and special ballots and a lot of work going through that office, and there will be a lot of people who will be hired from time to time to be district returning officers and so on.

I am getting a look from the Speaker. He is trying to tell me that my time has expired. You would be surprised how quickly twenty minute passes.

I will clue up by saying that we should not be debating this motion tonight. We should have the freedom here tonight so that if somebody comes to the House of Assembly and a motion is laid -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Could I have one minute, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, go ahead.

MS THISTLE: I just want to clue up by saying that we should now be in a position as Members of this House of Assembly to see before us a name that is on the Order Paper that we can all look at with clear eyes and know that it is a person who has no affiliation with either political party in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but yet has the credentials that we can all honour and accept. The government has put us in an awkward position and I think it is an unfair position to put any member in. For that reason, it is very difficult to say that anyone in this House tonight would agree to what is on this Order Paper.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just stand and take a few minutes to speak on this motion tonight for Paul Reynolds to be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests.

As the general public knows by now, it is what they call closure whereby the government wants this done without going through the full debate system, decides that we are going to get it done. As the Premier said to the Deputy Premier yesterday: We will have it done tomorrow. Of course then they invoked closure. It is a way for government and, of course, the Premier to do what he wants to do when he wants to do it and forget all the rules and regulations and follow through on it.

This is what we are here on tonight, closure, because this is what the Premier wants, to reward one of his friends so he will not be out on the golf course again complaining that he got nothing from the PC party. Mr. Speaker, I know he did that.

Mr. Speaker, this position should be done in a non-partisan manner, definitely in a non-partisan manner, and not only should the manner be non-partisan, it should be perceived to be non-partisan. It is a position that is held in any democracy when you run an election. We even send people over to other countries to observe democracies to ensure that the election is ran properly, and look at violations. This person has to be perceived as a person who is going to run it. Will Paul Reynolds do it? I do not know. I do not know the man. I have only seen him here once when he was sitting over here. I would not know the man from Adam. I do know that the perception is that he has close ties and association with the PC party. Even when he was appointed, even when he was nominated, he was still on the PC executive, and that leaves the perception that he does have political ties.

You have to be in the position, Mr. Speaker, whereby political favours cannot be called in. They just cannot be called in, perceived to be called in or actually being called in. Will Paul Reynolds accept if someone calls for political favours? I do not know. I do not know the guy. I am not saying he will, not saying he will not, I do not know the guy. You have to be in the position whereby it is perceived that you are going to do everything in a fair and proper manner.

Mr. Speaker, I see over there the Member for Placentia and St. Mary's. He spoke in

a non-partisan manner. He said: Look at the Speaker, for example - and there were a few others who brought up the Speaker - when the Speaker is in the Chair, it is done in a non-partisan manner.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to make this quite clear, I am not attacking the Chair; no way. I have all respect for the Chair, I have absolute faith in the Chair in any democracy in this world. Mr. Speaker, when the members opposite want to bring up the Speaker of this Legislature, I look at the picture - and I am sure it is public knowledge - I look at the Speaker -

MR. REID: It was sent out to all the households.

MR. JOYCE: It was sent out to all households, it was in The Western Star; the Speaker endorsing a federal MP. The members opposite brought that up.

I have all due respect for the Chair, for any Chair in any parliament, any provincial parliament, any federal parliament. I have respect for the Chair, but when the members opposite want to bring up and use the Speaker as an example, and I have a picture in front of me with the federal MP, Loyola Hearn - Loyola Hearn is pleased to announce that all members of the provincial Progressive Conservative caucus from his riding are endorsing him during the federal election. Loyola has worked closely with these provincial colleagues and the names of the provincial colleagues, and one of the names is the Speaker.

When we talk here about how it is not only supposed to be perceived, you are not supposed to be in a position where you can call in political favours - now once again, I say, Mr. Speaker, I have all respect for the Chair, I have all respect for all the democracies in Canada. When I am asked to vote on something of a person who has close political ties, who admittedly has close personal ties, who the Deputy Premier got up here in this House of Assembly and said he is so proud to nominate and he is so proud because he helped him in his election - the members opposite in government used the Speaker as a prime example as to how people could be non-partisan when they get into a role. I have a picture of you endorsing a federal MP, the Speaker endorsing a federal MP, a Tory MP, Loyola Hearn, I may add, who they now all want to lynch, fillet, gut whatever you want to do, put him out, whatever you want to do. Loyola Hearn; I only met the man once or twice in my life, I do not even know the man.

Here we are in a position, Mr. Speaker, where someone like myself has to vote on a person being appointed and being nominated to a so-called non-partisan position. It always will cross my mind: Will this person do his job in such a way if there is a political favour being called upon? I do not know. I do not want to bring into question the man's character, I do not know the man, but the perception is there that he has close connections to the PC Party, close connections to the Deputy Premier. The Premier himself, I heard him say yesterday: we will get this done tomorrow. We all know his close ties: volunteer of the Progressive Conservative Party, both federally and provincially; President of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador; and Director of Virginia Waters PC Association, which he still was after he was nominated even for the position. My duties as President of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador ceased in 1984. My involvement with the Virginia Water Association was terminated April 24 - oh, look at this, campaign chair for Ross Reid; co-campaign manager for Tom Rideout.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. JOYCE: That is what is here. Worked with staff and volunteers to conduct and organize an effective campaign and recruit volunteers.

MR. REID: When did he resign from the Tory party?

MR. JOYCE: When did he resign? I do not know. I am not sure if he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: The day after.

MR. JOYCE: The day after. I was told by my colleague here that it was the day after he was announced.

Mr. Speaker, I go back once again. It is the perception, and I do not mind saying it - I know one of my colleagues, and I will not say the person's name, one of my colleagues, whom I have some respect for from the opposite said: You know, you cannot go bringing that up because it looks bad and it may cost you some credibility and a few votes. I respect what that person said. I respect that person. He is a good guy. I will not say his name because I do not want the rest of them to be mad at him but I respect what he said to me.

Mr. Speaker, when I go back to the last election in 2003 when I had to defend all the DRO's and Poll Clerks and it cost $12,800, and then all of the sudden the Speaker who is supposed to be non-partisan - and I have all respect for the Chair, I must say, Mr. Speaker, I have all respect for the Chair - the Speaker who is supposed to be non-partisan had an IEC meeting, flew me in paid by IEC, maybe even twice, once for sure, maybe even twice, paid for by the IEC, had an IEC meeting, waiting for me to come down to meet with the IEC. The Speaker called me and said: No, there is no need, we are going to pay you the money. We owe you the money, we are going to pay it. I left the meeting, thank you very much, and got a call later: No, we are not going to do it now. We are going to go out and get a legal opinion. I said: Oh! That is alright. They got a legal opinion. It cost $8,000 or $9,000 for the legal opinion, the legal opinion came back and said: no, you should pay him a certain amount. Thank you very much. I go down to IEC and the same man who flew me in voted against it; and he is supposed to be non-partisan. I would not have known who voted against it, but the Member for Bellevue wanted it recorded who voted for and against it.

Here I am going to vote for a person who admits that he has close PC ties, with the connections going to be called! The members opposite use the Speaker. Now, I have all respect for the Chair. I have to make sure that everybody understands that across this Province. I have all respect for the Chair of any Parliamentary democracy in Canada, anywhere in the world, but for the Speaker of the House of Assembly, who is supposed to be there representing all of us equally - the political favour could be called - for him to get his picture taken with an MP, Loyola Hearn, then I can say: How can we say that putting Mr. Reynolds in this position here is not perceived to be political? I say that, Mr. Speaker: How can you perceive it when you have the picture right here? That is what I would like to know. It is my understanding that it was put in The Telegram and it was put all over.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at a lot of the aspects with Mr. Reynolds, we have to wonder - and again I have no idea what gave him the idea that he was Commissioner for Members' Interests in the last little while. I have absolutely no idea who gave him the advice.

MR. REID: The Minister of Justice.

MR. JOYCE: Somebody in Justice. According to the report that was put out by the Speaker, someone in the Justice Department gave him advice. I do not know. But I can tell you one thing, with all due respect to the Chair, if the Minister of Justice or some of the officials in his department - the letter should have come from the Minister of Justice of what happened.

Mr. Speaker, we had a situation yesterday where we were not sure about the funding in a report. The Speaker stood up here and said: I only present the report. I only present it from the department. Someone in Justice may have, I do not know. It could be an innocent mistake, I do not know. I can tell you, if the Minister of Justice did it or some official, that is the department that should have explained it, not the Speaker.

If we are presenting reports in this House and you cannot say if they are verified or not, and someone from Justice - how can you speak on behalf of Justice? You cannot do it.

I will say one thing to Mr. Paul Reynolds: If I was in a position that was so in the public domain right now and a position that was in a compromising part of his job, I will assure you one thing, I would read my duties. I would not have to be standing up here today with people wondering why you were taken away from that position. If he is such a reputable person who knows his job and is qualified - maybe is he qualified, I am not saying he is not - but the first four or five days while we were debating all of this in the House of Assembly I would be reading up on what I was allowed to do, the duties and qualifications of what I was appointed to do; I can assure you that.

The question I have to ask, Mr. Speaker - and the Minister of Justice, I am not casting any aspersions on anybody in your department. I do not know what happened, maybe it was an honest mistake, but my question is: If Mr. Paul Reynolds was not in the position of Commissioner of Members' Interests and he was looking at confidential and private information and he was not supposed to be there, is he going to be reprimanded I wonder?

We all know the Privacy Act in Newfoundland and across Canada these days, so what is going to happen? Will he say, oh, sorry now? The Premier reached over to the Deputy Premier and said: We will get that done tomorrow. Is it alright for him to send letters out, look at my - I am one of them, by the way, that he sent letters to.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) breaking the law.

MR. JOYCE: Maybe, but until I get clarification -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Premier stay quiet. Every time I stand to speak lately -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: - every time I stand to speak the Deputy Premier has something to say. It is not my fault the polls turned out bad for you. It is not my fault.

MR. RIDEOUT: The poll turned out bad for us!

MR. JOYCE: It is not my fault you lost sixty-one jobs out in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not my fault that because there are sixty-one jobs gone out in his district all of a sudden he is looking for another seat and out doing a poll in the Bay of Islands that did not show up that well. It is not my fault. There is no need -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: He went to Baie Verte -

MR. RIDEOUT: You're some lucky, boy, (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The Deputy Premier, the House Leader, is saying I am lucky that the poll shows up good. Don't you think it is hard work and dedication to the district, not jumping around trying to see which one you are going to do next?

MR. RIDEOUT: Jumping around.

MR. JOYCE: Don't you think? Telling me I am lucky!

I will tell the Deputy Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks all hon. members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I will say to the Deputy Premier, he did the poll in the Bay of Islands, but I can tell you something, in 1989 when I stepped aside for Clyde Wells I gave up my MHA pension, I gave up direct salary, because I was concerned about the people of the Bay of Islands. So don't you go turning around and telling me I resigned. I did it because the PC government across there for twenty-two years never put one house on water and sewer. When I stand up and say I resigned for Clyde Wells, I gave up my pension and I gave up direct salary. Now if you want to know how much I did, I will tell you. I say to the Deputy Premier, do not question my loyalties to the Bay of Islands, for God's sake. You do not know what you are talking about.

Why are you leaving Lewisporte? Sixty-one jobs gone, when they need a Deputy Premier, and what are you doing? Out doing polls in the Bay of Islands and in Baie Verte to see which district you can get closer to Corner Brook. Don't you go turning on me about my loyalties to the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is asking members to my left if they could restrain themselves and keep the shouting down.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just get a bit hot under the collar when someone like the Deputy Premier is trying to question my loyalty to the District of the Bay of Islands, the place where I grew up and knew everybody, a place where I felt their pain when there was no water and sewer, when there was no road work done and when there were no proper schools. If the Deputy Premier wants to challenge my loyalty to the Bay of Islands, you still have the opportunity to run there and I say, come right ahead. That is what I say. Don't go questioning my loyalty about what I did for Clyde Wells or Brian Tobin because I did it for the Bay of Islands and I did it for the people. I gave up my pension and I am proud that I gave up my pension and direct pay. If you have something else to say, stand up on your feet.

Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the question at hand, Mr. Paul Reynolds. I did not realize it, but I guess I am touching a sore point, because he was the co-campaign manager for the Deputy Premier when he ran for the Premier. I guess I am touching a sore point. He even puts it in here that he was co-campaign chair for Tom Rideout. I guess I am touching a nerve.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds the hon. the Member that he should refer to members of the House by their titles or by their portfolios rather than by their Christian names.

MR. JOYCE: I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. He just has me hot under the collar again, that is all.

I understand now why he is so upset about it, because he stood up and said he is a great individual, just a lucky guy to be involved with the PC Party, he is just fortunate and he is a smart man to be involved with the PC Party, and I am up saying now that this position should be put aside and not be perceived in any way whatsoever as tied to any political party.

Is he qualified? I do not know. I will be the first to say I do not know if the man is qualified. Then again, was Joan Cleary qualified? She was the shining star over there. Was she qualified? She broke the Public Tender Act twice. Then what did she get on the way down? Forty thousand dollars for breaking the Public Tender Act twice. She was perceived to be doing a job at the Bull Arm Site and we find out she was rewarding her buddies.

I am not saying Paul Reynolds would do that. I am definitely not saying it. I do not know the man. The perception, Mr. Speaker, when he has such close ties and is in the position of the Chief Electoral Officer, the perception should be that you have no affiliation, you are above board, you are non-partisan. That is the perception. That is what the perception should be, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure if Mr. Reynolds understands that or not and I am not sure that Mr. Reynolds can carry out this job in a non-partisan way. I do not know. I do not know the guy. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the perception that I have is that it would be awfully hard for him to do it. It would be awfully hard. I am just going on the history, Mr. Speaker, in this House and the other appointments that were done.

In his letter, Mr. Speaker - and I can go on and on about some of his involvement with the PC Party - one of the interesting points here is about the DROs and the Poll Clerks. They have it in the ad that a DRO and a Poll Clerk were not to be involved with any party for sixty days prior to their selection. Sixty days! Here is a man who is still on the PC Association here in St. John's, even after he got the recommendation - so he has to go out now and judge if someone is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will clue up by just saying I will be voting against this here in the House of Assembly because of the perception. I think this position here should be held above any perception let alone the partisan part of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure this evening to stand and speak for a few moments about this motion before the House. In fact, this motion was first introduced on May 3 and this is probably the third or fourth time we have attempted to debate and discuss this motion in the House. Every time we have done it, every time we have had several potential amendments to the motion to try to change the process or try to influence the outcome of the vote that will take place later this evening, members opposite have used every kind of tactic that is allowed in Beauchesne and procedural kinds of tactics allowed in the House to obstruct the process here and to have this House, I say, Mr. Speaker, follow through with the resolution that is called for here: Be It Resolved that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests.

Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on this motion yet, but I have listened to all of the debate on it and all I have heard thus far, in terms of the objection to the appointment of Mr. Reynolds in this position, is a perception, the notion, the potential, that somebody who has been affiliated with some political party cannot be impartial.

I just listened to the Member for Bay of Islands, Mr. Speaker, and there were parts of his comments directed clearly to you. Some of his comments were directed clearly to you, bringing into question, I think, the integrity of the Chair of the House of Assembly. We sit in this House as members of all three parties or four parties, whatever the number of parties would be in this Province, we sit as legislators in this House, and we rely on the Chair to be impartial, to make rules, to make decisions and to make rulings in a very impartial fashion. I listened to the Member for the Bay of Islands suggesting, not coming out directly but making some strong suggestion that he was questioning the impartiality of the Chair, and more particularly, Mr. Speaker, yourself.

Mr. Speaker, I want to use the exact same example as the Member for Bay of Islands used because I think clearly it illustrates the point the members on this side of the House have been making. Anyone in this Province can have an affiliation with a political party sometime in their lives, but when they are appointed to a position of trust, when they are elected to a position of trust, they are able to, in fact, shed that attachment to a political party or shed that part of their history and actually assume the role and responsibility of the position that they had been appointed to in a very impartial way. You, Mr. Speaker, are a good example of that.

We all know in this House, the people of this Province would all know, that you as a Speaker have been a member of a political party for quite some time, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. In October of 2003, when the Progressive Conservative Party formed the government, after a general election, and after being given a resounding mandate by the people of the Province, we came into this House, I say, Mr. Speaker, all members came into this House, on both sides of the Legislature, and one of the first orders of business, one of the first things we had to do as legislators, was to elect a Chair, elect a Speaker, someone who would actually rule over the proceedings of the House in a very impartial fashion.

One of the things about Hansard, one of the things about TV, and one of the things about accurate record keeping is that we have a history, I say, Mr. Speaker, going back particularly to October of 2003 and up to today's date, where every single proceeding in this House has been televised and all of the events and all of the comments made in this House have been recorded in Hansard. It is there for public record.

Mr. Speaker, in the same way that the Member for the Bay of Islands said there was a picture of yourself in a newspaper where you were standing next to a federal candidate for election, where you, in fact, suggested you were endorsing that federal candidate, it is a clear example of where you can have a political affiliation in your political life or in your community involvement and you can endorse political candidates. Yet, when you come into this Chamber, when you come into this House, and you adorn the role that you now have and assume your responsibility as the Speaker of this House, you carry out your duties, you carry out your function in a very impartial fashion, I say, Mr. Speaker. You have done it in a very impartial fashion. I think it speaks to it, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Bellevue talks about relevance and here is the real relevance, I say to him. Here is the real relevance, I say to the Member for Bellevue. We have a classic example here where the Speaker of this House for the last three-and-one-half, almost four years, has conducted himself in a very impartial and non-partisan fashion on every single ruling he has made in this House. I dare any member of this House, I dare members of the Opposition to stand, assume some of my time on a point of order, and challenge the statement I just made. No one over there will stand and do that this evening because they agree with me. They agree with me, Mr. Speaker. They will not stand and challenge the statement I just - in fact, I will give up the rest of my time this evening for any member over there who wants to get up and say that I am wrong. They will not do it, I say, Mr. Speaker, because they know I am right. They know that you have been an extremely impartial Speaker despite you long-time political affiliation, because, Mr. Speaker, you were elected by members of this House to be in a position of trust, to be in a position of responsibility, to be in a position where you had to be impartial. The same thing applies here, because we have many others examples. Members on this side of the House have raised two other example, two very senior public figures in this Province. Our Chief Justice, former Premier of this Province, a long time political affiliation with the Liberal party. We have a Lieutenant-Governor in this Province, a long time affiliation with the Liberal party. Each of them in positions now with power, influence and trust in this Province, and they too carry out their roles in their respective positions in a very impartial and non-partisan fashion.

The crux of the argument by members opposite with respect to this motion and the suggestion that they are not going to support it is purely on the basis that they believe if you ever in your lifetime have had a political affiliation, or if you have had any involvement with a political party in this Province, that for the rest of your life you can never ever sit in a position or occupy a position in this Province where you have to be impartial. Mr. Speaker, that is hypocritical They cannot honestly stand here and say that. They cannot stand here and make that kind of statement, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, members opposite has said several times, they are not sure if Mr. Reynolds can be impartial or not, and the reason they say is because he has had an affiliation. I say, Mr. Speaker, if they are prepared to stand tonight and say that the Speaker who sits in the Chair tonight cannot be impartial, and if the Speaker sits here today and says that he has not been impartial -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: If they want to stand here tonight in the precincts of this House and make that statement, I challenge them to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, in the same fashion they have to acknowledge that anyone, any one of us in this room, any one of us who has ever been in this room as an elected official, can at some point in our futures be totally impartial when called upon to do so and when appointed to a senior position, when appointed to a position where you have to be impartial, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let's look at their credentials. I heard the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans say clearly that two of the major attributes of this position were, they had to be fair and the other thing she indicated was that they needed to have sound judgement. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the credentials of Mr. Reynolds, an individual who has had a long career in the service and volunteer work in his community. He has been a mayor, a Mayor of Wedgewood Park. He understands the electoral process, understands, I say, Mr. Speaker, the political process, understands what is involved in running a very impartial election, understands the whole notion of being in a credible position and being, in fact, impartial in his dealings.

The other thing: Let's look at Mr. Reynolds's business experience. I do not know the man personally very well at all, but I look at his experience as a community leader, as a volunteer, the kind of work that he has done, the kind of work that he has done in his business life, retired from a very successful career, a model employee with the organizations he has worked for, successful, progressive management positions, has been promoted from within the companies he has worked for, and his contribution has been acknowledged, has good organization skills.

We talk about the major task ahead of us with an election coming up in this fall. This man has established himself with a reputation of having strong organizations skills, understands planning, understands the whole issue of human resource management, mobilizing people, assigning tasks, defining roles and managing projects. These are the kind of attributes that are critical in this position, critical for the successful running of a campaign. If we are looking at it, members of this House who sit here - and we have heard members opposite talk about the role that this person plays as a Commissioner of Members' Interests, evaluating the documentation that we submit, determining whether or not we are in some kind of a conflict, assessing the statements that we file on an annual basis to determine whether or not we are in compliance with the regulation and the legislation. Who better to make that kind of an evaluation than someone who has had some good senior management experience, who has had some experience and a role in a very responsible position, where in the past they have had to assess circumstances, assess situations and determine whether or not something was appropriate, take corrective action if necessary, deal with challenging situations? These are the attributes that Mr. Reynolds brings to this position.

The only criticism I have heard of him in the last month, since we have had this motion first introduced, is the whole issue of this political affiliation. Let's look beyond that, Mr. Speaker. Let's have members of this House look beyond their own - members of this House need to look beyond their own political biases and look at the man himself, look at the person, look at the applicant, look at the attributes that this person brings to this position, see if they match the qualities that we would like to have in this type of position. That is what I ask members opposite to do, to shed their own political bias.

They are accusing Mr. Reynolds of having certain political baggage and he may not be able to make a balanced decision and an unbiased decision, an impartial decision, sometime in the future, but yet they stand in this House with their own biases and they are, in fact, judging an individual, not on the basis of the merits of the individual, not what this individual would bring to the position, not the strength that this person has, not the quality of the character the person has, not the value of the experience that he has, but purely and simply on the basis that this individual has had some political affiliation with the Progressive Conservative Party in the past.

The individual who Mr. Reynolds is proposing to replace, I say, Mr. Speaker, a former minister, a former Cabinet minister in a Liberal government. I commend Mr. Furey, he did an admirable job, he did a great job, he did it in a very impartial fashion, and he has done a wonderful job in the short period of time that he has been there. I think that, again, I say, Mr. Speaker, is another testimony as to why it is irrelevant, it is totally irreverent, what a person's past political experience is. If not, I say, Mr. Speaker, every single person in this House can assume that when they walk out of here, when they retire, or when they get defeated in an election, when you walk out of this House you are now damaged goods, you can never do anything in the rest of your life because you have had an affiliation with some political party and we got elected in this House. Is that what members opposite are suggesting?

I believe, Mr. Speaker, as you look around this House, look at the collective talent in this House, if all forty-eight of us were to retire tomorrow, what a crime, what a pity it would be, to lose the strength of character, the strength and the depth of experience, and the knowledge within this House to the service of the general public of this Province only because we happen to be elected to this House, representing a particular political party and now all of a sudden we are damaged goods. That is a hypocritical comment I say, Mr. Speaker, and totally unfounded. It is unfair to Mr. Reynolds, it is unfair to any future applicant and it has been unfair judgement to anybody today like yourself, or the Chief Justice, or the Lieutenant-Governor, or the past Commissioner of Members' Interests just retired. Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the members opposite are an affront to any of those individuals who I just identified.

I tell the members of the Opposition, I say to the members of the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, that I will, later on this evening, sometime between now and 1:00 a.m., stand and vote in support of this motion, I say, Mr. Speaker. I encourage members opposite to shed their political biases, to take off their blinders, open their minds, look at the real person here and forget the politics of their decision.

We have had this motion debated numerous times in the House since May 3. They have been obstructing the process here to the appointment of Mr. Reynolds, to allow him to get on with his job. In fact, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans announced earlier, or notified the House, that we were bringing in the closure motion. It is necessary, I say, Mr. Speaker. You cannot have members of the Opposition obstructing the business of this House because they want to play cheap political politics. It is unfortunate that we had to do this. In the same fashion as they have been using procedural issues to obstruct the passing of this motion, we find it necessary to bring in this closure motion to ensure that we can get Mr. Reynolds appointed in this position and he can get on with the job that he has been asked to do, which is to take on the task of organizing an election that is going to be coming up in several months, and also to protect the interests of the members in this House, which is the other part of his role.

I say to you, and to others in this House, that I will be, later this evening, voting in support of this motion. I encourage other members on this side of the House to follow same. I implore people in the Opposition to get off of your cheap political politics and get on with the business at hand and let us deal with some of the other substantive motions that are before this House.

Thank you for the opportunity to have a few comments on this motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to the motion tonight. It is a motion put forward by the government to appoint Mr. Paul Reynolds to the position of Chief Electoral Officer for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and in that position he will also be the Commissioner of Members' Interests.

Mr. Speaker, before I start I want to read a couple of the WHEREASES just to show how silly all of this is, because we are asked to vote on a motion, and when the parts of the motion itself are incorrect then that is one reason not to vote for the motion.

It says, "WHEREAS subsection 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991 provides that the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer be filled by resolution of the House of Assembly..." - and here is the part I have a problem with, Mr. Speaker, and maybe you can give me a ruling on this. Maybe I will wait for you to sit down for a second there so you can listen to what I am going to ask you.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you took your chair because I want to ask you a question. I want to know, if the WHEREAS in this motion is incorrect or false, can the motion still pass? Right here it says, "AND WHEREAS subsection 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act provides that the Commissioner of Members' Interests be appointed by the House of Assembly on the motion of the Premier..." - because that is who is putting the motion forward that we appoint Mr. Reynolds as Commissioner of Members' Interests. He is putting the motion forward. He says, "...following consultation with the Leader of the Official Opposition and representatives of other registered political parties having representation in the House of Assembly." I assume that he was speaking to representatives of the NDP, and we only have one.

The problem that I have with this, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier did not consult with the Leader of the Official Opposition who happens to be me. The Premier did not call me or he did not write me personally, he did not call me personally to discuss this matter. Maybe you can give a ruling on it, because we have to vote for a motion that contains incorrect, false, inaccurate wording. Maybe you can decide that at the end of the evening.

Mr. Speaker, we are asked tonight to vote in favour of appointing Mr. Paul Reynolds to be Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests, and I can tell you right now, at the end of the evening I will be voting no, I cannot support Mr. Reynolds appointment for that position.

Mr. Speaker, last May 1, I stood in this House of Assembly in the very same spot and faced an individual by the name of Mr. Charles Furey, known to all by Chuck, Mr. Chuck Furey. He sat in the Speaker's gallery down in that corner. I was asked by the Premier to support the motion that would make him Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interest. I stood in the very same spot and I started by speech by saying: Even though I know the individual, I will not be supporting him for the position, I will not vote for that motion. So, we will clear the air on that. I have used the same reasoning tonight for not appointing Mr. Paul Reynolds as I used against Mr. Chuck Furey a year and one month ago.

Mr. Speaker, the position of Chief Electoral Officer for the Province of Newfoundland is a very important one because that individual oversees all elections, by-elections, and any other plebiscite that is held by government in this Province. It is a very important position. We have an election about to come up in October of this year and there are forty-eight districts, and we, the people of the Province, will elect the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This individual will be responsible for that election. He will be the one who will go out and select not only all the chief returning officers, of which we have one in each individual district in the forty-eight districts in the Province, but he will also be responsible for selecting the deputy returning officers. I do not know how many of those we have per district. He will also be the one who will select each individual who represents him on behalf of government in every polling station in every district in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I had fifty-three polls in my district in the last election. If it was not the last one, it was the one before, but fifty three is a number that I certainly had in one of the last three elections. Now, the individual we are going to appoint tonight, not only will he select the chief returning officer for my district, but he will also hire an individual to man every single poll in my district. He will select fifty-four people. That is what he will do. If there are any problems with the election, it will be up to him to decide whether there is a problem or whether there is not a problem.

Mr. Speaker, this position has always been a very important one, and I might add it is one that we pay well for. It is my understanding that Mr. Reynolds, once he receives - well, he is already acting, he is already filling the position and has been for a month. His annual salary for that position is going to be $130,000 a year. I hope the people out around the Province are listening because we are going to pay Mr. Reynolds $130,000 a year to fill this position. This position has traditionally, I say, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the Member for Trinity North, been filled by an impartial individual; impartial. That, I might add, Mr. Speaker, in case the member opposite does not know the meaning of it, means that he is supposed to be not affiliated with either one party or another in the Province.

From 1949 until 1973, it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, this position was filled by a Magistrate or a Justice of the Peace. I think it was a Magistrate. Mr. Speaker, when the government changed in 1972, and the Premier of the Province of the day was a Tory, he changed the rules slightly and he appointed a well-known Tory, in fact, I think he might have even been a defeated Tory candidate or a defeated Tory MHA, to the position. In 1979, Mr. Speaker, when it changed again, when the Electoral Officer position became vacant, the then Premier, Mr. Brian Peckford, apparently followed tradition and he elevated a civil servant, a career civil servant, to the position of Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests. That tradition followed suite, Mr. Speaker, up until 2006. Every Premier since 1979, and every Premier prior to 1973, picked a career civil servant. Mr. Speaker, the only time that changed was under the era of Mr. Frank Moores and now under the era of our current Premier, because up until 2006 the position, from 1979 until 2006, was filled by a career civil servant. An individual, by his very nature, cannot be associated with a political party nor be perceived to be associated with a political party, because if he or she had been they would be removed from the position that they held in the civil service.

Mr. Speaker, we have thousands in our civil service who are like that, who do not show their politics, they do not talk politics. They are dedicated individuals, dedicated to the service of the people of this Province in the civil service. Mr. Speaker, that is one reason why I will not be voting for Mr. Reynolds, because I do not appreciate this Premier breaking with a tradition that has been ongoing since 1979. For the most part, with the exception of that brief interruption in the 1970s, that has been the tradition since 1949 in our Province and in all of Canada, I might add, Mr. Speaker. This made the national news. It was printed in the Mainland papers and the national papers that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were breaking tradition in hiring political hacks to fill the position of Electoral Officer in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is one reason, because of tradition.

There is another reason, Mr. Speaker, and that is that in the position of Chief Electoral Officer for the Province the individual has to be impartial. He cannot have political ties to any party because he has to be not only impartial but he must be perceived to be impartial. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reynolds has neither the impartiality or the perception of being impartial, because let me tell you, by his own admission in a letter that he wrote of our House Leader back on May 2, 2007, a few short weeks ago, Mr. Reynolds told our House Leader about his Party affiliation.

Mr. Speaker, this individual today who we are being asked to appoint as the Chief Electoral Officer, an impartial independent individual, was the President of the PC Association or the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. He was the President, there is no doubt about it. He admits he was the President of the PC party of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the highest ranking PC or Tory in the Province outside of those of whom are elected.

Mr. Speaker, besides that, he did that for a while, he co-chaired - the individual who is the Deputy Premier today, when he made a run at being Premier in the spring of 1989 and the winter of 1989, when today's Deputy Premier was seeking the leadership of the Tory Party, one of his co-chairs was Mr. Paul Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds was the co-chair for the leadership race that the Deputy Premier entered into in 1989.

Now, I do not know if he was given any reward for the success because the Deputy Premier was, in fact, elected the Leader of the Tory Party in 1989 and did become Premier for that infamous, I think, forty days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-two, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-eight.

MR. REID: I am hearing two different numbers already. I am saying it is forty, one of my colleagues is saying forty-two and the other is saying twenty-eight. Well, let's just say it was not for a long period of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder why the Deputy Premier stands today and talks about what a great individual this fellow is and how we should over here stand and elect him. I can see why the Deputy Premier thinks he is a great individual. He co-chaired his campaign for the leadership. He helped to make him Premier of this Province, because he was the Premier of this Province, whether it be for forty-two, forty or twenty-eight days. He was the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, besides that, he admits he co-chaired Ross Reid's campaigns when Ross Reid ran as an MP in St. John's East, and he was successful for one or two terms until a lady by the name of Ms Bonnie Hickey came along and defeated him in 1993. Mr. Reynolds co-chaired his campaign.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about good judgement. He sent us a letter saying he was also a Director of the Virginia Waters Tory Association up until April 24 of this year. He was still a Director on the executive of the PC Association in Virginia Waters up until April 24 of this year. Ironically enough, the Premier called him up and told him he was going to be the Chief Electoral Officer on April 23, so he never resigned this position as Director of the Virginia Waters Tory Association until the day after the Premier said that he was going to be the Chief Electoral Officer for the Province, the day after the Premier said that he called up and discussed the issue of his appointment, consulted with me on the appointment; something that never happened unless it happened in his dreams. I am sure, for the Premier, if he had a discussion with me in his dreams, it was a nightmare.

I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not the kind of an individual who calls me up and has a chat and asks me what I think of him appointing Paul Reynolds as the Chief Electoral Officer in the Province. Just stop and think about it, any of you watching it out there. Do you honestly believe the Premier of this Province called me up and said, Gerry Reid, we are going to make Paul Reynolds the Chief Electoral Officer in the Province, now tell me what you think? Because I would have told him what I thought. Do you think for a minute he would have said, that is alright, I will not do it? No, because it never happened. He did not call me, he did not discuss it with me, he did not consult with me; he didn't.

Mr. Speaker, we know his political association and there is no denying it, he is a dyed-in-the-wool, true, blue Tory and always has been. How can a dyed-in-the-wool, true, blue Tory, any more than Chuck Furey - I could not vote for him either because he was a politician. I could not vote for him even though everyone in the Province knew what he was. He was elected a Liberal. I did not think that he should fill the position because he was not impartial either, not that he would have swayed with me because I am in the Liberal Party. All you had to do was listen to him a few days prior to the election in 2003 to know which one he was swaying with. Maybe he was being rewarded with a cushy little job paying $130 a year, because of what he might have said or what he might have done. Anyway, that is another speech for another day.

Mr. Speaker, there is another problem I have with this and that is that we have thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, many of whom are well educated, who leave this Province on a daily basis to seek employment somewhere else in this country. I said the same thing about Chuck Furey. Chuck Furey was receiving a provincial Cabinet Minister's pension, and I might add a very sizable sum of money, a very comfortable pension, by any standard in the country. He was receiving a cheque, a pension. He was retired, did not want to be involved in politics anymore. I could not vote for him either because he was taking a job from somebody else.

The same holds true for Mr. Reynolds. He is a retired individual. He was an executive with an oil company in this Province and he just recently retired in the last year or so. Because he was a true, blue Tory, and because he is retired and he does not need the money we are going to vote for him tonight, give him $130,000 on top of whatever pension he is getting from his previous employment. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair. I am not saying that you pull someone off the street who is unemployed and put them in the position of Chief Electoral Officer, but if you followed the normal tradition of how the position was filled someone in the civil service would have risen to the ranks of the Chief Electoral Officer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like John Abbott, for example.

MR. REID: Like John Abbott, for example, the one you asked to leave last week, a very qualified individual. If you wanted someone to put over there, when you canned him out of the Department of Health you could have put him over into a position at least where the pay scale was comparable to what he was making in the Department of Health; but no, you could not do that.

Mr. Speaker, these are a number of the reasons that I can't, in all honesty and truthfulness, vote for the individual. Number one, he can never be, in my books, impartial, or even be perceived to be impartial, because, by his own words, by his own actions, we know that he is tied closer than most people in the Province to the Tory Party, to a particular political party. There are not many people in the Province who end up being the President of a Tory Party, there are not many people in the Province who end up being the President of a Liberal Party or the President of an NDP Party. In our history there have not been a lot of these people. He rose to the ranks of the President of the Tory Party. That, by virtue of nothing else but itself, shows where his political ties are and his political affiliation is and the way he thinks. That is one of the reasons that I cannot vote for him.

The other is that the position has always been filled by a career civil servant. That has been a tradition and I like tradition. That is the way it should be.

The other is simply he does not need the money. He does not need the money!

Mr. Speaker, if you ask why this government is pushing Mr. Reynolds all you have to do is look at their record in the last four years of who they have appointed to the positions around this Province. That is all you have to do. This is not unusual, by the way. I was expecting something like this. Actually, he shocked me a year ago when he did call me up, not to consult but to tell me he was hiring Chuck Furey for the position, appointing him to the position. He did not call me on this one but it does not shock me. All you have to do is look at the appointments that we have witnessed and the people of this Province have witnessed in the past four years when it comes to political appointments.

My colleague, the Member for the Bay of Islands, mentioned one tonight, Ms Joan Cleary. In 2003, Ms Joan Cleary ran as the PC candidate in Bellevue District and lost. She ran as a candidate for the PC Party in 2003 in Bellevue and she lost. She was rewarded as the CEO of the Bull Arm Corporation, $100,000 a year job. She is lucky she never got elected because her salary would not have been that much unless she went in Cabinet. As a reward for being one of the Party faithful, running for the Tory Party in the election, and got defeated, she was given the plum, $100,000 a year. Once she was discovered, or determined to be incompetent, breaking the Tendering Act two or three times, she was fired. She was fired for being incompetent. To give her severance - they could not just say we are letting you go for cause because you are incompetent. No, this government could not do that, because that way you would not pay her severance. If she were called in and they said, listen, we have reviewed your half a year or year's work for which we gave you $100,000 and we have determined that because you broke the Tendering Act a couple of time and gave contracts to your campaign manager, you broke the law, not to mention the fact that it was totally immoral besides illegal, totally immoral to be doing something like that - what did we do to her? Instead of firing her for cause, this government, because even when they hire incompetent people who cannot do the job, when they fool up and they want to fire them, they cannot. They have to ask for their resignation. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is instead of giving her no severance, they had to give her $40,000, a little tap on the back and a little kiss on the cheek and say: Go home now, you are incompetent. That is what happened.

Who else have they hired, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. REID: Just a minute or two to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. REID: Just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I will mention some others that this government has appointed and their political affiliation.

Glenn Tobin, I think, is the Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. Everyone knows Glenn Tobin, Tory Cabinet Minister from the Burin Peninsula.

Len Simms ran against the Deputy Premier for the leadership of the Tory Party in 1989. He did not win by the way. He was a cabinet minister in the Tory Party and now chairs the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to have a few words with regard to this motion, I guess falling in line with what my previous colleagues have already talked about and indicated here already.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is to appoint Mr. Paul Reynolds as the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and that means two things actually, two primary responsibilities that he will hold.

One is, as Chief Electoral Officer, to oversee all of the election process in the Province. As you know, we are into an election year and come this Fall we will be going to the polls and will be doing so under the guidance of Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. Speaker, this individual has been entrusted with a great deal of responsibility as it relates to elections in this Province. They will have the authority to determine in terms of where ballot boxes will go in the next election, and that is one of the key pieces to any election campaign, ensuring that people have accessability and availability to a ballot box. They will also determine things like who will be hired to be the returning officers, to be deputy returning officers, for these particular elections, who will be poll captains in each of the actual sites. I know that in my district we have something like twenty different polling stations and the individuals that will be hired to run these polling stations during the election will now be hired by Mr. Paul Reynolds.

Mr. Speaker, he will also be the individual to whom we will have to turn to register ourselves as candidates, to obtain copies of the voters' lists for the elections, to obtain all of the information that will be required in terms of running an election and proper conduct, and also will be the person who will adjudicate and oversee, at the end of the day, all of the results of this election. So, there is a great deal of responsibility being entrusted in terms of our role as elected members of the House of Assembly.

That is just one part of this individual's job. The other part of their job, which is a very critical part, is they are also the Commissioner of Members' Interests. What that means is that each member of the House of Assembly - and this has probably been outlined already tonight - has to do what is called a disclosure booklet. In that booklet we have to outline all of our personal assets and liabilities. For example, any income we may have, any income our spouses may have, any particular liabilities we may have in terms of mortgages, any assets that we may have in terms of property, any investments we might have in businesses, what those businesses are, what our corporate share agreements are and even the financial statements of our businesses have to be submitted to the Commissioner of Members' Interests, not only for ourselves, but for our spouses' businesses as well. This, Mr. Speaker, is very confidential information that is being provided to an individual for full review and for full input back.

I am one of the members, and I do not mind saying it - I have not filed my Commissioner of Members' Interests report to the Chief Electoral Office. The reason I have not done that is because, in my opinion, there is no Commissioner of Members' Interests in the Province at the present time. I was absolutely shocked when I received a letter from Mr. Reynolds telling me that I must file my disclosure documents and that my expiry date has passed, and it was signed by him as a Commissioner of Members' Interest, a title which legally he does not hold and he should not be sending out documentation under that particular title. I was absolutely appalled when I received it. I was quite aware that I had not filed my disclosure booklet to the Commissioner's Office and the reason I did not was because in my mind there was no Commissioner. They had yet to be appointed by legislation and until they were appointed by legislation, I was not intended to file my disclosure document to an individual who was not appropriately appointed and sworn into a position to hold that in confidence. I do not make any apologies for that. It is up to other members what they want to do. It is entirely up to them.

When I received a letter from Mr. Reynolds explaining to me that the deadline had passed and that I must send this documentation in, and he signed it as Commissioner of Members' Interests, well, Mr. Speaker, that, first of all, told me that this is an individual who is prepared to overstep his bounds anyway. That was entirely what he had done. He had overstepped his bounds in doing that. He was not legally in a position whereby he could actually send out that letter to me and request that documentation.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the motion that we are debating tonight is the motion that will put Mr. Reynolds into that position in a legal way under the laws of the Province. That is, I guess, government's prerogative, because as Members of the House of Assembly we have had no say in terms of who is appointed to this position; although it is a position of the Legislature and normally it is agreed upon by all members, or at least all political parties of the Legislature. It is my understanding that the Leader of our Party was certainly not consulted in terms of the appointment of Mr. Reynolds prior to this coming to the House of Assembly. So, it really is not an appointment of the House of Assembly, it is an appointment of the government and the government has in this case chosen an individual who has strong ties and connections to the Progressive Conservative Party of this Province.

Normally this position, with the exception of Mr. Furey - and again that was a decision of the government oppose - with the exception of the decision to appoint Mr. Furey, this position has always been held by non-partisan, non-bias, independent individuals who were able to make decisions on behalf of all forty-eight members in a very non-partisan way. The government opposite are the people who are responsible for changing this and now they are looking at appointing an individual, Mr. Speaker, who not only has had close affiliate ties with the Progressive Conservative Party over the years, but have rose to hold some of the highest offices in the ranks of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this individual was a campaign chair for a federal member of parliament who ran under a PC banner and was elected in the Province. This individual, Mr. Reynolds, chaired that campaign. He also co-chaired a campaign for a former Premier of this Province who happened to be a Progressive Conservative member, co-chaired that campaign for that Conservative member to run for that particular position as Premier.

He also, Mr. Speaker, held the highest office of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador as the President, the one position that every district association chair aspires to do, Mr. Speaker, aspires to the top level job in their political party and that is to become the president. Well Mr. Reynolds achieved that and became the President of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this individual made no bones about indicating his connections to the Conservative Party, to the governing Tories. In fact upon his appointment he was out there in the media boosting about his close affiliate ties to the governing Tory Party. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he was so proud of it, out there talking about the fact that he still held a position on the Virginia Waters PC Association, I think it was at the time, right up until the day after he was appointed and probably would not have resigned then, Mr. Speaker, only the media picked it up and we picked up on it and started to make an issue of the fact that this was an individual who held a position in the Progressive Conservative Party ranks who was being appointed to what is supposed to be a non-partisan, non-bias, independent position of an office in the House of Assembly. It was after that was indicated in a very public way that Mr. Reynolds stopped thumping his chest and bragging about his involvement with the governing Tory Party and actually went out and stepped down, the next day, from that particular post and that office.

At the time this individual was appointed, not only had he already held all of those high ranking positions in the Progressive Conservative Party, but he was still currently holding an office in the party. Now, Mr. Speaker, this individual is being appointed and declaring his close affiliation to the governing Tory Party. In fact, in an article he says: There is no doubt about it that I have been, since my early teens, a supporter of the PC Party. I have been a supporter of the PC Party provincially, I have been a supporter of the federal Conservative Party and I make no bones about the fact that I have been involved in the PC Party pretty well all of my life.

MR. REID: I think that was his resume he sent to the Premier.

MS JONES: It might have been a resume he sent to the Premier, but it also made its way into the daily newspaper in the Province, The Telegram.

Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it. It could not believe that here was an individual who was being appointed to a high office of this House of Assembly, one of the most senior positions that you can be appointed to in this Legislature and he was supposed to be a non-partisan independent individual who was out in the paper, the very next day, still flashing his membership card in the Tory Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, still bragging about the fact that he was on the Virginia Waters PC Association, and then makes a stunning self-declaration in the daily paper saying that all of his life he has been a part of the PC Party.

Now, we members here in this democracy that we have in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador are supposed, Mr. Speaker, to accept that. We are supposed to accept this individual as being an independent, non-partisan, unbiased individual who is going to go out there and going to make all the decisions that are going to be fair and balanced and in the best interests of every single one of us. Now we are all supposed to accept that in this democracy that we have, that this is the case and we are supposed to be happy about that. Well, I for one am not happy about it. I am not happy that there is an individual holding a high office of this House of Assembly, who in my mind is not unbiased and is not impartial. I can say that by the nature of the individual's own words. In fact, if Mr. Reynolds were such an impartial, unbiased individual, he would have been out in the paper the next day talking about fairness and equality and equity and free thinking and independent decision making, and not out bragging twenty-four hours later about his lifelong experiences and career in the PC Party of this Province. Absolutely ridiculous!

Mr. Speaker, in this democracy that we have, we are going to have to live with that decision whether we like it or whether we do not, not because we have been consulted as the motion on the floor says today, that the Leader of the Opposition was consulted, because the individual was not, but we have to accept that, not because we want to or we agree to it or we can entrust ourselves to this individual, but, Mr. Speaker, we have to accept it because in this great democracy that we have, the governing party today has decided to reward another one of its friends; reward another one of its friends by not only appointing them to a government position that will be salaried and paid for by the taxpayers of the Province but by appointing them to a position that is going to make decisions on the most private and personal information being provided by every member of this Legislature.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that this is being rammed down the throats of members of this Legislature. I think it is ridiculous. I think that we should have individuals appointed to those positions who are non-partisan.

We talked about an individual, Mr. Abbott, who was just dismissed from the Department of Health, a Deputy Minister, who in my lifetime I have never known to be affiliated in any way with any political party, but has certainly been a career civil servant in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and an individual whom I think would have deserved to be appointed to a position like this. There are many others, but, no, that is not the choice of the government. The government's choice here was to go out and to take a lifelong committed individual who had serviced through the Tory ranks, who had aspired to the position of the President of the PC Party of this Province, and to reward them with the dollars of the taxpayers of this Province by appointing them to a position that was going to pay them $130,000 a year, and in addition to that Mr. Speaker, appoint them to a position that is supposed to be non-partisan and non-biased in terms of the job that they do.

Now, maybe some members here can take comfort in Mr. Reynolds handling their affairs, but I do not take a lot of comfort. Maybe the Member for Kilbride can, because one day he talked about having known him for a lifetime. He probably talked to him on the convention floors many times. He probably worked on his campaign for him in the last election. Maybe the House Leader can take comfort in it knowing he has had a personal relationship with this individual, co-chaired a campaign for him at one point. You know, I can understand that. I can understand that there are members over there who have a relationship with this individual and can take comfort in that. I can certainly appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, because if I had a relationship with the individual and knew that I could trust him, I would feel differently as well. All I have to go on, Mr. Speaker, is what is written on a piece of paper. That is all I have to go on. I do not know this individual and I can only go on the facts as they are being provided.

The fact that this individual was appointed and within a day after he were appointed was out in the media bragging about his strong connections to the governing Tory Party as opposed to out talking about the independent perspective that they were going to bring to this new job - well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you honestly that I do not take a lot of comfort in this and I do not appreciate having closure invoked on this bill. I do not appreciate that and I do not appreciate the fact that this legislation is being rammed through the House of Assembly and this individual is being appointed to an office paid for by the taxpayers of this Province to carry out a job that - in my opinion, they should not be there. That is the kind of democracy that we have here tonight, a democracy that is going to ram this legislation through and appoint an individual who should not be appointed to his office and the rest of us have to tolerate it. That is the democracy that we are witnessing right here in the House of Assembly tonight.

Mr. Speaker, maybe Mr. Reynolds was not going to be the overseer of everything to do with all of our personal and private information, maybe we could probably tolerate it in terms of him being appointed to some position or another, but I know for me, personally, I have not filed my Commissioner of Members' Interests documents and disclosure yet, and I am not filing them until there is actually a Commissioner of Members' Interests in this Province, because I was asked to file disclosure documents before there was even anybody appointed to the job. I was absolutely appalled when I received a letter from Mr. Reynolds telling me I had to file my documents when he was not even in a position to have any authority to even ask me to do such a thing.

If this individual was already overstepping his bounds in the office he occupied on an acting basis before the legislation even reached the floor of the House of Assembly for debate, Mr. Speaker, that does not give me a lot of comfort, I can guarantee you that. It does not give me a lot of comfort in terms of how the responsibilities will be carried out in this office. If already an individual walks in there on an acting basis and is carrying out duties and assuming duties and issuing requests under an assumed title that they are not supposed to be holding or operating under, well what else can they be doing? I have to ask myself that question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Collins): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just going to conclude and say that it is unfortunate that we will not have other opportunities to speak to this piece of legislation. It is unfortunate that it is being rammed through the House of Assembly, that closure is being invoked, and this is an infringement, I feel, upon our rights as members here, because we should be appointing people to these offices who are non-partisan, non-biased, and people who we can all have some comfort in dealing with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tonight to have a few words on this motion, express my views on the motion, and, of course, express that I will be supporting this motion, and the THEREFORE part of the motion, Mr. Speaker: BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests.

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing, tonight, lots of views and lots of comments by the members on the other side. We all know this is closure debate and that this is going to happen anyway. Since nine o'clock members have been discussing and bringing their views forward. I do not think there is anybody on the other side, Mr. Speaker, who was against the ability of Mr. Reynolds. Most of them were saying that is not the point they were trying to make, that his qualifications and his experience they had no question with, expect for a couple of comments, of course, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse aux Clair made, and that was partly to do with trust rather than the ability of Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of comments that were made referred to the pay that Mr. Reynolds would get, the $130,000 a year. It even was alluded to that this pay might even impair his judgement. I think that is very offensive to make comments like that.

MR. REID: Who made that inference?

MR. HUNTER: The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans alluded to that. She said that it probably would impair the good judgement of Mr. Reynolds, and that the government could find alternate positions -

MR. REID: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. REID: The member opposite just said that people over here inferred that because Mr. Reynolds was going to get paid $130,000 a year that may in some way affect his judgement. Who are you talking about, I ask the member opposite, because no one over here made that inference? You should not be up talking about that stuff and misleading the House.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MS THISTLE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was sitting out in the caucus and I had to come in and correct a statement made by the Member for Windsor-Springdale. I am out of breath now from running in. I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that I did not say that the salary for Mr. Reynolds would impair his judgement. I said the position requires that a person would be fair and exercise good judgement. That is what I said, not what you are saying.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course I did not expect any different. I did write it down and Hansard will show that the member did say it. I did not refer to the member in the beginning. I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition: Who said that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: I wrote it down and that is what was expressed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: - that if good pay was being paid to this officer in the House, maybe it would impair his judgement on other things. Then she alluded to: Well, why didn't government find a position somewhere else in government to pay back a political patronage position for this member? Well, this government is going to make decisions for the right reason. We figure this will be a non-partisan position and that is the way it is going to be.

MR. REID: The position is non-partisan, but who is in it is not.

MR. HUNTER: The Leader of the Opposition has no question with the ability of Mr. Reynolds. He just does not like the idea that this is a past Party supporter who has been given a key position, a very high position, in this House of Assembly.

I do not know what they are getting on with. This position, the qualifications of Mr. Reynolds, the ability, his past history in business and in the community - I mean, we all know, most people on this side know anyway. I have known Mr. Reynolds for many years and I would not dare question his ability and say that we are going to give him this position because he was a past Tory supporter. If he is capable of doing this job and he is willing and able to do the job, then I do not see any problem with it and I do not see why the members on the other side see any problem with it.

Mr. Speaker, some of the members alluded to the responsibilities of the Chief Electoral Officer in this House of Assembly. I mean, it is almost like they do not trust him. It is almost like they do not trust anybody unless they are a Liberal. I say, this Party, when they were in power, did lots of things that people in this Province should not trust them for. I mean, we have to look at the appointments that were made in the past. Are we questioning things that the Liberal government did in the past, saying Mr. Wells should not be where he is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: Are we questioning the judgement of governments and saying that we should not have people in key positions because of their Party affiliation in the past, when they agreed to distance themselves from Parties, when people agreed to do a job that government expects them to do and do it in a responsible way? I do not think we should be questioning the ability.

When the government has the ability and the freedom to do something like this -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition - Mr. Speaker, he just keeps going on and on and they do not like to do anything good in this Province.

This Party and this government have been doing good things and we are not going to stop doing good things, and they cannot accept that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: They cannot sit over there everyday and look at people on this side of the House delivering good news to the people of this Province. It must be killing them. The Leader of the Opposition should just sit there and be quiet and listen and he might learn something. He probably learned something when he was in government but he must have forgotten about it.

Mr. Speaker, with the private member's statement, that is the responsibility of every member in this House. We are responsible to do this document and deliver it to the Chief Electoral Office. When there are changes in our personal lives we have to - I sold my house a few months ago and I notified the Chief Electoral Officer that I did it; that I took out a new mortgage and built a new house. I contacted his office and let him know that I did it. I sold a car. I contacted his office and let him know I sold a car and bought a new one. That is my responsibility. Whether there is someone in the position right now or acting, it is still my responsibility and every Member in this House has the responsibility to send their documents to the office of the Chief Electoral Office. Regardless of whether he is already appointed or acting, it is to the office that we are responsible to deliver those documents.

I cannot help it if the members on the other side feel that they are better than anybody else or better than the people on this side, that they do not have to do their documents and deliver them on time like we are all expected to do. That is their prerogative if they want to do that. I know members on our side, me especially - I had my document in on time. I had no problem with that.

Mr. Speaker, the members in the Opposition on other side think it is a great sin for us to have Mr. Reynolds in this position. My goodness! I could not believe some of the things that I have been hearing, and it is just being repeated over and over. They know by one o'clock this is going to be a done deal and Mr. Reynolds is going to be in this position. I am sure he is going to do a good job as Mr. Furey did a good job. I had no problem with that. I do not think anybody had any problem with that, even though the Leader of the Opposition did not vote for him. I do not know why. He must have had a reason. He said there was a reason, because he does not believe that ex-politicians should be involved in key positions in the House of Assembly or within government.

If a person is deemed to be qualified and good and dependable and trustworthy, why wouldn't we put him in there? My goodness! If we had to look at every time government did something for members and ex-employees, we would not have a Speaker or ministers. We would not have a minister sitting on this side if what the Opposition is saying would be implemented. We would have to go somewhere else to look for ministers. Sure we have people in key positions. We have a government, we have a Cabinet, that makes decisions for this Province. They are elected to make decisions and if the decisions are not right, then the people of the Province are going to have the final say. When election time comes, then people will say: Yes, this government did a good job or, no, they did not do a good job. We do not trust them. We do not trust the Electoral Office, we do not trust the Speaker, we do not trust ministers. The people will have their say.

I do not know why the Opposition just keeps harping on Mr. Reynolds. My goodness! If we did that, then a lot of things would not even be done in government. I do not know what you are alluding to sometimes. It is freedom. It is freedom of a government to make decisions and we have done that. We have a decision made.

People, Mr. Speaker, kept alluding to Mr. Reynolds being co-chair of our Deputy Premier's campaign and co-chair of Ross Reid's campaign. So what! The man did a great job, he was successful. Why would we think that he would not be successful in being the Chief Electoral Officer? I mean his record speaks for itself. Why don't we give him a chance? Why don't we give anybody a chance? We gave Mr. Furey a chance and he proved to be trustworthy, he proved to do a good job, non-partisan. I would not expect anything less of Mr. Reynolds, to be nonpartisan. No matter who it was in that position, I would trust the government of the day to put the right person there, and I would not have any problem in sending my private member's document to that office. I certainly would have no problem whatsoever to do that, because we know that no matter what government is in power, what party is in power, they are going to pick a person who is responsible for doing that.

The Leader of the Opposition just cannot accept that we make decisions and we make good decisions. He just wants to keep going on and criticizing our ministers, criticizing our members and our backbench members. Why don't you just accept some of the good things and move on? That is what we should be doing tonight. We should be accepting this, what we have done here tonight, and we will move on.

Mr. Speaker, it is almost like the Leader of the Opposition just wants to be beating up on government, and some members on that side just like beating up on government. They figure that is what being an Opposition is all about; beating up on government all the time. I will tell you, I was in the Opposition over there for four-and-a-half years and we did our job, we opposed and we criticized, but it was all in the realms of the right information, the right policies of our party to criticize, and we did a good job. I do not think there were people over there who attacked personalities on this side all of the time and criticized government for everything they did when they were in. That is the way it works and we accept that.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem standing here tonight and supporting Mr. Reynolds and supporting government's decision in this resolution. It is going to happen anyway, as I said. I am not going to be too long to say it because I know the Leader of the Opposition is just going to just keep harping and shouting and bawling and trying to come up with things to throw me off track and all of that. I expect that out of him, so I am ready for that. I expect it, so I do not mind that. You can go ahead and shout and bawl or do whatever you want, get up and run around, it does not matter. It does not matter to me, I can have my say. It is my time to say what I want to say and I get up and say that I am supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will just sit down and wait for the time to vote.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the amendment, to the motion on the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests.

Like most of us, I think, we would all rather be home tonight, right now at this moment, instead of being here at eleven o'clock at night, but I am here because we are involved in a democratic process and I want to have my voice in that democratic process. I did not have my voice at the beginning of the process when I believe I should have had it.

I have in front of me the section from the legislation with regard to the House of Assembly. It says that the Commissioner shall be "...appointed by the House of Assembly on the motion of the Premier following consultation with the Leader of the Official Opposition and representatives of other registered political parties having representation in the House of Assembly." I am one of those people named there, and call me naive but when I read that I think that consultation with the Premier means that I actually speak with the Premier, that the Premier actually calls me and talks to me. Right off the top we had a process that was wrong. We had a process that was not going according to the spirit of the legislation of this House.

Somebody said to me: Oh, you really did not think the Premier would call you? I said: Well, you know, maybe I am stupid and maybe I am new and maybe I do not know how things work here, but to me consultation means you talk to somebody. I got a phone call from the Chief of Staff for the Premier on the afternoon of a holiday. The thing was I was working. I was here in my office and I just happened to call my home telephone message manager to see if I had any messages on that afternoon. When I called there was a message from the Chief of Staff who assumed I was at home whereas I was actually here in my office working that day. I returned his phone call and he told me: Oh, the Premier asked him to give me a phone call, to give me a heads up. The heads up was that a press statement was coming out with regard to the appointment of Paul Reynolds, the nomination by the Premier. That was the consultation and that happened after the press release had gone out, because as soon as I finished talking to the Chief of Staff I went into the website and the statement was up on the screen. So, if I have not even returned his phone call, the consultation was leaving a message on my message manager. That was the consultation.

Surely to goodness, nobody on the opposite side of the House believes that was proper behavior. Surely, you cannot believe that. Surely, you have to understand why I might be upset if I was not consulted as the Act says I should be. Well it does, and I would have told the Premier then how unhappy I was with what he was going do and I would have explained then what I explained when I spoke to the motion and what I am going to repeat here now. I do not know why the government and the Premier insist on going against a practice that is age-old in parliamentary legislation. I do not understand why you are doing it.

The reason we are here tonight is not because of us. It is not because somebody on this side of the House made an amendment to the motion and we are still here talking about it. It is because this started right off the bat with the Premier. That is who it started with, so that is why we are here tonight. I would rather be home, but I am going to be here and I am going to speak because I did not get to speak when I should have had the chance to speak. Am I upset? Yes, I am upset. I should have been consulted and I was not and neither was the Leader of the Official Opposition. As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that it was not even the Chief of Staff who tried to get a message to him. If we are going to talk turkey, let's talk turkey. That is reality, that is a fact, that is what happened, and you need to know it and you need to hear me say it.

When I first spoke to the original motion I made a statement and I want to make it again. Nothing I am saying has anything to do with Paul Reynolds; not a thing. I do not know the man. I saw him the day he was here in the House. I said hello to him that day. I do not want to know about him. I have no need to know whether he is capable or not capable or anything else, because I am speaking to the principle. I spoke to the principle when I first spoke to the original motion and I am speaking to the principle again tonight.

It is interesting that the amendment that was made, which was to perform the duties of the position in an non-partisan manner, which I agree with - I think it is a very legitimate amendment to make, and here is my reasoning: If the person who had been nominated by the Premier was somebody who had come out of the government bureaucracy, which was the usual way in which these appointments were made and right across this country are still being made that way, if the person had to come of bureaucracy, that person would have been somebody who, for quite awhile probably, had to behave completely in a non-partisan manner because of the position that he or she was in inside of the bureaucracy. The people who is working in management positions inside of the government bureaucracies are people who have to not only be seen to be non-partisan, but in everything that they do they have to be non-partisan.

I can think of some people I know who are in positions inside of our government bureaucracy and I can honestly say - there are two people in particular I can think of who I have known for many, many years - I have no idea how they vote. They do not even say (inaudible) in parties how they vote. If politics come up they do not give any opinion whatsoever. The people who work inside of the government bureaucracy have had to prove themselves over and over and over again with regard to not showing any favoritism to a political party while they are in one of those positions.

The person who is nominated, and who is taken from one of those positions, has proven non-partisanship. That person has proven it. The person could not have stayed in the position without being non-partisan, and if they had done anything that had indicated that they had any kind of bias for a political party they would not have been able to stay in their position.

It is quite legitimate to have this amendment being made to the original motion, and it is why I wanted to speak to it. I wanted to make these points because I had not made these points when I spoke the first time.

I want to come back to when I spoke to the Chief of Staff. When I spoke to the Chief of Staff I said: Who is this person? At that time, I want to point out, by the way, when the Chief of Staff called me, I did not know I had the right to be consulted. I found that out afterwards. I thought it was strange that the Chief of Staff was calling me and that is why I asked some questions. When the Chief of Staff called me to let know about the person who the Premier was going to be nominating, I said: well, who is this person? I do not know who this person is. Do you know who he is? The Chief of Staff hemmed and hawed. I do not know a lot about him, he said. I said: Well, could you tell me something about him? He gave me a couple of things that I realized were in the press statement. When I went in after I hung up the phone and read it he basically just spoke from the press statement. I specifically asked questions. I just did not say thank you very much and hang up. I tried to get information on this person.

It is quite possible - and I will not make any judgements here - it is quite possible the Chief of Staff had no idea about this man's political background, but I have to say I find that very hard to believe. When I asked direct questions, I did not say, well is this man part of a political party, but I did say: Can you tell me some information about him? Can you tell me who he is, tell me what he does? The Chief of Staff did not give me the information about the political background. I hope that helps you understand why I am not very happy with this and have not been right from the beginning.

We have just made amendments to the Elections Act and the amendments we have made have given some new powers of discretion to the Chief Electoral Officer. They are not major ones, but some have to do with opening up the ballot boxes after the time that they are all sealed when the campaign period is over without having to get a court order. Some have to do with making decisions about deadlines with regard to some of the things that go on during an election. All of these things are things that take judgement and all of them are things that can be affected by what is going on for different parties. While some of my colleagues on the other side of the House in the government do not understand why some of us - and I certainly am one of those people - are concerned about perceptions of conflict of interest, I am going to speak again to that because I spoke to it when I spoke to the main motion.

The perception of conflict of interest in the public sector is just as real as conflict of interest. That is a reality whether we like it or not. That is a reality. There have been all kinds of people in our history - and I will not go through lists of people - who have had to step down from positions because of perceptions. There were no trials held, nobody could come up with proof and make a judgement, but they are gone because of perception, gone from positions because of perception. Perception of conflict of interest is as real as a conflict of interest. I can tell you that there are people out there who do not like the idea of somebody with a political affiliation being in the position of the Chief Electoral Officer.

I stepped out tonight for a short while to go to a community group in my constituency. They were having their annual general meeting, so I ran out for a half hour or so to say hello to them. I told them I had to leave and come back to the House and they wanted to know what we were discussing. I told them we were discussing the motion with regard to the appointment of Paul Reynolds. They said: Oh, you have to get back and talk to that because that is not right. So I am literally back here because my constituents told me to leave and come back. I was sitting down and having a sandwich with them and just chatting with them but they wanted me to come back and speak. So I am not the only one who is thinking this way. I am reflecting what people out there are saying and what people are thinking.

I think I have said what I wanted to say. I totally support the amendment to this motion. I will be voting for the amendment, I know you people across the House will not be, and I will be voting against the motion which will not be amended. At least I will have done my democratic right and at least I will have spoken what I have to speak.

I hope that what I have told you will give you something to think about, especially with regard to the behaviour of the Premier, because that was not good enough, it was not good enough at all. I guess I am giving my own notice right here now, that when something in the Act says that people in the House are to be consulted, I believe in consultation and I will be demanding and looking for consultation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to have my final say.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise tonight to speak to this particular proposal that would see Mr. Reynolds appointed.

MR. RIDEOUT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to do this, but I understand that the Member for Grand Bank has actually spoken on the amendment, and I understand those of us who have spoken on the amendment, which I have been named and the Opposition House Leader has been named and others have been named, do not have a right to speak right now. I reluctantly bring that matter to the House's attention.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader is correct. The hon. member has spoken before. My apologies to the House.

The House will recess for a few minutes until the Speaker comes back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question before the House is the amendment to the motion put forward by the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. The amendment reads as follows: BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Paul Reynold's be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests only after it is verified that he meets requirements for appointment equivalent to a DRO under section 21 of the Elections Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the amendment?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated.

On motion amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Debate may now proceed on the main motion.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: I guess we could call that a false start, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to try it again.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this proposal again, the motion that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. I think, as the Government House Leader pointed out earlier, that I had spoken to the amendment and now I am speaking to the main motion.

I guess the point here, Mr. Speaker, that we are trying to make, those of us in Opposition and those of us who are expressing concerns about what is happening here, is the fact that we do have some real concerns about the appointment of Mr. Reynolds; not so much the appointment of Mr. Reynolds as much as about the position itself and what this position means to all of us and to the public at large. It is a very responsible position that we are debating here tonight, one that I would think if it were taken seriously by the Premier and by the members of government they would want to do everything in their power to ensure that this controversy did not exist, that people were not questioning the appointment of Mr. Reynolds to this position. Reality is that if it had been handled in a different manner, this controversy may not ever have taken place. If, in fact, the Premier had seen fit to really consult with the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the NDP, then we might not be standing here tonight debating this issue.

The reality again is that we have other people who have filled various positions, offices of the House, whether or not it is the Citizens' Representative, whether or not it is the Youth and Child Advocate, whether or not we are talking about any position. The Auditor General, for example, another position, an officer of this House, and you did not hear the same type of concerns being raised. You did not hear us expressing concerns about these particular individuals because they were done and they were people with whom we had no cause to be concerned. We do have cause to be concerned about the individual who is going to occupy this position if in fact this piece of legislation passes tonight, and obviously it will because the government has the majority and the majority always rules, unfortunately, but that is the way it is in this case, certainly.

For anyone to suggest that consultation actually took place because the Chief of Staff in the Premier's Office picked up the phone and called the Leader of the NDP, or made a call to her house and left a message which she returned and they had a discussion and he was able to tell her some things but not everything about Mr. Reynolds, for anyone to suggest that was consultation is far from knowing what consultation is all about. In the case of the Leader of the Official Opposition, the call actually went to the Director of Communications in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, not even to the Leader of the Opposition himself.

That is not my definition of consultation and I would not think it is the definition of anyone out there who is watching this or anyone else in the Province who would have been involved in consultations at some point in time in their lives. Consultation means having a discussion about filling the position and trying to find the best candidate to fill that position, and it takes into view all of the issues and concerns that may have been brought to bear during the discussion. If consultation had, in fact, taken place, we may not have found ourselves in the situation that we are in tonight.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Reynolds is, in fact, I guess, bearing the brunt of a lot of what is being said tonight. It is really not meant to be a reflection on him as an individual. What it is, is just trying to find the right person to fill this particular position, which is such an important position in our Province. It rates up there with our Auditor General, with our Youth and Child Advocate, with our Citizens' Rep. All of these positions are all officers of the House of Assembly and they should all be treated with respect and with the same type of consultation that any one of us would expect if we were left to fill this position.

I cannot imagine how Mr. Reynolds must feel knowing that his appointment to this position has caused so much controversy, because it is not a reflection on him. As some of my colleagues have said, we do not really know Mr. Reynolds. We do not know whether or not he is capable of doing this job. That is not the point. The point is finding the best person possible to fill this position. The question is, just because the government members think they have found the best possible person does not mean that is so.

I know some of them over there like to think that they have all of the answers. They sit there and they mouth off about anything that comes to mind. It does not matter if it makes sense or not, they just shout across the floor. They do not want to listen to what anyone else has to say. They just go on and on, nonsensical, not really knowing what they are talking about, but somehow they think they have all of the answers because they are the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all have a say in this House of Assembly. For one individual to think that they are more important than another just goes to show the character of that particular individual. We are all members of this House of Assembly, all forty-eight of us, and we all have a right to speak our minds without being interrupted by other members of the House. It is not fair to those of us who are here to represent the views of our constituents, it is not fair to our constituents, and I take great exception when I am trying to make a point that is important to people other than the members of the government.

Why wouldn't the Premier have decided to go the interview route? Why wouldn't he have decided to see who was out there who might be interested in a position? Why wouldn't he have advertised the position? There are a lot of good people out there, certainly in our public service, a lot of people who have given years of service to this Province. It has been the tradition that with people who have worked in the public service that is one position that they can grow into, that is one position that they can see as a promotion, but it has been taken out of the realm of the public service altogether. What this government has done under the direction of this Premier is, it has taken this position, an officer of the House, and put it into the political realm.

Instead of continuing with past practice that has worked very well, I do not know why you would take something that was not broken and try to fix it. It would have made all the sense in the world to advertise this position, just as we have advertised other positions, have people apply and go through the interview process. You know, it may very well have been that Mr. Reynolds would end up with this job, but we do not know that. He was not given the opportunity to apply. He was not given the opportunity to compete. I would expect that tonight he is wishing he had that opportunity, that he had been given the chance to go through the interview process, to show that he is qualified, so that instead of having all of these questions raised about his qualifications, he would have gotten the job fair and square. That is certainly one way that could have been handled, through an interview process.

If the Premier did not want to go that route, just a simple consultation, just as simple as picking up the phone and calling the leaders of both of the other parties and having a discussion about finding the best possible person to fill this role. It is unfortunate that it has come down to this tonight, where we are standing here at 11:20 in the evening debating this particular position, and it is a very important position.

We talked earlier today about elections. We talked earlier today about special ballots. We talked about them yesterday. We talked about the role that the Chief Electoral Officer will play in any election, whether it is a general election or a by-election. It is a very important role and we all have to feel confident that the individual having responsibility for ensuring that the election is run in a responsible manner and one that we will all feel confident about is someone who we all know is being fair, but we do not know that.

I guess the question is raised because Mr. Reynolds has made it well known that he is a card-carrying Progressive Conservative, that he has been very committed to the PC Party, that he wears his politics on his sleeve, and he makes no bones about it. Is it any wonder that for those of us who will be taking part in an election where the outcome will depend on who is counting the votes, who is making the decisions about whether or not some of the ballots have to be destroyed, is it any wonder that we are standing here tonight as we have done earlier and questioning the appointment of an individual who so blatantly talks about his politics?

What I find really ironic about it is that when the press release went out about Mr. Reynolds there was no mention whatsoever of how involved he has been in the Progressive Conservation Party. There was no mention whatsoever. So the question is: Why not? Did you think that we did not know? Did you think it would not become public knowledge? What was the reason? It sure seemed like to me, as I read the press release, that it was not just an oversight. The information just was not there.

Here we are tonight spending time debating the appointment of Mr. Paul Reynolds to this very important position when all we had to do was have some serious consultation or all we had to do was go the interview process.

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here tonight and I have every right to have my views heard, and as I try to do that I listen to the Member for Mount Pearl talk across the floor with personal jibes. I am hearing other members across the way taking exception to comments that are being said, when they have every right when their time comes to stand to their feet and express their views. I have every right to stand here tonight and make points that I feel are important.

That goes to show again what we are dealing with when we are dealing with appointments in this House of Assembly, appointments that mean a great deal to the people of this Province. Unfortunately, because there are members opposite who would like to be heard or try to be heard over anyone who speaks on this side - what they try to do is suggest that what we have to say does not matter. It does matter. We are all important in this House, all forty-eight of us, and just because the Premier decides not to go the consultation process on an important appointment such as this, or just because he does not want to go the application route in the event that there are people out there who would like to apply, does not mean that we cannot stand here and express our view points. That is what we have been doing ever since we found out that this appointment was going to be made.

The irony in all of this is that we can stand here and we can express our doubt about what is happening here, but we know that tonight there will be a vote or, as it is being proposed, closure will be invoked here. So, it really does not matter. We can stand here and question what is happening, which is our job to do if we somehow find that something does not seem quite right, but when the time comes tonight, whether it is one o'clock in the morning, Mr. Reynolds will be appointed to this position of Chief Electoral Officer, and not just Chief Electoral Officer but Commissioner of Members's Interest. As one of my colleagues said earlier tonight, that too carries with it a great deal of responsibility, because all forty-eight of us have to report to the Commissioner of Members' Interests. That individual has access to every bit of information that we are required to file and we need to have that level of confidence that when that individual goes through that file it is only he who goes through that file.

That is what this is all about tonight, it is about appointing the best possible person to this position. I sincerely believe that we should never have anyone in this position who is strongly affiliated with any party, whether it is with the Liberal Party, the NDP Party or the Progressive Conservative Party. It does not matter what government, what political stripe, is making the appointment, history has shown that whenever the individual that has held this position has come from the public service, there has never been this debate, there has never been this controversy, and it should not be the situation now either, but it is and it is because the Premier chose to go a route that has put Mr. Reynolds in a difficult position and left those of us in Opposition questioning his judgement.

We hope that what we are saying will be heard, not only heard but taken seriously. I guess that is all we can do it hope, as the Official Opposition, that we will reach someone on the other side, that they will understand where we are coming from and take us seriously. I know that tonight Mr. Reynolds will be appointed to this position and there is not a thing we can do about it, other than make our viewpoints heard, and anyone watching at this hour of the night, as we debate this appointment, will become aware that it is a serious issue and they too will question the appointment of someone with such strong political ties to a position that has to do with the running of election in this Province and the members' interests.

Elections need to be run in a way that is not questionable. I fear that because of Mr. Reynolds's political stripe and because he wears it so blatantly that questions will be raised, and maybe unnecessarily. If there an issue with respect to a special ballot, if it is an issue with respect to going to the Chief Electoral Officer and voting over on Hallett Crescent, if it is an issue about whether or not the ballot box should be in this particular place or in another place, these are all issues that get raised that, by and large, get dealt with to the satisfaction of everyone involved. Perception becomes reality when something happens that one side or another questions, when doubts are planted, when people question: Well, I wonder if he sided with one party or another? I wonder, if when he looked at the ballots to determine if they were valid, if maybe the markings on that ballot should have been okay, instead of just ruled as a spoiled ballot? None of us should be put in that position. The Chief Electoral Officer should never be put in that position, but that is exactly what is going to happen.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time is expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is my second opportunity to speak on this particular issue and I think I have said everything I need to say.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did notice that when the amendment was put before the House that the amendment was not read into the record correctly, so therefore the Chair believes that it is appropriate that we would redo the amendment and redo the vote so that the record will be clear, and that it would be the correct thing to do.

With the leave of the House, the Chair would put the amendment motion again. The amendment was put forward by the hon. the Opposition House Leader and it was as follows: It said he moved, in the main motion concerning the appointment, that he would add immediately after the word "Interests", which is the end word, "to perform the duties of the position in a non-partisan manner." That was the operative amendment.

With the leave of the House, the Chair would now ask those in favour of the amendment to say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the amendment to say ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is defeated.

The Chair apologizes that the incorrect words were read and the debate will now continue.

On motion amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand tonight to say a few words about the motion as put forward by the Premier, the motion that we are debating in the House here tonight on the appointment of Mr. Paul Reynolds.

I can understand members on the opposite side. It is what Opposition members do. They have a concern, they stand and they speak in their place, Mr. Speaker. It is something that I did and many more of my colleagues over here did for ten years. We sat on that side of House and saw many motions, many pieces of legislation, introduced here in the House, and we stood up and made our points and talked about the way that we would like to see things done, Mr. Speaker, talked about the changes that we would have liked to have seen implemented, the changes that we thought would be much more palatable and much more acceptable to the residents of this Province. That is what Opposition members do and they do it quite well.

Mr. Speaker, in the fourteen years that I have been here I have never heard a member on either side of the House be so disrespectful to the Chair of this House, to the Speaker of this House. I have never heard it. I have never heard it in the fourteen years that I have been here where an individual has walked a fine line of disrespect for the one person who holds this institution to the highest degree possible where this place won't be turned into a snake pit, where this place carries out the rules and regulations and the legislation that governs this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I have never witnessed it before.

MR. REID: Name them.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I will not name them, I say to the hon. member. I would not resort to that.

I say to members opposite - and it is not all members opposite, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of that, because I would say that 99 per cent of members opposite have the same respect for the position that you hold, and for you as Speaker, as members of this side and that I, as the Deputy Speaker has, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have always maintained in my conversations with the Speaker that he has taken it to a level where it is very difficult for somebody else to reach. In most jurisdictions, the Speaker attends Party functions. In most jurisdictions, the Speaker attend caucus meetings when the House is not in session.

The Member for Bellevue shakes his head. I say to the Member for Bellevue, I know of which I speak. I have attended many parliamentary conferences and I can assure you that the topic I am talking about is one of the topics that is talked about at every parliamentary conference that I have attended. You, Mr. Speaker, I have never seen you at a caucus meeting either with the House open or with the House closed. I have never seen you at a Party function, Mr. Speaker. I have always seen you come into this House, being very impartial. Your door is always open. Whether it is a member from that side of the House or a member from this side of the House, your courtesy and your impartiality has been second to none. I congratulate you on that and I can assure you that the comments that were put forward here tonight and have gone out over the airwaves where people have had a chance to see, they will judge it and judge from where it came, judge it from whence it came, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. Because it is despicable, it is disgraceful and it shows the level of contempt that this particular member holds for this institution. It is ridiculous and it is the first time I have seen it.

I say to the hon. Government House Leader, who has been here much longer than me and longer than anybody else here, he probably never witnessed the like since he has been sitting in this Chamber. It is shameful.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about somebody being nominated here to a position that is supposed to be impartial. We are talking about an individual, Mr. Reynolds, and people opposite cannot understand how somebody, who had an association with a political party, can all of a sudden become impartial.

Mr. Speaker, it has already been brought up. It is not new names that have been part of this debate that I am bringing forward. I think of the Lieutenant Governor. Some people sat here when the present Lieutenant Governor sat there where the Governor House Leader is sitting today. I sat here for four year with him and there could not have been a more partial individual, there could not have been a member more in tune with the party that he was involved in than the Lieutenant Governor at the time, when he was a Liberal member and a Liberal House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, we have had lots of debate back and forth and many times we have had different feelings - I am talking about myself - but I have to tell you, that institution known as the Lieutenant Governor's residence and that office was never occupied by a more impartial and more capable individual than the present Lieutenant Governor. He has opened the institution up. Everybody is welcome there. People have been invited down. The Lieutenant Governor's house now has been given back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A prime example, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have not gone up to the Legislative Library to get a list of the people who were appointed by members opposite when they were over here, but a couple of names come to mind, Mr. Speaker.

Anybody hear the name Carl Cooper? Anybody know who Carl Cooper was?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, absolutely.

MR. FITZGERALD: Anybody know how much money Mr. Cooper made when he became the Chair, the CEO, the top man at the Bull Arm Corporation? Anybody know who is was?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FITZGERALD: Carl Cooper.

Anybody know who Gerry Glavine was?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Anybody remember Gerry Glavine? Anybody know where he went when he left the Premier's Office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) office building up on Kenmount Road.

MR. FITZGERALD: Anybody see the big office building up on Kenmount Road? Do you know who occupied it, Mr. Speaker? Two individuals, one from Premier Tobin's office and one from Premier Roger Grime's Office. They were rewarded. Mr. Speaker, there was no big racket kicked up here. We will bring their names up in order to support an argument, in order to support a debate, but there was nobody here who stood up and made a big issue of those two particular appointments.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Furey, a well-known individual, a former Liberal Cabinet Minister, who sat here for seven or eight year while I was here - I think he got elected probably in 1985 as a Liberal - was appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer and the member responsible for members' interests. I do not care if he was a Liberal member or a PC member or a Member of the NDP, he did an excellent job.

In fact, Mr. Furey - I called him when he left and I said: Chuck, I have to give you a call because you brought about and implemented more positive changes in this office than I have seen since my involvement. There are lots of people who have been around here longer than me. I ran first in 1989 and lost, got elected in 1993, so there have been a few people who occupied that particular office and I have never seen more positive changes brought about than Chuck Furey brought about, I say to members opposite. An excellent appointment!

Now we have another individual put forward, Mr. Paul Reynolds. We are all scared that he is going to go out and he is going to appoint all Progressive Conservative people to be District Returning Officers, to be Poll Captains, to be Poll Clerks, Mr. Speaker. I think we are all getting a little bit paranoid, Mr. Speaker. There is a piece of legislation, there is such a thing as a piece of legislation, that governs this particular office, Mr. Speaker. If that gentleman, whether it be Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Furey or Mr. Anybody, goes in a direction contrary to that piece of legislation then I would guess that the legislation would trigger something off and the gentleman would be dealt with according to the laws of the land.

Mr. Speaker, it almost makes me wonder if, when the election happens on October 9 of this year, if any of us will get anybody to work for us. It almost seems now that it is an unforgivable deed to be part of a political party. It almost seems like its an unforgivable deed now to go out and work for some political person because you will never, ever be considered for a job and you will never, ever be able to apply for, especially a government job, because you are going to be tainted and accused of being a particular colour. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, it will deny you from having a job.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with supporting this piece of legislation. I have no problem with supporting Mr. Paul Reynolds for the position that this motion will allow to happen and we will implement around one o'clock tonight. Mr. Speaker, here is an individual who has done exemplary service for his community; past Mayor of Wedgewood Park when it was an entity unto itself; sat as a city councillor. Somebody said he was an executive for a big oil company. Mr. Speaker, I do not think Mr. Paul Reynolds owned Husky Oil or Ultramar or anything like that. He did work for Ultramar in on O'Leary Avenue, and I think he was probably at a position where he was responsible for gas dispensing stations around the Island, or at least in the Eastern part of the Island. I have known him for a long time. I have found him to be a very fair man to deal with. I do not think we should be one bit paranoid, or one bit afraid, to put this gentleman in a place where he is getting - somebody said he is getting paid $120,000 or $130,000. Well this amount of money was not negotiated for this individual, it is what the job pays. Whether you applied for it or me or the Member for Trinity North, that is what the job pays and that is what this individual will receive.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to stand here tonight and support this individual. The only negative thing that I have heard, other than the fear of what he might do because he was a Tory, was a couple of people on the opposite side referred to a conversation that somebody heard him say on the golf course. Now, what a thing to bring up when you are talking about a person appointed to a job! If you have to resort to that kind of a debate, or to that level of debate, where are we coming from? If somebody has to resort to something that was said on a golf course - I do not know if the person has any proof that it was said. I suppose I could stand here and smear anybody's name by saying I heard this or I heard something else. That shows that there cannot be much of an argument about this man's credibility and the job that he might do, when you have to resort to that kind of an argument.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will conclude and look forward to the vote which will happen some time between now and one o'clock.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on the motion.

The Deputy Speaker talked about having no respect for the Chair and he never saw such debacle in the House in the fourteen years that he has been there. Over the eighteen years that I have been here, and I am sure the Government House Leader longer than I have, I have seen many. I saw one in particular that I did not like at all. I remember when the late Mr. Kirby, a war veteran - when one of the members of the Opposition at that particular time called the Premier a liar and would not withdraw, when Mr. Kirby came over there to ask the person to leave, he would not leave. I know that it was such an embarrassment in a sense to all of us. I am not sure if the Deputy Speaker was here at the time or not, but I know I was. The thing about it was, two or three days after that the person came back and had to apologize to the House for the behavior. It works in all ways, and after you have been here for a number of times you will see all of those things happening.

Mr. Speaker, in a way of speaking, I feel sorry for Paul Reynolds -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: - and then in another way, he accepted the job so he accepted the responsibility with it. I have known Paul Reynolds for a long time, not intimately but through the Federation of Municipalities. When I was a representative on the Federation back in the 1970s and 1980s and up to 1989 when I was Vice-President of the Federation, Paul was there, I think at that time, as the Mayor for the Town of Wedgewood Park. I would think that he might have supported me in a number of the elections that we had when I was small towns' rep or even the Vice-President of the association.

Back and forth across the floor we talk about political patronage. Paul Reynolds has been a supporter of the Progressive Conservative Party for years. I see no reason why Paul Reynolds could not get a political appointment. We talked about some of the Liberals who had been appointed and that is true. Gerry Glavine left the Premier's office and went over to the liquor commission, and there are other people. When I think of Len Simms who was a former Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Premier appointed him as Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. This is not unusual. Glen Tobin, as former minister under the leadership of Peckford, is over at the Newfoundland and Labrador liquor commission. That is expected. All of these things happened, and I can name others. Ralph Tucker, who was the campaign Chair for the last election, is over to the Workers Compensation. His son, Craig, is on the Hydro board. Let's not kid ourselves that these things do not happen regardless of who the political party in power is. It does happen.

The situation that I see here, and as members in the House - I am not trying to be pompous or to be that way. That is not the way I want to be and I hope it is not coming through that way. Over the last number of years, the Members of the House of Assembly here have been through a lot, not only as individual members who sit here but our families, our wives, our siblings, our children and, in some instances, our grandchildren. We have seen here where the public at large looked at us and where we have gone to the public trough. We have done things. We took $2,875 as a gift, as a bonus, and all these things, and we have had to live with that. We paid it back.

I remember when we did Estimates not too long ago, the Minister of Finance was there and I asked th Deputy Minister - and I think I mentioned this the other day. I said to him: Do I owe the Department of Finance any money? He said: No, you do not. So, I gave him a cheque for $2,875 to go into the Province's Treasury, when I did not owe any money. I had that money as part of the constituency and it went somewhere in the district. The thing is that the people out there did not see it in that way. They saw us in a situation as taking the money that was not due to us. The thing about it is, nobody here ever wanted to cover up or say that we did not deserve it or whatever the case might be. It was given to us by the people who were on the IEC and everybody thought that it was legitimate. That is not the whole problem, as I see, for this position. We have been through a lot and the public expects us to be accountable for the things that we do, and all of us here, I think that we are.

One of the things that the Premier did when he put in Judge Greene to do a review of the members' interests - I do not know about anybody else in the House but I have not heard any public condemnation of Judge Green because they saw him as being impartial.

I do not know what the eighty recommendations are, probably Cabinet might already know, but one of these days we will, we will see the eighty recommendations. Probably they will be very difficult to implement. It might be in the sense that it will put more stringent regulations on the people who are elected in the House to do their work. I do not know. But, do you know what? The public will say, because Judge Green was impartial, then obviously these particular recommendation should be implemented and they probably will. It might not be for this term because we will probably be out of here in a week or so, but for the next General Assembly in October I am sure that everybody will have to live by these recommendations, whatever they are. As I said, the majority of us do not know what they are yet. So, we will look at that.

Back talking about positions being made here in the House, I remember when we were government, and the Premier was then the Leader of the Opposition, when Roger Grimes who was then Premier appointed John Green as the person responsible for the members' interests.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wayne Green.

MR. LANGDON: Wayne Green, I am sorry. Wayne had been a life-long career civil servant and I cannot remember whether either side of the House, whether government or Opposition, even debated it. It was done almost in a sense unanimously. They had talked about it before.

Only recently when the Premier appointed Ms Neville to be the Child Advocate, I cannot even think about anybody in the House, on either side, either government or Opposition, who objected to it or to the appointment that was made. I cannot remember. If they did I did not hear it.

It was the same thing when Judge Wicks was appointed the first Child Advocate here. I remember he was sitting - and one of his sons was a partner with the Premier in his law firm and he and his family sat in the gallery. The Premier painted a glowing tribute to Judge Wicks who was the Child Advocate. All of these things happen.

The situation that we have here, that is how I see it and probably I am wrong. As other members have said in the House tonight it is an opportunity to express your views and to tell, I guess, ourselves and to tell people out there, if there is anybody looking, how we feel. I think that in this situation here Paul Reynolds might do a good job. I do not know, but what is wrong with it as I see it, he is too closely associated to the party, to any party. It does not make any difference. I think the thing about it is he is going to be under the gun more so than anybody else who has ever had that position. He is going to be cognizant of it if he makes a mistake. If he makes a mistake then the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador might look at him and say, okay, he was not competent, he should not have gotten the job, he only got it because of his political persuasion. I don't know. That could very well be. The thing about it is we hear a lot of criticism of us as politicians regardless of the stripe and regardless of how long we have been or have not been here.

Do I think that Paul Reynolds should have gotten a position? Absolutely, I do. Now, a lot of people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador might disagree with me, probably people in the House of Assembly might disagree with me, but any person who has given twenty-five or thirty years of his life to a political party, then I think he should get a position wherever it is. I have no problems with Glenn Tobin being the head of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. If I did I would be a hypocritic because the person before was Gerry Glavine who came from the Premier's Office. We have to be truthful with ourselves. But I think that with this position here the person is too tied to the party.

For example, if you had taken some Deputy Minister, whoever it might have been, and put them into that particular position, regardless of what we think or we do not think, we would not be here tonight under closure. We would not be here, it would not be, and the (inaudible) situation that we had back and forth would not be here. That is how I see it. Other people, probably on the government side, see it different than what I do but I am only relating how I feel personally about it and how I think it could have been avoided.

As I said earlier, we have witnessed in the last year - in the eighteen years that I have been here I have never been under the gun so much in all of my life as I was the last year. I am not saying that it is not right to have done it. We have to be accountable. If we are elected by the people, then obviously we have to be perceived to be doing thing right. I have no problems with that, under the gun, under the scrutiny. If the Auditor General comes out sometime - and a lot of people think that, at the end of the day, it might be inappropriate for him to say to members who have spent their constituency allowance, you know, was it right, should we have spent it that way. Who knows?

I can honestly say that whatever donations I ever gave out of my constituency fund went to somebody and it did not go into my pocket. Whether it was a young lady from Bay d'Espoir who was part of the Girl Guides who went to Germany or somewhere else, then I felt good to be able to do it, or some fire brigade or some other family or the sea cadets in Hermitage or whatever the case might be. I remember giving them a number of donations, and other groups as well in the area. This is the way I see it.

When we talk about closure, this is not the first time I have seen closure either. I have seen closure many times. In fact, I was involved in closure, as a minister, probably more than anybody else. I do not know. Some of the members were here. Probably the Member for Bonavista North. I am not sure if the present Member for Lewisporte was, but I know the Member for Cape St. Francis and the Minister of Justice were here when we talked about Sunday shopping and there was a filibuster. The Opposition said that people did not want Sunday shopping and did everything in a sense to hold up the piece of legislation so that it would not pass. I remember that. In a sense, you cut off debate for people who probably would have liked to debate the thing longer, but closure is something that happens, it does limit debate.

I think in this situation, just me personally, by bringing in closure, by putting Paul Reynolds who is so tightly associated with the Progressive Conservative Party - in a sense it brought some criticism to the thing that should probably not have needed to be done. That is how I see it, Mr. Speaker. Like I said, it is how I see it personally and there is nothing more than to express one's view on how it operates.

I know, at the end of the day or end of the night here nothing is going to change. Just the same as it was for Sunday shopping when we were government and we had the numbers, when the vote was called then the government was going to win. Sunday shopping became a reality and today we see it happening, the stores are open. I would think that if you brought in a motion tonight to do away with it you would probably have a lot of controversy as well.

As I said, I have been here for a long time, I realize that it is going to pass, it is going to become law and Mr. Reynolds is going to be in this position. I think it is really unfortunate also. I do not know who gave him the advice from the Department of Justice. Somebody made a mistake there and I think it was a big mistake. I really do. I really think that it was very unfortunate that the man would be sending out letters to members - I do not know about on that side - but on this side of the House from the person responsible for members' Interests saying you had not filed your returns on time, and he was not duly into the position. I think there is something wrong here in that situation. I do not know who is responsible for it, but again it shows another level to have the public be skeptical of the things that we do whether we are in government or in Opposition or whatever the case might be. Sometimes we open ourselves up for criticism when there is no need for it.

If there was a person in the Department of Justice, whoever that person was, who gave that particular piece of advice for Paul Reynolds to be doing the work, then I think that person should be called to task for doing it. It would be no different if either one of us over here were doing that particular piece of work.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to prolong what I have to say. I think I have said it in a way that I believe it to be. I think that it is important and I really think deep down that it is a mistake for Paul Reynolds to be appointed to this particular position. It could have been averted. The Premier could have given him some other appointment for his dedication to the party, but I think in this case by giving him the position of members' interests, I do not think it was the right thing to do. If he had somebody, a long-term civil servant who over the last number of years has been impartial, to have the position, then I think it would have done us better and left us with a lot less criticism than we have now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 regards to the resolution that is before the House of Assembly for the Chief Electoral Office.

Please forgive me if I am getting complicated here now with my words because after all it is the wee hours of Wednesday morning and we are still here in debate.

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that I have, I guess, is with the whereas itself, not so much when it comes to the Chief Electoral Officer but when it comes to the position of Commissioner of Members' Interests, where it says, "...on the motion of the Premier following consultation with the Leader of the Official Opposition and representatives of other registered political parties..."

I think we have heard here this evening from the Leader of the Opposition that he did not have any consultation with the Premier on this whatsoever. I believe the Chief of Staff called the Director of Communications in the Opposition Office. We heard the Leader of the NDP Party, the conversation that she had I think was left on a message manager explaining to her that Mr. Paul Reynolds would be appointed to that position.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interest."

As hon. members on both sides of the House have expressed their different view points we are here tonight under Standing Order 47. I have heard members on the government side, in the days when they were in Opposition - I guess this is known as the ‘hobnosed' boots part of the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hobnailed.

MR. BUTLER: Hobnailed, I am sorry; hobnailed boots. We are going to find out, I guess, within the next hour or so, as this debate closes at 1:00 a.m. in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been explained very well that when it comes to Mr. Reynolds I do not think anybody on this side has any issue pertaining to the individual. Members on both sides mentioned his involvement within the community, the business community, as a councillor and so on. I do not think that is the issue.

Mr. Speaker, also we know that other positions have been filled by this House. We refer back to the Child Advocate and the Citizens' Rep. I do not think there has been any dispute back and forth on those positions. People just agreed to those positions and it was a unanimous vote of the House. I think where it comes into has been explained by many members, Mr. Speaker. It is, I guess, the political ties of Mr. Reynolds to a political party. That is what we take objection to.

I cannot help but think back to comments that were made by the hon. Member for Topsail when she was seeking her position with the party. She had confidence, she felt that under the leadership of the now Premier integrity and accountability would be restored. She went on to talk about changes to concentrate on improvements to delivery of basic services in health, education, community services and transportation and to eliminate wasteful Liberal schemes that have funded projects for the benefit of their political friends. Mr. Speaker, it is probably pretty true, but I say that when the members opposite went around campaigning in 2002 and in 2003 what we are talking about here tonight was supposed to be eliminated. It was a dreadful thing to have people appointed for political reasons in the past. The Premier - I know I heard it in my district and many other districts - that, once I become leader of this Province and the Party and the Premier of this Province all of this is going to cease. I would say it is alive and well. Political patronage is alive and well in this Province, I say. We see it first-class in this situation where we are looking at the individual who will, in another few minutes, come into the position of Commissioner of Members' Interest.

Mr. Speaker, we know that there was an amendment put forward, and that is all fine. That amendment was defeated here tonight. The main part of that amendment was the non-partisan portion. We know that this person - we are hoping, beyond hope, that he will be impartial. However, we cannot wipe out the issue with his involvement and his commitment to a party, and he has admitted that. I believe that there should have been some public process in this position. It has happened all down through the years. I know members have made comments on that and felt that is the way this should have been done.

We all know, and I stated earlier, that this gentleman has had a good reputation in the business community, as a citizen, with the councils and has been friends to many on the government side. We also know that he has, I guess, been a good friend to many on the political side. That has been well-known and documented, and he stated that very much himself. Even after the press release went out informing us that Mr. Reynolds would be the individual to take that position, we knew then that he still held a position with the district association here in St. John's.

I guess the other part that has major concerns for me in wondering if this individual can be non-partisan in this position is a reference that was made in The Telegram back some time ago when he was referring to the Premier as an individual with the utmost integrity. Mr. Reynolds made the comment: I think the Premier sees me in a similar role as to himself. I believe that is one of the ways I see that the two are tied together, fairly much so. Whether rightly or wrongly, I have concerns about that.

I already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that there was no consultation with the Opposition House Leader or the Member of the NDP, but you know, even if they did have consultation, my fear is, what the comments would be is what we have heard back and forth here in this hon. House. All to often we see the Premier look over at the Leader of the Opposition when he asks him a question, and he comes out: It is none of your business. I guess maybe that is the answer they would have gotten then, but Mr. Speaker, I think they should have been consulted and so on.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about political patronage, and we can go back and forth, and hon. members have done so, they have named people who were appointed politically under the former Liberal Administration. We know many people, some of them were named here tonight, who have been appointed under this new Administration but I said it and it will say it again, that when this Administration took over there was supposed to be a new vision, a new leadership. Those things of the past were not supposed to happen in the future.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, there has been no consultation. This position that Mr. Reynolds holds is a very important position, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will hold.

MR. BUTLER: Will hold very shortly, another fifty minutes.

Mr. Speaker, political patronage is one thing, but like I said earlier, it is alive and well. We have seen relatives and friends and business acquaintances and so on put into various positions. There is no one saying that Mr. Reynolds should not have been given a political appointment but I believe the position that he will hold with regards to the members' interests and the Chief Electoral Office is one that should have been reconsidered, Mr. Speaker.

We talk about the people who hold those positions around the Province, whether they are Deputy Returning Officers or Poll Clerks, we know that they have to be away from the political scene. I think it is for sixty days. Even the people who went around and did the enumerations recently, they could not be seen as a part of a political party or working with anyone who is associated with a political party. I believe the time frame, as I said, is in the vicinity of sixty days.

I know for a fact, that when it comes to issues that will be coming up during this election and in future elections where decisions have to be made, Mr. Speaker, we all know too well that some of those decisions have to be made in an non-partisan manner. Hopefully that will happen, but I have to be honest and say that I have major concerns when it comes to that because there are some crucial issues that have to be dealt with in the districts. I have seen it in my own district over the number of years that I have been involved, where Deputy Returning Officers and Poll Clerks were unable to go to public functions, unable to go to rallies because they were seen or perceived to be a part of a political party. Mr. Speaker, that is the concern that I have with Mr. Reynolds, knowing full well his tremendous involvement with the party. I do not down the gentleman for being involved with the party, I do not down him for receiving some political appointment, but I believe the position that he will be placed into very shortly as we go through closure on this resolution has something to be desired, Mr. Speaker.

Just to conclude from my perspective, I want to say that I will be voting against this for the very reasons that I have outlined. I believe that each and every one of us should be able to stand in our places and pass our comments without being looked at as we are just down on this gentleman for the sake of who he is. That is not the issue, Mr. Speaker, it is position that he will be placed in and, hopefully, to be looked at in a non-partisan manner.

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 am pleased to be able to speak on this motion as well tonight. In fact, I did speak on this a little while ago in this hon. House and I feel quite confident that Mr. Reynolds will do a fine job here as Chief Electoral Officer. I was sitting there wondering at 12:13 a.m. what we were doing in this House debating this issue. I find it kind of ironic when we look back at history trying to look at how in the world it could be that we could find someone in this Province who could do this particular job without having some kind of political connection. It is basically impossible, I say, Mr. Speaker. It does not matter where we look in this Province everybody has some kind of a political affiliation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighty-four per cent with us.

MR. ORAM: Eighty-four percent with us, I might add.

The fact of the matter is, I look back at people like Judge Wicks, and I think the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune did mention him a little while ago, the Child and Youth Advocate. In fact, I think he was actually the Vice-President of the St. John's West Liberal association and still he was appointed to do that particular job and did a fine job in that particular job as well. Then, of course, we look at Mr. Roberts, our Lieutenant Governor, again a good job, a fine job. In fact, I was saying to the Government House Leader that every Christmas I actually receive a card from him and I am sure every member here in this House does. He is doing a great job and we all know that his political connection was certainly with the Liberal Party. He sat here, I think, as Government House Leader - it was before my time - and certainly as a Cabinet Minister within the Liberal government. Yet again, everyone on this side of the House certainly feels that he is doing a fine job, certainly feels that he has opened up that particular office and government house to all individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter what political stripe they may have, and again has done a great job.

Of course, our Chief Justice, Mr. Clyde Wells - again, need I say more? The fact is he was the Premier of the Province, he was a Liberal Premier of the Province. Again, I do not say this to look down upon Mr. Wells, I do not say this to look down upon any of these individuals. In fact, I have nothing but the utmost respect for these particular individuals. The fact is, that no matter what we do in this Province to try to find someone to fill a particular vacancy that may come up, they are definitely going to have some political affiliation. Certainly, who could have more of a political affiliation than a former Premier of the Province who was actually a member of the Liberal Party? I cannot think of anyone. I am sure that Mr. Reynolds, as much of a Tory, I have been told, as he is, I am sure that he certainly could not even measure up to that, to actually be the Premier of the Province and be the Leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just find it strange that at 12:16 a.m. we are actually debating this particular issue just because somebody may have some sort of a political affiliation with a particular party. It is absolutely amazing.

I also started to think for a moment about the last Chief Electoral Officer that we had, Mr. Furey. It is a funny thing about it, but I do not remember hearing anybody from the opposite side speak against Mr. Furey as being appointed, I really don't. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Furey was put here and he was put in place to do a job - again, I have to say that I found him to be an hon. gentleman, I had no problem whatsoever with what he was doing and I thought he did a fine job as the Chief Electoral Officer.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to spend a lot of time speaking on this because I do not see it being a big issue. I know the members on the opposite side would like to go home now, as well as I would, at 12:17 a.m. The fact of the matter is, I really do not see the point in spending a lot of time talking about this tonight, even though we have spent hours - even though the Government House Leader would love for me to sit down now.

I will clue up by saying this, Mr. speaker, that I will be voting for this motion because I feel that no matter who we look for in this Province they will have some political affiliation. I am confident Mr. Reynolds will do a great job, he will park his politics at the door and we can move forward in this Province and do a good job.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The motion was put forward by the hon. Government House Leader. The Chair will dispense with the whereases. The therefore clause reads as follows: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests."

All those in favour of the motion say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion say, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

On motion resolution carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow Wednesday at 2:00 o'clock and that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 6 at 2:00 o'clock.

On motion the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 6 at 2:00 p.m.