June 4, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 23


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon, we are very pleased to welcome a very special return visitor who is participating in the Speaker's Parade this afternoon as a temporary Page. Mr. Fred Kavanagh first participated in the Speaker's Parade as a Page during the fall sitting in 1949, immediately after Confederation. He served the House of Assembly in that role until 1953 during the speakership of Speaker Reginald Sparkes. The House of Assembly met, of course, at the Colonial Building in those days.

Mr. Kavanagh has presented the Speaker, myself, with a series of photographs from that era, including one that was taken on the very first day our current Mace, which is a gift from the Province of British Columbia, was presented to our House of Assembly. This is the photo here. We had it restored and this particular photograph will be on display in our corridors in the very near future. We also have a photograph of a very much younger Mr. Kavanagh sitting in the House of Assembly and we have the opening photograph of one of the first sessions after Confederation.

I want to thank Mr. Kavanagh for coming in this afternoon, he certainly is a welcome guest. We are pleased to have him fifty-seven years after he was first as a Page in the House of Assembly. We are so pleased to have him and I want all hon. members to extend a very warm welcome to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I also want to recognize this afternoon in the Speaker's gallery his son, Paul Kavanagh, and his grandson, Matthew Kavanagh.

This afternoon, Mr. Kavanagh will be seated adjacent to the Sergeant-at-Arms down here.

Again, I want to welcome him back to our House and thank him for the historical photographs that he presented to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House we would like to join with Your Honour in welcoming Mr. Kavanagh back to the Legislature. I have been here a long time but I was not here when he was the first Page at the first House after Confederation, but it is a tremendous honour and a privilege for all of us.

I want to thank you, Your Honour, for arranging this piece of history, this historic moment for us all to have this opportunity to share this memory with this gentleman who made such a contribution to our Province both in here and also in his public life and in his family life. It is a tremendous honour for us to have him here with us today. It is a piece of our history, a piece of our memory that we all cherish.

Welcome, Sir. We are glad to have you, and we are delighted that the House can pay this tribute to you in person. It is a tremendous honour to be able to do so on behalf of my colleagues in government.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Official Opposition, I, too, would like to welcome Mr. Kavanagh into our House today.

In talking briefly with Mr. Kavanagh before the House opened, he told me he was a page from 1949 to 1953 in the old Colonial Building on Military Road. In our brief conversation, I realized that things are somewhat different today than they were then; because, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kavanagh told me that at that time you could wear a hat into the House of Assembly and the Speaker did not have the authority to ask you to remove that hat.

He also told me, Mr. Speaker, an interesting thing about the late J. R. Smallwood, the first Premier of the Province, and that is, at 4:00 o'clock every afternoon he wanted, and he got, a chocolate milkshake. Mr. Kavanagh walked across Military Road, picked him up the milkshake, brought it back, poured it into a glass, and that which remained in the glass that he brought across the street he kept for himself and he drank that.

Mr. Speaker, things have, indeed, changed. I would like nothing more, Mr. Kavanagh, than to have a chocolate milkshake at 4:00 o'clock this afternoon, or at least a cup of coffee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kavanagh told me that he went on, after finishing up as page in 1953, to work with Canada Post. He filled that position for some thirty-seven years and then retired from Canada Post in 1991. He still watches the House of Assembly on television.

I wish you all the best, and hope that you have many, many, many more years of watching us on television.

Before I sit down, the Government House Leader said that he has been around quite a long time. One thing I can say, Mr. Kavanagh, is that the Government House Leader looks a lot older than you do today.

Good luck.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a real pleasure to welcome Mr. Kavanagh to the House. I am not one of the oldest members of the House right now, I am one of the youngest in terms of length of time in the House - there have been a few come in after me - but it is a wonderful thing to have you here with us today.

While I may not have a connection with Mr. Kavanagh in the House, he has informed me that in actual fact we have a connection with the Lebanese community. His grandmother was a Touma, she was Lebanese, so he wants some clues on where I can help him buy some Lebanese food.

It is wonderful having you here, and if you are going to be giving out food around 4:00 o'clock, a little bit of maybe hummus with bread, with kibbeh, would be great.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank all hon. members for their kind comments.

This afternoon, as well, we would like to welcome in the public gallery, Ms Danielle Seaward. She is Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador and she is from Heart's Delight- Islington.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: We have members' statements as follows today: the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend congratulations to Sheila McGrath, a Shearstown resident who competed at the 2007 Canadian Tae Kwon Do Nationals where she won a Bronze Medal.

The 2007 Canadian Tae Kwon Do Nationals were held in Montreal during the first weekend in March. Sheila McGrath, age twenty-four, is a second degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do. She, along with two other Newfoundlanders, picked up medals at the Nationals.

Mr. Speaker, the group of four who represented Newfoundland and Labrador at the Nationals were: Sheila McGrath, Reg Lawrence, Jasmine Vokey and David Mercer. They saw a 75 per cent success rate in medals, the first time this Province brought home medals since 1996 in sparring at this level.

Big competitions are not new to Sheila. She competed in the Nationals in Kingston, Ontario, in 2004, Halifax in 2006, and later that year she tried out for the World Cup Team. Also, at the Nationals in Montreal, she was asked to try out for Team Canada for the 2007 Beijing, China Eighteenth World Tae Kwon Do Championships.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Sheila McGrath on the Bronze Medal performance at the 2007 Canadian Tae Kwon Do Nationals and wish her every success in her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Oliver Rose of Bishop's Falls on being judged as Citizen of the Year for 2006.

Mr. Speaker, Oliver came to Bishop's Falls in 1964 as a teacher, and since then he has been heavily involved in the community as a volunteer with many organizations, such as thirty-two years as a councillor and then mayor, thirty-five years with the Lions Club, and also volunteered with the Air Cadets and the Bishop's Falls Minor Hockey.

Mr. Speaker, in 2006 Oliver represented the Bishop's Falls Lions Club as Chair of a Telethon that raised $28,000 for the Lion Max Simms Camp. Also in 2006 he chaired a Lion Max Simms Camp Family Day which attracted over 1,000 people to the camp and raised $2,500 for the facility.

Mr. Speaker, Oliver has been recognized in the past for his dedication and passion for volunteerism by being awarded The Queens Silver Medal and The Queens Golden Medal. On May 31 of this year he was awarded Citizen of the Year for Bishop's Falls for 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Oliver Rose on receiving the Citizen of the Year Award for 2006.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend congratulations to the Canadian Cancer Society's fifth and most successful Relay for Life held in Grand Falls-Windsor, May 26.

Mr. Speaker, it was indeed a pleasure to participate in this record fundraising even. As the Cancer survivors, clad in their bright yellow T-shirts, took their victory lap kicking off this year's Relay for Life, the bells on all the churches around town rang out in recognition of their struggle and ultimate triumph over the disease. This even hosted the most teams so far in the five years it has been held in Grand Falls-Windsor, and raised the most money ever.

The local branch of the Canadian Cancer Society's goal was to have thirty teams involved with $40,000 raised. In fact, thirty-nine teams registered for the fundraiser, with participants collecting over $62,000.

Mr. Speaker, this year's patrons were cancer survivor Mike Race and volunteer Rita Southcott, mother of Rhonda Southcott who lost her battle with cancer at the age of twenty-nine. Our own Valerie Elson, who is President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Division of the Canadian Cancer Society, acknowledged that the money raised this year will go towards helping people in our Province dealing with cancer and also go towards the building and operation of Daffodil Place in St. John's - a state of the art facility that is designed to meet the growing need for accommodations for people who must travel to the capital city for cancer treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations to the Canadian Cancer Society's Grand Falls-Windsor's fifth Relay for Life, the participants and volunteers for the most successful event to date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the continuing efforts of the Carmanville Habitat Committee, and the people of Carmanville, as they work to expand opportunities for their community, advance economic growth, and play a leading role in the protection of our environment.

In 1995, a municipal stewardship agreement was signed by the town which resulted in Carmanville becoming an important link in North American Wetland conservation. Over a decade later, the Carmanville Wetlands continues to develop and play a major role in the protection of our environment and the advancement of the regional economy.

On May 26, a new exhibit and trail signage was unveiled at the Carmanville Wetlands Interpretation Centre. These additions will help educate visitors about the importance of caring for local wetland and marine areas. The people of Carmanville have found a way to bridge the often wide expanse between ecology and economy in a way that will benefit our people for years to come. The creativity and dedication to our environment shown on the part of the people of Carmanville provides a perfect example of the great things that are happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the Carmanville Habitat Committee on the expansion of their facility and their continued efforts to preserve and protect our environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Cynthia Maloney, a resident of Sweet Bay, Bonavista Bay, who was recently named recipient of the Silver Puffin Award by Destination St. John's.

The Silver Puffin Awards were developed in 2003 by Destination St. John's to recognize the efforts of front-line workers who act as ambassadors of our Province and to reward these front-line employees for excellence in service delivery.

Mr. Speaker, Cynthia Maloney, who works as a Visitor Information Officer at the Southern Bay Tourist Chalet in Bonavista South, was nominated in the Tour Guide category. Mrs. Maloney says she was only doing what all Newfoundlanders do - doing what we do best, Mr. Speaker, helping people and being friendly to visitors.

Nominations for these awards, Mr. Speaker, are accepted from tourists, local residents and co-workers, and winners are selected by an independent committee.

Cynthia Maloney embodies the hospitality and friendliness that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are known for worldwide and is a shining example of what an ambassador means.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in congratulating Cynthia Maloney of Bonavista South, recipient of the Silver Puffin Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Environment and Conservation, I am especially pleased today to announce that this is Environment Week - a time to reflect on the importance of our Province's environment and to demonstrate that we care about protecting our natural heritage.

Taking Action for our Environment is the theme for this Environment Week. It is a reminder to everyone that we must work together and take an active role to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador's environment is clean and healthy for all of us to enjoy, especially our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are extremely fortunate to have clean air and easy access to nature with our abundance of forests, wildlife, rivers and ponds.

Mr. Speaker, the eighteenth annual Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards will be held in Corner Brook. On Wednesday, I will announce winners in six categories: individual, community, school, municipality, business and most importantly, the Lifetime Achievement Award.

The lifetime achievement award will be presented to an individual who dedicated himself or herself to environmental stewardship and has made a significant contribution over his or her lifetime in the name of environmental protection and sustainability.

This year's winners are setting a great example for others and it is my hope that their award winning work will inspire others to follow in their footsteps as we are all responsible for the environment. All winners are truly future ambassadors for our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Green Committee of my department has also planned events around environment week for government employees. I encourage as many employees to take part in some of the presentations taking place, such as composting, landscaping and energy efficiency in your home. The schedule of events has been posted on the Public Service Network news link.

The environment belongs to all of us, and it is therefore up to all of us as individuals and groups to lead by example and do our utmost to protect and enhance it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members here today to take time to do their part this week and every week. Reduce energy use at home, at work and at play, carpool or walk, and please consider the environment when making purchases.

Working together and taking action will go a long way in making Newfoundland and Labrador a better place to live.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement.

We would certainly be in a position where we would like to congratulate all those involved in protecting our environment, of course, and our natural heritage. It is fairly obvious when you read these types of statements today, we have come a long ways in the last twenty, twenty-five years. Even my granddaughter today, for example, in her education in her school, they are so involved in the environment which was so different then when we were in school. We just take a different focus on protecting what we have, and we certainly need to. It is nice to see, even at that early age.

The minster also points out, quite commonsensibly I think, that it belongs to all of us and we have to look after it. Anything that we can do by way of competitions or award ceremonies that would encourage people to learn more about the environment and to protect our environment, everybody in this House, I would think, is certainly in favour of such a thing.

The only comment I would make, and not intending to be negative at all here, is another part of our environment we have to make use of the best we can, and that is our provincial parks, which also comes under this minister's department. There is a lot of feedback in the public. Just home on the weekend, for example, the J.T. Cheeseman Park, a provincial park, a very well-utilized portion of our provincial park system, and the controversy about having to pay this extra $10.63 for the reservations system. People feel that it is unnecessary -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. PARSONS: People feel it is unnecessary and that the minister should have a second look and revisit this because it is a very used portion of our environment as well. People would like to continue to use it but, quite frankly, if you check the numbers, even in that locality right now, the numbers apparently are down quite drastically since that fee was imposed. I would just encourage the minister to have a look at that and see if he could revisit that.

Thank you.

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

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

I thank the minister for his advanced copy.

I, too, am very happy to celebrate Environment Week. I think we have a community in this Province, our whole community, where there is a lot of concern for the environment and a lot of activities are going on. I agree with everything that the minister has in his statement, but I would have liked for him to go a little bit further because people also need good governance by government when it comes to some of these efforts. So, when we talk about reducing energy at home, it would be really good if the government had been able to put in this statement something about a new program with regard to retrofitting and being there to help people as they reduce. It is not just reducing of energy, the turning on a light bulb, it is also the retrofitting of their houses.

I would encourage government to think about its role as a manager and as the body that has to give good governance in assisting individuals as they do what the minister is encouraging.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this hon. House of the significant progress being made to prevent, reduce and alleviate poverty in our Province.

Last June, government and the community embarked on a journey to transform Newfoundland and Labrador from the Province with the most poverty to one with the least poverty. Guided by a long-term and integrated approach, Newfoundland and Labrador is leading the way as only the second Province to move forward with a comprehensive Poverty Reduction Strategy and Action Plan. The National Council of Welfare and leading anti-poverty groups in Canada applaud our efforts and call it a national model for the country.

There are many elements contained in our $91 million Budget 2007 Poverty Reduction Strategy. Commitments including initiatives for low-income families, women, seniors and youth, and persons with disabilities as well as measures to address affordable housing, access to education and training, dental care, child care, employment and income. Today, I will highlight progress in several areas.

Drug costs are a significant barrier for low-income individuals and families and add to the depth of poverty. The expansion of Newfoundland and Labrador's Prescription Drug Program and recent enhancements to it has significantly reduced drug costs for thousands of people in our Province.

It is recognized that increasing self-reliance through employment is critically important in fighting poverty. This means investing in programs to enable low-income persons to access and make better connections to the labour market. For example, over 1,000 people have access to Job Start Benefit to form a much stronger linkage to work.

Going to work is difficult for families without access to affordable child care. The strategy addresses this by increasing the number of affordable child care spaces for low-income families to help 25 per cent more children access it.

The Poverty Reduction Strategy recognizes the need to see incomes rise for low-income earners. Keeping with this, the minimum wage has risen by $1.00 per hour, and in Budget 2007, a further increase means it will reach $8.00 by April 2008. As well, changes in the provincial tax system mean the elimination or reduction of provincial income taxes for more than 30,000 individuals.

We are making progress and there are many other areas in which we are moving the strategy forward. This government will continue to invest in a mix of policy and program areas to achieve the vision for our Province where poverty has been eliminated.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement and to say, I can assure you that members on this side of the House would rather see nothing more than our Province with the least number of poverty in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that when we try to judge poverty it is not an easy issue to resolve. There is an imaginary line - and if someone is living with a salary of approximately $20,000 or $21,000 a year, and all the good things that government are doing, whether it is a reduction in taxes, or school books or fees, yes, it is all a help because it releases some of the money they are making, that they can do other things for themselves within the pocket that they are making, but in the long term, in order to reach above that line we have to make sure that there are good paying jobs for those people to go into.

I agree with the minister, all the things that are being done is a help along the line, but what we have to do is create better paying jobs for those people once they receive the training. We know today, like on the Northeast Coast and Labrador, many people are suffering, and it just adds to the burden.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we want to thank the government for what they are doing, but I want to say to them and stress to them that job creation is the key to getting people out of the poverty line.

Thank you very much.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Naturally, everything that the government had in its Budget that is being reiterated here today by the minister is important, and every single bit of it, obviously, I would want to see happening, but we do have very serious issues here in our Province with regard to poverty.

Today, on the morning news on CBC, I heard a Salvation Army Officer from Corner Brook talking, and he was talking about how they have had to increase the times of opening of a soup kitchen that they started. They wondered, first, was a soup kitchen needed in Corner Brook? They decided a soup kitchen was needed, and they started once a month. Now it is once every two weeks, and they think -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Now they are looking at, they might have to have the soup kitchen once a week.

So, it is not just here in St. John's that we have homeless, that we have elderly people and people who are going to soup kitchens. It is happening elsewhere in the Province as well.

I am glad to see what the government is doing, but real progress will be seen when we see our numbers of people below the low-income cut-off line decreasing. That is when we will know that we have progress, and when we see people really showing that they have higher amounts of money in their hands, that they are earning more at the jobs that they are doing, and that they are able to make a living for themselves and their families.

We have to keep up the work. We have to increase the work, and maybe in five years time we will be able to have indicators that show us the actual progress that these policies have made. I hope we will see that.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Furthers statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Later today, Chief Justice Green will be delivering his report on constituency allowances and spending to government at 4:30 p.m., I understand, according to the Premier's press release.

In February, after briefing the Premier on the status of his report, Chief Justice Green immediately briefed me and, later, the Leader of the NDP. He also stated to our caucus that his preference would be to have the report delivered to all parties in the House of Assembly at the same time.

I ask the Premier: In the spirit of openness and accountability, would you be willing to provide a copy of Chief Justice Green's report to all Members of the House of Assembly and to the public once you receive it this afternoon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of truth, integrity, fairness, and everything that is right in the political system, I do not know why we even bother to answer questions that are asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

On Thursday past in this House, when I was asked a question with regard to an amount that was spent on presumed chauffeur services in Ireland, I told the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his numbers, his facts and his information were absolutely incorrect. Those were my exact words which are taken from Hansard.

That same afternoon, he and his party issue a news release. "Reid questions $24,000 chauffeur service charged by Premier in Ireland while so many people struggling financially." In that release he is quoted as saying, "Meanwhile, the Premier has no problem spending almost $24,000 on chauffeur services...".

Now, he issued that after he had asked me that question in the House - and he knew the difference - and he was told that the amount for transportation services for myself, six other officials and five companies, was less than $10,000 and was more in the line of $9,000.

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: He issued an incorrect release, deliberately providing incorrect, inaccurate, misleading, untrue information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The people of this Province should take anything he says with a grain of salt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, we will get to that later on in Question Period, but I do not see how that has anything to do with Chief Justice Green's report that is going to be delivered at 4:30 this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the conclusions of this report will impact all forty-eight Members in the House of Assembly and not just those in Cabinet, I say to the Premier. The people of the Province were the ones who demanded that such a review would be done, and they have a right to that information as well, I say to the Premier.

I ask the Premier: Why are you unwilling to immediately release the recommendations of Chief Justice Green's report to everybody this afternoon when you receive it at 4:30 p.m.?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the people of this Province are very, very grateful that this government decided to allow the Auditor General in and decided to open up all the problems that were occurring within the system, that decided to have a proper investigation, decided to ask the police to look at this and investigate it, decided to ask the Chief Justice to come in and look at this so that, on a go-forward basis, we can have the best possible system in Canada, so that we can clean this up, that there will be new accountability.

That report will be presented to me this afternoon. That report will not be changed in any way. We would have no authority to tamper with it or change it. We understand it is a very voluminous report, significant size. We, as a government, have a responsibility to take it, assess it, and be able to explain to the general public exactly how we are going to proceed, how we are going to approach this, how quickly we can do it.

If we could implement it tomorrow we would do it, but we have to actually look at what the implications are, what legislative changes are required, but it would certainly be our intention to try and do everything we can during this session of the House, if that means staying for another month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not still understand why the Premier thinks there are ten or twelve or fourteen of those people across the floor in his Cabinet who are the only ones who might understand what is in that report.

Mr. Speaker, again I say to the Premier: It was commissioned using taxpayers' dollars, paid for by taxpayers' dollars. It was the public who demanded that this report be done, and I still do not understand why you cannot release it to everybody this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, on a different question, for two or three or four weeks we have been talking about the issue of ice on the Northeast coast. I asked the Minister of Fisheries, a few weeks ago, whether he mentioned it when he was in Ottawa meeting with the federal minister and he said no.

I asked the Premier, who was in Ottawa most, if not all, of last week attending various functions with students, whether or not he mentioned this very serious issue with the Prime Minister or any of his ministers. He said the Prime Minster was not in town at the time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that the Premier was in Ottawa again this weekend, because most of us saw him on Hockey Night in Canada. I also happen to know that Stephen Harper was in Ottawa for the weekend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to put his question quickly.

MR. REID: I ask the Premier: Did you use that opportunity to speak with the Prime Minister or any of his ministers concerning this very serious issue about doing something to help the individuals who are affected by ice conditions on the Northeast Coast? Did you mention it to anyone in Ottawa about trying to do something to help these people?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the government, through various ministers, have taken every opportunity over the last several weeks to make sure that the Government of Canada, through the regional minister, Minister Hearn, is fully apprised of conditions facing people along the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and the North Coast of Labrador.

Anybody, Mr. Speaker, anybody who has, you know, an eye to see, knows since some time in March that we are facing extraordinary circumstances in terms of ice along the Northeast Coast. The minister, my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, has made repeated representations to his counterpart in Ottawa, which is where it will have to be dealt with if it is going to be dealt with. My Parliamentary Secretary has made numerous and repeated representations to people in Ottawa.

The people in Ottawa, through the regional minister - I heard him myself. He has been saying now for two weeks that they are ready to move. They have a plan developed. They have a plan ready to announce. Well, for the honour of God, for the honour of everybody -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: - who is depending on some assistance, for the honour of God, please announce it. What are you holding it for, I say, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we know that the federal minister is aware of it. I have spoken to him, I have written him, I have written his colleague, the minister responsible for EI. Most of the members on this side of the House have also contacted the federal government on behalf of those people.

Mr. Speaker, this, today, is two months for many people on the Northeast Coast and Labrador since they received a cent. Obviously, they cannot apply for social services because - I went through that last week - you have to be off for sixty days with no source of income.

I ask the minister - it is obvious that the federal government does not understand the severity of this. I heard the federal minister talk about, if there is a need. Well, I think it is time for the federal government to wake up and realize there is a need. In the meantime, what is your government going to do to help these individuals out on the Northeast Coast and Labrador while they are going through this very difficult, trying time where they are having to go without and, in some cases, having to do without food?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is one area where we do not have a disagreement, and that is that people, through no fault of their own, because of environmental conditions, are going through a very, very difficult time. They are not able to get their crab pots in the water. They are not able to fish and therefore their income, in many cases, has run out. I have been talking to people individually along the Northeast Coast whose incomes have been run out now for a couple of weeks or more, and they are very, very difficult situations.

What is hanging up the Government of Canada and the regional minister in announcing a plan? They say they have one. I heard the minister, myself, saying he is ready to announce it. Well, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, the people out there who need this assistance need to be banging on the doors of their Member of Parliament, banging on the doors of the regional minister, banging on the doors of Ottawa, because it is their responsibility to come with an assistance program. Every time we have had this problem in the past it has been the federal government, either through EI extension -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: - or some other forum have come to the rescue, because it is their responsibility, their constitutional responsibility.

We are doing everything we can to make sure that they do it. The ball is in their court to proceed and do something. The people demand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister and to the Premier: You are sitting on a $267 million surplus this year. When are you going to do something? Because it is obvious that your federal cousins are just waiting until the time that these people either leave the Province or they go somewhere else. It is time that you stepped in and helped these people on the Northeast Coast.

Mr. Speaker, last week, a spokesperson for FPI stated that there is no agreement on the sale of that company and there is a possibility that no agreement will be reached. Shareholder meetings have also been postponed until the middle of August to discuss that proposal.

I ask the Premier, or the minister: Have any additional concerns been brought to your attention that may impact the deal on the sale of FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, on the preamble to the question, people on this side of the House do not have any apprehension whatsoever about making representation to whoever the government is in Ottawa. They are not my political cousins. I had nothing to do with creating them, Mr. Speaker, but they are elected to govern. Canadians who live in Newfoundland and Labrador need assistance. They demand it and they should have it, and I would expect them to deliver it, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of FPI, there is nothing unusual here, Mr. Speaker. They were non-biding agreements that were signed. My understanding is that everything is on track to have those non-binding agreements converted into binding agreements, some of which will likely happen over the next few days, some more of which will happen perhaps over the next week or two, depending on the involvement here, because High Liner and FPI are both publicly traded companies, so it is all on track.

The universe is unfolding as it should, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware that there is anything off track.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am not aware that there is anything off track or off side in terms of the process towards final binding agreements between all the parties, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader said that they were not his federal cousins in Ottawa, and that he had nothing to do with them being elected. Well, I say to the Government House Leader, if you did not, you were probably the only one over there on that side that did not, because most members on that side, if not all, including the Premier, campaigned for your Tory cousins in Ottawa. In fact, most of them had their pictures on brochures that were being distributed around the Province supporting the federal Tory Party.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is on record as stating that the final deal on major resource files should be debated in the House of Assembly before being passed. Unfortunately, members of this House of Assembly are now being asked to scrap the FPI deal before the deal is finalized.

I ask the Premier: Will you be willing to postpone the decision to scrap the FPI Act until a final deal on the sale of FPI has been finalized so that everyone in the Province can see the details of exactly what is happening to that company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the hon. gentleman and, through this House, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is this: We will not be proclaiming any act to repeal the FPI Act unless and until there is a final and binding deal entered into by all the parties here: FPI, OCI, High Liner, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If there is any deviation whatsoever from what we will disclose to this House from the time the debate starts until the bill is passed and proclaimed, then this House and the people of the Province will be so notified. This government has no intention whatsoever of trying to hide anything in terms of the repeal of the FPI Act. We will provide all and sundry with every piece of information that they need to make a decision, and we will not proclaim the act until and unless we reach final and binding agreements. That is our commitment, that is openness, that is accountability and that is what we intend to live up to, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a joke, when they talk about openness and accountability. Every time we ask a question over here, the only way we can get the information is file under the Freedom of Information Act and pay money to do it, I say to the minister opposite.

Mr. Speaker, government has appointed Mr. Paul Reynolds as the Acting Chief Electoral Officer, even though his appointment has not yet been approved in the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly Act does not have a provision which allows Mr. Reynolds to fill the position of Commissioner of Members' Interests in an acting capacity; does not have provision under the act. In other words, Mr. Reynolds is breaking the law by filling the position of Commissioner of Members' Interests.

I ask the Premier: Why is he contravening the House of Assembly Act by allowing Mr. Reynolds to fill the position of Commissioner for Members' Interests?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the only joke here is the Leader of the Opposition. I remember as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture volunteering, without the benefit of them applying under the Freedom of Information Act, to give them information on my travel, for example. They refused it. They refused to accept it. I suppose they figured we would doctor the answers or something or other, so they did not trust us. I said: Well, if that is the way you feel about it, apply under the act, and be darned, and go through the process and get it. That is what they always had to do, but I had offered to give them what I had when they asked for it, but it was not good enough for them.

Mr. Speaker, on Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds is not fulfilling the position of Acting Commissioner of Members' Interests. Mr. Reynolds is Acting Chief Electoral Officer for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When the resolution passes this House, as it will one of those odd days, Mr. Reynolds will be confirmed as Chief Electoral Officer for the Province, as well as Commissioner for Members' Interests. But, in the Interim, there is no legislative provision for enacting Commissioner of Members' Interests. So, Mr. Reynolds is not filling that position, therefore no law has been broken, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, therein lies the problem. We asked for information and the information we are given is faulty. The Premier talked a little while ago about the chauffeur driven limousine in Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from Mr. Paul Reynolds late last week with his signature above the title: Commissioner of Members' Interests. If he is not acting, or if he is not the Commissioner of Members' Interests, why am I receiving letters for him? When are you going to get on top of what is happening in your government and give the people the information, the right information, so that we do not have to go through Freedom of Information requests, or come in here everyday and listen to you people say that the information that we are putting forward is not true?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, everyday that the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and says something that is not a fact, I am going to tell him it is not a fact, whether he likes it, lumps it or doesn't like it.

The fact of the matter is, is that there is no provision in the statute, in the law, to appoint an Acting Commissioner for Members' Interests. So, therefore, there is no person acting in that position. That is the truthful answer. That is the way it is and that is the way it is going to be, unless and until Mr. Reynolds is confirmed by this House, Mr. Speaker. I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish that the Government House Leader, or the Premier, or someone would call Paul Reynolds and tell him that he is not supposed to be signing his name as the Commissioner of Members' Interests. I will have my staff in the office bring down the letter which I received from him last week, I say to the minister. So don't tell me that the information I have is faulty. If it is, it is only because you did not tell Paul Reynolds that he was not the Commissioner of Members' Interests, because he certainly believes he is, just like he believes he is the Chief Electoral Officer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Now, Mr. Speaker, we will get back to the Premier's limo services in Ireland. Two weeks ago this report was tabled by the government in the House of Assembly. On page 4, it states that the chauffeur service provided to the Premier and his ministers, on that trade mission, cost $23,152.92. Now, Mr. Speaker, that came to the floor of the House of Assembly by this government two weeks ago.

Last Thursday, the day that I raised this question in the House of Assembly, there was an amendment sent to me -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his question, quickly.

MR. REID: - by this group of individuals, the Government Purchasing Agency, and the only thing that changed was who it was billed to. Instead of billing it to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, it was billed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier says that he did not spend $24,000 in Ireland, why is there a group of people in government, under his watch, sending out information like that to us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the facts are the facts. I was asked a question here in this House and I gave the correct answer and I gave a truthful answer. That was an answer that was based on invoices and actual cost. That actual cost was less than $9,000. That is exactly what I said in this House, and you know the difference.

That same afternoon, then, you proceeded to go out with a public press release, a statement, and you continue to do it today, and you talk about chauffeur services and everything else, and $24,000. You know the difference.

As a member of this House, an officer of this House, you should know that you should not mislead the general public when you know that something is absolutely and completely incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: For him to do that is absolutely shameful under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker. He knows the exact amount. The invoices will be provided to the Opposition, and can be provided to the Opposition.

This is a document that talks about exceptions and exemptions under the Public Tender Act. You can apply for an exemption, but you do not necessarily spend it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to complete his answer quickly now.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - and he knows the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The information that we released to the public last Thursday was correct, as we know it, as was tabled by your government. The only information that we saw is in that report.

Now, the Premier talks about he stood in the House on Thursday and gave us the information. Well, Mr. Speaker, pardon me if I do not take that information to the bank.

The Minister of Fisheries just stood in the House and said that Paul Reynolds was not the Commissioner of Oaths.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: The same Premier who says, trust me - because he has not given us the documentation - is the same individuals who said that the mill in Stephenville would never close under his watch.

I ask the Premier: When will you submit to this House of Assembly all of the bills and all of the documentation associated with that trip to Ireland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. I have already said we will give them the documentation. We will provide it.

What I submit to this House and what I said to this House was the truth. It was accurate, and for him to imply that under any circumstances he cannot take what I say to the bank here in this House - I gave him a direct answer, that is was absolutely incorrect, and then you proceeded to mislead the general public. That is absolutely shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Leader of the Opposition's question to the Premier was, would be agree to table the documentation related to the Ireland visit. That was a simple question.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier committed to a judicial inquiry into the faulty hormone receptor testing for breast cancer patients. It has been two weeks and we have not heard any information regarding the Terms of Reference or the name of the commissioner for this inquiry.

I ask the Premier: Have the Terms of Reference for this inquiry been drafted? Has government identified a commissioner to lead the inquiry? When will the public be provided with the details of this inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there have not been any Terms of Reference drafted to this point, but we are in the process of identifying a commissioner. We are still waiting to have that finalized, so we expect that to happen very quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, on Friday we learned that another radiologist has been suspended in the Province and approximately fifty of his tests are being re-examined to determine if there is a problem with his work. It has been reported that the individual has conducted over 47,000 reports over the past few years.

I ask the minister: If problems are detected with the testing sample currently being reviewed, could you explain what impact this may have on the other 47,000 tests that this individual has completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it would be a little bit premature to comment on the remaining tests that will not be part of this sampling that is being done now. That is the whole reason for this review that is currently taking place.

Central Health have indicated that there will be a minimum of fifty of those exams reviewed. In fact, today, as we speak, the radiologist who has been engaged to do this is now reviewing how he would propose to start that review process and the selection of those images to be done. After that process is concluded, the review will give some indication of the nature - if there are any problems with a particular type of exam, that will be revealed through that process. If these issues are isolated to one particular type of image testing, then that will define how it might be approached.

Until such time as this initial review is completed, it would be premature to talk about what might happen or what might be the implications for those who will not be included in this first sampling that is being done. It is just purely that, a sampling.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as reported in this weekend's media, doctors are questioning why government's priorities are misplaced when it comes to health care spending. In particular, questions were raised as to why money from the capital equipment expenditures budget was taken to fix a broken sprinkler system at the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre.

I ask the minister: Why is government using money earmarked for the purchase of new technologically advanced equipment to fund projects that should be included under the general infrastructure budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: In the Budget that the Minister of Finance read in this House very recently we laid out in this particular year, for example, we are going to be spending some $22 million on capital equipment this year throughout all of our health facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Since we have been in government, after this year, we will have spent some $60-odd million in medical equipment.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, an announcement this year, we are spending new money to build a new hospital in the Labrador City, Wabush area. We are into Happy Valley-Goose Bay building a new long-term care facility, building a new long-term care facility in Lewisporte, one in Corner Brook and one in Clarenville.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and committed to investing hundreds of millions of dollars in new physical infrastructure, new physical plants, the buildings themselves. At the end of this fiscal year we will have spent, as I said, a little over $60 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: - in equipment, Mr. Speaker. Money well spent, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, time for a very brief supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just say to the minister, I assume Dr. Parsons of Central - no relation - knows what he is talking about. His issue was that you are spending money that he had thought was earmarked for technology and equipment, on infrastructure. Maybe you can answer the question. If he is correct, why are you doing it as a government? It is pretty simple.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, time for a very brief response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the issue that the member is referencing is a question that a physician asked of me this past Saturday at the Medical Association's annual meeting. I think, if he were present, and those who were present would have recognized, that is not how the question was phrased. It was clearly not that he was suggesting that money that was originally earmarked for medical equipment was actually physically taken and spent somewhere else. What he was talking about was how government prioritizes capital expenditures, whether it is in the medical equipment or in the physical infrastructure, I say, Mr. Speaker, so there is a very clear distinction in the way in which the question was worded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

In Budget 2007, the government announced a $6.5 million investment in child, youth and family services. NAPE, the union representing social workers, indicates in a May 24 news release that hiring is very slow, and I quote their concern: Social workers throughout the Province are at the end of their ropes physically and mentally. Their current unacceptably high work loads pose a risk to the safety of some of society's most vulnerable individuals.

Can the Minister of Health and Community Services tell us how many of the new social work positions will be available for child protection services, and when will these positions begin?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I can get, for the member opposite, the exact number for each individual authority. What I can tell her today is that each of the authorities have, in fact, initiated recruitment efforts. Every single one of the authorities have. In fact, many of the authorities have already recruited some social workers who are actually working today. In fact, I met one on Friday night at the Foster Families Association annual meeting, who said she had just started, a brand new graduate from this year, in the St. John's region.

So, I can tell her that the recruitment process has, in fact, started. I will have for her tomorrow the exact numbers that have been recruited by each authority, but the process has, in fact, started.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will wait until tomorrow then. Thank you.

The issue around social workers and my understanding is, speaking to people involved in the area, there are a lot of issues. It began in 1999 with the reorganization of services provided by the Department of Health into regional hospital and community health boards and was exacerbated in 2004 when government combined all the regional health boards and other community health organizations into the four Regional Health Authorities. Services for children are competing with home care, community corrections, and surgical and medical services.

Will the minister commit to an external and complete review of the four health authorities with a view to providing the best possible medical and social services to the Province? Is this system working?

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just so that the member opposite understands fully, she talks about the changes that have occurred in child, youth and families services, but I want to remind the member opposite, that since we formed government there has been a 9 per cent increase, just slightly over a 9 per cent increase in the total number of social workers who are working in the system.

She laid out for us a chronology of events that have occurred within health and community services and some changes that have occurred, consolidation of health authorities. As I said in this House, as a result of the consolidation of what was happening in the institutional sector and what was happening in the community sector, what we now have is a totally integrated health system, where we have taken what has taken place in the community and what has taken place in our institutions - as a result of that integration, we now have a completely seamless health system where people can come in and out at various points in that system with ease and transparency, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Deloitte Organizational and Operational Review of Child, Youth and Family Services report released on April 30, part of their regional analysis states that there was no provincial strategy to correct the lack of Province wide policies for Child, Youth and Family Services resulting in inconsistent application across regions.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister: When will he and the government realize that a review of the whole health care community services system is necessary and commence this review as soon as possible to meet with some of the recommendations of the study that was released by Deloitte?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite takes the Deloitte report, which is a very focused report. The Deloitte looks at the organizational issues within Child, Youth and Family Services. She is taking that report and now extrapolating across an entire health system, and you cannot do that, I say, Mr. Speaker.

One of the primary - one of the most significant recommendations in the Deloitte report was that government would undertake a plan to develop a strategy around Child, Youth and Family Services. I say, Mr. Speaker, we have begun to do just that. In fact, the commitment in this year's Budget of over $6 million to invest massive amounts of money to bring in additional resources to our Child, Youth and Family Services programs in this Province is a reflection of this government's commitment to continue to enhance, to build on and to enrich that particular program. In addition to that, I say, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer, quickly.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, we have committed to following one of the primary recommendations which was to develop a strategic plan for Child, Youth and Family Services in this Province, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are in the process of doing it as we speak, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has ended.

During Question Period this afternoon, the word misleading and the word deliberately were used in some occasions. The Speaker wishes to review the Hansard to see in what connection and to review the whole text. There is a potential for a breach of parliamentary language and the Speaker will take that matter under review.

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

MR. REID: On two occasions this afternoon in the House of Assembly I rose and said that the House of Assembly Act does not have a provision which allows Mr. Paul Reynolds to act or even be in the position of Commissioner of Members' Interests or in an acting capacity. The Government House Leader stood on two occasions and said that I was correct in that regard and that Paul Reynolds was not the Commissioner of Members' Interests.

Mr. Speaker, I reference the letter that I received from Mr. Paul Reynolds, Commissioner of Members' Interests, on May 15, 2007. I will table that and I would also like to ask the Premier, maybe he can table the Minute in Council whereby Mr. Paul Reynolds was appointed either as the Commissioner of Members' Interests or the Chief Electoral Officer or both, because there is a great deal of confusion concerning that issue (inaudible). Mr. Speaker, this is the individual who looks at every file in the House of Assembly, including the Premier's own blind trust. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that individual is not entitled or not legally permitted to be acting in that position under the House rules, under the rules of the House of Assembly, under the law, I should say, then I suggest that individual be removed from that position this afternoon instead of sending letters out to all of us in the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the Point of Order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have made it abundantly - there is no point of order, first of all. I have made it abundantly clear that Mr. Reynolds is Acting Chief Electoral Officer under the laws of the Province. He is not acting as Commissioner of Members' Interests, but it is a good point here, Mr. Speaker. It is all the more reason that this matter be dealt with, and dealt with efficiently and quickly by the House, and the government has a responsibility to do that Mr. Speaker, and we shall be doing that forthwith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Speaking to the point of order, the Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I have to speak to the point of order because I, too, have received a letter from Mr. Reynolds in his capacity as Commissioner of Members' Interests. I want to ask that the House Leader make a commitment to this House that he recognizes this person has been acting in the capacity, which is not a legal capacity, and that action get taken, because I was extremely surprised when I received a letter from him. I had no idea he was now acting in this capacity, and he is putting out letters in that capacity, not just because the title is under his name but because of the content of the letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair wishes to make two points. We should be very careful that after Question Period we do not use points of order for anything other than genuine points of order.

Secondly, the House will know that members who sit in Opposition have no obligation to table documents. They are quite willing to share documents if they wish, but there is no obligation under our rules for a member, nor is it possible to table matters in the manner in which it just occurred a few seconds ago. If the member wishes to share information, that is fine with the Chair.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I am not sure if you were alluding to the same member of the House, as I intended to raise on a point of order because you did not say who you were thinking of, but I would like to raise a point of order that during Question Period the Premier used the word misleading and used the word deliberate in response to one of the questions from the Leader of the Opposition. Now maybe that is the same one you are alluding to. If that is the case, fine, I will just sit and we will await your ruling. Is that the same incident?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Chair confirms that the word misleading and the word deliberately was also used, and in this case it was used by the hon. the Premier.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, a second point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I do believe last week, when this issue first came up about the tabling of this document, about untendered items under the public tender exceptions - I do believe I made a point of order at that time pointing out that you had tabled this document here in the House, and I do believe - it is, obviously, certain excerpts of it had become a source of controversy since that happened and there was a subsequent (inaudible) from yourself.

Am I correct in understanding that you undertook to make a ruling on that issue and you reserved judgement on that issue based on a point of order that I made earlier? Are we still expecting to hear from you in regard to the point of order which I made last week about this document?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has already made it clear that under the law the Chair's role is merely to table the documents as they are presented and prepared by the Government Purchasing Agency. The Chair has no role in modifications or acknowledging even the source of the documents. Under our procedures, as the Chair receives exceptions to the Public Tender Act, then the Chair tables them. That would be the only role the Chair would have in this particular matter.

When a clarification or a matter was raised and a further document arrived it was tabled immediately on the same day.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, again, not debating in any way what you have said - I agree with what you said, actually, that you are just a conduit through which the document found itself. The thrust of the point of order which I raised next week is: Are members of the House acting properly in accepting documents tabled in the House in good faith? If there is something improper about these documents, we as members would not know that any more than yourself, who tabled it in the House.

Is it fair, then, as members of the House, to assume that if these documents get tabled here they are reliable and we can reliable upon them until we know otherwise?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could just give an observation here. Those matters are tabled and the information provided under the auspices of the Government Purchasing Agency, as I understand it, and that agency answers to the House through my colleague, the Minister of Government Services. If there are questions regarding the accuracy or anything else related to the document itself, I would think that rather than trying to deal with the Chair who just has a responsibility to pass it on to the House, that if there is any concern regarding the documents and the accuracy, then any question in that regard should be appropriately put to the minister either in the House or in some other forum.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I agree wholeheartedly with what the Government House Leader said about what he understands the process to be for tabling documents. In fact, I thought and assumed that the document would have been tabled in the House by the minister, but that is not what happened here. This document was tabled in this House by the Speaker. I don't know, first of all, why it happened that way and not through the minister.

Secondly, I am asking: Unless people in this House, members in this House, know otherwise, how can we act on other than what is presented here? We must assume it to be truthful until we are proven otherwise.

The question raised today by the Leader of the Opposition to the Premier was simply saying, if you have evidence to the contrary of what has been tabled here as a public document, table it and we will move on.

Rather than having this bickering and accusing people of misleading one another, we are going to assume that whatever is tabled in this House is truthful.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the point, as I understand it, the Chief Operating Officer for the Government Purchasing Agency is an officer of the House and therefore has a statutory obligation to provide his or her reports to the Speaker, who provides them to the House.

In terms of answering, in terms of ministerial responsibility for the agency, it is the Minister of Government Services. I mean, the Speaker just cannot answer in the House. We all understand that. Therefore, if there is a question as to the accuracy of the information provided, it should be put through the appropriate minister and the appropriate department. If that happens, I am sure the answers will be forthcoming.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will merely say that when the Chair became aware that there was a need for a correction, the document was tabled immediately on the same day.

The Chair acknowledges that, under the law, the Speaker is obligated to table exceptions to the Public Tender Act because the agency is, under the law, supposed to provide the Speaker with that document. That is the process that we have. I think that the hon. Government House Leader outlined the procedures.

I will only say that as soon as I became aware that there was a need for change, all we did was change the department that prepared the document, not any of the information contained therein.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table for the hon. members the Annual Report On Operations Carried Out Under The Automobile Insurance Act for the period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment of being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2005-2006 Annual Report for the Central Regional Health Authority.

The current annual report provides an overview of key activities that occurred during the fiscal year 2005-2006. Central Regional Health Authority will table its first annual report upon the completion of the first year of its 2006-2007 business plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees?

I wish to table the Report of the Commission of Internal Economy for the fiscal year April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007.

In tabling this report, I wish to note that the document is transitional in that, while it differs from previous reports in style and presentation, future reports will be further modified as changes are made pursuant to changes recommended by the Green Commission.

I also wish to note that the format of the financial presentation has been completed in consultation with the Office of the Auditor General.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I will move that the House not adjourn on tomorrow, Tuesday, June 5, at 5:30 p.m. and, further, that the House, pursuant to the same motion, not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Standing Order 47, I give notice that I will move the following motion with respect to the resolution respecting the appointment of Mr. Paul Reynolds as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests, namely, "That the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that further consideration of the resolution or amendments to the resolution shall not further be postponed."

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Standing Order 63, it is private members' day this week for the Opposition. We give notice of a private member's motion moved by the Member for Torngat Mountains, seconded by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

WHEREAS thick, heavy ice conditions on the Northeast and Labrador Coasts are now recognized as the worst ice conditions in twenty years and this has delayed the seasonal inshore fishery from starting by over a month or more; and

WHEREAS EI benefits have already run out for many of the fish harvesters and fish plant workers affected; and

WHEREAS those affected are facing dire circumstances, including the sale of their personal belongings just to survive; and

WHEREAS there is a record surplus in the EI fund of over $51 billion and these workers have paid into this fund for protection of unforseen job losses; and

WHEREAS emergency funding for similar programs have been approved in the past; and

WHEREAS many people and organizations have been speaking out publicly and writing the federal government about this hardship; and

WHEREAS this government has not shown that it has exhausted all of its options for these fish harvesters and plant workers, including failing to speak to the Prime Minister directly on this critical matter;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly encourage government to recognize this crisis as a key priority for the people of the areas affected and call upon the Premier to immediately enter into a top-level discussion with the Prime Minister to extend EI benefits to assist those residents of Newfoundland and Labrador currently facing this hardship.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present a petition. There is no need to read the prayer of the petition because I have presented several over the last couple of weeks with regard to road maintenance not only in my area, but I guess throughout the Province. We feel a lot of this has happened due to the closure of the depots during the summertime.

Mr. Speaker, in my particular area - I raised the issue before - a lot of people last year did a lot of damage to their vehicles travelling through Bay Roberts and they received correspondence back from the claims administrator with the Department of Finance saying that this wouldn't be covered off on. They felt, due to thawing and freezing of the roads and so on, that this pothole came there overnight and nobody knew about it. Mr. Speaker, the issue I am referring to happened in middle or late August. I know we have hard winters here in the Province, but I don't think there was very much thawing and freezing at that particular time, even though there is pretty rough weather here.

Mr. Speaker, there are eight or nine of those people who have a tremendous amount of damage done to their vehicles. Some of them live in my district, some of them live in the district of the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I think government should have another look at this and see what can be done for them.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that I want to touch on during this petition is some of the class 4 roads. I know several roads were classified as class 4, but even at that time, after that was done, once or twice a year they would go in with the graders and do those roads for the people. One of the roads I am referring to is First Pond Road in Shearstown. I think there are either eight or nine farmers in there, crop farmers, berry farmers and so on, and they are finding it very difficult, with damage being done to their vehicles as they travel over those roads.

Why government is saying they won't do them now is because a lot of cabin owners live on those roads. Mr. Speaker, the way I look at it, regardless of who lives on them, the people who have to go in there to do their business, and even for the cabin owners - those people purchased their property over the years and I think those roads should be graded. They are only asking for them to be done once in the spring and once again in the fall, to try to keep the roads up to a half decent level.

Another road is the Lighthouse Road in Port de Grave. This is another class 4 road that is in the inventory of the department, and I am calling upon government to see that that road is graded, Mr. Speaker, and probably upgraded. The grader work would be sufficient for the time being. The problem is, I have been told by the depot in Bay Roberts, that last year they had one grader and that had to be used in the Placentia area, all over Trinity Bay, and, I believe, even in the Bonavista Bay area, we only had the one grader.

Mr. Speaker, I know this year the government announced the other day, I think it was $700,000 for my district and for the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. So we got $700,000, and hopefully, some work will get done, compared to what a lot of other members received. I can understand there are major problems in other areas and people get $2 million and $3 million. Hopefully, some of the work will be done, and I guess, along with the maintenance work, I am hoping some of those issues will be resolved.

The other one I was looking forward to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BUTLER: Just for a second to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

The other one I want to refer to is New Harbour Road. Government started working on that road over the past two years and this year, apparently, there is no work going ahead on that road. It is a shame, because the road is deteriorating fast. They started the work on it, but in their wisdom, this year, for why I don't know, they did not continue on with it. I know it is getting closer to the District of Port de Grave, but there is still a lot of this road in the hon. Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde's district. So, I call upon government to look at that end of it and hopefully something can be done.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to enter a petition on groundfish processing licence with respect to the Ramea fish plant. I will just read the petition into the record. The petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the undersigned support Labrador Gem Seafoods Inc. in their efforts to acquire a groundfish processing licence for the fish plant located in the community of Ramea; and

WHEREAS employment in Ramea is very much needed and such potential business opportunities in this area are as important as anywhere in this Province; and

WHEREAS by refusing to issue a processing licence government must recognize the negative socio-economic impacts on Ramea;

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 a groundfish processing licence for Ramea. And, as in duty bound your petitions will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I guess they have sent this petition to both the Member for Cape la Hune, Fortune Bay, who currently represents that area, and also to myself, since with the new electoral boundaries drawing, which will be in effect as of October, this member will have responsibility for that area of Burgeo & LaPoile and has been extended to include Ramea. So I appreciate the fact that they were thoughtful and sent this to me, as well, so that I could rise and enter this petition on their behalf, and I am certainly pleased to do so.

I was in Ramea a few weeks ago, actually, for another function and added the benefit of meeting with the co-operative, as well as the organizers, the fishermen, the harvesters, and the plant workers there. They were very upbeat with the possibility that they might get a groundfish processing licence at that time, because it had gone before the board. Of course, the board had some concerns with it initially and went to the minister. Certain meetings transpired between the minister and the board, and lo and behold, at the end of the day, shoots out that they were not going to get one. So, we submit that Ramea is a very different circumstance. It is an island economy. Its lifeblood rests upon the fishery and still can exist based upon the fishery. There were always exceptions made by prior Administrations when it came to island economies. Fogo Island, for example, had exceptions made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: And we submit that the same exception should be made. It was made in the case of Southern Labrador and made in the case of Fogo-Twillingate areas and it should be done in this particular case. The residents of there, there are approximately 600 or 700 people there. They have no other source of income at this time. This is crucial to them and we submit that there is no reason or rhyme as to why the community of Ramea should not be permitted to have a groundfish processing licence. Right now, the fish that is caught in that particular area - we talk about quality on one hand, the fish that is caught there gets trucked out miles and miles away, even days later, and gets processed in another facility. I think this is a case where an exception should have applied. We have to make exceptions for certain circumstances. It is easy to say: Well, I have accepted every recommendation that ever came from the board, but the minister, I would suggest, has the discretion, and ought to have exercised this discretion in this case, given the particular circumstances of Ramea, which is isolated, in order to allow that groundfish processing to proceed.

It is very unfortunate and these people here - I certainly support them in that - call upon the minister to reconsider that decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move Motion 3, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn today at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, June 4, at 5:30 o'clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, June 4, at 10:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, June 4, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture asks leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited. (Bill 31)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a bill, "An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited," carried. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 31, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 31 be now read a first 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 Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to proceed to Orders.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, second readings.

I would like to begin with Order 9, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation. (Bill 27)

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation." (Bill 27)

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in the House of Assembly today to speak to the new Hydro Corporation Act. By bringing this proposed act to the floor of the House of Assembly we are moving to repeal the existing Hydro Corporation Act, 1994, and replacing it with this new bill.

We have been advised by Legislative Counsel that this is the most effective way to address the required amendments to the existing act while also clearing up the legislation by removing many sections that have been repealed by this House over the three decades since it was passed.

This time last year, Mr. Speaker, we amended the Hydro Corporation Act to give Hydro more flexibility to pursue new business development opportunities while the formal corporate structure could be determined. This was in keeping with our 2003 election commitment to expand the mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to enable the Crown corporation to play a greater role in the development of our energy resources on behalf of the people of the Province.

We committed to giving Hydro the expertise, capacity and authority to explore opportunities and participate in resource developments in the energy sector at the direction of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The new Hydro Corporation Act will see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro return to its roots as a fully regulated electrical utility responsible for the efficient and reliable generation and transmission of electricity in the Province.

With the introduction into the House of Assembly of the proposed Energy Corporation Act we are establishing a new energy corporation to separate the regulated operations of Hydro from the unregulated operations of the energy corporation. By completing this restructuring, our government is ensuring that energy investments in non-regulated activities will not affect electricity rates. The new corporation will own 100 per cent of Hydro and its subsidiaries. This structure follows standard practices in other jurisdictions where a utility is engaged in regulated and unregulated energy markets.

The accompanying new Hydro Corporation Act makes a small number of important changes. We are cleaning up the legislation by removing many sections which have been repealed by this House over the three decades since it was first passed.

First, let me reassure Members of this House of Assembly on some things that the Hydro Corporation Act will not do. It will not, in any way, move in the direction of privatizing of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. While Hydro will be 100 per cent owned by the new energy corporation, the legislation prohibits the disposal of those shares in any way.

Secondly, the new act does not diminish the provincial government's degree of control of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Government has full control of the energy corporation and it will retain full control of Hydro. Government will still directly appoint the Board of Directors, its Chair and the Chief Executive Officer. Government will also retain the ability to direct the operations of Hydro.

Now to turn, Mr. Speaker, to some things the Hydro Corporation Act will do. This new legislation incorporates some sections of the Corporations Act. We believe these standard sections pertaining to corporate governance belong in the legislation governing Hydro. This provides greater clarity and transparency in relation to standard governance approaches, and we believe this is the right thing to do.

Finally, and most importantly, we believe that creating this separation between the supply of electrical power to customers in a rate regulated setting and the investments in other energy ventures that will be undertaken by the new energy corporation is an extremely positive step. It insulates our provincial electricity system from business risks that are naturally associated with the new ventures. It provides focus for the Hydro board and employee, and it will also provide automatic separation of accounts and activities which will help the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities in their valuable task of regulating the industry.

It is the firm belief of this government that any decisions we make must be based on a position of knowledge and strength. That is what we have been working to do since 2003. We have provided the expertise, the structure and the resources within the Department of Natural Resources and Hydro to ensure we have the best information possible to make informed resource decisions.

The new energy corporation and a refocused Hydro is part of that approach, and that is what we are trying to achieve with the introduction of these two new pieces of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assume the minister gave the second reading there - it is almost identical - I guess, on Bill 27 and Bill 28. There seemed to be a lot of references to both pieces of legislation. I can understand that, I guess, because there are a lot of similarities and intentions between these two particular bills. In fact, I would agree with the minister, I know very little, from reading Bill 27 and Bill 28, exactly what the intentions are. There is no doubt that it is needed if we are going to.... We have heard a lot of talk in the last two or three years about us being, as a Province, a great warehouse and storehouse of different energies, whether it is from electrical, the Upper Churchill, the Lower Churchill when it comes on stream, or whether it be wind power, our offshore resources, and putting them all in one basket and finding some way to properly advance it and develop it to the best interests and the best benefits of the Province.

I would like to have some explanation, and I am sure people here in the House would. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I am sure, when it comes to energy issues, and I, quite frankly, Minister, cannot, from reading Bill 27 and Bill 28, get the big picture of exactly what this legislation will or will not allow.

I had a look at it over the weekend. The Government House Leader and myself had some chats prior to the weekend. I had some indication that this was coming and I understood that the minister, of course, might not be here later on in the week and would do second reading today, and that was certainly agreed to, but the more I read of this, and the more I hear of this, the more I know that I do not know what this is all about. No disrespect to the minister, but your explanations that you just gave to me does not give me any level of comfort as to what this is. I, for one, now that I have heard your explanation, I listened attentively because I thought I would learn more than the very limited amount that I do know, but I have no level of comfort at all. In fact, I am wondering if this is so important, and we have heard a lot of talk - I mean, people have been screaming for years and years and years about a new Energy Plan, going back to former Administrations, and even this Administration, going to be out two years ago, and then it was one year ago, it was six months, and four months, and two months, and we still have not seen the energy plan.

The Premier, I think, alluded to in one of his comments that the Energy Plan will be one of the centerpieces, if not the centerpiece, of the upcoming election piece. If that is the case, I think it is incumbent upon all of us here to have the best understanding that we can all have as to what this is about, especially when the minister says today that certain parts will be regulated, certain parts will be unregulated and so on. I think this is an opportunity, and I would ask the minister to consider - and that can be arranged fairly quickly, I am sure, between ourselves and the Leader of the NDP, if some sort of briefing could be prepared by officials in the department. I learn a lot better if I have someone to basically point it out. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. So if there was some kind of presentation whereby you could say this is what twenty-seven is doing, the Hydro corp, this is what the Energy corp is doing, this is the similarities between both and so on. It would give, I suspect, everybody here a greater level of comfort to know, because as well as voting for something, I do not like to vote against anything if I do not know what it is about. I say in all sincerity here, that it is not a case of being for or against, it is just that I am not educated enough about this topic.

Our natural resources critic, who would normally be dealing with this today, unfortunately could not be in the House. I did speak with her and she has the same concerns and was going to raise those questions, actually, as to whether it might be possible for the minister to arrange such a briefing, and anyone who was interested, in the Opposition or government, could attend and get a better understanding of where we are going with this. Everybody in this Province knows that our energy resources, particularly when we talk about the basketful and the warehouse full, whether it is wind power or offshore resources, or whatever, Upper Churchill, Lower Churchill, we need to know where we are going to go and have some idea of how these two important pieces of legislation are going to impact all of us. So, we would certainly request that. Until that time, quite frankly, I am certainly not in a position to make any comments pro or contrary to what the minister has submitted here today.

I will await, of course, the comments of the Leader of the NDP, but given the complexities that I sense here, maybe an adjournment of the debate on this issue might even be in order to do that.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I agree with the adjournment of the debate until we get a briefing. We have limited resources, as people in the House know, and our researcher has been working on this - we have one - and she does have questions. These questions probably could get answered in a briefing, and that would be helpful for us in taking further part in a debate.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not proposing that we close debate today. The agreement was that we would introduce twenty-seven and twenty-eight for second reading and the minister will indicate, I think to the House when she speaks to introduce twenty-eight, that she will arrange the briefings that the Opposition has referred to over the next day or so.

In the meantime, there is an agreement - and I want the record to clearly show this because I cannot allow the minister to speak on twenty-seven, technically, because if she were to speak she would close the debate. But I want the record to show that there is agreement that we are going to adjourn debate on second reading now of Bill 27. We will return to second reading debate on another parliamentary day, probably tomorrow, but we are going to adjourn debate on Bill 27 now, if that is satisfactory, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Agreed.

Okay, Mr. Speaker, that being the case, we will now park Bill 27 and I will move to Order 8 and call second reading of a bill, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province. (Bill 28)

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province." (Bill 28)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legislative changes that these two pieces of legislation speak to will provide for the creation of an energy corporation. The Energy Corporation Act, in fact, will allow for the creation of an umbrella company to separate the regulated operations of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro from the unregulated activities associated with the expanded mandate of the energy corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I will arrange, at the convenience of all parties, to provide a technical briefing to Members of the House of Assembly so they fully understand our intention with regard to these two matters.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments.

We certainly would make the request that both these be dealt with in the same fashion by way of a briefing and I would concur and agree with the Government House Leader, that we are certainly agreeable to parking this piece of legislation, as we did number 27, until we have done that. If we can get it done by tomorrow, no problem.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to make sure that the record clearly shows that we are not going to proceed any further with debate on second reading of Bill 28, the energy corporation. It will be parked for another parliamentary day, likely tomorrow. In the interim, the minister will undertake to provide a briefing on both pieces of legislation, Bill 27 and Bill 28, for our colleagues in the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that is agreed to by the three parties represented here in the House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to call Order 6, Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991." (Bill 21)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to introduce Bill 21, on behalf of the government, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.

My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that before I became Government House Leader back, I guess, two Government House Leaders ago, right now - certainly back to our former colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board when he was Government House Leader, and I believe it even goes back to the former Member for Kilbride when he was Government House Leader - that there was work carried out between the various parties. Most of it - I think probably in the case of the NDP, it would have happened while the former Leader and the former Member for Labrador West were members of the House, but there was work carried out between the various parties on amendments to the Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker, some of it is pretty technical, there is no question about that. On the other hand, it is necessary legislation. Let me give one example. We now have fixed elections. Everybody knows that unless there is a variation, say, for example, on the change of leaders, or leader of the government, then everybody knows that the second Tuesday in October, every four years, is now election day. October 9 this year there will be a general election, the first set election date in the history of the Province.

Therefore, certain things that were more difficult to do when the election date was variable are now not so difficult to do; for example, special ballots and voting when candidates haven't been nominated. I mean, once electoral district returning officers are put in place, and that process is well underway now, then there is no reason that people who know in, I don't know, August or September, for example, who know that they are going to be out of the Province because of work commitments, there is no reason that those people, if they have made up their mind the party they are going to support, cannot go into the office of the district returning officer - I don't mean the Chief Electoral Officer. Under the old special ballot arrangement all of this had to be funneled through the Chief Electoral Office here in St. John's, and that led to a lot of difficulties. There is no question about it.

I think representatives of parties on both sides of the House would acknowledge that there were difficulties that arose from that kind of an arrangement; not necessarily intentional difficulties in people trying to find a way to abuse the system or to do something that the system didn't allow, but representatives of parties had the onus put on them to go out to seniors' homes or places of work or colleges, in terms of students, Memorial University either in Corner Brook or St. John's or some of the other campus sites, and identify people, for example, from Lewisporte District who were not going to be able to be in Lewisporte District during the advanced poll, and knew they weren't going to be in Lewisporte District during regular polling day, had to identify them, have the appropriate identification done, take it to the Electoral Office here in St. John's, have a special ballot kit issued, have that dropped off to the individual, and then there were so many more days after in which it had to be picked up and brought back to the Chief Electoral Office. It could only be done at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

It seems to me that, with fixed elections, that can all be done well in advance of the election day because people know when the election day is. It can all be done in the office of the district returning officer. There is no reason that somebody who is going to be away working and not available for advanced polls or election day cannot, when they are home for their two or three week return home, whenever that is, a month or two before the election date, because we know when it is going to be, cannot go into the office of the district returning officer in Lewisporte, or any other district of the forty-eight districts in Newfoundland and Labrador, and ask to vote. There is no reason they should not be able to do that.

It is my understanding that is the intention of this legislation, to allow that kind of thing to happen, that the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer here in St. John's will not be the only place where you can, in fact, exercise your right to vote, and you do not necessarily have to have candidates that are officially nominated. If you know the party, if you have made up your mind, the party of your choice, then you can go in and you can indicate on a ballot what that party affiliation is that you wish to vote for and that ballot, of course, when it is opened, under the legal requirements of the law, can be transferred and counted in favour of the candidate that represents that particular party. That is, I think, a good reform, a good piece of legislation that strengthens our democracy ahead of what it was under the old system.

I would like to briefly run through some of the other amendments. As I have said, some of them are technical, there is no question about that, and I apologize for the dryness of some of this, but it is the law and the law is as it is, and that is all we can do about it.

Clause 1 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, would repeal and replace section 13 of the current act to allow the names and addresses of returning officers to be published in various media, not only just in the Gazette. The Newfoundland and Labrador Gazette, the official publication of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, was the requirement, under the act, but now it would be possible to publish the names of the district returning officers in some other media. It could be a radio advertisement, it could be in the local newspaper. Most of the electoral districts in Newfoundland and Labrador now are served at least by one, in some cases more than one, local district newspaper. Again, I just use Lewisporte because that is the example I know best. The Lewisporte Pilot serves the District of Lewisporte, the District of Twillingate & Fogo, and I guess pretty well - we used to call them the old Robinson RV papers; I guess they are Transcontinental now - most districts are served by a newspaper and, if they are not, they are certainly within listening distance of a radio so that the names of the district returning officer and where they are located and their phone numbers can be accessed publicly. Of course, you can do it through the Internet as well. That is the provision contained in clause 1.

Clause 2, Mr. Speaker, would amend subsection 28(2) of the act to increase the size of a polling station. I want to inform the House that I believe clause 2 would allow the act to increase the size from 275 electors to 350 electors. Two hundred and seventy-five is the present law, Mr. Speaker, and the agreed-on draft was that we could increase that to 350.

I have had some difficulty with that as it relates to smaller rural polling stations. It seems to me that the gist here might be to try to eliminate some of those and combine them into a larger polling division. So, what we are going to propose, Mr. Speaker, when we get to Committee, is that we delete that clause all together. I know that has been raised with me by people on the other side, that we delete that clause. We will not amend the present 28(2). We will be proposing that, when we get to Committee, we leave it as it is.

Clause 3 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, would add a proposed section 56(2) to the act which would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to enter into agreements with municipalities and school boards in order to obtain information respecting electors for the purposes of updating the elector lists.

Now, you know, that will be fine on a go-forward basis. This year, though, Mr. Speaker, we have provided the financial resources for an enumeration in every district, live human beings visiting every door and knocking on every door and going back x-number of times until the information is gathered so that we have an up-to-date voters list and then, on a go-forward basis, from an up-to-date perspective on a go-forward basis, we can keep it current. We can keep it current by accessing municipal legers. We can keep it current by obtaining information from the school boards. We have a reciprocal agreement with Revenue Canada whereby anybody who files an income tax return, you can agree to have your information passed on to Elections Canada and we can get it that way. Our own Chief Electoral Office will, from here on in, be on-line and able to be accessed. Once we have now an up-to-date voters list in place, the advice that I received when I asked those questions from the former Chief Electoral Officer was that there should never be a need again to have to do a person-to-person, door-to-door visit to keep the list accurate and up to date. It should be possible to do it by other means, electronic and otherwise, but you have to have a solid base, a solid foundation, from which to do it, and Mr. Furey advised me that this would do that.

Clause 4 would amend paragraph 71(c) to increase the deposit for filing a candidate's nomination from $100 to $200. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is much of an onerous burden on anybody. It is just a sign of the times.

I remember when I ran first, thirty-two years ago in September coming, the deposit was $50. I remember going to the bank and getting a $50 bill. You would not be allowed to that now, I suppose, you would have to have a cheque, but you would get an official receipt at your nomination. Then it went up to $100. Two hundred dollars for a person to seek the privilege of putting their name before their fellow citizens for election, to me, speaks for itself and is not something to be concerned about.

Clause 5 would repeal and replace 73(2) of the act to correct an incorrect citation. That is one of the technical matters that I referred to.

Clause 6 of the bill would repeal and replace 74(4) of the act to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to release lists of electors to political parties every April 1 rather than only after the issue of a writ of election. That seems, to me, to be in the spirit of democracy. What is the reason why political parties, or representatives of political parties, could not go to the Chief Electoral Officer and have a release of the electoral list so that they can update their records and have it for their planning purposes? But it is open to everybody, the representatives of all political parties. Is it not just government, nor should it be.

Clause 7 of the bill would amend subsection 86(4) of the Act to permit persons to apply for a vote by special ballot 4 weeks - that is the one that I talked about right off the top when I introduced the legislation, Mr. Speaker - and would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to determine the latest date by which such an application could be made.

Clause 8 of the bill would add proposed subsections 86.4(4), (5) and (6) which would ensure that the distribution of special ballot kits and assistance to special ballot voters is provided by election officials only and the return of the kits is provided by the election official or the elector only. In other words, political parties. There was some concern about that previous. Political parties would be out of the equation. You could identify who they are. If political parties identify people who they think would qualify under the law to vote in a special ballot situation, they would pass the names on. Once the names are passed on, then it is the Electoral Office, through the appropriate process, that does the followup and provides the kits and collects them back and all that kind of thing. It takes it out of the political realm, except for the identification of the possibility of a person not being available to vote either in advanced polls or on election day.

Clause 9 of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, would repeal and replace subsection 86.6(2) and 86.6(6) to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to set the day when declaration envelopes are to be removed from special ballot boxes and the day for the opening of the special balloting boxes. The time of day for these openings has been delayed until 6:00 p.m. of the chosen day, whatever that day might be.

Clause 10 of the bill would amend subsection 92(3) by removing the requirement to have only 50 ballots in each book printed and bound for an election. I can't see that there would be any difficulty with that. I mean, you would just have less books with more ballots in them.

Clause 11 of the bill would repeal section 129 of the Act which provides for a different oath for electors voting by special ballot and in conjunction with the repeal and replacement of section 130 at clause 12 would require that special ballot voters take the same oath as an elector at an ordinary poll on a scheduled election polling day.

Clause 13, Mr. Speaker, would repeal and replace subsection 145(3), and in conjunction with the amendment in paragraph 159(1)(b) at clause 14 would remove the requirement for the deputy returning officer to deliver a copy of the statement of poll to the candidates. The statement is still provided to the scrutineers.

I remember the first time that I ran, back in 1975, for days after the election you were getting those pieces of paper come in the mail. I didn't have a clue what they were first of all. You find out one was in Smith's Harbour and one was in Wild Cove and one was somewhere else. Finally, it clicked in, and I found out that they were the actual result of what took place in that particular poll. I mean, as long as the matter, the official list is provided to the candidates representatives, then I do not think it is necessary to have to mail those out under a separate head as have been the case in the past.

Clause 16, Mr. Speaker, would amend the definition of campaign period in paragraph 269(1)(c) by changing the end of a campaign period to four months after polling day rather than six months. Again, that is because that will allow - this is the provision for candidates to get in their expenses so that the expenses can be audited and the rebates paid. Now that you have fixed election dates, then you know what the date is. It is October 9. So within four months of that date, you have to have your official returns completed and in. And, what we have done in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, it allows the government now to be able to budget in one fiscal year whatever the cost of that is. We have included in our budget this year the cost of rebates to candidates for the election in October, and they will all be done and paid out before the end of the fiscal year on March 31. So, there is no reason why you would have to do what has been done in other years because the date of the election was unknown. You might have to stretch this over certainly one fiscal year but in many cases going into the second fiscal year.

Clause 17, Mr. Speaker, would amend subsection 304(1) to require the filing of election financial statements, again, within four months of polling day rather than six months of the polling day as currently provided.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are significant amendments in some regard. They are technical and necessary in other regards but they do, I believe, advance and improve the democratic process. In that regard, they have been under scrutiny by all sides of the House and all parties represented in the House now for some time. In that regard, in advance of the election in October and as Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce those amendments to the Election Act, 1991 for consideration by my colleagues.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 21. It is pretty dry stuff to a lot of people trying to figure out what the Elections Act is all about, but of course anyone who wants to partake in an election in this Province, it is crucial. You have to understand what the rules are and what you can and cannot do. What we are dealing with here is a bill to amend the Elections Act. Of course, the main act was brought in, in 1991, and there has been a number of changes over the years. We are at a point in time now where we need to make some more changes. This is what has been brought forward in order to facilitate some of those.

We are all, of course, in favour of anything that is going to improve the system, but certainly not in favour of anything that is going to make the system be taking a backward step. I am just going to be one of the members over here who speaks to this. There are several members who have had personal experiences with the election process and have seen, over time, that things do work and some who see that things have not worked, and they would like to make some suggestions. We are in second reading now, but when we get to the Committee stage there is no reason why we cannot propose, and ought to propose, amendments to what has been put forward here. We appreciate and thank the Government House Leader for what he has put forward, but there may well be suggestions offered up here that once everybody hears them, they will say: Why didn't we think of that? It makes eminent sense and, upon due consideration, we should do it.

I hope all of us here are approaching this from the point of view of openness, open-mindedness, and once we hear the suggestions, if any are put forward from anybody, it could be from the government benches as well as the Official Opposition, or the NDP, that we would all look at this with open minds because, at the end of the day, we all have to live with the same system. If anybody proposes an amendment that is fair, rational, logical, it is going to be kind of tough to say you disagree with it because it is the same fairness, the same equity will be applicable in all forty-eight districts in this Province. Now if an amendment is put forward that is unfair, that is going to be pretty see through as well. So common sense is the lever of the day that people are going to look at to see if what we have here is or is not a fit piece of work. I am sure, as the day goes on, there are going to be a lot of comments coming forward on this particular bill.

I would like to start, actually, by talking about the special ballot piece. That was a pretty controversial piece of work in the last election, in 2003. There were all kinds of people accused of wrong doing. People in the district said: You should not be allowed to do that, you fixed that, you rigged that, you got votes you should not have had. I heard it in my own district. Some people got upset and said you did something improper. That is what has brought this change about.

What a special ballot is, for a lot of people who do not understand, is if you are in the district - for example, we know this year the provincial election will be on Tuesday, October 9. So, if you are going to be alive and well and in your normal place of residence on October 9, you will be on a list and told where to go to vote. That is pretty simple. That is the standard case.

What happens then, of course, if you cannot be or you do not know if you are going to be home on October 9 this year? So, you start asking questions: Well, what do I do? Because the right to vote, of course, is sacred. We all know that, and everybody ought to exercise their right to vote. In fact, we had one Minister of the Crown over there suggest at one point that if you did not vote you should be fined. I would not go that far. I am not that draconian. I would not fine people for not voting, but I would agree that you should vote. Even though the Member for St. John's Centre thinks that people should be fined for not voting, I think that is a little bit out of our democratic process. To me, it is a right to vote, and you may exercise your right not to vote. It is the same thing to me. It is your democratic right.

So, we are dealing with a circumstance now where you are not in your own town on October 9. You might already know, for example, that you have a medical appointment. You live in Port aux Basques, usually, but you have already been told that you have a medical appointment in St. John's for October 9. So - there is a process - you are wondering: What can I do?

Well, one thing you can do is, there will be advance polls in your town, in your district. The Chief Electoral Officer will set certain days prior to October 9, and advertise it, put it in your local papers and so on, saying here is what you can do in an advance poll. You cannot be home on October 9 so go by the Masonic Lodge, for example, in Port aux Basques on October 2, Saturday, from whatever time to whatever time, and you will be allowed to do your vote there.

Of course, you only get one vote. That system is pretty well infallible right now. If you go over and vote in the advance poll you do not get to go again on October 9, and we put the proper precautions in place to see that does not happen.

What it did, it allowed that person, for example, who had the medical appointment, to go vote on the advance poll because he or she was not going to be home on polling day.

Then the question becomes: Well, what if it is not only October 9 that I am not home? What if I am not home on advance poll day? Do I lose my right to vote because I am not going to be home any time of the election?

For example, the law of the Province currently says there has to be a minimum of twenty-one days for an election. So, we have set the time to be October 9. If you back up twenty-one days from October 9, I believe that is September 18. The minimum period of time will be September 18, that the writ got dropped in.

Now, of course, I do believe there is another law which says, at the maximum, it can be thirty days from polling day. So, if you back up again, go from twenty-one days, add on another nine in case the Premier decides that he is going to drop the writ on the thirtieth rather than the twenty-first, we are back then to another nine days, so we are dealing somewhere around September 10 or so. I believe that is the law we deal with. You have to call it within thirty days of October 9, which would put you back to September 9, because you do not count the first and last, apparently - it has to be clear days - but the minimum has to be twenty-one.

So, the question becomes: What if I am not going to be home any period of time between September 9 and October 9? How do I vote? I cannot take advantage of the advance poll. I cannot vote on October 9. Do I lose my right to vote simply because I cannot be in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador during that period? I want to vote. In fact, every member of this House, I am certain, has people in their districts who will vote, want to vote, but will not be in their districts for that time period of the election.

So, the question becomes: How can, for example, the Member for St. John's North, who has offered himself again as the nominee for the Conservative Party, if he knows he has a supporter in St. John's North and he wants to get that person to vote and support him - he knows the time frames now - what can he do? The person is gone, for example, studying in British Columbia. They are not here on the ninth. The advance poll is no good to them. They started their term in university in British Columbia on September 1. What does he do?

What we are doing here now - under the old law, you could only get a special ballot from September 9 to October 9, from the period that the writ was dropped to the period of the election. In fact, it has to be in a certain number of days before the election. I do believe it was four days that your special ballots must all be in. So, if the vote is October 9, and if you are going to get a special ballot in to the Chief Electoral Officer, you had better have it done before October 5. Otherwise, apparently, it does not get included because he has to get those tabulated and so on to have them ready for election night to include in the totals as they come in from the district.

A lot of people had problems with that, that you could only have a special ballot from the time the writ was dropped to voting day, and it is pretty sensible why it caused problems. For example, in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile, which I represent, at any given time, in the period that we are going to have an election in this Province, there could be upwards of 600 people missing from the community of Burgeo alone, and that is a piece of the world we live in today. That is a factor. We have a choice, we can either have total out-migration and they go and never come back, or we can have the situation where we have a lot of workers who are seasonal. They go out, for example - my people in Burgeo, a lot of them do what they call seismic work in Alberta, where they actually lay cables along the ground. They are testing for resources under the ground and so on. That is how they do it, with cables.

There is only a certain period of time that you can do that kind of work. A lot of them work in Fort McMurray, they go away. There are electricians, there are plumbers, there are carpenters, there are laborers, there are truck drivers and there are bus drivers. They are gone for the full period of the election, and it is pretty near impossible, in a twenty-one day election, to be able to get the special ballot done with a person who lives out in Fort Mac, particularly if that person is not in Ft. McMurray but lives in a camp somewhere in Alberta.

I spoke to one gentleman when I was in Burgeo, not the past weekend, I was too sick to get to Burgeo the past weekend, but the weekend before. I tried to get there for the Firemen's Ball but I couldn't make it unfortunately. I was on death's door come Saturday and still pretty close. In any case, I spoke to an individual from Burgeo -

MR. SKINNER: Only the good die young.

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Member for St. John's Centre, maybe he should stick to his fines for people who don't vote, instead of casting aspersions across the House here while I am speaking.

MR. SKINNER: Sorry! I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

MR. PARSONS: My feelings don't get hurt by someone like yourself, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre. They might be disruptive but they are hardly hurtful.

Anyway, back to the more important things, a more important individual at this point, and that is the person from Burgeo who I was speaking about.

This gentleman had just returned to Burgeo, I ran into him in a gas station, and he said he just got home. He didn't have a computer in the camp he was in. The only phone they had was a cell phone which had to be used for company business and it wasn't usable actually in the camp. He actually had to get in a vehicle and drive so many miles then when he was allowed to use it. They were allowed so many personal calls a week, one or two a week. He had to actually drive then to make the phone call.

You can imagine now, if someone is running for a political party and you get hold of John up in this camp in Fort McMurray, and you are trying to explain to him how you want him to get in touch with the Chief Electoral Officer in Newfoundland to try to get a special ballot kit. I would think that is not going to be a high priority with John. That is what makes it troublesome, and that is why there are still some problems with the system.

This amendment we have here is going to be somewhat more helpful because, instead of being restricted by special ballots from the period when the writ gets dropped up to four days before the election, we are now going to have four more weeks tacked on to that. So, given the timelines that I discussed earlier, if the election is on the ninth, if you assume it is a thirty-day election which takes you back to September 9, your special ballots will be in effect going back thirty days beyond that to August 9.

I think that is a great improvement. It gives anybody - we are all playing on the same field. If there is an NDP candidate and a Conservative candidate and a Liberal candidate, we all have the same playing field, the case of identifying where your vote is, but what it does more importantly than leaving the candidates on a playing field, it gives the voter, and that is what this is all about, it gives the voter a greater opportunity to cast his or her vote, and that is what this is about.

I had situations the last time where I tried to get people to vote, and their votes came in and they were past the four day period. In fact, the election was over. I believe it was October 23, and we were getting special ballot kits back on November 1, simply because people who had requested them could not get them back and done in time. So we are going to have that piece a bit easier in the future, in the next election. It is going to back up four weeks more for special ballots.

There are still some problems, and I do not think we have addressed them here but we ought to address them. One of them is the cost of the kits. When we were having by-elections in the winter here, I ran into this situation: I called the then Chief Electoral Officer and asked him: Explain to me the process of special ballots as they now exist.

So, he started the process. Again, I had a gentleman who was out in Alberta working in a seismic camp, who wanted to vote. He had heard about it - they get satellite out there - on the news. The minute he heard the by-election was called, he called me - and it was not my district but he called me, knowing me - and said: What do I do to vote? Who is running there for the Liberal Party? - was his question. I said: I will call the Chief Electoral Officer and find out what the rules of the day are, and make sure there are no changes or anything.

So, what happened was, John Doe - and I will use John Doe rather than use his personal name -John Doe had to call the Chief Electoral Office in St. John's. The Chief Electoral Officer would record his information, his name, where he normally lived in Newfoundland, phone number, civic address and so on, where he was now, out in Alberta, the phone number, contact info, and he would say: How do I get the application to you? - because there is an application first. You do not just get the special ballot kit by calling in. You actually have to make an application to get a kit. Part of getting the kit is verifying that you are a legitimate voter in that district in that election.

So, John Doe, out in Alberta, somehow he had to communicate with the CEO. You could do it by telephone, you could do it be fax, or you could do it on-line. In fact, if you had access to a computer out in Alberta, you could go on-line and download a copy of the application right from the Newfoundland Chief Electoral Officer Web site. That is great. The only problem is, there are not a lot of people who work in camps out in Alberta who have access to one of these computers. They are not there. So, as much as people into today's world are into computers and into the Internet, that does not help a lot of those people.

The next step, of course, assuming he had to get it mailed out to him, so he would call or fax in and say: My name is John Doe, and give all the particulars and whatever, the Chief Electoral Officer would put the application in the mail, regular mail, and send it out to John Doe at whatever address they gave. So, just imagine the timelines we are getting into here. The application is being made. The application is being administrated in the CEO office. The CEO puts it into the mail. It goes by regular mail out to Fort McMurray, and from Fort McMurray it finds its way to this camp where this individual is working. Then the individual fills it out and has to put it in regular mail, which he has to pay the cost for, and that is one of the problems I have.

If the Chief Electoral Officer is insisting that you must make an application for a special ballot kit, and you do so, I do not think that individual should have to pay the mail cost of doing that work. You send it out to them, the application. It is their right to vote, and we are going to limit their right to vote by the cost of the mail. To me, it should be an automatic thing. It is not an advantage to anybody. It is to everybody's advantage that anybody who wants to vote should be allowed to vote.

So, when the CEO sends the application out to John Doe, in the camp in Alberta, why can't he just have a self-stamped or pre-stamped envelope that will bring it back to the CEO's office here in St. John's, the completed application? That way, John Doe gets it out in the camp, he fills in his application and just pops it in the mail. He does not have to worry about going to look for a stamp; because, I tell you, trying to find a stamp in some of those outports is not easy either. Why would we complicate the system for the price of a stamp? That is what it is at present. You could lose your right to vote because you are in a camp, and even though you followed the process and made the application, you cannot get a stamp. Unless you are lucky enough that you took your stamps in the woods with you, you are not voting. I think that is one thing that ought to be amended, that the provision of the applications and the special ballot kits, the cost should be borne by the CEO's office.

So, John Doe has it now. He fills out his application. The stamp is on it; all he has to do is pop it in the mail. It travels, regular mail again, back to the CEO here in St. John's. They take it then and process it. According to the new law, there is going to be a special ballot administrator who looks after all of that stuff. That administrator will take John Doe's application, plug it into the system, and that will spit out a special ballot kit.

Now, I am assuming - and I would appreciate some confirmation on this as well - that the CEO's office pays the cost of getting that special ballot kit, then, out to John Doe. So, John Doe gets his special ballot kit and fills it in and says who he is voting for. There are four or five envelopes, apparently. One says who you vote for. You put that vote inside of an envelope and you seal it. You have to sign it. You seal that one. You put it inside of another envelope, and it has to be mailed back again. Who pays the cost of the mailing now? We are still talking about these thousands of individuals who might be out in these camps, or might be wherever, and do not have the mail. Surely, there ought to be something which says the government can arrange, the CEO could arrange, so that the individual who exercises the right to vote does not have to be strung up and denied the right to vote because they have to pay the mail to get the special ballot back.

I think that is a practical consideration that, if we are going to have integrity in the system and encourage people to take part in the system, rather than fining them for not voting, like the Member for St. John's Centre says, I think we should encourage them to vote by making it easier for them to vote. One of the things that makes it easier for them is to pay the stamp. It is not a big deal.

Then the special ballot would come back, it goes into a box, and when a certain date comes, I think it is four days before, that is the cut-off, then the scrutineers go in from each party, the box gets opened and the ballots get counted and they are all ready then to be added to the totals when election night takes place. So, the timelines have been very much enhanced and I think that is good in this legislation. I think that is very good.

The problem I have is the cost of the ballot piece, and that is what it was, and I do not think that has changed. According to the former CEO, Mr. Furey, you bear the cost of getting the documents back and forth. I think that is impractical and that is unfair. Why don't we treat everybody the same and pay the postage return from wherever John or Jane or anybody is who uses the system to get the ballots back?

You have to remember, one of the problems we had with the special ballots in the last election was that MHAs and candidates were too close to the situation and were all over it. That is what led to a lot of the changes, because people were saying: Why should Kelvin Parsons, who is a candidate in the Burgeo & LaPoile area, have a batch of applications for special ballots? I go to whomever and say, you are not going to be here on voting day, are you? Fill in a special ballot for me, boy. It was all done and whatever and all of the sudden it was coming back to me, and I had to take this then: Okay, what do I do? Give it to John Doe and John Doe had to open it up, read it all over, sign his vote, put it in an envelope, seal the envelope, and sign the envelope again. The questions got raised - and rightfully so - did John Doe vote the way that John Doe wanted to vote, or was John Doe in some manner influenced by the candidate?

What we are trying to do is take the candidates out of the process. Now, there is no hands-on possible by the candidates. If an individual wants the special ballot, the individual makes the application, the individual gets the ballot come back to him and the individual sends it back to the CEO's office.

If we are going to change the system, because a lot of these stamp problems and everything else - you can be assured there was no stamp problem once the MHAs were involved. If the only thing holding up John Doe getting his special ballot done was that I had to pay forty-two cents for the stamp, you can be sure it got paid. If the man told me he was going to support me and said, Kelvin, boy, I don't have the forty-two cents for the stamp, what are you going to do as a candidate? Am I going to say, I am sorry, boy, I can't pay for the stamp because that is considered I'm interfering? We all know that is not the way the real world works.

I agree with the fact that we take it out of the politicians' hands, but if we are going to let him have full accountability, the CEO, let's also put the practical measures in place to see that the paper work gets done without things like the cost of mail interfering with it.

I think we will probably see an amendment when we get to Committee Stage somewhere here about the costs associated with that being borne by the Chief Electoral Officer. As a member of the IEC, I can certainly confirm this, that government has put a lot of new monies into the CEO office, for staff and for equipment, to make sure that the system can work the best that it can for everybody. If we put all that money in, let's not cut our noses off, as they say, to spite our faces by leaving out a little practical concern about the cost of the mail.

The other thing about the special ballots - and I look to the Government House Leader for guidance on some of this, and explanations, as we move along, because I certainly do not know the answers but I would love to have the answers. I think they are very needed and very important to everybody in this House, and everybody who offers themself as a candidate, because you want to make sure you know the rules and you want to make sure that every possible elector in your district can be given an opportunity to vote.

That deals with the issue of - for example, it is my understanding that if John lives in St. John's North and he is not going to be here during the election - he cannot take advantage of the advanced poll day and he is not going to be here on election day - that John can walk over to Peet Street, I guess, where the CEOs office is, he can walk in, in front of the CEO, and say: My name is John. I live up here on Memorial University Avenue. I am a resident of St. John's North. I am not here during advanced, I am not here during polling day, here are my credentials showing I am a legitimate resident and voter in that area, I want to vote. Apparently, and I stand for some guidance on this, apparently the CEO can walk out and say: Yes, here is an application for a special ballot. He fills it in, thank you very much. He goes in, comes back out and says: Okay, here is your special ballot kit. This is what you have to do to fill this out. John takes it to one side, there is a room provided, goes in, fills it in, votes, comes out with a sealed envelope, gives it to the CEO and says: Put that in the box now until you are allowed to count it.

That is great. I think that is absolutely fantastic, because here is someone who knows they are not going to be here during voting day or advanced poll today, can use this special ballot and can walk into the Chief Electoral Officer's office to do it. You cannot do that in Port aux Basques, folks. You cannot do that in Lewisporte. You cannot do that in Grand Falls or Corner Brook or St. Anthony or out in CBS or down in Ferryland. You cannot do it. If you have an individual in Ferryland and you want to load up a bus load and bring them up to Peet Street you can do it. If the Member for CBS wants to load up a bus load and bring them into Peet Street and do it, he can do it, but I cannot put a bus load out in Port aux Basques and bring them in here to do it. That is not possible, and I do not think that is fair to the voters who cannot avail of that. Absolutely unfair, absolutely discriminating!

I know, for example, right now today, that there is going to be a crew of thirty persons who are going to leave the community of Rose Blanche on August 31 to go away for three months. Now, assuming all those back up dates and everything works out to be the August 18, that limits me between August 18 then, I cannot march into the DRO, for example, in Port aux Basques and say: Here are eighteen people who told me they want to vote, what do they do? I do not want any hands on it. I do not want to touch it. They came to me and said: If I want to vote for you, how do I vote for you? Why shouldn't the person in Rose Blanche, the same as the person who lives in St. John's North - how come the person in St. John's North can walk up and vote to a CEO, but the person in Rose Blanche cannot walk up and do the same thing in front of a DRO? That is absolutely ludicrous.

We have an act that defines certain election officers. Now mind you, we will trust a DRO to be in charge of the process for the district; absolutely sworn in, makes sure that everybody is a legitimate voter, sees where the polling booths are, looks after the boxes and locks them up, tells the scrutineers what they can and cannot do, and all that kind of stuff. We absolutely entrust October 9 elections in forty-eight separate districts to forty-eight DROs. We entrust the advanced poll in those forty-eight districts to those forty-eight DROs. Yet, you cannot entrust a special ballot process to a DRO? That does not make sense.

I say to the Government House Leader, that is one amendment that we will be bringing forward. If we are going to talk about making the act practical, functional, usable, workable for everybody, what is wrong with that? We cannot justify that somebody in one part of this Province can cast a special ballot over on Peet Street, but if you live up in Labrador you cannot do it. That is discrimination, folks. That can be fixed and it is easily fixed. It can be fixed by allowing the DROs in the districts to do what a CEO does over there. In fact, if I had my rudders and I had my guess, I do not think it is going to be the CEO who is going to be taking everybody who walks in over there and gets their special ballot done. I do not think that is the CEO. It might be the CEO in theory, but I would say when you walk into Peet Street it is going to be that special ballot administrator maybe, or some DRO over there, or some staff worker who is going to do that, not the CEO himself. So, yes, take it out of the hands of the politicians and the candidates, but, for God's sake, give the person who wants to vote the same rights, regardless of what square inch of this soil you live on in our Province, and not just allow it to be done if you happen to live in the Northeast Avalon. That is a big problem I have with the special ballot piece here.

I tried to explain that to a parent, for example, who had two kids in university. Their kids were in university in St. John's, so they were asking me about it. We had the discussion already. I said: Well, I think we have a problem. The two kids are not a problem, because they are in MUN and when the time comes I can just tell them to go over to the CEO office on Peet Street and they can get their vote in. They said: Well, if they can do it in MUN and they are not home, because of this person called the CEO, why can't I go up to - in our case, it is Marg Davis who has been a long-time DRO in Burgeo & LaPoile for years - Marg Davis and do it? Marg Davis controls everything else about voting in the area, but she is not allowed to touch special ballots.

I did not have the answer, folks. All I could tell him was, that is the law. He shot back at me and said: Well, that is a pretty stupid law. That is a pretty stupid law.

I do not know what the big problem is with having it done. We put the money into the resources to do it. We put the money into the resources to have more staff, more computers, more paperwork. We are getting a brand new enumeration done. It is going to cost $1 million or more. More than $1 million, I think; $1.6 million, probably, is the figure I remember. We can put $1,600,000 into getting a proper voters list, so we know who is on the voters list, but then we are going to deny many of those people who are on the voters list equal rights.

I do not care if you are a Tory or an NDP or a Liberal, or what you are; if you believe in democratic principles that is not right. That is not right. There is no reason why Marg Davis, the DRO in Port aux Basques, should not have the same rights with special ballots as Mr. Reynolds, who the government is going to confirm, would have, because I do not think Mr. Reynolds is going to do it himself. He is going to delegate that to someone, because he has the authority under the act to delegate them. He has the power under the Elections Act to delegate certain of those things. So, it is okay for a DRO so-called in St. John's to do it, but you cannot do it out our way. You cannot do it in Gander. You cannot do it in Bonavista South. That is not right.

There are some serious concerns there. In fact, I wrote a letter - I have to get a copy for the Government House Leader, because I spoke to him about it this morning. I thought my assistant had sent him one. Obviously she had not, but I have a copy here now. It is a letter that I wrote on Friday to Mr. Reynolds, raising some of these concerns, because I knew it was coming up for debate in the House. I was wondering: How does the Acting Chief Electoral Officer feel about some of these issues? I thought that having his input, for what he understood the situation to be, would be helpful, because this is the individual, once confirmed, who is going to administer these laws.

We do not need a fuss after about, he says, well, that is not the law, if we could find out in advance what his understandings are so we all go into this, as they say, with our eyes wide open.

I wrote him a letter on Friday and I just said to him, and I will read it here for the record: Mr. Paul Reynolds, Acting Chief Electoral Officer - Hallett Crescent is the address, actually - Hallett Crescent, O'Leary Industrial Park. Dear Sir, as you are aware, there is currently a bill before the House of Assembly which will effect certain changes to the Elections Act. There are several provisions which permit voters to cast their vote other than on voting day. For example, advance polls, special ballots. It is my understanding the latter method of voting - because I was under the impression as well that, if you live in St. John's and you cannot be here on advance poll day or on polling day, you can just walk in and cast your vote. I understood, and I would like to be clarified on this as well, I understood that there is a distinction between using a special ballot and actually just walking in and casting your vote, sort of an any time special ballot or advance poll if you happen to live in St. John's. Now, I stand to be corrected on that as well.

I said: It is my understanding the latter method of voting, attendance before an election official, can only occur at the Chief Electoral Office in St. John's. Is it your understanding the new amendments will permit an individual to attend before a district returning officer to cast their vote?

That is the question that I put to him. For example, the district returning officer for Burgeo & LaPoile is Ms Margaret Davis. Is it possible for anyone in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile who cannot be available on voting day, advance poll day, and might not be able to use the special ballot procedure, be permitted to attend before Ms Davis to cast their vote? If so, during which time period is this permissible? Given that special ballots will be permitted for four weeks prior to the drop of the election writ, will this personal attendance before a district returning officer during that four week period also be permissible? The new bill will be debated next week in the House of Assembly and I would appreciate your interpretation of the new amendments or the old act with respect to these questions. I will be asking these questions in the House of Assembly as well, but your assistance would be most helpful in this regard. Minister Tom Rideout, the Government House Leader, will be the minister responsible for carriage of this bill in the House so I am copying this correspondence to him. Your immediate attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

That is the main concern that I have with this special ballot piece. Why are we discriminating against certain people? I do not think the act here now, and the amendments we have here, permits it to be done. I do not see why it cannot be done by a DRO.

For example, if you have 400 people in a town who, some time between, using the figures here of what we know now will be the window for special ballots, potentially as early as August 10 to October 10, and you know that some time during that period you are going to be leaving - the enumeration list, I understand, is due out August 1. We are all supposed to be able to get a copy of that, I do believe, and I would like some confirmation on that as well. When are we, as candidates, politicians, the public, going to have access to the enumeration that is being done? Assuming we are able to have it on August 1, and you have a community with 400 people in it who, between August 10 and October 9, are going to be gone or going, why should those people not go to the DRO and vote? There is no logical reason.

For example, Ms Davis, the DRO for Burgeo & LaPoile, will have that list. You are only allowed to vote once. Why can't my friend John, who lives next door, who is going to go away and is going to be gone for all of that period, why can't he go at any time? Why does he have to have an advance poll day? What is the difference in the magic of the advance poll day? Why can't he just go into Ms Davis' house at any time and vote? I do not see the logic of it. Some would say, well, that is impractical because Ms Davis only lives in Port aux Basques. Well, I think if we are going to let the democratic system be accessible to everybody, and I realize we have some great geographic challenges here, we still have to let people have equal opportunity the best we can.

There is nothing wrong, for example, with Ms Davis spending two days in Burgeo, or a day in Ramea, just to use my own district as an example. Everybody, for example, from Rose Blanche to Port aux Basques and Cape Ray can certainly go in to her place in Port aux Basques. That is about 70 per cent, 75 per cent of the population. There is no reason she cannot spend a day in Burgeo, no reason she cannot spend a day from August 10 to October 9 in Ramea to let up to 600 people have a vote, if they are going to vote, because they might be gone.

It saves a lot of money on the other side. You haven't got to fool around with special ballots, you haven't got to fool around with mail kits, you haven't got to fool around with anything. You would advertise it in advance, that you are going to be in town for a certain number of days. It is just an increased advance poll day, basically. Advance poll days are typically held only a week or so before the actual poll date. That is pretty close in time to allow anybody to do that. I throw that out there, I think that is a reasonable thing to do, but the big thing is to allow the DRO to do it. There is no magic in a CEO doing it over here on Hallett Crescent versus the lady who runs the show down in Deer Lake or the lady who runs the show out in Lewisporte doing it. In fact, that is totally discriminatory.

Mr. Speaker, I had a chat with the Leader of the NDP a few days ago, and I won't get into the details but she raised a very valid point as well, about: What is the situation on special ballots going to be in by-elections? This is only going to be addressed here in the context - and, yes, because we have a fixed election it is much more manageable by tacking on the four weeks extra for special ballots. The question is a very good question and I will leave it to her to get into why it is a very good question and the details. It is certainly an issue that, if we can address it we should address it while we are here. Maybe there is a very practical solution to it, and that is the whole purpose, of course, of having amendments being offered. I look forward to hearing from her in that regard as well.

Another issue - and I don't know if we have solved it here - and I raise this not to be nasty but I raise it because it raises its ugly head, as they say, when things happen, and only when things happen. That is like personal care homes. I don't operate a personal care home myself, but what happens in personal care homes and who can vote and how they can vote and who has to oversee it and all that stuff, it got a lot of air play in a recent by-election in Humber Valley. The Member for Humber Valley happens to run a few personal care homes. We don't need to be in a situation where once the election is over, people are throwing out these comments about, well, maybe there are some special rules we should have, because the candidate had a personal care home. For the record, we all know that one of the members for the government operates personal are homes as well, I do believe, the Member for Terra Nova.

In terms of the current members who are sitting here, this seems to be a touchy situation, as if because it is a personal care home there is something that is not kosher about going into a personal care home and getting the votes. If that is an issue, we should have it addressed now. We don't need to be into this come October and somebody says, you didn't dare do such and such. Are there going to be special rules in personal care homes? The Government House Leader, I am sure, was one of the individuals who raised the question; not that it is not a legitimate question, but I would like to know if there was a legitimate question, what are we going to do about it. I am sure the Member for Humber Valley who is running again, and the Member for Terra Nova, don't want this thrown up to them come October, that such and such was the case.

A lot of times it is the case of knowing what the rules are. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem with the minor issues that are here in terms of - I guess they are not minor, depending on who you are. I, personally, I should say, do not have an issue of increasing the fee from $100 to $200. My understanding is that the fee comes back. I do believe that if you get a certain portion of the vote, the fee comes back to you anyway. I do not know the logic of increasing from $100 to $200. If I am going to pay $200 to become a candidate and I am going to get it back anyway, assuming I get 15 per cent, I do believe, of the vote, and that is pretty unusual when you do not. I think there are some cases - I know in the last election, I do believe, there was the Member for CBS who had 85 per cent in his district, but I do not think there was anybody else. The former Member for Ferryland had 84 per cent and I had 83 per cent for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile. So, there were only three or four of us who were up in that 85 per cent range. So that means anybody else, other than -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, but the statistics did show the last time, I say to the Government House Leader, that once you dropped out of that 80 per cent to 85 per cent range that certain members had, there was a drop then down to the sixties. Pretty drastic. So, there were very few members, I would think, who did not get their money back.

That is why I am wondering, if we want to be democratic again, I guess whether it is $50 or $10 or $200, I just do not know the logic or where the figure came from, I guess is what I am saying. I do not consider it personally exorbitant, but if it is going to restrict anybody from taking part in the system, or if there is some reason why we jumped from $100 to $200, I just think we ought to know what the reason would be, because it is certainly not money that gets factored into the administration of the election. Again, those federal people are just out of this world when it comes to - I would almost say that is a case of trying to discourage persons from getting involved in the system because there are a lot of people who could not afford $1,000.

One of the other questions I had is in clause 7. Clause 7 of the bill would amend subsection 86(4) of the act to permit persons to apply for a special ballot vote four weeks before the issue of a writ of election. This is the part - I just explained that. I have no problem with the additional four weeks, but the second part that is tabbed on here raises some concerns and that is the comment, "...and would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to determine the latest date by which such an application could be made."

I also do not know, is it set in the legislation at the present time, because there are two issues here? According to this amendment right here, the Chief Electoral Officer will decide when the last day is that you can make an application. It is totally arbitrary. Why should the Chief Electoral Officer now, when we have a fixed election, be given the right, under this new clause 7, to decide the last day when a special ballot application can be made? Wouldn't that depend on who wants the special ballot?

For example, if I am making an application for a special ballot for a person who is in a home and cannot get out or whatever, that is one thing. That is a matter of, I can do that today and get the turnaround done on that today and have it done. Whereas if I am going to do a special ballot and think I am going to get it from a guy in Germany in the time that is left, that is a different story. Why would we be leaving this time for your application to the sole discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer?

The Member for St. John's North is saying by-election, and even in by-elections - I just do not understand the logic. This is about fairness. Why are we leaving such an important decision, as to when you can get the application, to the arbitrary determination of a CEO? My question is: Can he make - under this there is nothing saying that he cannot give a different determination in a different district. There is nothing under this saying that he cannot say - he can say, for example, in St. John's North the cut-off point for applications is September 10. In Burgeo & LaPoile the cut off is going to be September 1. From my read of it, there is nothing here that would explain the logic of why he would have that arbitrary decision.

The other thing I would ask in this regard - that is not when you can get an application. That is about how late you can put in a special ballot. The current rule is that your special ballot must have been applied for and submitted and back to the CEO's office four days before the actual voting day, October 9. So we have to have it back by September 5. I am just wondering, is it four days that is necessary? Does it take four days to be able to open the special ballot boxes and get them ready for inclusion in the night of the ninth? Why four days? My understanding is that is what we just resourced the Chief Electoral Officer's office for. It is a matter of, each party brings in their scrutineer. Now, I can see if it is four days if you are going to allow the DROs to do it, and you have your special ballot administrator. For example, I can see, if you are cutoff in the Lewisporte District, Corner Brook, Humber West and Humber East and Burgeo & LaPoile, that it is going to be four days before, because that allows four days to shut it down out in the districts and for the DRO to ship what she has into the main office. That would make perfect sense to me.

If you are going to continue to function under the CEO provisions, why does it take four days to tabulate the special ballots? I think to leave the four days there would make sense, but let DROs do what the CEO is doing, keep your four-day cutoff and then the DROs have a couple of days to get it back to St. John's to the CEO where the special ballot administrator can bring in the scrutineers from each party and get the tabulations done. That way you have given the fairness to the districts that you have given to the urban area in here, the city, where the CEO is, and you've still got it done within the proper time frames, and at all times you have kept it out of the hands of the politicians. You have left it in the hands of the elections officials.

I get a kick out of it, because we actually have a definition in the Elections Act defining who election officials are. It includes the DRO. We can have laws and we can say that the DROs can do all of this stuff, but we don't think enough of them, we don't trust them enough, or whatever the reason, to do a special ballot. You can cast, for example, in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile in October and that DRO, Ms Davis, is going to be totally responsible for $8,276 voters in total, to see that it is done right, that it is a fair process, but, lo and behold, if 200 of those are special ballots she can't look after them. They are going to trust her with the full package and make sure it is done in Ferryland or wherever, but we are not going to trust her with the few that take the special ballots. That doesn't make sense. It absolutely doesn't make sense.

The name of this game, I would think, is about getting as many people as we can to vote and making it as easy, but yet as efficient and controllable as possible to do. It is just as controllable having the DRO in Lewisporte or the DRO in Port aux Basques do it, as it is to have some staff member over there on Hallett Crescent do it.

I am only one person on this side who has spoken yet on this issue. I am sure there are many others who will want to speak on it, but that will be the nature of the amendments that will be put forward by the Official Opposition at least, to make sure - and that is why I was hoping that I had a response from the Chief Electoral Officer, because we do not need to be here disagreeing or agreeing with each other if the very person who is supposedly going to administer this is on a different wavelength.

I think it is very important that Mr. Reynolds - this is the time and place. Let's not find out after tomorrow or the next day or the day after when the House is closed and we have all stood up and had our piece and voted on this, and the Chief Electoral Officer says: Thank you very much, whoop-de-do, but that is not what I think.

So, if he has a difference of opinion as to what any of us raise in this House in the next few days as to what it is or is not, I think it is incumbent upon him to tell us. We do briefings when it comes to anything else. Even today in this House I asked for a briefing, and the Minister of Natural Resources agreed, with respect to the Energy Act and the Hydro Act. This is what this is about, making sure that everybody is informed so that when we vote we know what we are voting for, we know what we are voting against. If there are things that we thought were in here that are not in here, we are told that.

Right now these questions are there. I think they are very relevant questions. I think the Chief Electoral Officer - I don't now. Maybe because not many persons on this side are speaking in favour of his appointment, maybe he feels somewhat uncomfortable or whatever answering these questions, but let's keep the two issues separate. One is his appointment as CEO. The other one is, he has been in the job now for a month acting as CEO. He has done a lot of the training, as I understand it, for the new DROs and everybody who has come on board, and the old DROs, so this is the question of - we do not want to pick your brains, as it were, or pick your body or your bones - we want to know how you think this works or should work. Anything that he can say that might assist all of us here, if at the end of the day we agree to a new system being simple, proper and efficient, yet trustworthy, because that is what we need at the end of the day, it would be helpful.

I will provide the Government House Leader with a copy of my letter that I sent to the Mr. Reynolds and I would encourage the Government House Leader to get in contact with the CEO and maybe see if something can be arranged so that we can get some answers to some of these questions.

Like you say, the Premier alluded today that we might be here for a month if we have to be. That is fine. Let's take some of that time in the month and do what is proper when it comes to these election procedures.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will have other issues with this act. I will deal with them in Committee, as they come up. I believe we have seventeen or so sections in this amending bill, so I will get an opportunity in Committee to speak to each of these again, but I just wanted to have this lengthy discourse now, I guess, to outline what I felt were the general principles that we had some difficultly with, particularly when it comes to special ballots, and the fact that it is not right now applied equally to everybody in this Province. I will come back to that certainly again when we get a chance in Committee stage.

Thank you.

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

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

I am pleased to stand and speak to this bill. On the surface it all looks very simple. Then, when you start reading it and see the detail that is involved, there are, I think, many things to talk about in the bill, so I will use my time right now to put out some of the areas that I have been doing some thinking about and alert, I guess, the minister to things that we are going to have to talk about in Committee with regard to what I think are some necessary amendments. I will not go in great detail to each one but I will put them out as an alert.

I know the minister said that discussions around the Elections Act have been going on for quite a while and they were taking place when my predecessors from my party were here in the House; but, of course, this is my first time having a shot at all of this and I think there are larger discussions to be had around our elections and I would like to think that my colleagues on both sides of the House would agree and that, while we are dealing with some smaller amendments today, perhaps there is a place for having a wider discussion.

For example, I think we do need to look at something that other provinces are looking at, and that people also on the federal level are looking at, and certainly other countries have looked at, and that is the whole issue of proportional representation. You know, maybe the time has come for this House to look at the way in which people get represented in the House, and look at making sure that everybody's voice is represented.

Proportional representation is certainly not an easy topic. There are a lot of aspects to proportional representation, and different places do it in different ways. I would be really interested in our putting together an all-party committee to look at the whole Elections Act, to look at issues like proportional representation, and to have a serious discussion around these things.

I think we also need to look at financing, and issues around financing. Some of the clauses today touch very briefly on financial issues or have financial implications. For example, clause 4 is a financial amendment, not a major one. It is one I do have a position on. Clause 16 has implications for financing as well, changing the length of time of what is seen as the campaign time, shortens the length of period that somebody has to fund raise. So there are a lot of issues around the financing of campaigns. Maybe the time is here to have those kinds of discussions.

Now I know that this bill, with these amendments - we are not going to get into those broad issues because that is not what this bill is about. It is about making these small amendments to particular clauses, but I would like to think that we have enough forward-looking people in the House that we would be willing to, down the road, look at having the broader discussions with regard to our elections here in Newfoundland and Labrador, how people get represented, how groups with smaller numbers get represented, whether that is geographically, or how groups identify themselves - our Aboriginal communities, for example. There are so many different ways to look at what proportional representation would deal with. I will not have that full discussion today, obviously, because I do want to speak to some of the individual clauses that are in the bill, which is what I will proceed to do.

I think it might be just as easy for me to take it not clause-by-clause completely but speak to clauses that have my concerns, and I will do that in order. I noted that when the minister spoke to the amendment of clause 3, he talked about the fact that the past Chief Electoral Officer indicated to him that keeping our list of electors updated through this clause is a good way to go by getting involved with a municipality, or a board, with respect to exchanging information.

I agree with the minister, that there possibly is a benefit in doing that, but I would alert the minister to the fact that we need to make sure that the lists that we might be exchanging with are correct. I am going to use an example of a phone call I actually had yesterday. The phone call was from a person who was quite upset because she had received a piece of political mail and it was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Her name was on it and the mister who was on it was not the mister she was living with. This caused some confusion in the house. Now it was not from our Party, provincially, but she felt free to call me and to ask me about this. She was concerned that her current partner - and he was a bit confused when she got the piece of mail - would not be very happy when he saw another mister, another name, not his name on the envelope. So, I asked her some questions. I determined that, in actual fact, the person whose name was on the envelope had lived in that house some time before.

A computer program had been programmed in such a way that it collapsed - this party must have decided, instead of sending separate mail to the two names at that address, it would send only one piece of mail. The computer was programmed to collapse it into a Mr. and Mrs. This is the kind of thing that we would have to make sure that if in sharing information, getting information from other bodies, that the information they have is in as correct a form as we would want it to have for the provincial parties and for the government in preparing the electors list or keeping the electors list up-to-date.

So, it would mean that you would have to have staff people assigned to making sure that this stuff is correct. It is rather - I think that is what happened with this mail. I think it probably was not even the party that sent it out, who had done this, that it got collapsed somewhere else. The question is: How do we verify - if we get the information from a municipality, for example, how do we verify that they have done their homework correctly? I think quality control here will become an issue, and I am not saying it should not be done. I am saying that quality control would have to be mentioned as a very serious consideration. I think mistakes can happen and we would not have control over the list that is coming in. How do we know that this list is correct unless we verify every single one of them? I am not sure that it is a good way to go, and I don't have a definitive answer today. Maybe in Committee we can pursue it more. Maybe the minister, with people inside the department, can look at it as well. I just feel it can be problematic, because we have to be able to assure that everything on the list is correct. If we have to verify everything that is on the list, then we are running into problems.

We could, I suppose, find out how the people we exchange with put their list together and how they maintain it. This may not be the best way for us to maintain the list once we get it in place, and maybe the good old fashioned way of knocking on the door is the way that we have to do it. How else do we verify that somebody has moved or somebody has died? I just think there are problems, so I am putting it out. I don't have a definitive answer but putting it out as a concern for us to look at.

Number 4 clause: I, too, have a concern about the fee going up to $200. I don't see the need for it. The fee is a nominal fee, it goes back to the person. If they get their reports in on time, they get their money. It is not a money making thing, it is nominal, but it can be a deterrent. You know, maybe this may not be true for other parties, but I can think of people who have run in our party and that $100 cash is not easy for them to come up with. Now, if they have a well-resourced district, the district could put the $100 in for them until they get it back. It can be a lot of money for somebody to take out of their pocket, for the candidate to take out of their pocket. Putting it up to $200, to me can be discouraging for people running who aren't in areas where they have a strong district association, who are running because they are absolutely committed to the political process and want to run for the party they are running for, and yet may not have a lot of resources in that district to help them run.

I just don't see the reasoning for putting it up and I really didn't hear the minister give me a solid reason for putting it up. Maybe we can - well, I think we have to talk about it in Committee because I am really not happy with seeing that change when I can't see what the reason for it is. We have done some talking and asking questions in our office, and what we are hearing doesn't convince us. One person we spoke to implied that by putting it up to $200 it would be more of an incentive for the candidate to get their financial report in. Well, maybe so, but I don't know if there have been enough people not getting financial reports in to justify doing this. Maybe there is information that we do not have and the minister might have to share with us when we are in Committee, or he might have that information now and be able to talk about it when we come to the end of the second reading, the debate in second reading.

The next one I want to talk about is clause 7, the clause dealing with the special ballot. This is the clause that has to do with the four weeks, having the application in for the special ballot up to four weeks ahead of time, so not more than four weeks.

Now, as my colleague for Burgeo & LaPoile mentioned, he and I had talked about this and I had pointed out to him that this makes sense when we are talking about the general election because we know the date of the general election. We know exactly when four weeks before is going to be, but we do not know the date of a by-election, so we are going to have to figure out, either we are going to be concerned about special ballots when it comes to by-elections and therefore put a special wording in to cover by-elections, or we are going to have to say, if this clause remains as it is worded, that the government would have to give a four week notice of dropping of the writ for a by-election so that you would have four weeks ahead of the writ.

Something has to be done to make it work for both general elections and by-elections. I do not think, if we are saying that it is important, which I think we are, and that we are really trying to make special ballots more available to people, which I think this is getting at, then I do not think we can say that is important for the general election but it is not important for a by-election.

Now, my colleague for Burgeo & LaPoile implied that I am going to be brilliant and have the language to deal with this. I am not sure I am, but I think maybe the minister could have some of the people inside the department look at this and try to come up with a way of dealing with it. I do believe if we are going to say it is important then we have to have language to cover by-election and general election.

I do not know how people would feel about, I will put it bluntly, by-elections get called at the whim of the government. The government has control over when by-elections are called. We have seen by-elections called within forty-eight hours of a district becoming vacant, and called within weeks of a district becoming vacant. Maybe this is an opportunity. Maybe this is a time for saying that there has to be - if we are saying up to four weeks for a special ballot, maybe government would have to say: Okay, we cannot call a by-election before four weeks after the district has been vacated, and we do have to give four weeks notice of a writ coming down.

Maybe that is the way we should go. Maybe it will be a way of not having by-elections so much at the whim of the governing party, because very often the calling of a by-election does give an unfair advantage to the governing party. If we want to be fair, maybe this is the moment to do something about that.

I think we are going to have an interesting discussion in Committee when we come to that stage, and maybe it is a really easy thing to deal with and somebody besides me will have a brilliant suggestion as to how we deal with this, so I am looking forward to that discussion when we come to it.

Clause 8, there is not much to say about that. I am not going to go on about it. I am pleased with clause 8; I actually support it. It does take the partisan politicking out. I do not think any of us would feel comfortable - I did not, actually, during my own by-election - where people had an expectation that maybe I could get the special ballot for them. I said: No, we will give you the information on how to get the special ballot; but it was a by-election and people were really tight, and that is one of the issues in the by-election, you see, the time is so tight for getting the special ballot, especially when a lot of it is happening by mail. It is not happening expeditiously.

So, we are going to have to look at how we make it work in by-elections so that people have the same advantage in getting the special ballot, because that was my experience, that people, by the time they realized they needed the special ballot, or they could get a special ballot even - it was more that they could get it - then the time frame for getting it to them was really, really tight, so involvement of my campaign headquarters had to happen to at least get them connected up with the DRO and make sure that they could get the special ballot quickly.

I think we do have more thinking to do about the special ballot issue. I absolutely believe that it should be in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer and the DROs, as my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile was saying. We have to make sure that it is just as available - it being the special ballot process - that is it just as accessible and available for by-elections as it is for general elections.

Clause 13, I do not agree, actually, with clause 13, and I am not sure why it was brought in. I heard the minister's explanation as to why one copy of the statement should go to the scrutineers and not to the candidate, but I know again, because of being a smaller party, I guess, with fewer resources, we have candidates sometimes who do not have scrutineers. They literally do not have a scrutineer in a small place. If we put this in, it means that, well, I suppose they would have to make sure then that they have somebody designated as a scrutineer, at least give them the name, but I am not convinced of the need for this. I think, going to the candidate, why not keep it that way? I take what the minister said, when he was speaking to it initially, personally I do not know if it was because it was a by-election but I received all mine at the same time. They came in a bundle from the CEO's office, together. I received them all at the one time, so I did not have this experience of reports dribbling in. I got all my poll reports all at the same time, but it could be problematic in districts where people have run smaller campaigns and may not have somebody designate as scrutineer. I am not sure where to go with that one. The other thing is, it could be the official agent, I guess, if we did not want it to be the candidate, but I do not know why we would not want it to be the candidate, in spite of the minister's explanation.

I think these are the main issues that I wanted to raise and that I will bring into Committee. Some I am just saying, let's not do it at all, and some I may have recommendation for change in terms of the wording, but I really am stuck on this thing around the special ballot and how it is going to work in by-elections, how we are going to make it work in by-elections. That is a major problem, and I think we have to make it work so I am hoping - I know that the minister has been listening intently and his mind is probably already working on it, and trying to see how we can make it work, but what is there now is not going to do it. It will do it for general election, but general election only.

When it comes to clause 17 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is fine, Mr. Speaker. I will leave it at that because I can speak to clause 16 and clause 17 when we are in Committee. It is not urgent that I speak to it now.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: No, it is okay, I do not need to.

Thank you.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make a few comments on Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act,1991.

Having listened to my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, and of course, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, a lot of the points that I wanted to raise, or was interested in raising have already been raised.

Having looked at this, and I guess it is such an important piece of legislation, when you consider that our democracy is what it is all about in terms of a person's right to vote. I think we have to ensure that we do everything here in this House to help facilitate the person's right to vote instead of putting deterrence in the way. So it is important, when we are looking at amending this piece of legislation, that we do everything we can to make sure that democracy is alive and well and that the person's right to vote is not being hampered in any way.

As well, in terms of the individual's right, I guess, to offer themselves for political office, I think that is also an important part of this legislation. When I look at clause 4, and I know that both speakers before me referenced this, I guess I do have a problem with the fact that the fee, the deposit required for filing candidates' nomination papers is, in fact, going from $100 to $200 if this is, in fact, accepted. I have a problem with that because I really do believe that it is a deterrent to some people, while there are those who would say, well an extra $100 is not a lot of money. I think the whole basis of our democracy is to make sure that there is no deterrent for anyone who wants to offer themselves for political office.

I am afraid that this might very well be a deterrent because there are people who, while they can come up with the $100 may not be able to come up with the $200. Of course, to suggest that: well, they get the money back if they get a certain amount of the vote. The problem is not getting the money back, the problem is coming up with it in the first place. So that is an issue for me. I think there are people out there who want to offer themselves for political office, it does not matter which party. I think at the end of day, we are all encouraging people to put their names forward, to think about this as a career move. If we are doing that, then I think we have an obligation to do everything we can in encouraging them not to put a deterrent in the way that would prevent them from doing so.

With Clause 4, I guess I raise that because I really do see it as a deterrent. I know that both speakers before me referenced it. One who does not see the logic behind it and the other who has a problem with it. I, too, do not see the logic behind it, because I know it is not a moneymaking venture. I guess I just do not understand going from $100 to $200.

I am pleased that the minister who has tabled this piece of legislation is sitting here in the House listening intently to the issues that are being raised because that does not always happen. It is encouraging to see that happening today.

It is an important piece of legislation, and my colleagues before me have talked about the special ballots and the issue with those. I guess for everybody in previous elections, we have all had our issues around the special ballots, and I think they are important. It is an important part of the election process because for any reason, any number of reasons people may or may not be able to take advantage of the right to vote if the special ballot did not exist, and here it is not just people who happen to be away working when the election is called. We do have people who are disabled, who cannot get out to go to a polling booth. You have people who are sick. You have, certainly, our seniors, some of who may not be able to get out. I think it is important that we do everything we can, again, to ensure that they get an opportunity to vote.

That is what this bill, to me, is all about. It is about a person's right to vote and how best to ensure that they get that right; they get to exercise that right. When you are away working, of course, and you are expecting to be able to vote, then I think we need to be able to accommodate that individual, just as we need to be able to accommodate others in our society who may not be able to go to the polling booth and vote on election day. Now I know that the majority of us can and it is not an issue for them, but for that segment of our society who find themselves in circumstances that prevent them from being able to do so, then we do have an obligation to do everything we can, those of us in this House of Assembly who are making changes to the elections bill and those of us in the House of Assembly who are putting forward changes and who are proposing amendments, we all have an obligation to ensure that the amendments that are being proposed are, in fact, in the best interest of the population at large.

That is the issue I have with the special ballot. I think, of course, we need to retain it and understand that that is not an issue here but I think we need to do it in such a way that people have that right to vote not impeded. That, in fact, they can vote, and that whatever we do with Bill 21, it is done in a manner which will ensure that they will in fact be able to do that.

We are talking about, I guess, improving the system. Of course, when you talk about improving the system we sometimes put forward amendments that may not necessarily do that or put forward changes to legislation that may not necessarily do that, which is why this process is so important, because we do get a chance to speak to each of the clauses and the changes that are being proposed. Maybe more minds will bring to bear on changes that really were not thought of when the bill was actually drafted.

That is what I am hoping will come out of this today, that things like increasing the deposit amount will be looked at again and seen to be maybe something that we really do not need to do here. What purpose does it serve? That is a question I think that we need to ask ourselves. If it is not in terms of any money going back somewhere to increase something to help out with the election process - I have not heard an explanation for why it is being increased. My fear, again, would be that it might be seen to be an hindrance to those who really would like to put their name forward. As I said earlier, $100 may not seem like a lot to some people, but for others who would like to offer themselves for public office, it may indeed be a deterrent. While they may be able to round up $100 from some of their friends or from someone they know, or someone who may be able to give it to them to help them in this process, it may be a little more difficult to ask someone for $200.

So, that certainly is one that I am quite concerned about and one that I would like to see someone again give some thought to considering whether or not we really have to go down that path. I think this system is one that should work for the public at large. Maybe more so than for the politicians because, obviously, we offer ourselves for public office. In this case, yes, I would like to see it work in the best interest of the individual offering themselves for public office.

As well, I guess, when I look at the overall bill, and some of the proposed changes that are being proposed, we need to make sure that the system we have and the system where we are now suggesting we make some changes, that it works for the general public. Sometimes all they really know is that when they go to mark an X on the ballot, they know they are going and exercising their right to vote. For some who do not have, I guess, the opportunity for whatever reason - and even when we have special ballots and when we have advanced polls, there are people who fall between the cracks. In some cases, I guess, a lot of people do not even know about special ballots. A lot of people do not know about advanced polls until it is over. Even though it has been advertised by the Chief Electoral office so that there is no reason, in some cases, for people not to know, it does happen. That is why this idea that my colleague espoused about being able to go to the DRO and cast your ballot, just like people here can do when they walk into the Chief Electoral Office and cast their ballot, I think is an important one. What that means is that there is an opportunity for people. They may not have heard about the advance poll, but maybe two days later they hear about it and then if they had a chance to go and vote, because they know they are not going to be here on election day, then that would help them.

The point has been made, of course, that to have it happen just in here in St. John's is really discriminatory. People should be able to exercise that vote no matter where you live in this Province. Whether you are in Clarenville, whether you are in Harbour Breton, whether you are in Fortune or whether you are down on the Bonavista Peninsula or up on the Northern Peninsula, you should have the right, the opportunity, to exercise your vote just as if you were living here in St. John's. The fact of the matter is that the office is here in St. John's, it is physically here in St. John's, and that is where the Chief Electoral Officer is. That is why it is easier, I guess. That is why it has been part of the decision making, that you can do that here in St. John's, but not in other parts of the Province.

I would like for those making the decisions today, as we are on a go forward basis, discussing how we are going to make this election act to be one that is in the best interests of the public at large, it doesn't matter where you live, then we have to remove any possibility of discrimination. I am sure that anyone hearing us talk today about the fact that, yes, living in St. John's you can go up on Hallett Crescent and cast a ballot, whereas you can't do it in some other part of Newfoundland and Labrador - and I especially think about rural Newfoundland and Labrador here, but it is in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador outside of St. John's - then we need to make sure that people have that opportunity.

As I have said before, the majority of people will be able to go to the polls on election day and cast their ballot for the individual of their choice or the party of their choice, but there are circumstances that prevent them from doing that and we have an obligation, in this House, when you are thinking about making amendments to the existing piece of legislation that governs the elections in this Province, that we do it in a way that is in the best interests of everyone involved here.

We need to make sure that when doing that, that we do it in such a manner that we all feel comfortable with this, that we all feel that we have done nothing to take away from the confidence of the people in the political process and in elections. One way, again, we can do that is to have this exchange of information in the House of Assembly, bring to bear on the discussion concerns that have been raised by people in all our constituencies, the people who heard that there are going to be changes to the Elections Act and wondering what it means for them in terms of advance polls or special ballots. Those are all issues that, while not all people may raise them, we do get them raised from time to time and people do bring things to our attention and ask if we would speak to those particular issues.

One of the things, I guess, that is not so much a part in terms of an amendment to the piece of legislation, that has always played on my mind, and that is the idea that the Chief Electoral Officer would, in fact, be someone who was appointed by the House of Assembly. While I do not have difficulty with that, the idea that we would appoint someone who has strong political affiliation does really cause me concern. It has been done now on a couple of occasions and it is not - I would like to reiterate again, I do not think it is the right way to go. I think we should have somebody in that position who is non-political, who does not have strong political ties. Not that I question whether or not they will be fair. I do not know. I certainly do not know the gentleman who is being discussed now in terms of taking on the role of Chief Electoral Officer, but I think perception is really important. When we talk about confidence in our election system here, and we talk about democracy, I think people need to have confidence in our system. Sometimes when we do things like appoint people to such important positions, who have strong political ties, I think it detracts from that confidence. No reflection on the individuals themselves, but just on the overall idea that we would put someone in a position, in such an important position, when we are talking about democracy, who has strong political ties, and maybe thought to be playing favoritism to one party or the other.

I raise that again because I think it is unfortunate that we are going down that path, and when we are talking about elections and we are talking about making changes to the Elections Act, all of these things, I think, come into play. We have some issues that we need to deal with, certainly, in terms of amendments that have to be made, but again that is one issue that, while it is not part of this particular bill, it is an issue that raises its head from time to time. People have certainly expressed their views to me on that. Again, it has nothing to do with this particular individual or the governing party, but of any individual with any political ties to any party is seen as something that just detracts from the whole political system that we have, and the democracy that we are all so determined to ensure is not detracted from in any way.

We have forty-eight districts represented in this House of Assembly. We have over 500,000 people in our Province. I think we are talking 508,000 people now, some of whom, of course, cannot vote because they are not of the age to be able to vote, but we have to do everything we can, as a Legislature, and certainly the governing party and those of us who sit in Opposition, to ensure that whatever we do is in the best interests of the people of the Province, and especially those who do get an opportunity to get out to vote, we need to ensure they have confidence in the system, and that is what this is all about.

I guess, speaking to this particular bill, there are issues that I have and issues that, obviously, my colleague has raised and the Leader of the NDP has raised, that we think need to be addressed here. It would not be out of line, I think, to put forward some amendments, when the time comes, to make sure that some of the issues that are in this piece of legislation are dealt with in a way that we can all feel comfortable speaking on behalf of the people of the Province, which we have to do as Members of the House of Assembly representing the people of the Province in all forty-eight districts. That is our responsibility, and that is what we are doing here today in discussing Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity, and look forward to other issues that may be raised as part of this bill, but also look forward to any changes that we can bring about, maybe amendments to this particular bill, as a result of issues that have been raised by our constituents that we brought to the floor during this debate.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

I just want to take a few minutes - I can assure you, I will not use up my allotted time - to make a few comments on Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act.

I am glad to see my hon. colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl, is back from Central Newfoundland. He is still over heckling me, but I am glad he made it back to the city again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never got lost.

MR. BUTLER: He never got lost.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I just want to point out, and one of them is in clause 2 . I was glad to hear the Government House Leader, when he referred to clause 2, I think he said that would be totally deleted. That is the one where they are increasing the size of the polling divisions. I totally agree with him on the deletion of that, because I know from personal experience, not only in my own district but travelling throughout the Province from time to time, when you are helping someone else in by-elections or what have you, some of those little communities may be small in number but to tie them in with somebody else takes away, I believe, their democratic right, and I am very pleased to see that the government is going to look after that one.

Clause 3, I just want to touch on clause 3 where the Chief Electoral Office would get into an agreement with the municipalities and school boards. I think the Government House Leader also mentioned that there is already a system in place where we deal with the federal government. That is the comment I want to make on that one, Mr. Speaker, in clause 3, because I notice from time to time when we tie into our voters list, the voters list that the federal government used, it can be very confusing from time to time, and I will give an example in my own district.

In the community of Shearstown and Butlerville, the main road going in through is just called that, the Main Road, but it passes through three different polling stations. I remember, during one of the federal elections, it showed up that in one of the polling stations there were only forty-nine people but in other one there were over 900; and, because the feds, the way they had it done, it was all compiled by the name of the street. Hopefully, when we obtain the information from the feds in the future, to update our list, that will be taken into consideration.

With regard to the fee of $100 to $200, I guess, like my hon. colleagues, I just question why the increase, even though it is not an issue because, as has been said, it is usually reimbursed back to the individuals anyway if you make a certain percentage.

The other one when it comes to, I think it is clause 6, the voters list, I think that is a good addition there, to know that political parties will receive a copy of the voters list up front. I am sure all hon. members, from time to time, when you start out, you are trying to get a copy of the voters list and they are saying you cannot get it until the writ is dropped or what have you, but this will make it available and I think that is fine and proper.

I guess, like all the other speakers, the special ballot is one of the ones that I was keenly interested in, and I am glad to see that there is possibly four weeks prior to the drop of the writ that people will be able to become involved with the special ballots. Mr. Speaker, I understand where government is coming from, the Chief Electoral Office is coming from, because in the past I guess that did get out of hand from time to time, how they were distributed and so on.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would like to touch on with regard to the special ballot, and I think the Government House Leader, in his opening remarks, made the comment that it has to be dealt with just about 100 per cent by the election officials, but I think he made a comment that you could put the names forward. I am not quite sure what he meant, that the political parties or candidates could possibly put the names forward to the Chief Electoral Office. Hopefully, he will give clarification on that in his closing comments because, if political people can put the names forward so that the ballots can be sent out, I think that will be a tremendous help as well.

Along with clause 8, I notice in section 8 it says, "A special ballot kit shall be distributed to an elector by an election official only." The other one under section 8.(6), "Where a voter requires assistance in the completion of his or her special ballot, that assistance shall be provided by an election official only." I think that is where it comes into what my hon. colleague for Burgeo & LaPoile was referring to. If that could be done by the returning officers out in each of the districts it would be very beneficial.

I will give you an example. If some senior citizen in my area is confined to their home and cannot get out, unable to travel to St. John's, and if they need assistance with the completion of their ballot, really, what do they do? It is either going to be their deputy returning officer at the time, out there - and if it can be set up like the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile mentioned, I can assure you that would make it a lot easier to take care of.

The other issues, many of the other ones I do not see any major problem with, with regard to the size of how many ballots are going to be in a book and so on. I guess the last one there is where they are changing the period for reporting your final tabulations from the six month time frame to the four months. I do not see any major problem with that. I think if any of us cannot get our financial house in order within four months after the election then something is wrong.

Under clause 5, "Paragraph 73(2)(a) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted...", it refers to district associations or candidates who are non-affiliated candidates about filing the financial statements. Mr. Speaker, I think that is improper as well.

Really, the only main issue that I had with it is the special ballots. I know my hon. colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile brought up about the special ballots being in the various homes and what have you . I have seen, from time to time in my own area, even though the special ballots are out there, the homes are of a smaller nature and some of them probably have only fifteen to twenty people. Each and every time, regardless of how it is done, whether someone goes into that home, whether they are delivered before by political parties or individuals, it is always a problem at the end of the day, and hopefully something can be corrected along those lines.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would like for the hon. House Leader to explain to me is, when he did make the comment about how political parties or individuals can probably get the names in, how the ballots can go out. There is no involvement when they are out there or voting or returning them, but I thought he said something in his opening remarks with regard to how the names could get in, to knowing where they had to go. I don't know if I misunderstood him, because you take a lot of people now outside this Province are travelling to Alberta, they are back and forth. I guess possibly it could be lined up, that we could be considered, but a two-month time frame before voting, we could look at that when they are on their return trips, but in more cases it probably would have to be mailed to them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will just take my place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just stand and have a few words on Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991. This is an Act that is going to affect everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador and affect anybody who puts their name forth in the election forum for the provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, I had some personal experience with some of the setbacks in the Elections Act. Of course, that is water under the bridge now, that is history, but you learn from your experience. You learn from the experience of some of the things that happen to an individual. Mr. Speaker, some of the things that happened to me, and not just me in the Bay of Islands, but that happened to the DROs and the poll clerks - just to give an example of some of the things I would like to see changed and the reason why.

When you have a person who has been working for forty years as a DRO in the elections and getting a subpoena at Christmas that you are going to have to appear before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, there is a problem, Mr. Speaker. For no apparent reason, there is a problem.

This bill here, as we go through it, Bill 21, there are some good changes in this bill, but there are some things again that need clarification. There are some issues that I need, personally, to be addressed in order to ensure that the whole election process is done fairly and properly, that there are no hidden agendas, that there is no way someone, because of a bit of a vendetta or just wants to play politics or just wants to try to make someone's life a bit miserable, which, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion can happen quite easily - speaking from experience, it is very easy to do.

In Committee stage I will go through it clause by clause, but I will just raise a few issues now. I will be proposing an amendment to the Elections Act. The amendment will be, that if someone makes application to the court to have an election overturned and if it is concerning the DROs and the poll clerks, that the Chief Returning Officer should also be named as a party to the court. I will tell you why I make that amendment to this act, because back in the election in 2003 when Mike Monaghan, who is a judge now - I guess he got his reward, he is a judge now. After he lost the election - and, as we all know, I think there is sixty days or ninety days if you want to make an appeal. He waited for the last day, at 5:30 in the afternoon while we are having our Christmas social in the Bay of Islands, he tried to serve an application that he was going to object to the election.

Mr. Speaker, when that was reviewed and went through, and as the Speaker is well aware because you were on the IEC that made the final decision not to pay the legal bills for it. When we went through the whole application that he made, every instance that he caused a problem or thought there was a problem with it, was concerning the DRO and poll clerk, every instance. There was not one instance in the whole affidavits that he put through - not one, the whole affidavits that he put through, some twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty - that concerned myself, an election worker for our association, or a person related to our association. Everyone was concerning the DRO and poll clerk.

The reason I bring this up, it could happen to either one of us across the way, or it could happen to either one of us here. If I lose the next election I can file an application, name that person, whoever that person is who is running against me - you can file an application and he would have to defend that without having the resources of the Chief Returning Officer in St. John's, or the House of Assembly in this case. In my case, the House of Assembly because we know what transpired and we know it went through the IEC. We know we went out and spent a back load of money to get a legal opinion. The legal opinion came back and said, you should get a certain amount of your funds reimbursed. We know, Mr. Speaker, and you were one of them who voted that down after the legal opinion.

When I proposed this amendment - and I said it when I first got back in the House of Assembly, this could happen to any member. So, we need protection. If there is a member, or any candidate running, who is doing something wrong illegally and if there is an application made, a police investigation, that is a different thing. That is completely different, but when you go through a process - when a person who knows the legal system and a person who goes through the whole process - and the former Minister of Justice is well aware of the whole process that he went through. If Mike Monaghan decides all of a sudden he wants to go ahead and make someone's life miserable, he can do it. He did it actually. I know people who were crying there just before Christmas, actually crying when they were served notice that when they got a copy that they were named in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador documents - that they would have to go to Supreme Court, they actually cried.

The one who stayed out of all of this here was the Chief Returning Officer. The Chief Returning Officer called me everyday. He gave me his home phone number. December 24 he called me. He gave me his home phone number to call him December 25, 26, 27, whatever it needs to be to keep him updated. All because there was a lawyer here, Mike Monaghan, who for some reason knew the court system, knew what he could do, knew there was nothing to it.

I will just give you an example, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you seen it because I am sure you read the legal opinion that was put forward to you. Some of the issues that were brought up, is that someone sat too far away and they could not hear if the oath was read. There were even some cases where affidavits were signed, and I can go through everyone of the affidavits about special ballots. How students in St. John's who got special ballots, voted in the election and they were named in an affidavit saying that they were not really students because they lived here in St. John's. That is the kind of thing that if you do not have the Chief Returning Officer as part of the suit, then it is awful hard to defend. I know in my case - again, I will speak on personal experience, very personal experience. Not just me, the DROs and poll clerk.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I proudly represented them because I would not leave them high and dry, which in my opinion the Chief Returning Officer did. He left them very high and dry because Mike Monaghan, all of a sudden, wanted to play politics and he used the court system.

MR. T. MARSHALL: What did Joe Hutchings do?

MR. JOYCE: What did Joe Hutching do?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Who did he represent?

MR. JOYCE: In December - I think on January 30 - if the Member for Humber East -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members not to debate back and forth across the House, and I ask the hon. Member for the Bay of Islands to continue with his -

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Humber East wants to stand up, why don't he stand up? When the former House Leader, IEC, flew me in here with the Speaker of this House, waited for me outside and walked out and said: No, we are going to pay your legal expenses. They called the Member for Humber East to make quorum in Corner Brook. Do you know what he said? No, I want to get into St. John's. But, he did not tell that quorum out there. So don't you go talking, the Member for Humber East. You did not tell that quorum that you were the law partner of Mike Monaghan for thirty years, did you? Then all of a sudden, who had the right to speak or to say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is why I had the right to speak and say: Why is the Member for Humber East, the Minister of Justice, sitting in on the decision? He was his law partner that he took a call from and said: No, I am not going to decide on this now. I am not going to prove this right away. I want to go in and seek a legal opinion first. So, if you want to stand up and be hobnobbed - do you know what Mike Monaghan said over at his senior hockey tournament? He was sitting around having a few swallows, having a few beer. Here is what Mike Monaghan said -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Here is what Mike Monaghan said, Mr. Speaker, and this is why it is so relevant that I feel you need the Chief Returning Officer named, because Mike Monaghan was around with a few of his buddies in a locker room and said: I told Tom Marshall, don't give them a GD cent. That is what he said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if he would be a bit sensitive to the language that he is using here in this House. He knows that he is on the edge of what is accepted here within the Parliament within the House. It is also, certainly, unparliamentary to mention members by name. So I just ask the member to continue with his debate, but to be kind enough to be a little bit sensitive in the language that he is using.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, and I withdraw that, for saying his name, the Member for Humber East, Tom Marshall - sorry, Mike Monaghan.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Mike Monaghan's law partner for thirty years, who took a phone call and wanted to be in on the decision if I should be awarded by the courts. If he wants to sit in his chair and yap and yap, get up and tell the true story on it. Get up and tell the true story on it. You will not tell the true story because you know I am right.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that unparliamentary - if it was. If I said what he really said around the locker room, what he actually said, I will not say it, but he said he will not get one cent. That is what he said. So, if the former Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance, wants to stand there and yap and bawl and shout, I know you are involved personally. I know your personal involvement, and you cannot get up and deny it because you know it is true, because you spoke to Mike Monaghan on that personally. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we need the chief returning officer involved, and Joe Hutchings never got on.

I say to the Minister of Finance, Joe Hutchings never got involved until we - we, as in myself and my lawyer - told the chief returning officer that we were going to petition the courts. That is when they decided to get involved with the party.

So, if you do not know what you are talking about, you should stay away because you are in a conflict of interest. Don't sit down there and shoot off your face when you do not know what you are talking about, please, when you do not know what you are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: The Member for Lewisporte, you had your chance. You did a poll in the Bay of Islands. You can come down. I could do the same to you. I could do the same to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member, just because your poll didn't show up that good down in the Bay of Islands, don't go getting upset with me. I am just saying what could happen to you. I am just saying what could happen if you ran in the Bay of Islands - if, all of a sudden, you decided to run.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) you would be history.

MR. JOYCE: Well, you had your chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: No, no, no. The Member for Lewisporte said, if he ran in the Bay of Islands, I would be history.

You had the opportunity to do it, but the people in the Bay of Islands, the retuning officer, the deputy returning officers and the DROs in the Bay of Islands, I will say to the Member for Lewisporte, went through a lot of stress because the chief returning officer was not named, and this is going to be my amendment. It is going to be my amendment. So, if you ran in the Bay of Islands, if your poll had to show up to say yes, it would have been a good poll, you would have been running in the Bay of Islands, and if you happened to win, which I doubt you would have, but if you happened to win, I had an opportunity then to go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, hire a lawyer, get a friend to do it, go to the Supreme Court, and name you and not the chief returning officer. It is wrong. It is wrong.

Then, if you wanted to defend the poll clerks and the DROs in the Bay of Islands, you would have to do it yourself, which I had to do, and I think it is wrong. If someone went off and did something illegal, and if there is a matter with the police, that is completely separate. That is completely separate.

Then, I say to the Member for Lewisporte, when you got the Member for Humber East out there talking to the guy who actually made the application, and then taking a phone call and deciding oh, no, I will discuss this when I get back, his law partner for thirty years, and here is Wayne Green, the chief returning officer, over in St. John's, sitting back and saying oh, we cannot get involved.

Here is the Speaker - Mr. Speaker, you are well aware of it - of this House flying me in here. He flew me in here twice, I think it was twice, flew me in here to sit down to discuss this. Do you know what the Speaker call me and said? Do you know what the Speaker said? There is no need. We did not realize that this was happening out there, and he wasn't named. There is no need. We are going to pay your full bill - until the man on high got involved. The Member for Lewisporte, you were on the IEC also that voted that down. You are a judge - or you are lawyer, I should say. You voted that down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Going to be a judge if you lose the next election, I would say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lewisporte was the one who was in there and voted against that, after I went out and defended all of the DROs and poll clerks, after being flown in twice and said no, there is no need. Even after the Member for Humber East, the law partner for Mike Monaghan for thirty years, tried to get involved with the decision, and we went out and got a legal opinion, $9,000, that said, come back, you should get a portion, the Member for Lewisporte voted it down, all because he was told from the man on high: Don't give him a cent.

Mr. Speaker, you heard it because you were in on the vote. That is why I feel so adamant that, if there is the same situation as before, the chief returning officer should be named somehow on it so that at least there will be proper representation.

Mr. Speaker, there are some clauses here that I will go through during Committee stage, and I will just bring up some of the concerns. Clause 3 allows the Chief Electoral Officer to enter into agreements with municipalities and school boards in order to obtain information respecting their electors for the purpose of updating elector lists.

Now, I am not sure that can be done. I do not know, through the Privacy Act, if that can even be done. I called out to the principal of the school board to see who graduated this year, to try to send them a certificate, and you cannot even get their names. You cannot even get their names, Mr. Speaker. They are not allowed to release the names of people who graduated, under the Privacy Act, unless there is some other reason which I am not aware of, so you cannot even get the name. So, when you have a situation here with clause 3 in which you are going to try to get the names from the school board or a municipality, I am not sure that can be done. I guess I need some clarification on that. If it can be done, how are you going to go about it? I know some people who, through the school board, may not want their information released to the Chief Electoral Officer. I am not sure if they do or if they don't. That is up to them. I would love to see how that is going to be carried out.

Mr. Speaker, I go down to clause 7 of the bill, "... would amend subsection 86(4) of the Act to permit persons to apply for a vote by special ballot 4 weeks before the issue of a writ of election and would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to determine the latest date by which such an application could be made." Now, from my understanding from the IEC, and I stand to be corrected on this - the Member for Lewisporte brought up a good point in the IEC on it - is that, once that election writ is dropped and there is a special ballot, you can go up here on Halley Street or wherever the Chief Electoral Office is, and you can bring people up to vote. That is my understanding. You can actually do it here in St. John's. But if you live anywhere else, if you live in Corner Brook, live in the Bay of Islands, it cannot be done. Now, if we want to go ahead with a special ballot somehow we can get that done, but here in St. John's, with the seats around St. John's, you can bring someone up to Halley's office or the Chief Electoral Office up in Halley Drive, you can bring them up there and they can vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hallett Crescent.

MR. JOYCE: Hallett Crescent. Sorry! Hallett Crescent. And he can vote. If you are out in Corner Brook or out in the Bay of Islands you have not got that opportunity. That is a question that I have to try to find - why should the people out in Corner Brook and in the Bay of Islands not have the same opportunity as the people here in St. John's?

The second thing I need clarification about, "...the Chief Electoral Officer to determine the latest date by which such an application could be made." Now, is there a date that should be etched in stone that we should know or is it up to the Chief Electoral Officer, as to when that should be done? That is something again that I need clarification on. Should it be done at his whim or should it be done by setting a date, whether it is four weeks, five weeks or six weeks prior? When is that date and is it for everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

You go to clause 8, you go with special ballots, "....return of the kits is provided by the election official or the elector only." Mr. Speaker, there is some validity in that, that they should be sent out to the person and they should be sent back to the person, but how it is going to be done? Do we send the names in? Do they send their own names in? Is there a kit there that you could send in and just have a pre-stamped envelope to send it back in? That is the kind of things that we have to know.

I see it is 5:30, Mr. Speaker, and I adjourn debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time for speaking has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Oh, I will be back again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let the record show that I offered the hon. member leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I offered the hon. member leave to clue up and if he wants it, he can certainly have it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, by leave.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

I thank the Member for Lewisporte, the Government House Leader, for a minute to clue up. I will be brief. I will just bring up some of the concerns that I have.

In clause 11 on the oath aspect, saying that special ballots must be with the oath also. There is one thing that we need clarified in the House and there is one thing we need done for the whole election. In the last election, when it went to the courts, one of the things that Mike Monaghan put forward is: Should the oath be read or should someone just be able to read it, say it aloud or just read it and sign? That is something that we need clarified and save all the confusion that it went through the last time. If you have an oath in front of you, and if you look at the oath and you sign it, is that good enough? That is an issue that we all have to deal with during an election because if someone comes in now and reads the oath - and I go back to me, personally. I think there were 457 instances, they said - somewhere around there, 437 - where they said they did not hear the people read the oath aloud. So, is that allowed? According to the Supreme Court Judge in Corner Brook, it is allowed. It is an issue that was brought up by Mike Monaghan, that it should not be accepted because the person never read the oath aloud and he never swore allegiance. So, that is something that we need clarified, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 15, we are going to need clarification also. In this one, it says, "...the date upon which an application may be made respecting an improper election return without a court order in order to obtain information relevant to the compiling of a list of electors." What will you be allowed to take out of the ballot box?

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, if you have something to say stand up. If you have nothing constructive to say sit down. Stop your yapping. You don't understand -

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to stop the debate back and forth the House. I ask the hon. member when he is speaking to address the Chair and not get carried away by somebody else heckling from the other side.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask you then to ask the Member for Mount Pearl, if he has something to say positive stand up, because there were forty-four people who went through the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador the last time that you are not aware of, who went through a lot of problems because of this here. A lot, let me tell you.

Mr. Speaker, I will go through clause 15 again. I need clarification as to what will be allowed in the ballot box because I know the last time when I went through it, there had to be a court order to open the ballot boxes. So, I am not sure if that is the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, when it goes to the Committee stage I will stand up clause by clause. I have a lot more to say about it. I have a lot more concerns about it. I thank the member, the Government House Leader, the Member for Lewisporte, indeed, because they were very important issues that were raised after the last election, 2003. There will be issues that I am going to be bringing forward and I will be proposing an amendment to this act. I am not sure if it will be passed but I will propose an amendment because of my personal situation and my personal experience with the last election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. Government House Leader, I ask if the Government House Leader is moving second reading or standing -

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, Mr. Speaker.

By agreement, we will take a supper break now and we will be back at 7:00.

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


June 4, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 23A


The House met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am going to proceed to have a few comments on Bill 21, so if you want to advise on that before I do. Now, we will not move it through or anything, but if anybody else wants to have a comment on second reading I will sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. the Government House Leader now going to close the debate on Bill 21?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the intention, if there is nobody else to speak.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay. I understand the Leader of the Opposition wants to speak, so I will -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to take long. I just want to talk a bit about the Elections Act, and that concerns the special ballot. We did have some clarification earlier today from the Electoral Office, but the special ballot is for an individual who knows that he or she will not be available on voting day to go to the polls.

Here in St. John's, any individual who knows that he or she will not be available on polling day, that they are going to be out of the Province or they are not going to be in their district, can just find their way over to Halley Crescent - I think that is the name of the place - up off O'Leary Avenue and go in and cast their ballot. Whereas, individuals in our own districts, those who represent rural districts in the Province, apparently have to call or somehow connect with the Chief Electoral Office here in St. John's, either in writing or, I guess, by Internet and request that a ballot be sent to that individual. Then they have to fill in the ballot and mail it at their own cost back to the Electoral Office here in St. John's.

My colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, has been in touch with the Electoral Office and it was confirmed this afternoon that individuals who want to vote in districts outside of St. John's can go through their district returning officer, and every district has a chief district returning officer. The unfortunate thing about that is the one in my district, for example, is located in Twillingate. It would not be easy, for example, for someone from Fogo Island who would have to take a ferry, and then get off the ferry and drive from Farewell to Twillingate and vote and then take a ferry back onto the island. It is rather difficult for that individual to do that, and I am thinking of other districts in the Province where that would pose a problem as well. I am thinking of Torngat Mountains, for example, where all the communities in that district are isolated from each other and from the rest of the Province. So, while it would be fine for the voters in the particular town that the DRO, the district returning officer, lives in, it is not fine for the rest of the individuals who live in other communities outside that which the DRO lives in.

Another example, Mr. Speaker, would be those people wanting to vote in Bonavista South. I would assume that the DRO, the district returning office for that district is probably located in Bonavista. So that means that anyone who lives outside of Bonavista would either have to drive to Bonavista to vote at the district returning officer's establishment or house, or, again, call in and ask that a special ballot be sent out to that individual. Then that individual would be responsible for filling in the ballot, putting their own postage on it and mailing it back to St. John's. I find that somewhat discriminating here, discriminatory, I say to the Government House Leader, because it shows that all residents in the Province are not being treated equally.

All of those people who live in the seven or eight or nine or ten districts in St. John's, if they want to vote early before the election - and I think now, as well, it is going to be a month before the writ is dropped. So, it is conceivable that there will be people voting in the Province as early as August in this election because I think you back it up a month from when the writ is dropped. I assume that will be roughly three weeks prior to October 9, which makes it around September 15. So, I would assume that anyone in the Province who knows that they are not going to be around on polling day, can vote as early as August 15. Anyone in St. John's or in the general area can easily find their way to the Chief Electoral Office up on O'Leary Avenue and cast their ballot. Whereas those in my district, and all other rural districts, will have to go through the torment of having to, first of all, find out how they can apply for that special ballot and then they are also being penalized in that they have to pay to send that special ballot in again. So I say to the minister responsible, they should change that in a way which would at least make a district returning officer available in more areas in a particular district.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will ask him if he would consider that and I will sit down and let somebody else have a few minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Government House Leader speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their participation and for their contribution on the second reading debate, which generally is approval in principle of the bill. I understand there will be further consideration when we get around to the committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few issues that I would like to get out of the way quickly. First of all, in terms of the verification of information from, say, municipalities and school boards, it is the same as information that will come to the Chief Electoral Office from Elections Canada. The only way to verify and to do total due diligence, without any fear of there being - and that is only as good as the day it is done of course, is enumeration. That is the only foolproof way in terms of making sure that you do not have somebody on a voter's list who was in a partner relationship that broke up and they have moved on and that person is no longer at the address. Of course, it is embarrassing - or can be potentially embarrassing - if it gets out through the Electoral Office that this is no longer the situation, or if somebody, unfortunately, passes away and you find their name is still on the election list. So, the only way to do that is enumeration every election. I mean, even for October, the Chief Electoral Office has people out doing enumerations now. I do not know if they are completed, but it is around now that they are being done. I know they visited my house a week or so ago, a couple of weeks ago.

Even now, between now and election day in October, it is possible that there will be some people on that list who will have unfortunately passed away or moved away, or relationships broke up or whatever. That is impossible to give a 100 per cent guarantee on. All I can say is that every effort will be made to cross-reference between information provided by MCP, information provided by Elections Canada, information provided under the Municipalities Act, information provided by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. Every effort will be made to cross-reference that information to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. It will not be accurate within a 100 per cent, foolproof range. No, it will not, Mr. Speaker, even if we do enumerations before every election. The hope is that - there will always perhaps be a need to do enumerations, but the hope is that you will be able to update it electronically and by other means rather than have to do one after every election. In fact, I think there has been fourteen or fifteen years since one was done previously, so it needed to be updated so that we have a list that is updated. It will not be foolproof, but every effort will be made to cross-reference it so that names where situations have changed, people have deceased or partnerships have broken up or whatever, those matters are taken care of.

In terms of providing the information from the present enumeration to parties and candidates affiliated with parties, I understand they are on schedule to have that ready for the August date. There is a date in August, I believe, when that material is supposed to be ready to provide to candidates or candidates affiliated with a party.

The fee; members on the opposite side talked about raising the fee from $100 to $200. Again, personally, there is no grave logic in it, but there is this - and I ask members to consider it, Mr. Speaker. The fee for candidates to offer themselves to be eligible to run as a candidate has nothing to do with the rebate. The rebate for members, people who run in an election, is based on 15 per cent or more of the vote. If you get 15 per cent or more of the vote then, by law, you are allowed a certain percentage rebate on the amount of money, up to a certain -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, up to a certain level per district, and everybody knows what it is. We all take that and we go to our banker and make arrangements to finance the election process. So, that is a different matter from the matter of a fee for the right to run. You get that back whether you get one vote, 15 per cent of the votes, or 100 per cent of the votes. Let me say this, and say it clearly: That fee is there only to encourage people to file their election return. If somebody does not get a vote, what encouragement is there for them to file an election return? If somebody gets 100 votes, there might not be much encouragement for them to file an election return.

The fee is there and if a person files their return, they will get all of the fee back; every copper of the fee back. There is no percentage of vote required, they get it all back. Personally, I think that is reasonable. If a person is going to seek public office, Mr. Speaker - and I am not one to discourage. I suppose we could say there will be no fee. Theoretically, we could say there will be no fee but there has to be an encouragement for people to file their return, and the best encouragement is some small penalty in the pocketbook for failing to do so. A $200 penalty, Mr. Speaker, I do not think is unrealistic and I really do not believe that it is of significant concern to anybody who believes enough that they want to participate by putting their name on the ballot paper.

Now the other major issue, Mr. Speaker, has been surrounding special ballots. Let me make it clear - first of all, let me say this, if any member of the Opposition wants to have a briefing, I will arrange for the Opposition to have a briefing. So I ask the House Leaders on the other side to let me know, and let me know when you are available to do it. I would suggest that at the latest it would have to be sometime tomorrow, but if the Opposition wishes a briefing on the amendments that have been proposed to the act, I will arrange for one. I have talked to the CEO or the Chief Electoral Officer about it and the legal people and the Chief Electoral Officer will be available to do it at a time convenient to the Opposition, if they will let me - when I say Opposition, I mean everybody on the other side of the House, both parties. Just let me know if you want to do it.

Now, if I have answered the questions or if they get answered in their totality in committee, that is fine, you do not have to do it, but if you are not satisfied and you want more detail, let me know and the briefing will be arranged.

On the issue of special ballots, let me say this, Mr. Speaker, people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, it is not going to be. I understand from talking to the legal advisers in the Department of Justice who helped draft those amendments, Mr. Speaker, that the present amendments allow the Chief Electoral Officer and the Chief Electoral Office to be able to run those elections in all forty-eight districts in terms of special ballots and to have the same rules apply in all forty-eight districts as apply in St. John's. That, I am told, is what will happen.

The district returning officers, as I understand it, are in place now. I do not know if they all are but if they are not, 99.9 per cent of them are. It is a matter of having a public place and a public office for them, and that has been arranged. That is being put in process as we speak. So come another month or so, all of them, hopefully, will have their offices. They will be supplied with computers, they will be up and running and they will be in operation. If for some reason that has not taken place, the district returning officers are still in place. People know who they are in the districts. They know where they live, where they are operating out of their house, a basement, room in their house or whatever.

My understanding is that the district returning officers will be told and advised that they must provide the same service for special ballots in all of the forty-eight districts as is available to electors, to residents of this Province, citizens of this Province who live in the capital city.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, they tell me they can do it and that they will, in fact, do it. That is what they tell me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, hold on now. Mr. Speaker, that is a different matter.

For example, the hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned people who live on islands and in isolated communities on the North Coast of Labrador and there are islands around the Province and so on, on the Island part of the Province where that applies. That happens now in terms of advanced polls. An advanced poll in the hon. member's district, I assume, has been held in Twillingate, right? If somebody from Fogo wanted to vote in an advanced poll in every election since there has been advanced polls, they would have had to have made an arrangement, somehow or another, to get to that advanced poll. In other words, it is where the district returning officer is. That is where advanced polls have always been held.

I guess I have ran in more elections than anybody else in the House, as far as I know. So, as far as I know, advanced polls have always been held wherever the district returning officer is located. In the case of Lewisporte district, it is Lewisporte. If you happen to be living down in Horwood, way down on the other end of the district, you have to make arrangements to get into Lewisporte. In the case of Baie Verte, it is in Baie Verte. If you happen to be living - and I know when I represented Baie Verte in previous times, I know there were fishermen who used to fish on the Horse Islands, for example - fourteen miles off Fleur de Lys on the Horse Islands - who would have to make arrangements, because they were not going to be home on election day, to come in from the Horse Islands to Baie Verte, or come into Fleur de Lys and arrange transportation to Baie Verte so they could vote in the advanced poll. So, that is going to be no different -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Why, is there an advanced poll in more than one place in the district? I am not aware that it is. If I am wrong, I certainly will take that up if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the advanced polls are held - I know in Lewisporte, they are held in Lewisporte. In Baie Verte, they were held in Baie Verte. I cannot speak for all forty-six other districts.

So, the bottom line on the special ballots, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, is that the Electoral Office can make the same arrangements, and will, in fact - and that is their mandate, to make those same arrangements to be carried out by the district returning officers in all forty-eight districts in the Province on the same basis that it is carried out for the districts here in St. John's. That is the understanding I have from the office. That is the understanding that the office has from Justice in terms of their ability to do it.

Now, if that explanation, with some back and forth, settles the matter, then that is fine, we can carry on. If it does not, and the Opposition wants a further brief on this matter, Mr. Speaker, then all I need to know is when, where and what time and we can arrange it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By consensus, to speak on Bill 21.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fairness to the Government House Leader, I assumed that he would have received a copy of the response that Mr. Reynolds gave to the letter that I wrote to Mr. Reynolds on Friday past.

I think that clarifies some of the issues. I am not sure if the Government House Leader is reading it the same as myself, but what I pointed out in my letter, which I read earlier today into the record, and I will certainly be prepared to table a copy of my June 1 letter to Mr. Reynolds, as well as a copy of Mr. Reynolds' response to me today - it came in after the House had opened at 1:30, so I was not aware of it until I went to supper break - the questions I posed to him basically were: What are the ways of a person voting? You can vote on voting day. You can vote in an advance poll. You can vote by special ballot.

I was under the misunderstanding that you could also just walk in at any time in St. John's, Hallett Crescent, and vote as well. He clarified that for me. He said: No, there are only three ways of voting: voting day, advance poll or special ballots. So, that part is clear over here now from that angle.

He also clarified - my question was: Can you only use a special ballot if you live in St. John's and have access to the CEO? Could you do it through the DRO in the future, with this amendment passing? He has confirmed in his letter to me that, with this amendment, anyone - the DRO in any of the forty-eight districts - will, for the next election, be able to go to their DRO. For example, someone who is in Burgeo & LaPoile - and he pointed out using that example in my district, and he actually used their name - can go to Ms Davis and do a special ballot process the same as anyone in St. John's North can walk into Hallett Crescent and do it, for this election.

The issue that remains, and this is where we are - he has raised another issue, and his response to me was: That is only going to be possible with the DROs from the time that the writ is dropped.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, that is (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Okay, well, that is where I need clarification, because in the letter that I got this afternoon from the DRO, it says: Offices for the DROs will be established when the writ is issued - which means the writ could be issued, in this case, this year, on September 18, but under this law we are going to make special balloting possible back to August 18.

My concern then was: Well, that does not seem fair either. You can still go into Hallett Crescent, if you live in here, and do it as of August 18, but from August 18 to September 18 you would not be able to do it in the other districts.

I am pleased to hear that has been clarified, so I would like for him again to write to me to confirm that is going to be the case, but as of suppertime that was our information. I was going to propose, based upon this letter, that it should be very clear, wherever you are going to use a system, if it is special ballots, you should be able to use it anywhere in this Province for the same period of time. There should not be any one area that is disadvantaged or advantaged. So I am pleased to hear that piece of it.

The next question that was raised was - and the minister alluded to this - about advance polls. Well, in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile, for example, there is not just one location for advance polls. Maybe that is the case in Lewisporte district, but in Burgeo & LaPoile, for example, there is an advance poll in Port aux Basques which takes in all of the communities up in that end of it: Cape Ray, Isle aux Morts, Port aux Basques, Rose Blanche, Fox Roost, Margaree. There is no advance poll in the isolated communities of LaPoile and Grand Bruit, but there was an advance poll in Burgeo, and there was an advance poll in the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune's district in Ramea, because of the amount of the population, I guess; it was over 600 or 700 people.

My next question that has arisen, and whether he can explain that by way of a briefing or we can agree to that, my next question that arose from that is: If we are going to allow the people, for example, in Port aux Basques, to exercise the DRO now for the special ballots for the full period of time, if that is what it is going to be, why can't the people in Burgeo who are going to have an advance poll, and in Ramea, have the same rights?

Now, it might be a matter of strategically planning it and telling the DRO that you have to open your offices earlier. That is fine; that is only legitimate. If you have to open them a month earlier, you have to open them a month earlier. That is a matter of resourcing, then, not a matter of your democratic right to vote and everybody having the same rules. Likewise, wherever there is an advance poll, maybe that should be the guideline. Maybe the guideline should be that wherever there is an advance poll, that is where we would allow the special ballot procedures. For example, someone in Burgeo is a deputy returning officer, so if the person in Burgeo, who is the deputy returning officer for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile, why can't anybody in Burgeo go in to the deputy returning officer? Because under the act an election officer is defined as the CEO, the DRO, the deputy DRO, even down to poll clerks. So, the definitions are all in place. It is a matter of choosing what is a fair guideline for everybody, and I would suggest that maybe wherever there is an advance poll is the fairness.

I agree, you cannot allow it everywhere. For example, it may be in LaPoile. If you want to go to the extent of saying, yes, if you want to, we can go that far and say the polling clerk down there can do it if we wish. If we want to be ultimately democratic we can do that, too, but I certainly think we should not leave out communities that have thousands of people in them literally - like Burgeo and Ramea have 600 or 700 people. Whether that can be clarified in a briefing or whatever, we still have some misunderstanding between the letters I have and what you have been told.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) by agreement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

By agreement, we are still debating Bill 21.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the issue of the setting up of the returning offices, that matter is as I stated. I am informing the House now that those offices will be in place and set up so that the special ballots - to give the returning officer his due, when I raised it, it was a matter of resourcing. Well, we are not worried about the resource here; we are worried about doing it right. So, the instruction has been given and he has assured me that will be as it is. So that issue, I think, is settled, from my perspective as Government House Leader and speaking on behalf of the government.

On the matter of the special ballots and who does them, obviously there have to be some restrictions. You cannot have it back to where we were some time ago when parties were probably too close to it, if we get it too loosey-goosey. Wherever there are advance polls, that seems to me to be perhaps a good compromise, a good yardstick.

I am going to move on to another bill now, and I will speak to the Chief Electoral Officer and see if there is any difficulty with that. If I can give him assurance on that matter, I will give it so we can move on with Committee consideration. If I cannot, then we can arrange to have a briefing if that is what the Opposition wants.

For now - because we are going to call another piece of legislation anyway - I will undertake to get back to the House on that matter if that is satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21 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 Amend The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 21)

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to call second reading of Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Late last Thursday night, I guess in reality it was early Friday morning, this House passed the Budget for 2007-2008. Included in that Budget was the biggest tax decreases, I should say, tax cuts in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. To carry that out it is now necessary to amend the Income Tax Act to take government's hand out of the pockets of a lot of the people of this Province, all of the people of this Province, across all income levels, who will receive a major benefit from this Budget and from this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will put $160 million back in the pockets of the people of this Province. This legislation will help people pay their bills. This legislation will help people spend more money the way they want to spend their money. This legislation, in effect, gives all of the people of this Province who pay taxes, the equivalent of a tax decrease. It gives them the equivalent of an increase in their after tax income. This particular measure, to lower taxes for all people in all tax brackets across the country, with the upper income earners and, in particular, to the low income earners, has been well received and is well appreciated. Government is delighted that our fiscal capacity now places us in a position where we can do measures such as this.

Mr. Speaker, last year my predecessor indicated that the government would undertake a tax review. This review is necessary due to the very high personal tax burden that the people of this Province face and the need for us to be competitive internationally and within our country, and is consistent with a commitment that this government made in its Blue Book to lighten the far too heavy tax burden that is on all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, our citizens.

There is a perception that this Province is a highly taxed jurisdiction. However, the business tax climate in this Province is, in fact, quite favourable. It is quite favourable when you compare it with the rest of the provinces in Canada and when you compare it internationally, given our very competitive corporate income tax rates, given the input tax credits for businesses that pay the 14 per cent harmonized sales tax. There are generous payroll tax exemptions. I think there is less than 4 per cent of businesses in this Province, in fact, pay the payroll tax. There is no general capital tax. The personal income taxes that are paid by the people of this Province have been very, very high indeed.

So the focus in this year's Budget, as a result of that review, was to improve our competitiveness nationally, which will improve the attraction of investment, the attraction of new business, which means the creation of more employment and it will help retain workers here if they receive a higher after tax income. I know one business leader indicated to me that if she paid the same salary as someone who was moving to Alberta, it made no difference because the taxes in Alberta were so much lower, so that the after tax income, the money that was actually going into that person's pocket, was not as high. So, it is important that we foster greater economic development and sustainability for the Province. By addressing high taxes and excessive taxes on our citizens, that this is a critical move and we have to lower those taxes.

The balance that we have achieved in this year's announcement is that it also includes many measures to assist low-income individuals. This will be in the indexation of the personal income tax rates. It will be the rate reduction in the first bracket, the lower bracket, because we pay a progressive tax in this Province - in this country, as a matter of fact. We will lower the income tax rate in the first bracket so that lower-income earners will pay even less taxes because they will have a lower tax rate than those in the upper brackets.

We will increase the income range used for seniors' benefits, applicable to senior couples. Now what is happening with the low-income seniors' benefits is that many seniors, those who are married, even when you combine their incomes, you put their incomes together, they are not exceeding the income thresholds that exist under that legislation. So we have raised those thresholds so that more people, more married seniors will be eligible for this low-income seniors' benefit. That is going to mean that 12,000 additional seniors are going to receive that cheque in October of this year, that low-income seniors' benefit, because obviously, all of us in this House respect and appreciate our seniors and the role they play in our society. This will give them some more financial help and I know it will be most appreciated.

In addition, we are increasing the low-income tax reduction income range by raising the threshold there, both for single taxpayers and married family taxpayers. This will provide benefits for an additional 5,200 people, and of those, 4,000 low-income taxpayers will now be totally removed from the provincial income tax roles. That is in addition to those who were removed when this was brought in by my predecessor back in 2005. I am extremely pleased that these measures will assist income earners at the low end of the scale. As one women said to me, and I have never forgotten it: You politicians have to take steps to help me pay my bills. These measures will help that women pay her bills and I am pleased with that.

We have also taken many provincial measures to improve the lots of low-income individuals. Our poverty reduction initiative measures in both last year and in 2007 - so there is $91 million in poverty initiatives taking place. This model that we used has, in fact, been lauded and praised by the head of the National Association of Welfare, by the Canadian Anti-Poverty Association as a model that the rest of the country should follow. We have made a commitment to take this Province from having the highest rate of poverty to the lowest rate in a time period of ten years, and we will continue to take those steps to help people at the lower-income scale to enable them to play the role in society that they wish to play.

We are also expanding the Home Heating Rebate this year. This year it is extended to people who heat with electricity, which means that 69,000 people in this Province are going to receive this benefit this year. They will receive a benefit of $200. That is $13 million distributed to 69,000 people, compared to much lower figures many years ago. So, we have improved that program as well.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing we are going to do is lower the personal tax rates. We have three different brackets. We have a progressive income tax system, and that means a person who makes a higher income will, obviously, even if the rates were the same - if the rates were the same across the board, the person in the higher income would, obviously, pay more tax. Because we have a progressive system, we also have three tax brackets so that the higher income person - not only does that person pay an absolute higher amount of tax, they also pay a relatively or progressively higher tax because they are in a higher tax bracket, which means they pay a tax rate which is under higher income. So, they pay more taxes.

In the first bracket, the rate is 10.57 per cent. When these measures are fully annualized and implemented, effective July 1, 2007, that rate on the first bracket goes down to 8.7 per cent. The second bracket goes from 16.16 per cent down to 13.8 per cent. Then, the highest bracket, where the rate is 18.02 per cent, that rate will drop to 16.5 per cent, all effective July 1, 2007.

Now, it is interesting if we compare the annual personal income tax savings as a percent this year compared to last year and see how people are doing. If someone was making $150,000 a year, and if that person was single, that person would save, this year over last year, in terms of their tax savings, 16.3 per cent. If that person is making $15,000, a single taxpayer, they would have an annual personal tax saving of 33.3 per cent. If a person was making $20,000 - I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition always talked about the average income that he looked at was $20,000 - well, that person would have a percentage income tax saving this year of 19.3 percent. A one-earner couple earning $150,000 would have a saving this year over last year of 16.1 per cent. A person having $20,000 would save 100 per cent compared to last year. A single parent making $150,000 will have a saving this year of 16.1 per cent, whereas a person making $20,000 will have a saving this year compared to last year of 100 per cent. Finally, Mr. Speaker, a person making $150,000, a single senior, they would have a saving this year of 16.3 per cent on their taxes compared to last year. If they were making $20,000 a year, they would have a saving of 21 per cent.

As you can see, on a percentage basis, the percentage savings are much higher for those at the lower end of the scale than they are for the upper end of the scale. Therefore, the arguments that the Leader of the Opposition was making, that these tax breaks were only to help the wealthy, are totally and utterly incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, there is an income tax surtax of 9 per cent. Someone paying over, I think it was $7,100 a year, would pay a tax on tax, a hideous tax on tax, of 9 per cent of every dollar of tax you had over that amount, so we have eliminated that.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, we have raised the low income tax reduction to help people at the lower end of the scale. Currently, it is $12,000 for individuals. That is going to $13,000 for individuals. It is $19,000 for families, and that is going to $21,000 for families. That will be retroactive to January 1, 2007. That will mean, as I indicated earlier, that there are going to be 5,200 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will receive tax benefits because of this move, and 4,000 people will be removed entirely from the provincial tax rolls of this Province.

Also, the Low Income Seniors' Benefit, the income threshold is $15,032 to $21,482. We are raising that to $25,000 to $31,587 retroactive to January 1. As I indicated, that will make more senior couples eligible to receive this financial assistance. There are approximately 6,000 senior couples, that is 12,000 seniors, who will receive a cheque of $783 approximately, over $700. They will receive that cheque, and that will help people at the lower end of the scale immensely.

We are also going to index our taxation. We are going to index the brackets. That is going to protect people from inflation, protect people from what is know as bracket creep. We do not index it now but it will be indexed effective July 1, 2007 and it will be fully annualized, of course, next year.

As I indicated earlier, we raised the Corporate Income Tax small business threshold from $300,000 to $400,000. We also reduced the retail sales tax on the private sale of used vehicles from 15 per cent to 14 per cent, and that was effective as of Budget day.

These measures are certainly going to help people. We are going to take this Province - we are going to go from having the highest level of income tax rates in Atlantic Canada to having the lowest income tax rates in Atlantic Canada, from highest to lowest. A lot of people are happy with that. I know the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains is delighted with that.

The highest marginal income tax in this Province will now be lower than that in Ontario, and I know that is going to make the Globe and Mail very happy. It is going to make Ontarians very happy, when they hear that, to know that this Province is now a place that welcomes business investment, that will attract capital, that will help us be competitive nationally and internationally, will help us attract new business, help us attract new investment. That means more jobs for our people.

It will also help us attract and retain skilled workers, because there are certain people with certain skills that we need in this Province, certainly in the medical profession. One of the things that they look at, of course, when they are going to decide - when international people come here and they decide if they are going to live in our Province or live in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or some other province - they obviously look at the income tax rates. They want to know how much money they are going to keep in their pocket, and now we have become much more competitive in what we are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, I also said that the effect of these tax reductions will, in effect, give everybody in this Province a raise. Someone making $25,000 will now have the equivalent of an increase in their salary of 1.7 per cent. Someone making $30,000 will have the equivalent of an after- tax increase in their income of 2 per cent. Someone making $15,000 a year will have the equivalent of a salary increase of 2.3 per cent, and the list goes on and on right across the board because we believe in taking a balanced approach. We believe in helping people at the lower income levels get ahead, but we also felt very seriously that it was time for people in the middle, the people who have been paying, the people who never get a break, it was time that government took its hands out of their pockets and gave them a break, left them with more money in their pockets, let them spend money the way that they want to spend money, let them make some purchases, let them make some investments, and let them pay some bills.

Mr. Speaker, the last clause in the bill that we are dealing with, Bill 3, deals with something called the resort tax credit, but one further thing on the income tax reductions. It says that most high income earners under our tax measures will be paying a tax of about 14 per cent of their income while people earning $25,000 or less will generally pay tax ranging from 0 per cent to 5 per cent of their income. As you can see, the thing I want to emphasize is that there is no break given to high income earners. The breaks are across the board, particularly to the low and middle earners.

I mentioned the lower income tax reduction and the seniors' tax reduction. I mentioned we are eliminating the surtax. Finally, the last thing I will deal with is the clause in the bill which talks about a resort tax credit. Out of our Blue Book commitment, we made a commitment to use strategic tax incentives to spearhead new economic development activities, to diversify rural economies and to create long-term jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The announcement that was made in Gander, I believe, by my colleagues, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and the Minister of Business, will do just that.

Government will be providing a resort property tax credit of 45 per cent to local individuals and to local companies who are interested in investing in selected tourist resort properties outside the Northeast Avalon and providing the funding and the opportunity for our successful tourism industry to continue to grow. This is an expansion over existing programs such as the direct equity tax credit of 35 per cent that presently exist for tourism operators.

Now, the new tax credit is designed to encourage new resort developments in the Province with high-end amenities and services. The 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Tourist Product Development Strategy, which was called A Special Place, A Special People, The Future of Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism, indicated a demand for multi-seasonal facilities with a minimum of fifty units and a rating of three stars or better - that is a Canada Select three stars or better - are the features associated with the demand for tourism properties. This indicates an opportunity to grow and enhance an accommodations base in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Government's commitment for this resort property tax will provide an opportunity for our citizens to invest in the tourism industry. This will enable our own people to take advantage of opportunities in the tourism industry and to keep their hard-earned investment dollars in the Province.

I understand a similar tax credit has been successfully implemented by the Government of Ireland, resulting in hundreds of thousands of tourists visiting the country every year. Seeing the success of a similar tax credit model in Ireland bodes well for the future of our tourism industry here in Newfoundland and in Labrador. It is through opportunities that are realized through the Irish Business Partnerships model and our similarities as a people and a place that reaffirms our decision to implement this particular investment tax credit.

I understand that in Steady Brook, out on the West Coast, a company under the name of Humber Seasons Limited is ready to proceed with an investment. Therefore, I think it is important that people understand what are the requirements and what are the qualifications for this investment.

The qualifying resort development complex must be a newly constructed tourism complex, or newly constructed expansion or a property where at least 90 per cent of the building area is rebuilt, and contains a minimum of fifty units. It must include a variety of high-end amenities and leisure facilities.

The size of the qualifying resort development must be of a minimum size of 376 square feet, and the maximum amount of capital to be raised under the tax credit program through eligible investments is $50 million.

The Department of Finance and the President of Treasury Board will have the discretion to enforce a $22.5 million funding cap in the fiscal year. The qualifying resort developer must commit to a minimum of five years of continuous operation, because we do not want a developer coming here and then not operating, just putting up the property and leaving. The qualifying resort developer, from the sale of any unit, must place $15,000 from the sale in an escrow account that will be surrendered to the provincial government in the event the developer fails to operate for five years.

The developer has twelve months after being registered to commence construction of a qualifying resort development complex, and twenty-four months after the commencement of construction to achieve Canada Select 4 status and to begin offering the units for sale.

So, it is important to note that the complex has to be built first, the complex has to obtain Canada Select 4 status before the units can be sold, and, of course, no tax credit will be given to anyone until the condominium unit, or the unit in question, is sold to the resident of Newfoundland and Labrador; and, it is the resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, not the developer, who will receive this investment tax credit.

The unit holder must enter into a twenty-year contract relating to the availability of the unit for the rental pools. An eligible investor must not sell or transfer ownership of the property unit for a minimum of five years after receipt of the tax receipt. A maximum tax credit would be $150,000 per investor, and that is a maximum lifetime tax credit under the program. The credit will be available for units that are purchased after 2013.

Mr. Speaker, the whole point behind this is that we have recognized that in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in the area off the Northeast Avalon, there is a need, there is a lack of supply, there is a heavy demand for high-end tourism facilities and this is a way to attract investment to provide those high-end tourist facilities throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the tax credit to accomplish that will be given to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The tax credit is only available to residents of this Province and, of course, it is possible for a number of residents to get together and share the tax credit. There is a $150,000 tax credit but you could have five people get together and split that if they wish, with the idea that they will be able to invest in high-end tourism properties so that these properties will be established throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but the credit will only go to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I believe that is the highlights of the legislation: the personal income tax cuts, the cuts to the rates, the eliminate of the hideous and egregious surtax, the indexation to help people cope with bracket creep for inflation, and particularly, the benefits to the low-income earner with a low-income tax reduction threshold and the low-income seniors' tax benefit.

Mr. Speaker, this is great information. This is great legislation. This will help the people of this Province. This will help us grow competitively. This will help us attract and retain skilled workers and I would urge passage of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased tonight to stand and respond to Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

This particular bill is like a work in process at all times because throughout the calendar year there are many times when this particular act will come before the House of Assembly because it is always in flux. Whenever there is a change in government policy it is generally reflected in the Income Tax Act. As a result of that, this act probably has more changes than any other act in the Legislature.

The most recent act that the Minister of Finance just introduced, one part of it for sure, is good news for a lot of people. The minister is proposing that qualifying incomes will get a decrease in their tax amount that they have to pay to the provincial government. Of course, our Finance Minister is telling us that income earners will notice that first change in the first payroll in July. That is what he told me. I am sure that still stands, that taxpayers across the Province will notice when they get their first paycheque in July that there is going to be a decrease. So, that is good to look forward to. Of course, the decrease is going to come depending on what income level you are making.

My only question, I guess, surrounding those decreases is whether or not these decreases can actually be sustained? We have seen things like this in the past before, and particularly in an election year. It is certainly a good election promise that you are going to decrease someone's income tax, but when I look around and see the other things that have not been tackled by this government, I question whether or not these can actually be sustained.

I think, too - a recent change that was made in the Budget was surrounding MS drugs. That was a good thing, that MS drugs now are into the formulary of our Province, into our pharmacy formulary. There is a co-pay arrangement so that nobody will have to pay any more than $1,500 a year if they are taking MS drugs. I learned since that policy came into effect, with the passing of the Budget last week, we are still paying more than any other province in Canada. Even through we now have MS drugs included for people, around 600 people in our Province who need to have MS drugs, they have to pay at least $1,500 a year. It is hard to believe that even with that great advantage we are still paying more, for instance, than Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia there is only $117 a year in pharmacy dispensing fees for MS. That was really a revelation, when I found that out.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Not too much longer.

MS THISTLE: That is good news. The Minister of Finance just shouted across the floor: Not much longer. What he is saying now, there could be another announcement for MS drug users in our Province, or is he saying that Nova Scotia is going to pay more? Anyway, we do not know for sure. Right now, at this present moment, any MS drug patient in Nova Scotia, after paying co-pay, the only thing they will have to pay actually is co-pay, $117 a year for dispensing fees to buy drugs in Nova Scotia.

In Saskatchewan, MS patients will pay $600 a year; in Manitoba, $600; $750 in Quebec; and $780 in rich Alberta. We are clearly at the top of the list; $1,500 is quite a difference when you look at what Nova Scotia is paying, only $118. Most provinces are around the $600 range. Even though we have made great gains for our people suffering from MS, we still have a ways to go.

Of course, there are other situations, too, for MS users. MS drug users are telling us that our system here is very complicated. There is a lot of paperwork involved and the whole application process is very, very complex. In fact, the one application for an MS user will not cover it. They are required that every two to three months they have to submit a new application to our government. That is really a nuisance because, let's face it, anyone suffering from MS are not going to be getting over MS in two or three months. Generally, what happens is that their condition - well, it usually improves with medication but it never goes away. So, for one of our MS patients to have to go and apply after two or three months and reapply, that is a bit of a nuisance.

Look at the other part of it too, if you are a seasonal worker in our Province you might have a high income one month, and two or three months down the road you would have a lower income. As a result, these particular patients are applying and reapplying all the time.

Of course, there is nothing in our program for inflation. That means that somebody who might be on the borderline, say, of $40,000, might have to then pay a higher deductible because they have gone over that salary limit. So, there is nothing in our plan for inflation, to protect MS drug users from having to pay more.

These are the kinds of things that, you know, even though the Finance Minister just brought in a Budget and had $261 million left that he could not spend before budget time, there are lots of ways that you can improve the lives of people.

In fact, it was only last week that I saw this Budget Highlights come to my door, and I said: What is this doing here? Did somebody put this in my mailbox by mistake? Then I looked and I brought it into work and discovered that it was a little bit smaller than the other one, just so that it would pass the postal regulation guideline and the postage would be less for bulk mail-out by making it a little bit smaller, but it is exactly the same inside.

I don't know why government would have to spend - I don't know what it cost, or who actually printed this book, because it doesn't say on the booklet. I don't know how much government spent to have this booklet made up, but there is one glaring thing that I noticed in the book, and I don't know if the Minister of Finance authorized this or not.

This came in my mailbox on Tuesday, May 29, and the only difference in the whole book - when you are talking about money, when it comes to finance, every pie chart that has ever been printed in the Estimates, the Salary Details, the Budget itself, it is always printed in green, the colour of money. Every pie chart that I ever saw in my entire lifetime, when it came to talking about money, was always printed in green.

Now, this booklet that went in every mailbox in Newfoundland and Labrador by the government, the only thing that is different, the pie chart is printed in blue. Now, can you imagine? They are leaving the impression that it was blue money that is in this pie chart - blue money, not green money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: You are looking at the wrong book. This one is the one in the mailbox. This is the mailbox booklet, and this is the one that was actually put out by government right here for everybody in the House of Assembly.

The only thing that is different is that the pie chart in this book that went out to the householder is printed in blue. That is the only thing that is different, so it gives the householder the impression that everything is good because the blue Tory government provided all of this money and that is the reason why the pie chart must be blue. This is what you call subliminal advertising.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: You know what it is. Anyone who is into marketing knows all about it.

I don't know what it cost to actually produce this booklet, and I don't know what it cost to put it in every household in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it was highly unnecessary. It was unnecessary when you think about, the Minister of Government Services could not provide a 10 per cent discount to a senior to pay for their driver's licence, but you would come up with the money to print another one of those books and put it in every mailbox in the Province.

I do not know how the public service made out with their job fair. I think it was a lot of fluff and not much stuff, because the Finance Minister said in his speech, when he was on his feet a few minutes ago, that the tax cuts will keep workers in our Province. Well, that is fine and dandy, the tax cuts will keep workers in our Province; however, you have to have the jobs first. You have to have the jobs first, so that our workers can actually take advantage of a tax cut, and that is the hard part.

Now, the Department of Finance or the Public Service Commission decided to go around our Province last week and have what they call a job fair. There were no specific jobs, just the jobs that weren't filled, and they were collecting resumes. I don't know if it was just a show, or whatever it was they were putting on, but it wasn't like a regular job fair that you would see advertised, the one that was at the stadium in Mount Pearl or the one on Kenmount Road, where 9,000 and 5,000 people lined up and put in their resume and they actually got jobs. This was just to talk to people and say: If you are considering a job in the civil service, and you are looking for a pension, this is the place to go.

What actually came out of it? I never saw any kind of a news release at the end of that exercise to tell us whether that was successful or not, and I don't know of anyone who actually got a job, who decided to put in their resume.

Another part of this, or an add-on to this Bill 3, is the fact that there is going to be a new policy within government that is going to allow a 45 per cent tax credit for investors who want to invest in a specific area, which is a resort in our Province.

Now, this must have been custom-designed for a particular investor. I don't know where this came from. I know that the Minister of Business was in Ireland with the Premier and some others, and this apparently went over well in Europe and they think it might go over well in Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment says the Minister of Business didn't go to Ireland. You did, did you? Somebody went there, because they had a chauffeur for $24,000 approved, and that particular contract was actually awarded on March 5, 2007, for $24,000, so somebody went there and somebody was taxied around by a chauffeur.

This is an opportunity, so the Minister of Finance is saying, and I wonder why it is so specific. Why is this add-on in the bill so specific? I wonder, who is a qualifying investor? A qualifying investor, or a person acting on behalf of a qualifying investor, may apply to the minister for a non-refundable tax credit in respect of qualifying investment in a qualifying resort development property. A resort development property, and it cannot be on the Northeast Avalon, and the Cabinet are actually going to make up all the rules, so this bill says. The Cabinet are actually going to make up all the rules.

Well, if this is the case here, I would suggest that the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indicated in this particular bill that Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, are going to make up the regulations. I would suggest that the Premier exempt himself from that exercise, because we all know that he has a resort of his own.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: He doesn't have a resort?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The Wilds is not a resort?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: It is.

For those viewing, the Minister of Finance and myself are talking across the floor, but I would suggest that it might be perceived as a conflict, and I would suggest - I would think that is the reason why you put in anything off the Northeast Avalon, so he would not be involved in it. I would suggest that is why you made up the rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, traditionally there is no problem with (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Some ministers across the way, Mr. Speaker, are saying that traditionally there is not a problem with marketing or actually filling up rooms or hotels or whatever on the Northeast Avalon, so this is to influence others in our Province to set up tourism industries.

To me, it seems to be rather generous, 45 per cent. It seems to be rather generous, because when I look at the fact that in the past we have provided tax incentives for those interested in investing in our Province, such as the film industry, research and development is another area, they have never been 45 per cent. They have never been 45 per cent before. It is usually in the market of around 15 per cent.

Most of the resorts - there are not a lot of resorts, but I know the West Coast does have a defined market and they have already sold about 700 units in the Humber Valley. Apart from that, on TV tonight we did see the Mayor of Pasadena talk about the fact that, I think it was Timberland Golf Course, and also we have learned from the news release that government put out on Thursday or Friday that Steady Brook are now going to have a resort development and its plans are really under way now; however, when you consider that most of the people who will buy these units - I guess they are called chalets or condos, or whatever type of building it might be - most of these people are the rich and the famous.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS THISTLE: Most of these people are the rich and the famous, the international market, so I am surprised that any developer who builds for that type of market would have trouble raising capital when most of it is pre-sold. Most of these condominiums or chalets or whatever, most of them are pre-sold. There are different phases of development for whatever group takes on the project. There are different phases. Generally they will pre-sell phase one, so they will raise the capital through their bank to actually start their development. Then, once that one is sold, they move on to the second phase and then they pre-sell based on the number of units that have already been sold as phase one, and it continues on like that.

I was surprised when I read the fact that there are going to be different regulations, but unfortunately the regulations are not really set out in this particular bill. We will never know, probably, what is really going to be in the bill. All we know is that the Minister of Finance is asking for broad approval on the fact of providing a 45 per cent non-renewable tax credit to an investor to build resorts, but regarding the regulations we are really not sure what regulations will be involved in this venture.

I think one of the things it says is that the Cabinet will make the regulations and establish the criteria for determining who is a qualifying investor and what property is a qualifying resort development property and what investments are qualifying investments. We really have not heard, only from the news release that was actually issued by government, how it will be nailed down, who is the investor, what qualifies an investor, and what development will qualify.

There is another section there which says, limiting amounts which a qualifying resort development property may raise through the use of credits.

There are a lot of questions there. I still am not convinced that we needed to go 45 per cent for a tax credit for these individuals. When I look at the ones that we now have on our books, none of them have ever amounted to 45 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I am talking about in our world, Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I know, but, you know, although we want to be on a scale with other European countries and so on, we are not there yet by a long shot. We cannot give everything away in our Province so that there is nothing in the way of revenue.

I know the intention is to actually develop these resorts, and the hope is that people will use them and they will spend money here directly and indirectly. That is the hope of government in proposing this.

It says that in order to qualify for a tax credit, the complex must be a new construction or a newly constructed expansion or a property where at least 90 per cent of the building area is rebuilt, containing a minimum of fifty units.

When I look at the hotels across our Province, there are not too many areas that would be able to support fifty units or more in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I look at, for instance, the Great Northern Peninsula, they are not going to have year-round tourism, although everybody wants that and they want to attract the winter tourism. When you look at the fact that if there was an investor going to invest in, say, the Northern Peninsula, and they were going to put up a hotel, and the minimum space for a room in that resort or unit has to be between 35 square feet and 376 square feet, now, if you were going to -

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Business is telling me that there is a typo in those regulations. So, what is the square footage?

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Three hundred and forty? A minimum of 340, is it?

MR. O'BRIEN: No, a maximum.

MS THISTLE: No, a maximum.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Business across the way here is telling me that there is a typo in these regulations. I am sure that this is just the beginning, because nobody knows what is really going to end up here in the way of regulations.

I know this particular policy now has been designed for one development in particular, and that is the one that is going to be built in Western Newfoundland and is going to be called Humber Seasons Limited. It is going to be a four season high-end tourism complex located in Steady Brook. The owner of that development is Mr. Frank Kelly. I guess this initially had been developed for his project. I do not know how many units are actually going to be in his complex, but we know that in order to qualify he must have more than fifty.

It says, a maximum amount of capital to be raised under the tax credit program through eligible investments is $50 million. Now, it was not clear whether or not the investor could be one or more investors. I do not know, from reading these guidelines, whether or not there are going to be other partners in with Mr. Kelly on the Steady Brook development and each investor would have a maximum tax credit up to $150,000 each. That was really not clarified.

It says, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board will have the discretion to enforce a $22.5 million funding cap in a fiscal year. I would like to ask the Minister of Business, in particular: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board says that in any particular year they will have the authority to loan out no more than $22.5 million in a fiscal year. I do not know if that is to one investor or to several investors, or is that the total of the portfolio? It is difficult to understand from this here.

The qualifying resort developer must commit to a minimum of five years of continuous operation. So, all you need to do to qualify for this tax credit is make sure that whatever resort you build has to be open for five years. Every time there is a sale of a condominium, government is insisting that $15,000 from the sale be held back in escrow in the case of a developer not living up to the five-year commitment.

The qualifying resort developer has twelve months after being registered to commence construction of a qualifying resort complex. So, once the investor gets registered in the first twelve months, he has then twelve months to start construction and twenty-four months to have the construction completed.

The unit holder must enter into a twenty-year contract relating to the availability of the unit for the rental pool. Now, I am really not certain what that means. Does it mean that the complex is going to be a time-share complex? Does it mean that the units are going to be individually owned? Does it mean that the owners of the individual units are going to agree to rent to the general population for twenty years? None of this is really clear. It is just part of a news release that was put out by government.

It says, the maximum tax credit of $150,000 per investor is the maximum lifetime tax credit under the tax credit program for an investor. Does that mean the investor under that investor's name only qualifies for one lifetime, $150,000, or does it mean that if that investor takes on a new company the investor has a chance then to apply under a new name or a new company name? None of this was clear.

The credit will be available for units purchased before 2013. I do not know where that date came from, 2013. I do not know what significance 2013 is in building these units.

I would suspect that most of this has probably been created on the fly, and that there is no real concrete planning put into this yet. I think it was an add-on. It was certainly an add-on for this particular bill here because this is a change to the Income Tax 2000. Generally, everything that is here in this bill pertains to income tax alone, and it seems like the issue on the resort development was sort of a last-minute thing. I guess the details are not known at this particular time.

It was interesting that the Minister of Finance, when he got up to give his speech, said that his predecessor, Loyola Sullivan, said that last year in his Budget they would undertake a tax review. I guess the results of the tax review are what we are finding in this Budget now, which are tax decreases. Now, whether or not Loyola Sullivan would have been so generous, I guess we will have to wonder about that one, but probably not. The big thing about all of this now is whether or not the tax decreases that the minister is proposing can actually be sustained. It is difficult to tell.

It was good to hear, when the minister spoke, that he talked about indexing on current pensions. One thing that he did not mention was the indexing for the retired pensioners who are already out there with no indexing. It is sad to think that a lot of those retired pensioners who are out there today, already in receipt of a small pension from government, that a lot of those pensioners have no chance of any indexing.

It was encouraging to see Carol Furlong, about ten days ago, finally admit that NAPE must do something to look at indexing for their retired membership. As we know, NAPE is going to go into negotiations this fall after the election. NAPE will be starting off a new round of contract negotiations once the election is over. It was good to hear her say that finally they are going to look at pensioners who are already out there with no indexing on their pensions.

Of course, we have already heard the Premier say that NAPE will get an increase this time. Of course, that came on the heels of the giant raises that his own executive staff got, anywhere from 8 per cent to 17.6 per cent. So, when the Premier was interviewed about the big raises for his staff, he blurted out the fact that, well, NAPE can expect to be treated fairly but they will not be to that degree, like 15 per cent or even 8 per cent.

It was good to hear that pensioners will finally be looked at, the ones with a NAPE membership anyway, and I am sure that the others will follow suit.

There is no way that the pensioners out there today can keep pace with the expense of living today. When you think about Newfoundland Power, over the past three years they have had almost a 20 per cent increase in their rates, and they are looking again to increase rates. Then you look at the cost of hiring an ambulance; it went from $85 to $115 per trip, a one-way trip. As a result of that many seniors today will have to consider, do they really need an ambulance? Particularly if they are in a rural part of our Province, they have to think twice before they actually pick up the phone and order an ambulance.

There was a phone-in last week and it said: Do you plan to spend your summer holidays exploring the Province this year? The Province has a lot of glossy and beautiful advertising on TV, trying to convince people to stay in their own Province and have holidays this year. Some of the comments that were actually on the on-line poll were interesting. This is one from Ontario: Why visit the land of high taxes, rip-off gases, and people who think they do you a favour when they take your money? No, thanks. Canada ends at Halifax.

Well, that was a pretty rude remark, I thought. Another one says: No, if I go anywhere it will be P.E.I. or New Brunswick. The government there is planning on cutting the gas tax for the summer months.

This is another one. This is from someone who calls himself the gambler: No, while I am sitting on my back deck with my beer and my smoke, I can't afford the gas it takes to travel.

I think what people are saying is that the gas tax or the gas prices in general are going to have a huge effect on people who actually travel within our Province. Something that might happen this summer, I suppose, so many people from Newfoundland and Labrador are actually now on the mainland working, I guess the most traffic we will see this summer will be actually mainlanders from Newfoundland who want to come home and visit.

I know we are having Come Home Year in Buchans, and it was interesting today; I had an e-mail from a lady in Delaware, wanting to know an e-mail address for somebody in Buchans. I was able to supply that, and she wrote back to me. I said: If you want to find out anything about Buchans or anywhere else, just check into my Web site, annathistle.com, and you will be up to date by the time you come home for the summer, when you go to Buchans.

She e-mailed me back and said: Do you know that we have a Newfoundland Club in Delaware? - of all places, Delaware - and we have been able to round up ten people from Newfoundland who live in Delaware, that we know about. She said: Once a month we get together and actually go out to a restaurant and have a chat and keep up to date on Newfoundland politics and whatever is going on in Newfoundland.

I thought to myself: Newfoundlanders, you know, are able to snif out another Newfoundlander no matter what part of the world they are in. This woman, now, when she comes back home this summer from Delaware, a former Buchaneer, bringing her mother back who is eighty-eight, I said to her: Make sure you sit down and have a chat with me.

These are the kinds of people who are going to be coming back to Newfoundland and Labrador this summer.

When I think about some of the missed opportunities that we have, as a Province, right now, it is sad to see the sour arrangement between our government and the government in Ottawa. We have lots of reasons to be sour with Ottawa, but we have been excluded from a great investment program that we could put to work for us, and that is called the Gateway investment program. You know, Nova Scotia are involved in it; we are not. We are missing out on millions of dollars that we could be using for development in our Province.

When I think back now to the ice situation on the Northeast Coast and Labrador, there has been nobody crying out, saying: Look, you have to do something for these people. It is all right for the Minister of Fisheries to stand up and say that the Parliamentary Secretary has made his voice known, or the Manager of Human Resources, Labour and Development, but I have not heard the Premier say anything out in the general public about that situation on the Northeast Coast.

We were willing, as a government, to take on inland enforcement. Now, that is the job of Fisheries and Oceans. That is their job to do, and it is their expense. This government didn't mind paying over $1 million to add extra enforcement to inland waters in our Province, and make sure that our conservation officers were there enforcing rules and regulations on our inland rivers. Do you know something? To the best of my knowledge, our government has not even sent a bill or asked Ottawa to reimburse them.

I also looked in this infamous book that everybody was talking about today. What it is, is that when government decides not go to tender for purchases of equipment or goods and services, by law they have to let the House of Assembly, or anyone for that matter - they have to put it into a booklet every month of the year. This one is for the month of March, and I could not help but notice the fact that there were three contracts let there without going to tender. They were all for bringing tires out of our Province and bringing them to Quebec.

Now, I thought the Minister of Environment was going to come up with a great plan that would be a secondary industry for this Province and going to do something with the pile up of tires all over the Province. What did he do? He did not go to tender with it. He decided that he would give the contract to three companies. Two of them are from Quebec. They are actually from Quebec, and they are loading up the tires that are in our wastelands, our dumps in Stephenville and Goose Bay and on the South Coast of Labrador. They are actually taking the tires, loading them up in trucks and they bringing them to Quebec. What they are doing with them in Quebec, I have no idea, but everyone of us who gets our tires changed - and I just got my summer tires put on. I bought new tires - we all have to pay $3 per tire for recycling. Everyone of us in the Province got to pay $3 per tire. As result of that, there was a lot of money in the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board.

I remember the current Minister of Justice, when he was the critic for environment, he was going to have the plan to deal with those recycled tires. He was on his feet everyday criticizing the then government, which we were, and talking about: Why didn't we have to plan for doing something with those tires and creating a secondary industry? Now four years later into their mandate, the Tories did not have a plan either. All their plan was, do not even go to tender with it. Do not let anyone know we do not have a plan for recycling our tires or creating a secondary industry. I will call up these guys from Quebec, they will come down and pick them up in their truck. I will pay them $1 million and then the tires will be out of our sight and everyone will think we have a plan. So, they did not have a plan. No plan. No public tender. Just take the tires and get them out of our sight. Here is a cheque for $1 million. Now, these are missed opportunities, I would say. I would say that is definitely missed opportunities.

Now, how can you spend a surplus of $261 million? Does anybody think that this surplus will be spent by October 9? I wonder, will that surplus be spent by October 9?

We have people in our Province going blind right now. It was interesting last week when I heard Daphne Park, the daughter of Mrs. Wheeler from Corner Brook, who is now taking treatment through Dr. Bense here in St. John's, she informed the general population that the cost of those laser treatments are now $500 instead of $1,500. So, I would say to the Minister of Health, based on that decrease in price, is government now going to look after all of those seniors who have macular degenerative disease? Certainly goodness, with surplus on hand, you need to turn your attention to - if you can print up a book and send it out to everybody in our Province at an enormous cost and the only thing that is different from the public one is that the pie chart is coloured blue instead of green, certainly goodness, this government in all conscience cannot let our seniors go blind. It was wonderful when I heard the other day that Mrs. Wheeler in Corner Brook now has resumed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I think she is from Cox's Cove, I am not sure, over in that general area.

She has now resumed her normal living pattern and back to doing her daily chores and doing her daily work, and even thinking about joining a dart league. She can do her own banking again. When you consider the cost of looking after a person and probably later on providing home care for a person who goes blind which can be prevented, it is going to cost government a whole lot more in the long run. That is definitely a need that government must and should address.

There is a lot of interaction in this Province with the Province of Quebec, because I was surprised when the Minister of Environment engaged a company from Quebec to do our on-line travel arrangements. The other day I was saying, when I stood up in this House, that our tourism book for this Province needs to be looked at because it is the most complicated book if you are trying to make a reservation. Now, the people who work for Tourism are telling me the same thing. They are telling me - but they said: Now, don't dare give my name. I said: No, I won't. But, anyone who is looking at our tourism booklet for this year must realize that it is a very convoluted, very complex piece of information to try and find a hotel or an attraction, or whatever. I hope the B&B operators are not depending on that particular book for bookings because there is a lot to be desired when it comes to how this was actually put together.

Tourism really needs to take a hard look at that booklet. I know it was tried for the first time this year, but we won awards on that particular book. It came to be part of an award system that our Province was looked at for the way we put together our tourism package. It was a beautiful book. It might have been - well, it was always this size. Now, I did not have any problem with that size because it fits in the pocket of your car seat. I did not have a problem with it but some people wanted a book that size. What we have now is a lot of text and not too many pictures, and very complicated for bookings. So, the Province needs to have a look at that.

Our on-line reservation system; if you want to book a campsite in any of our provincial parks and you go on-line or you call the toll-free number, every time you make a reservation it is $10.60. It is not free anymore, and if you change your reservations it is another $9.00.

Now, the people in Quebec, they do not know the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and they cannot up sell. When they get you on the phone they cannot up sell and say: Well, would you like to take in the attraction so-and-so, the festival that is going to be held over on the West Coast? Would you like to go to the Salmon Festival in Grand Falls-Windsor? Would you like to take part in a mussel bed soiree, or whatever? They cannot up sell because they do not know our Province. All they have in front of them is a computer screen with the same information that anybody else has who are looking for a reservation. So, that has gone to a company in Quebec where that could be done in-house here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Even in my district, the District of Grand Falls-Buchans, our tourist chalet is not open to the general public yet because the Exploits Valley Development Association did not get their four students. Two of them are bilingual and two of them speak just English. They still do not have a commitment from the federal government that those four students are going to be actually put to work in Grand Falls-Windsor in the tourist chalet. As late as this afternoon the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment said to me that there is a commitment now that Service Canada is recommending that those students be employed in Grand Falls-Windsor in the tourist chalet. If by chance it does not happen, I have to say thank you to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment who says that he and his department will not see them stuck. He will not see them stuck. I am saying it in public because he told me today that he will not see them stuck and we will have an answer tomorrow that Service Canada - they should do it, and if by chance they do not do it, he will not see them stuck. He will provide the funding for the four students. So, that is a good thing.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible) funding for four students.

MS THISTLE: You didn't?

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible) I wouldn't see them stuck, I can tell you that.

MS THISTLE: Okay, he said he would not see them stuck. The minister has a lot of authority, so there is no reason why -

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Pardon me?

MR. SKINNER: Nice try.

MS THISTLE: No, it is not a nice try. Gee whiz, you're the minister for the Lord's sake. When I was the minister I could make little things like that happen.

MR. SKINNER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment on a point of order.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarification, the hon. member opposite indicated that I had a conversation with her earlier today. I did indicate that the federal government, as I understood it, was reviewing their allotment of students and that if the federal government did not provide funding to the Exploits Valley Association, I would not see the group stuck. I did say that. She then went further to say that I said I would provide funding for four students. As a matter of clarification, I did not say that to the hon. member.

MS THISTLE: Well, what did you say?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we do have on record that the minister said he would not see them stuck. Then he said he was not sure if he could hire four students. I would say to the minister, that is very low on the totem pole of any minister's authority. If you cannot hire four students, you do not have much authority. I bet the Minister of Fisheries would not be caught in that dilemma.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, sir!

MS THISTLE: Anyway, I know from our conversation and from what he said today, the tourist chalet on the Trans-Canada Highway in Grand Falls-Windsor will be opened and it will be looked after by students. We can expect another 30,000 tourists to enter the doors and do business. I am sure that is not a big deal to hire on four students for the summer. Anyway, with everything that is on the go, I am sure Service Canada cannot have another black eye. No doubt, they will come through in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is a reduction in taxes, which is a good thing. It might be a flash in the pan but at least the people are going to enjoy it this year for sure, and that is a good thing. I think what is sadly lacking is the fact that we do not have a project of any magnitude that will keep our young people at home. No matter what polling is done, it all points back to the same thing, the lack of jobs in this Province for our young people. Unless there is a continuation of our oil resource-based industries or other natural industries, whether it be Hydro or whatever, we still do not have something that is going to attract and keep our young people at home.

The sad part about all of this, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we are losing our young people and we, in fact, are losing our older people as well because they are going along with our young people and they are leaving as well. We do not want to turn into a retirement Province. Although there is lots of business that can be created from retirements and retiring people, we all know that the biggest consumers are consumers who are under the age of fifty, or consumers, young people who are starting a young family, the ones who are in the group of thirty to forty years old. They are the ones who are going out and buying the goods that is needed to raise a family and they are the ones who are out there buying homes, buying vehicles and buying consumer barbecues or whatever they need to buy. These are the ones who are taking vacations with their families and so on. When you look at manufacturing right now, we have a high Canadian dollar, almost ninety-five cents tonight when I saw the news at 6:00 o'clock. That is a huge concern for the manufacturing part of our economy here in our Province.

When I think about the paper industry right in my own district - even though they have Bill 27 in Grand Falls-Windsor right now, which the former government, the Liberals, brought into place, insisting that the company must operate two machines, that was a good thing. Now they have $10 million saved in their operation, that is a good thing. So, right on the heels of all of that, they now have a high Canadian dollar and they are exporting whatever they produce in paper to an international market, generally. That is going to have a huge effect on whether or not they are going to be making any profit this year because of the high Canadian dollar. Then you have to look at our fishery. All of those products are exported, generally, so that is going to have a huge impact on our fishery.

Then you look at the new businesses that have started up. We do not have the population to actually sell to our own population most of the manufactured items that are manufactured here in this Province.

Last night I looked at Rogers Cable television when I arrived in St. John's and I was looking at an interview that was done in Corner Brook on Nortique Fashions, a business that has been built from scratch by a woman who made her own clothes and designed them as well. Now she is producing and shipping a lot of her clothes across Canada and into the U.S. simply because we do not have the number of people here in our Province who would actually buy these products to any degree that would cause her to expand her business.

It was so encouraging to watch her and find out that she has her own seamstresses now employed. She is the one who actually does the cutting for the design of the fashions that she creates. She actually shops across Canada and through the U.S. everywhere and buys the material to make the garments. They are generally high-end and you do not find them in the masses of retail outlets across the world. She has appealed to a certain type of clientele who want to buy her products. Of course, now the high Canadian dollar, ninety-five cents, how is that going to affect this women at Nortique Fashions who wants to sell her garments across the country?

Everything that we manufacture here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are trying to export it off the Island, it works in our favour when we have a low Canadian dollar but once it gets up into the range of eighty-five cents, ninety cents and higher, and even on par, we are no longer competitive then to world markets from China and other places, even though we do a great job in manufacturing our own goods.

Now there are a lot of goods being manufactured today in Newfoundland and Labrador that we never saw say, twenty years ago, but it is not consumed. These goods are not consumed, whether it be technology or whether it be actual manufactured items that are boxed here, manufactured here, assembled here and shipped across the country. We do not have the number of people in our Province that are actually going to use our products. So this is the problem, when you have the effect of a high Canadian dollar it no longer puts you in a competitive position to be competitive in the marketplace to actually sell your wares.

So, these are the kinds of effects that happen, that usually the people and the business has no (inaudible) at all about. There is nothing at all you can do about it. Then you are faced with the prospect, what do you do? Do you lay off some of your staff because you will have a lot of inventory on hand that you cannot sell? Then, of course, comes the problems for the Province because the Province then is not collecting as much money in income tax or not as much money on goods and services on retail tax that they would normally sell to those people. So, it is a vicious cycle. You want to manufacture, you want to export your products but when you have outside influences, like the Canadian dollar rising at a fast pace, naturally you are going to have problems here in the Province in getting your goods to market and actually making them competitive.

I want to clue up now because my time is almost exhausted. I want to put in a plea to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. It was interesting when I heard her say that she would not be changing the 10 per cent discount for those wanting to renew their driver's licences on-line. She said: Well, you can go into some of our CAP sites. For the ordinary senior out there, how do they know what a CAP site is? A CAP site is where there is a computer set up in a school or an economic development association or whatever. There is one in the library at the school in Buchans. Now, there are not too many seniors who are going to actually come in and say: Can I use your computer because I want to pay my driver's licence on-line? Number one, they will not have any idea how to use the computer. Number two, if they gave their driver's licence to a student or a worker there who is operating the CAP system, they would not want - most of them do not even have a Visa or a credit card. So, how can we expect seniors to actually go to a CAP site - that was the minister's answer - and pay their motor vehicle registration, their driver's licence? Number one, like I said, the seniors would not know where a CAP site was. Number two, they would not have any idea about using a computer, and if they did get somebody there at the CAP site to actually help them out, most times they would not have a credit card. So, there must be some way that you could help a senior.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is awful insulting to seniors.

MS THISTLE: It is not insulting to seniors. The Minister of Justice said that is awful insulting. Well, apparently you do not get any e-mail from seniors. I got lots of e-mail from seniors. What I am saying here is true and factual. The e-mails that I am getting from seniors in rural Newfoundland and Labrador is exactly as I described. They are not able to use a computer and most times they do not have a credit card. So, why would you deny a senior a 10 per cent discount on their driver's licence? I do not think that is fair. This government is all about fairness, I heard the Minister of Finance say a few minutes ago when he was up. Any government that has a bag of money, with $261 million written on the outside of the bag, not even used, not even the string off the bag or the seal, and you are expecting a senior to go on-line and pay their driver's licence when they have no idea, most of them, how to use it and do not have access to it. So there must be something in the name of fairness that you can do to let seniors pay the same rate as everybody else who would be able to come in and use it on-line.

One thing that you have not changed for seniors is the idea of the ambulance, the ambulance fee. When you have $261 million here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

If I could just have thirty seconds, I would be grateful.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave?

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Justice wants me to keep talking. I am not going to abuse my speaking privileges, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no leave.

MS THISTLE: No leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for her to clue up.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I will not abuse my speaking privilege at all. I just want to say, in conclusion, that after talking about Bill 3 there are a lot of unanswered questions when it comes to providing a tax credit to a specific industry resort development. I would like to see the regulations so I could comment on each and everyone but, as the minister pointed out, these regulations are going to be made up by Cabinet and we will not have an opportunity to see them before they are brought into law. I have no problem with enticing people to spend their money in this Province and create industry. I would just like to see what is going to be contained in those regulations, and if they are fair and if they are similar to regulations that are currently on the books.

When it comes to providing an income tax deduction, I do not see any problem with that because most people who have disposable income will spend it. I do not know very many people who will hoard it up and put it in a bank account, so that is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.

Thank you very much.

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 this bill, Bill 3, which in a way has us in a continuation of Budget discussion since most of the bill has to do with changes, amendments that are caused by the Budget. In actual fact, it is an opportunity for me to explain, again, why I did not vote for the Budget because this is the heart of why I did not vote for the Budget. I am glad to be able to speak to it again so that people understand why. I had my reasons, and I thought I had explained them clearly. Now I get a chance to explain them again.

This bill, as we know, is dealing with the cuts that were made to the income tax for people in this Province. At least four of the clauses have to do with that. Three have to do with the change in the rates and one has to do with the repealing of the surtax. Then clause 5 and 6, of course, have to do with a new tax credit that has been set up for investors.

When the minister was speaking to the bill, he talked about the progressive tax system that we have and that is true, we do have a progressive tax system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: I would invite my colleague from across the way to just let me talk, please.

Yes, we do have a progressive tax system and we should be proud of having a progressive tax system, but I would ask the minister to consider that every time we deal with our taxes, we should maintain the progressive nature of how we tax our people. So, when I look at a change in our income tax and I look at a bill that is looking at helping people have it a bit better with regard to income tax, I get a bit puzzled at the minister talking about a progressive tax system when I see that the difference in the tax for people in our lower bracket, their difference from the present to what the new tax is going to be is a 1.77 per cent difference. That is in the lowest bracket. The difference for people in the highest bracket is 1.52 per cent. So, basically, there is very little difference in the percentage change for people in the lowest bracket and people in the highest bracket.

If the minister was going to maintain the progressive nature of our tax system and follow that, there would have been a larger percentage cut for the low-income bracket and a smaller percentage cut for the upper bracket. That would have maintained the progressive nature of our income tax system to basically give the same percentage cut to the low-income bracket as to the high income bracket is not progressive and that is what was done.

I am glad to see that the middle-income bracket did get a significantly larger break than those in the upper bracket, but why that did not happen for people in the lower bracket I will never know. That does not make sense to me.

When talking about the surtax, the Minister of Finance called it egregious. That was the last thing he called it, the egregious surtax. I really was a bit shocked by that. I do not consider a surtax on income earners of $100,000 and $150,000 egregious. In the upper bracket, people have the money to pay more and that is what a progressive tax system is all about.

So, when we look at egregious, I would like to look at what I consider to be egregious. We have people who are earning below the recognized low-income cut-off rate who are paying income tax. Well, you know, I call that a tax on poverty. I think that is more egregious than a surtax on somebody who is earning $150,000 or whose family has an income of $150,000.

I also find it egregious that our government gets $72 million a year from people using VLTs. Now I know that VLTs are not the only addiction that exists, and governments, historically, has always made money off addictions. Government makes money from cigarettes, which are an addiction. Government makes money from liquor, which can be an addiction - not always, we know that. It can be an addiction. Cigarettes are an addiction but there is something more insidious about the VLTs, the fact that they are everywhere that people turn, number one, enticing them to be used.

Number two, what they promise is something that the poor look for in particular, and that is more money. There is a promise of more money. I find that egregious.

The third thing, there may be more, but the third thing that I want to mention is the speed at which one can lose one's money. We all know - and there was an article in Saturday's paper talking about it, Saturday's Telegram. We have all heard of the examples of people losing a paycheque in one day, of senior citizens losing their monthly cheque in a couple of hours. The speed at which somebody can lose their money through VLTs is immoral. So, to me, it is egregious that government takes $72 million a year from VLTs. I find that much more egregious than a surtax.

I know it has been mentioned before, but I want to mention it again. I find it egregious that a senior citizen who is disabled and bedridden, who has to go to hospital in an ambulance to get an X-ray so that she or he can go into one of our homes for senior citizens, has to pay an ambulance fee of $150 both ways. So a senior citizen who has to have a chest X-ray in order to go into one of our homes has to pay $230 to use an ambulance. You talk egregious, that is egregious. To me, it blows my mind. I cannot believe it.

I have heard that it is worse for people in rural Newfoundland than it is in St. John's. Well, you know, it is not. Somebody here in St. John's living five minutes away from a hospital, if she or he has to use an ambulance, has to pay $230. That is a hefty taxi bill - but has to pay it for no other reason than they are disabled, either chronically or at that moment in a crisis because of an accident of some kind in their home, has to pay $230 to go five minutes. There is something wrong here. So, if we want to talk egregious, I think these are the things that we have to look at if we really want to get reality straight here. This is reality, and we keep forgetting - and this Budget does, too, and these income tax changes do, too - the people who are at the lower end.

I want to talk a bit more, again - I have done this a lot over the last weeks but I want to do it again. I want to talk about the minimum wage. Let's hear some of the reality about the minimum wage and what has happened for people who work for minimum wage. The minimum wage has continually, over the last twenty years, been losing value. People working on minimum wage over the last twenty years have been getting less return for the work that they do because the minimum wage has not been keeping pace with inflation.

Here are real statistics: In 1976, the Newfoundland and Labrador minimum wage was $2.50 an hour. That is a reality. In order for minimum wage, right how at this moment, to be of the same value, it would have to be about $8.90 an hour. So somebody who earned minimum wage in 1976 and who is earning minimum wage now is earning $1.90 less an hour for their work, in real terms, taking in inflation. Now, that is reality. I am not making that up. That is statistics. People in Newfoundland and Labrador who earned minimum wage - I will say it again - twenty years ago, are earning $1.90 less now in the true value of their wage, and 40 per cent of the people on minimum wage are living below the poverty line. That is reality.

So, you ask me: Why did I vote against the Budget? I had the members across the House making fun of me the other night because I voted against the Budget. It was a serious reason why I voted against the Budget, because the vision that is in the tax cuts is not my vision. I have explained my vision. I would have much preferred - not only preferred, I would have made sure that people at the low-end of the scale would have had a much bigger break. I would have worked towards people earning below the poverty line not paying any income tax at all. I know that government put it up somewhat, raised the ceiling a little bit, but we still have thousands who are below the poverty line paying income tax and that is a tax on poverty, and that to me is egregious.

What I have explained about the minimum wage fits in with some of the latest research that is being done. I would like to read the statistic because it is rather frightening. In 2004 - now this is Canadian statistics, I know, but we know that we are always worst than Canadian statistics so we can use them and take them to heart. In 2004, the average earnings of the richest 10 per cent of Canada's families raising children was eighty-two times that earned by the poorest 10 per cent of Canada's families. The top ten with children were earning eighty-two times more than the lower ten with children.

Now, the interesting thing is, in 1976, at the time when here in Newfoundland our workers were earning $2.50 an hour for minimum wage, in 1976 the top 10 per cent in the country were earning only around thirty-one times what the lower 10 per cent were working. What is happening in our country, and our Budget does the same thing - what is happening in our country and here in our Province is that the gap is growing. The poor are getting poorer. That statistic on minimum wage says it. That is the statistic that says those on minimum wage are poorer now than they were twenty years ago, and the rich are getting richer. That is the reality. That gap is widening, and that terrifies me. Where is it going to go? How far is it going to go? That is why I cannot vote for this bill either because voting for this bill is voting for the Budget, and I cannot vote for that. Yet, in the same bill, without even blinking an eye, we have two clauses to give this wonderful tax credit to people who have the money to invest in high-end tourism projects. I am not saying that government should not be giving tax credits, but I want government to put it in balance. I want government to see the degree to which the breaks it gives to people in that top 10 per cent of the economy are so much better than the breaks they give to people who are in the lower ten.

I want to say something I have said over and over in the last few weeks, but I want to say it again, not just because I believe it but because anybody who is doing any research in this area is saying it - and I know the government has been naming the different groups across the country who support their anti-poverty reduction strategy, but I think government needs to start doing a bit more reading since those reviews first came out because there are more and more reviews coming out right now and more reports from research that are saying that anti-poverty strategies need to have a central focus on increasing people's income. That is something that I have to repeat over and over, and it is one of the reasons why I did not vote for the Budget. That unless the income is growing in people's hands, unless they are getting more money, then we are not beating poverty; we are not, that's the way it is. In order to start that process, people who are doing the research are pointing out that the $10 an hour minimum wage is the minimum of making the big step into making that happen.

People right now who are earning $7 an hour will not earn $8 until next April. There will have been inflation again. Inflation has started. We know what is going on. What is happening with regard to the dollar is going to have very serious repercussions. Already the banks are saying that the interest rate is going up and that we can look for mortgage rates to go up in July. That is going to have an impact on everybody. We are going to see the inflation rate going up. That $8 an hour next April may not be any better than people earning $7 now. This is all part of the pie that we have to look at. All of these are economic realities.

So, in getting more money into people's hands, it is the $10 an hour minimum wage. Getting more money into people's hands - an earned income supplement for the working poor. That is another policy that is being looked at by people who are doing this research and, again, getting more money into people's hands, reasonable social assistance; social assistance that brings people up to the low-income cut off.

The other thing that I talked about last week, and I want to talk about again, is recognizing that women are the poorest in our society. They make up two-thirds of minimum wage earners and the majority of low wage workers in this Province are women. So, 27 per cent of working women earn only $8 an hour. What will happen if the minimum wage moves up, hopefully their money will move up as well so those who are earning $8 an hour now, earning $1 more than the minimum wage, they will earn more. If we are really going to help women in this Province, if we are really going to help women have what they need - for example, women in violent situations to have the ability to move outside of those violent situations, single-parent women who sometimes are stuck in a violent situation, who become single parents are afraid to become single parents but finally do it, these women will only be helped if money in their hands increases, and so many of those women are minimum income earners.

So, no, I cannot vote for this bill which promotes tax changes, that favour those with money rather than those without. Yes, it does help significantly, or more significantly I guess than the low-income. It does help the middle-income more significantly. A single person earning $35,000 will get $567 a year, which is a little more than - it is less than $1.50 a day. A family earning $35,000, a one-earner couple, will only get $469. So, the single person is a bit better off in that bracket and that sort of continues right along, which really puzzles me and something else for the government to look at, that the single person does better than the one-earner couple. That is really an anomaly. The single person with $35,000, $40,000, $45,000 or $50,000, all the way up, is getting a better break than the family is getting.

I hope that my pointing out this stuff is going to help people who are watching us tonight think clearly about what the tax changes were really about. When they get the book, the Highlights of the Budget, that they will also think clearly about what those highlights are about. Yes, there are good things there but we have an awful long ways to go.

I think I have taken my time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: I have just noticed and I am really pleased, as I said, to have been able, once again, to speak to what I consider to be the heart of this Budget and the reasons why I could not vote for the Budget, because the bill tonight was basically dealing with aspects of the Budget. It was a good opportunity to be able to point out, once again, what the weakness was for me in the Budget.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance speaks now he will close debate on second reading of Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I want to thank the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans and the hon. Leader of the NDP for their comments tonight, and I move second reading of this very important piece of legislation, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, Bill 3.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a second 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 Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, 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: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 3)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Committee of the Whole on Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 3)

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 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MR. REID: I want to talk on number 4, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member, if he wishes to take part in the debate, if he would stand, please.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will not belabour the point but I want, again, to talk about the elimination of the surtax, or the tax on the rich, and that is under clause 4. "In addition to the income tax payable, computed in accordance with sections 6..." - and it goes on.

Mr. Chairman, what the minister has essentially done is he has given a tax break to everybody, but those who are richer than most in the Province got a double tax break in that there was the elimination of a surtax and that is 9 per cent on an income over $60,000. He called it an egregious, hideous tax, I say, Mr. Chairman. Well, those of us over here do not agree that it was an egregious, hideous tax because it was put there for a reason. A previous government put it there because they were having trouble balancing books; they were running deficits. We were going through a moratorium where there were 30,000 people unemployed in the Province; there were people leaving the Province. You could not increase taxes on everybody because not everybody was making the type of income that you could tax. As a result of that, there was a surtax put on what was called the rich.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that most of the people in this Province by far make, on an individual basis, less than $60,000 a year. Those who make over $60,000 a year are in a small minority, I say to the members opposite, because 90 per cent of the civil service in this Province - and some would think that the civil service are doing well. Most of the civil servants in this Province make less than $60,000 a year, and what we had was a surtax on those who make more than $60,000. What the minister has done, he has given a tax break to the lower, the middle and the upper classes in the Province, but he has done one extra for the upper class. That is, not only did they get their tax deduction but he eliminated the surtax. He called it an egregious, hideous tax.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that it is an egregious, hideous tax. What I would have suggested that he do in his Budget was give everybody a comparable tax break in the lower, middle and upper class but leave that 9 per cent surtax that was there. Those in the upper class still would have gotten a tax break but they would not have gotten two. Then that 9 per cent on income over $60,000, if you wanted to take that back into the provincial coffers, into your department, then you could have used that 9 per cent to give those in a lower tax bracket, those in the lower-income bracket a larger tax decrease or eliminated tax for more in the lower classes in our Province.

Mr. Chairman, the average annual earned income in this Province, according to the provincial government's own statistics, is $31,000 a year. That is the average earned annual income. Now, when you do an average it is obvious that there are a lot of people who make below $31,000 and there are a lot of people who make over $31,000, but the average is $31,000. What I am saying to the minister is: Why eliminate that tax on the rich when there are so many people in that income who are below $60,000? I will speak about my own district. My district is not unlike any district in the Province, I say to the member, not just in rural areas but even in the larger urban areas. I would hazard to guess tonight that in my district there are very few people who make more than $60,000 on an individual income.

Some people say teachers make over $60,000 a year. Well, that is not entirely true either, Mr. Chairman. I would say that at least 90 per cent of the teachers who are teaching in this Province today make less than $60,000. We have a couple of past teachers. We have the Principal of Mount Pearl Junior High here and we have the Principal of O'Donel. No? Anyway, I understand you were a principal. You weren't a principal? All right, well you were a teacher or a vice-principal or something out there and you know that the majority of teachers in this Province are making less than $60,000 a year. Any of you who have practiced in the nursing profession, across the isle here, know full-well that 90 per cent of nurses in the Province make less than $60,000 a year.

What I am saying, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: Social workers.

MR. REID: Social workers make less than $60,000 a year. These are some of the higher paid professions in the public service, because with the exception of those who are directors or assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers, there are very few people in the civil service who make more than $60,000 a year. As a result, who are we giving this tax break to? We are giving a double tax break to the smallest group in our society, but that smallest group happens to be the largest income earners. It is like my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, said earlier tonight: In Canada, the top 10 per cent of income earners in the country make eighty times more than those in the lower 10 per cent.

If you want to stop and think about your district - I will give you a good example for those of you who are associated with districts where the main industry is the fishery. The majority of fish harvesters in rural Newfoundland and Labrador prosecute the fishery, the crab fishery, in boats under thirty-four feet, eleven inches. The majority of those crab fishermen in vessels under thirty-four feet, eleven inches are left with approximately 15,000 pounds of crab or less a year. Some of them get 9,000, some get 15,000, but there are very few who get more than 15,000 pounds of crab.

Last year, most of these fish harvesters, the only thing that they harvested was crab. At ninety-four cents a pound those fish harvesters made less than $15,000 in earned income. Just imagine! They made less than $15,000 in earned income. Now, if you throw in a little bit of caplin and a few lobsters on top of that, you can rest assured that these fish harvesters, who happen to be the majority involved in the fishery, made less than $20,000 earned income. Out of that they had to pay for the fuel in their boats, they had to pay for their bait and other things.

What I am trying to say is that the average earned income of most fish harvesters in the Province, before expenses and before taxes, is less than $20,000 a year. Now, if you add EI to that you are probably going to make up another $6,000 or $7,000 or $8,000. So what you are saying is most of the fish harvesters in the Province make less than $28,000 a year. Now, this individual is going to get a very small tax break. I think he will probably get $280, according to the minister's own deductions here tonight. He is going to get about a $280 tax deduction as a result of this Budget. Where someone who is making in excess of $100,000 this year, which happens to be all the Cabinet ministers, these same individuals will get somewhere between $3,000 and $4,000 in a tax deduction and it is because those individuals are getting a double tax deduction instead of one.

The minister shakes his head and says that is not true. Isn't it true that you eliminated the surtax?

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You eliminated the surtax; you did it. You are also giving them a tax break besides the surtax. Well, where am I wrong? You just agreed that you are giving them a tax break and you are eliminating the surtax. So, they are getting, in essence, a double tax break. They are getting, by far, the largest tax break of all three social classes in our Province.

MR. T. MARSHALL: They are getting less.

MR. REID: Oh, they are getting less.

Well, maybe you can stand and explain this to me. In your own figures - and you can look at them as I am speaking - I think if you are making $50,000, or less than $60,000, your tax break next year will be $911. Am I right? Okay. Well, what is your tax deduction next year if you are making $100,000, using your own scale?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Let's talk in percentage here.

MR. REID: No, let's talk on the $100,000. What is going to be the tax break? It should be, if everybody were treated alike, that the individual making $100,000 should get twice as much as the individual making $50,000. You will see, according to your own figures, that the person who is making $100,000 is getting a tax deduction more than double that of the individual who is making $50,000. You can use percentages all you like, the individual who is earning $100,000 a year is going to get a $2,400 tax deduction and the individual making $50,000 is going to get $900. Now, that tells me that the individual who is making $100,000 is getting something like 140 per cent more than the individual who is making $50,000. So, minister you can cut it all the way you like. You understand, and you have the figures in front of you, and I will get them for you before I stand again for my next ten minute speech. I will give you the exact figures. To tell me that they are getting a lower percentage deduction than someone who is making $50,000 or someone who is making $20,000, it just doesn't cut it with me. You eliminated the surtax. You called it an egregious, hideous, horrendous, blatant, abhorrent tax.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I did not say abhorrent.

MR. REID: Well, you did not say abhorrent, but if you look up what egregious means these are all the synonyms for that word, I say to the minister - if you know what that means.

What I am saying, minister, I do not know who talked you into giving the riches in our society the largest tax break. I do not believe it was you, by the way. I think that there were other people around you over there in your party who came up with that because it would not cross my mind. If we were going to do a tax break for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, at least I would try to be fair. I would not try to give the richest in society a larger tax break than the poorest in our society, and that is exactly what you have done, I say to the minister.

Maybe now you can get up and have a few words on that and rebut what I am saying and then I will get up again after and rebut what you are about to say.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clauses 2 to 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, I am going to move that clause 5 of the bill be amended by deleting the proposed subsection 6 of section 46.1.

There was originally going to be two bills, Mr. Chairman, and they were combined into one, and through inadvertence, section 46.1(6) was left in the bill. It should have been deleted therefrom. So I move that this bill be amended. This will amend the bill which gives the people of this Province the greatest tax reduction in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As the Leader of the Opposition said: If we were to cut taxes, we would have done it this way. But, they did not cut taxes. They did not cut personal income tax and that is why we are now cutting taxes right across the board for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially those at the lower end of the level because it is in the best interest of the people of this Province. I would move that this amendment be passed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that clause 5 be amended. Clause 5 of the bill is amended by deleting the proposed subsection 6 of 46.1.

The Chair has had an opportunity to confer with the Table Officers and deems this amendment to be in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 5 of Bill 3?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 5 as amended.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 5, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Chairman, nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 6 carried.

CLERK: Be in 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'.

MR. REID: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

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 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, carried with an amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 3 is carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," carried with amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I move Committee of the Whole in consideration of Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Bill 21, in Committee.

CHAIR: Bill 21, in Committee.

The Committee Chair understands that there are a number of amendments to this particular bill. If it is okay with the Committee, the Committee will take a brief recess in order to deal with those couple of amendments.

I have talked with the Table Officers and they want a small amount of time in order to deal with the amendments as put forward and then we can move right through each clause of the bill.

If the Committee is agreeable, the House will now take a brief recess.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee is now ready to hear debate on Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few more remarks to make on Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991, and to put on the record some understandings that we have regarding some debate and issues raised in second reading. It is further clarification, I guess, of issues that I referred to when I rose to close the debate on second reading. Those issues will be further clarified in writing before we attempt to do third reading, which we will leave for another parliamentary day.

What I want to deal with is, first of all, the issue of special ballots. I think I gave an undertaking to the House during the second reading debate that special ballots will be dealt with by the deputy returning officers out in the forty-eight districts in the same way and under the same rules and under the same conditions as special ballots will be dealt with by the Chief Electoral Office here in St. John's so that all people in the Province, no matter where they live, will have an opportunity to access the special ballot kits in their own riding, in their own district, in their own constituency.

Once that happens, Mr. Chairman, the return of the special ballot can be done a couple of ways. The special ballot can be mailed back, if the citizen so wishes, and that envelope is a postage-paid envelope so there is no cost to the taxpayer, to the elector, to send this ballot back. I have a copy of the envelope here and, as members can see - I do not know if the people in TV land can see, but as members can see - it is postage paid up in the corner, which allows the ballot, if the elector so chooses, to send it back by mail to the Chief Electoral Office here in St. John's. However, the elector can also, if he or she so wishes, drop this ballot in at the deputy returning officer's office in the district, because they can access it that way if they wish, and they can drop it off that way if they wish, or they can mail it if they wish. There are a number of options open to the elector in that regard.

I also can inform the House and the Committee, Mr. Chairman, that the location for accessing the special ballot kits will be the same as the location for advance polls. If there is more than one advance poll in a constituency - and I understand there are in some. I was mistaken when I spoke earlier on that matter. I have only been accustomed to constituencies where there has only been one site for an advance poll. In any district that I have run provincially, and I have run in two, that has been the case; however, I understand that in some more rural ridings it is not uncommon to have advance polls in more than one location. Therefore, I have been advised that under section 86.9 this is an administrative matter that allows the Electoral Office to make those administrative decisions, and I have been advised - and this will be put in writing so that all members are aware of it - that the special ballot kits can be accessed and dropped off or mailed, as the elector sees fit, from the sites of advance polls.

Of course, there is one caveat on that, as I have mentioned to my colleagues in the Opposition. Obviously, there has to be enough time given - there has to be a cut-off - so that those special ballots can be received by the deputy returning officer, if that is where they are going to dropped off, or mailed if that is what the elector chooses to do with them, so that they can be in to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer for counting prior to whatever the cut-off date is for everyone in the Province. There has to be a cut-off date, obviously. The election is October 9. You cannot leave it right up until October 8. Those special ballots have to be cut off so that they are in and able to be counted and therefore counted into the total on election night. Those matters will be addressed in a follow-up letter that will be sent to the House Leaders before we do third reading.

The final matter that I want to refer to before we move on with the Committee is the matter of by-elections. We have been wrapping our minds around that as to how best to approach it, and it is a difficult one. It has been a difficult one, but I think I can propose what is hopefully a viable solution. I have spoken to my friend, the Leader of the NDP, whose issue this primarily was, although other Opposition members and ourselves have expressed concern about it as well, but she articulated it perhaps more than the rest of us, and I think she agrees that the proposal I am about to propose is workable.

The proposal is this, Mr. Chairman - again, this can happen under section 86.9 of the Elections Act which allows the Chief Electoral Officer to make those administrative decisions, and the legal advice I have tells me that this is so. What we can do - and this will be addressed again in a letter before we do third reading - the proposal is that, when the Chief Electoral Officer is advised that a seat has become vacant, immediately thereupon being advised, the special election ballot kits will be made available to anybody who wants to access them. So, if I resign today and the Chief Electoral Officer is advised of that - and I guess as a matter of process the election office is advised when a member resigns - tomorrow the election ballot kits will be available for that district. There may not be names on it, but of course that is provided for in the act. You do not have to vote for a name; you can vote for a party. Therefore, the vote gets transferred from the party to the party's affiliated candidate when the ballots are counted. I think that addresses the matter of by-elections.

You see, under the present law anyway, the Premier or the leader of the government has to call a by-election, as I understand it, within sixty days. Then, the minimum amount of time required is twenty-one days for the election itself, so you are talking about eighty-one days that will elapse anyway. Now, of course, under this proposal, as soon as the seat becomes vacant the Electoral Office will be able to provide anybody who knows they are not going to be here, who has reason to believe they are not going to be here during that eighty-one day period, they will be able to be provided with a special ballot kit so that they can vote, exercise their right to vote. Again, it will be on the same basis. You can access it from the Chief Electoral Office here in St. John's, or you can access it from the deputy returning office in the riding where the by-election is going to be held, once the office is set up, but you would immediately be able to access it through the Chief Electoral Office here in St. John's. Hopefully that provides some measure of advancement in terms of making an election more easily accessible for citizens to exercise their franchise.

Those matters that I have addressed here will be addressed in writing, before we do third reading, to House Leaders on all sides of the House. That is by way of explanation before we carry on with third reading.

I do, on behalf of the government, have an amendment to propose as well, as I indicated in debate, that we are going to propose the deletion of clause 2, which will not permit the Electoral Office to increase the size of polling booths or polling divisions from 275 to 350, but they will remain at 275 as is the case in the present law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I am not sure of the process the Government House Leader would like to follow in terms of going through each section one at a time and then I will reserve my comments until we get to section 7 about special ballots or...?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion back and forth today about these special ballots, and even throughout the day we have had differences of understanding. I think it is very healthy to have it that way. If we are going to pass certain amendments, we want to make sure that we do it right. That was the whole purpose of asking some of these questions. In fact, it started with a letter from myself to Mr. Reynolds on Friday past, raising some of these concerns. Why was it different in St. John's versus anywhere else in rural Newfoundland if you want to have a special ballot? It doesn't make sense in a democratic system. We all have the same rights, or we ought to. That is what started the process.

Mr. Reynolds did fax me back his response to my Friday's letter, after I was in the House today, which I saw at suppertime, and even that was different than the Government House Leader's understanding, because he had a subsequent conversation with Mr. Reynolds, so there was confusion here as to what exactly was or was not going to be the rule of the day.

I would like to make it clear that we are talking here about section 86.4 of the act that we are making some amendments to, about special ballots, but there is another section that the Government House Leader has alluded to called 86.9. That is all under the umbrella of special ballots.

Section 86.9, which is not subject to this bill we are dealing with today, is very crucial in that it says: The Chief Electoral Officer may establish those administrative procedures he or she considers necessary to give effect to sections 86 and 86.8.

My concern, as Opposition House Leader, was that I do not think that discretion, unfettered, in the Chief Electoral Officer, should exist; because we saw, if that were the case, in the past that we had an unfair system whereby if you lived in St. John's you were okay but if you lived outside St. John's you did not get the special ballot privileges to the same extent. That is why I raise it and I still raise it.

That is why I had the concern, and I put it to the Government House Leader, that if we agreed tonight to go past Committee stage, do we do it without having the Chief Electoral Officer's commitment and understanding that is what he will live by in the election?

That was my reason for asking the Government House Leader, saying: Let's explain what we all understand to be the facts; but, before we go to third reading, which would make this law, the Chief Electoral Officer should give the House a letter saying: Yes, that is my understanding as well.

The Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader can agree all we want about the special ballots. If the Chief Electoral Officer does not tell us what he is going to do with regard to the administrative procedures on those special ballots it is all for naught. We walk out of here, when we pass this, and we all find, if the Chief Electoral Officer decides he is not going to allow it to be done outside, we are all stuck with that. So, that is my purpose of insisting - not that I do not trust or take the word of the Government House Leader; it is just that there is another party involved in this that is outside of the confines of this House.

Mr. Reynolds, as I understand it, has spoken to the Government House Leader, legal counsel has spoken to the Government House Leader, and we all agreed that we are on the same wavelength, vis-B-vis - and, just to use an example, if a person in Burgeo, where there is an advance ballot, wants to vote at any time in the election this year, the election is going to be set for October 9, so if you backed up, say, twenty-one days, which is the minimum period of time, and if you add to that the four weeks that this change is going to allow, we are back to August 18 that a person will be allowed to use a special ballot.

What we are saying here now from the administrative point of view is that if Mr. Marsden in Burgeo, for example, is not sure if he is going to be around on advance poll day, which would probably be around the first part of October, or he is not going to be around or he does not know if he is going to be around on October 9, the regular polling day, Mr. Marsden can now go in to whoever the chief electoral person is in his town, Burgeo - I would think it would be a deputy returning officer - he can go into that person and say: I would like to do a special ballot. I am here - fill out the application in front of that person, get the kit provided to him, vote right then and there, and pass the documentation over to the DRO or the deputy DRO or, as the Government House Leader says, he can pop it in the mail and let it go back himself. He has that option. That is what we are trying to clarify here so that we all know the rules of the game.

Just to use an analogy of a game, a hockey game, I just want to know, if we are going to step on the ice together, we are all playing by the same rules, and he is the referee. I do not want for a writ to get dropped and none of us know what the rules are because he did not tell us. We should not be in the middle of an election or have a writ dropped and people are trying to figure out these rules. That is why I think this is important for everybody who is going to offer themselves in this election, that we all know what the rules are, number one.

Number two, and most importantly, is that it gives the ability to a person in that time frame, no matter where you live in this Province, to do it, to cast your vote in a special ballot. That should not be a right that is restricted to residents only of the Northeast Avalon, and that is what we are going to get here.

So, we look forward to seeing the letter. I think the points have been made quite clear, and the reasons for it, so that everybody will be playing in the same game using the same rules.

The other one where we had some concern - and I think discretion is the issue here - why is something discretionary if you can take the discretion out of it? Because, giving certainty to an issue gives you a level of comfort. You know, with certainty, what is going to happen. That is why I speak again of section 7 when it talks about: When does the special ballot time end?

According to this proposal we have here in clause 7, that special ballot process must come to an end at 6:00 p.m. on a day to be determined by the Chief Electoral Officer. Now, that leaves it wide open. What if the Chief Electoral Officer, under the scenario that I outlined earlier, that we can do a special ballot as of August 18, what if the Chief Electoral Officer says the cut-off point for special ballots is going to be October 1? We don't know, and that is the law - that will be the law - but under the last election my understanding was that you cut off the special ballots four days prior to the ordinary voting day. That was the last time. So, the cut-off for special ballots under the scenario this year would have been October 5, but it does not say that. In fact, it says here that it is in his discretion. All I am saying is, I think the letter that he is going to provide should give us some certainty there. Surely, the people in the elections office have turned their heads to that concern. How much time do they need to stop the special ballot, get it all into St. John's and have it compiled and ready to compute in time for the election on October 9?

That is the piece that is still not here, and I think he ought to address it. Is it going to be four days, five days, six days? Why do we need to leave it open if we know we are dealing with a fixed date again? There is no need.

I raised a question as well, again. The Government House Leader said the person would have an option. The example I used was of Mr. Marsden, for example, in Burgeo, who walks into his deputy DRO on August 27, gets the application, does his vote on the special kit. We said he had an option. He could mail it back to St. John's if he wanted - that is fine - but why should he have to again? What is the magic of that? Why can't that document stay with that voting official in that location, the same as the advance poll ones? There is no reason why that has to be sent back to St. John's.

If that is the case, you ask yourself: Why is there any cut-off date? As long as the person who is ultimately going to count that vote has it in order to put into the tally on October 9, you can count it on election night. If I am going to vote on October 7 - for all intents and purposes, I intended to be here on October 9, for example. That is why I didn't vote in an advance poll or anything else. All of a sudden I find myself, on October 7, getting called away to a funeral of a relative in Montreal. I have to go. I am not going to be here. I intended to be here on October 9. I missed the advance poll - that is five days behind me - but I cannot be here on October 9. Why shouldn't that person who wants to get his or her vote in walk over to the DRO again in his community and say: Look, I have a circumstance. I need to fill out my special ballot - and he does it and gives it to him there and it gets counted in the vote that night.

We are talking here about allowing people to vote.

MR. REID: For a mail-in you could make it five days or six.

MR. PARSONS: If you want to mail it in, I could see putting a deadline on it.

Simply, politicians and MHAs or candidates should not be dealing with this, but if we are going to trust it to the election officials to do it, what does the day matter? It does not matter as long as the votes are properly taken, as long as the votes get properly tabulated within the time frames of the election, and that can be done at any time by simply leaving the documentation, leaving the special ballot with the officer or the official who took the vote from you.

No matter when I do it, if I do it on September 2 in Burgeo - if Mr. Marsden does it on September 2 in Burgeo, what is the magic of insisting - and he leaves it with the DRO, he does not mail it back, and says: Here, you look after that for me. What is the magic of the DRO in Burgeo, who just oversaw this process and made sure it was all proper and he was a proper voter and so on, a legitimate voter. What is the magic in the DRO having to take that special ballot kit from Mr. Marsden and get it into St. John's so someone in St. John's can tabulate it? Why wouldn't that DRO, who is in charge of all the voting in Burgeo, count it himself on voting day? There is no magic in going to St. John's.

That is where I am missing on that little bit of the process, but I think we are on the right wavelength. That is why I would suggest that we leave it open. If it even means that we do not have to finish committee until we resolve the issues, we just need to do what is right. If we agree that this issue cannot be addressed, we can come back to the committee stage and look after it. That is the concern that we had in the Opposition. Let's take the discretion out of it. There is no need of the discretion.

The other issue is - and this is a resourcing issue and I think that should be addressed in the letter as well. Are these DROs who are going to be doing this - and in the letter he gave to me, by the way, which I would like to table and have part of the record, which is not correct. He said in the letter to me that when the writ is dropped, that is when you could start this special ballot process out around because that is when the DROs offices will be set up. What it means now, my new understanding is that this is not true. Whenever the special ballot day starts - for example, four weeks before the writ is dropped - that is when the DROs are going to be in a position to administer special ballots out in the districts. That entails that they have their DROs and their deputies in place before that date starts. For example, August 18.

What are going to be the conditions, normally? Is it normal office hours? Is it going to be Monday to Friday, Monday to Saturday? What kind of provisions are there? I just think if he alluded to, or could give us any information of what he intends in that regard, it would be nice to have that. What is the point of going through all of this if he says: Well, I am going to have the DRO in Port aux Basques on staff, but the one down in Ramea, for example - which is also an advanced poll position - we are only going to open down there on Tuesday mornings from 9:00 to 12:00. It hardly opens up the process to do the special ballot piece if you are going to limit the number of hours that the DRO is available to do it. So we just need some clarity, some certainty in those types of issues. If it is regular, standing voting hours or office hours, 9:00 - 5:00, Monday to Friday, that is fine. I think everybody can live with that. I do not see any problem with that.

With that, and given that understanding, we would have no problem proceeding with the committee stage with that understanding, but also with the clear understanding that the letter does not reflect everything that we talked about here or we need some further clarification that we would have an opportunity to get it clarified before we proceeded and made this thing law.

Thank you.

CHAIR: 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: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to an undertaking I gave to the House when I spoke in second reading and when I closed the debate, I would like to move - and if I need a seconder, the seconder would be my colleague, the Minister of Education - that clause 2 be deleted from the bill.

CHAIR: The hon. Government House Leader has moved that clause 2 be deleted from Bill 21. The Chair has had an opportunity to review this deletion with the Table Officers and deems it to be in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to delete clause 2?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 is deleted.

CLERK: Clauses 3 to 17 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 to 17 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to ask the House to look at a situation that arose back in 2003, after the election in 2003, and it was concerning the oath. I am not sure if it needs clarity or not. I understand here that it is going to be the same oath taken for the special ballot as it is for the general election. There was a lot of discrepancy - and even in the court case that went ahead after - in if the oath was administered properly, because a lot of DROs and poll clerks were not sure if the oath should be read or if the oath should be to just let someone sign it and it is done.

I will just ask the Government House Leader, when he is speaking to the people of the districts, the returning officers or the poll clerks or whatever, to have that clarified before the next election because it was a big issue. I think there were 467 cases where they said that no one heard the oath being read or no one heard if it was read to them. So, it something that needs to be clarified because it does cause a lot of concern for a lot of people and it may cause another major problem.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will certainly undertake to have that concern raised. It would seem to me that if a person is swearing an oath or affirming, they have to say it. I solemnly swear or I affirm, that would be standard procedure, but I will certainly ensure that the concern raised by the hon. member is passed on to the appropriate authorities.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clauses 3 to 17 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses - is the hon. member speaking on clauses 3 to 17?

MR. JOYCE: No, I am making an amendment.

CHAIR: To clause 17?

MR. JOYCE: Clause 18, adding a new clause.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 to 17 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 3 through 17 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thought the vote was already done on that, sorry.

I was just going to add number 18. Section 18 would read: If any person commences an action in any court in the Province or alleges that any provision of the Election Act 1991 was contravened, the CEO, Chief Electoral Officer, shall be joined as a third party to the said action.

I make that as a motion, seconded by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. The reason why I add that is back in - again, I go on with the forty DROs and poll clerks who were represented at the time. In 2003, after the election was said and done - of course, Mr. Monaghan wanted to have a bit of fun and use the courts to his own benefit. He took the whole procedure and when he went ahead - after he went through the whole procedure, out of all the affidavits that were signed and all the so-called contraventions of the Elections Act was put through the Supreme Court, there was not one incident where myself, any person involved with the Bay of Islands Liberal Association, any person involved with the election team, any person inside-outside agent whatsoever in the whole Bay of Islands, was mentioned in either one of the affidavits, either one of the court documents. It was all concerning the DRO and poll clerks of the Chief Returning Officer.

What happened in that case is when it came to my attention back - I think it was December 19 or 20 at the time, you had ten days to respond. Me, as a layperson, with no idea of a court - here it was Christmas. Here was Mike Monaghan playing politics with the court system - which was thrown out. He is a judge now - playing politics with the court system.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member moved an amendment. The amendment is foreign to the amendment that the Chair was given. The Chair has not deemed the amendment to be in order. In order for the member to carry on debate on the amendment the Chair has to rule whether the amendment is in order or not. There has been some confusion happening between the member moving the bill and the Table.

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It may be a little clearer - a clearer occasion is certainly in order. The Member for the Bay of Islands is certainly going where he wants to go in terms of making an amendment. In fact, he drafted the amendment and I presented it on his behalf to the Table Officers to decide whether it was, in fact, in proper order for presentation.

The Table Officer has it prepared, and we have discussed it and reviewed the wording that she prepared, but Mr. Joyce has not had the benefit of reading this one. He read the one that he had prepared on the assumption that it was correct, but he has not had the benefit of reading the amendment that - after we talked to the Table Officers - was deemed to be at least properly drafted in terms of an amendment. Whether or not it stands the scrutiny of the Table as a valid amendment or not is another issue, but at least it is in the right form right here. We were trying to get the form right so that the Chair could then consider the amendment to decide if it was in order or not. So, in fairness to the member, he read what he thought was the proper amendment because he had not been told that it was not in order.

So, if I might, just for the record, this is the motion that he will be moving. It says that the bill be amended - that is the bill we are dealing with, section 21 - by adding immediately after clause 17 the following: clause18, the act is amended by adding immediately after section 304, the following - that is 304 of the Elections Act - 304.1. If a person commences an action in a court in the Province that alleges a contravention of a section of that act - that is the Elections Act - the Chief Electoral Officer shall be joined as a party to that transaction. That is pretty straightforward.

In other words, if two individuals get into a racket over anything that happened during an election that involves any kind of contravention of the act, the Chief Electoral Officer should be included. He has a right to see that the act that he administers is or is not followed. So, it automatically says that he is going to be in it. That is what the intention of the affidavit is. Because Mr. Joyce is relating his personal circumstances that happened to him after the 2003 election, a statement of claim was issued by the other candidate. There were thirty-two allegations made of contravention of the act, but the contraventions were not by Mr. Joyce, nor did the other person say they were. What the plaintiff said in that case was section such-and-such of the election act was not followed. The DRO did not do such-and-such. A polling clerk did not do such-and-such. An affidavit was not taken in the right manner, all of which had nothing to do with the other candidate. Whether or not a poll clerk in poll number forty-two took the affidavit properly, a candidate could not deal with that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Opposition House Leader - the Chair interrupted the Member for the Bay of Islands and asked if we could see the amendment to rule whether the amendment is in order before we start the debate. I would ask the hon. Opposition House Leader if he would be kind enough to do the same.

It is moved by the Member for Bay of Islands that a new clause be added to Bill 21. The new clause would read: Clause 18, if a person commences an action in a court in the province that alleges a contravention of a section of this act, the Chief Electoral Officer shall be joined as a party of the third action. That would be section 304.1.

The Chair has had an opportunity to discuss this amendment that is put forward by the hon. Member for Bay of Islands. The Chair has deemed that this particular addition is foreign to the bill. It is a totally new topic. The Chair referred to Beauchesne, page 176, §579 which reads, "An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved."

The Chair deems the amendment, as put forward by the hon. Member for Bay of Islands, to be out of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just wondering, do the parties get to speak to whether it is or is not in order? You simply ruled that it is out of order and we have not had an opportunity to give our points of why we think it is in order, why it is not foreign to the main motion?

CHAIR: The Chair has ruled that the amendment is not in order. There is no debate to take place once the Chair rules that the amendment is not in order. There is nothing to debate because it is not in order.

If the hon. Opposition House Leader would like to make points on the title of the bill or another section of the bill as we go forward, he is certainly entitled to speak on relevance to that particular section of the bill, but the Chair has deemed that the amendment as put forward by the hon. Member for the Bay of Islands is not in order, and if it is not in order then debate is not entertained.

MR. PARSONS: So, it is not even on the table to debate the amendment, in other words?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The amendment is put forward and there is no debate because there is no amendment. It is not in order.

MR. PARSONS: Like, I am lost in the process here. I have only been here seven or eight years or so, but to me, if someone proposes an amendment - and we did it here in the House recently in another case, when we were talking about, again, Mr. Reynolds in the appointment as CEO. We proposed amendments and the parties made their arguments as to whether it was or was not a valid amendment, and then the Speaker made his ruling. In this case, I just read into the motion the amendment and you are saying it is out of order. You are saying the person who proposed it does not even have the opportunity or right to say: Why is it foreign to the motion, and explain why we think it is monumental and inclusive in this bill? That only sounds democratic. We are here talking about the Elections Act and democracy.

CHAIR: The Chair, certainly, has not written a book on parliamentary procedure rules either. The Chair can use his best judgement in talking to the Table Officers. They have provided me with the information that this particular amendment is not in order, and if it is not in order I do not know how we can entertain debate on a motion that is not in order. The Chair has made that ruling. If the hon. Opposition House Leader would like to continue debate and make his remarks on another part of the bill he certainly can, but the committee has ruled that this particular section, new section 18, is not in order and sees no reason why debate should continue on an item that is not in order.

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Again, I am totally aghast here at the fact that this amendment has been ruled out of order. Is the decision of a Chair of Committees appealable to the Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: If it is, I would like an opportunity to review that situation. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I am not accepting what you have ruled as a Chair. If there is a procedure under the rules of this House whereby I can appeal it to the Chair, I would like an opportunity to review that and state my case, if it is subject to an appeal.

CHAIR: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. Opposition House Leader has every right to appeal to the Speaker of the House any decision that is made in Committee. If that is his wish to proceed in that direction, he has every right to do that.

If the hon. the Opposition House Leader is going take the issue up with the Speaker of the House then the Committee has to rise now and report back to the Speaker of the House and let the Speaker make the ruling as it pertains to this particular debate.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible). Mr. Chairman, we have not done Bill 3 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Bill 3 is done in Committee. Okay.

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): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 3 carried with an amendment and Bill 21 - an amendment was brought forward by the hon. Member for the District of the Bay of Islands. The Chair of Committee ruled that the particular amendment, or an addition to the bill was out of order. The hon. the Government House Leader objected to the amendment and I report the objection to you, as Speaker of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 3 passed with some amendments. When shall this report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendment be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that these amendment be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Clause 5 of the bill is amended by deleting the proposed subsection 6 of section 46.1.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendment be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the amendment be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Clause 5 of the bill is amended by deleting the proposed subsection 6 of section 46.1.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

On motion, amendment read a first and second time, ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 3 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, has been now 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 Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House to proceed with the other matter that was referred to the Chair, or I think guidance from the House on that matter?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I think it is the wish of the House that the other matter be dealt with tomorrow. Therefore, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 5, at 1:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

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