December 8, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 44


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The Chair wishes to rule on a point of privilege raised by the Member for Port de Grave following Question Period yesterday, December 7. The point of privilege relates to comments made by the Premier in response to a question posed by the member.

As noted in Marleau and Montpetit, page 52, "Privilege essentially belongs to the House as a whole; individual Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House. In addition, individual Members cannot claim privilege or immunity on matters that are unrelated to their functions in the House."

Maingot, Second Edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 14, gives some clarity. "To constitute ‘privilege' generally there must be some improper obstruction to the Member in performing his parliamentary work in either a direct or constructive way, as opposed to mere expression of public opinion or of criticisms of the activities of the Members...".

Thus, the Speaker rules that the comments made by the Premier do not constitute a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

The Chair would also like to make a further ruling today on a point of order raised on Wednesday, December 7, by the Member for Bellevue with regard to comments allegedly made by the Premier, including the words, "batten down the hatches".

At the time when the comments were said to have occurred, the Speaker had recognized the Minister of Health and Community Services who was tabling a report. As noted yesterday, the Speaker did not hear the comments; nor did he see any gestures that may have occurred.

This morning, the Speaker and the Table officers reviewed the videotape, as well as consulted with Hansard. Neither the House video nor Hansard give help to the Speaker in this matter.

There are long-standing precedents in this House and others that the Speaker cannot rule on matters which he did not see or did not hear. Thus, the Speaker rules that there was no point of order.

Statements by Members.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl; and, the hon. the Member for Gander.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rebecca Russell, a native of Lethbridge, Bonavista South, who recently received carded athlete status. Rebecca is currently playing her first season of professional hockey with the Calgary Oval Xtreme in the Western Women's Hockey League. Becoming a carded athlete means that she is now eligible for funding from the Athlete Assistance Program offered by Sports Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this is a unique achievement as there are very few carded athletes. This designation is reserved for a limited number of individuals deemed to be at the top of their sport, and presently include members of the Women's Olympic Hockey Team and just six others right across this country, with Rebecca Russell being one.

Mr. Speaker, Rebecca is indeed at the top of her sport since she leads her team and the whole hockey league that she is playing in, in scoring, with her personal goal to participate in the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

Becoming a carded athlete provides a tremendous boost towards this goal, as the provision of financial assistance through the Athlete Assistance Program will allow Rebecca to completely focus on hockey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Rebecca Russell, who has joined an elite group of Canadian athletes, and in wishing her all the best as she pursues her hockey career.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Falls on their one hundred and fiftieth anniversary in this Province. Journey of Faith is the theme which officially starts the year-long celebrations with a special mass tonight, December 8, at the original seat of the Diocese, Harbour Grace.

The Diocese was originally known as the Diocese of Harbour Grace, and was created in 1856 by Bishop John Dalton, an Irish Franciscan priest from Ireland, to better serve the people of the Province's increasing Catholic population. Bishop Dalton initially resided in Carbonear, but he moved the episcopal residence to Harbour Grace in 1860, a town second in political and economic significance only to St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, due to the rapid economic and population growth in Central Newfoundland, Bishop John Michael O'Neill transferred the headquarters to Grand Falls in 1953. The new diocese was called Harbour Grace-Grand Falls and was later changed to Grand Falls in 1965.

The present Diocese of Grand Falls extends from Shale Point, White Bay South to Grey River along the South Coast to St. Alban's and eastward to Conception Bay and all points in between, encompassing thirty parishes. Priests from these parishes will all gather tonight in Harbour Grace for Mass, when Bishop Currie who will issue a proclamation celebrating the one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, the celebration culminates with two major events next year. The bishops from Atlantic Canada's ten dioceses, along with retired bishops, will assemble in Grand Falls-Windsor on September 8 and December 8, 2006, to mark the official end of the one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Falls on their one-hundredth and fiftieth anniversary in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Nolan Young, who recently received the 2004 Public Service Award of Excellence. Mr. Young is a heavy equipment technician with the Department of Transportation and Works in Deer Lake and has worked with the department for twenty-nine years.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the department acquired a computerized spreader control system to enhance its snow clearing equipment. Mr. Young was one of the technicians responsible for the installation of this system, and displayed a keen interest and ability in this work. Due to his extensive knowledge and enthusiastic attitude, Mr. Young was approached by the department to deliver an in-house training program on this new system to the western region. Mr. Young excelled at this task, too, and demonstrated a great level of creativity in the development and delivery of the training program. In fact, it was so successful that the program was offered province-wide, and feedback from the participants was extremely positive.

Mr. Young's expertise of the computerized spreader control system, along with his interest and initiative, were above and beyond that required of his job.

I ask all hon. members to join me in commending Mr. Nolan Young on being presented with the Public Service Award of Excellence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this past summer the Harbour Grace Volunteer Fire Brigade celebrated its one-hundred-seventy-fifth anniversary, providing fire protection to our historic Conception Bay town since the 1830s.

A capacity crowd turned out for the civic reception, including volunteer firefighters from neighbouring communities to help the Harbour Grace Brigade to mark its milestone.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure for me to attend and witness the unveiling of a commemorative print by artist Charlene Godden-Garland. This was the highlight of the evening. Ms Charlene Garland was commissioned to do this magnificent piece of art depicting 175 years of firefighting in Harbour Grace.

Executive members of the fire brigade include: Fire Chief Paul Snow; Assistant Fire Chief, Brian Dwyer; Treasurer, Philip Peddle, and Club Manager, Lee Rogers. Also in attendance were Crew Chiefs: Ray Verge, George Crocker, Sonia Williams, Shawn Baker, David Earle, Rick Davis, and Doug Taylor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me to congratulate the Harbour Grace Volunteer Fire Brigade on their one-hundred-and-seventy-fifth anniversary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a very distinguished veteran of Mount Pearl, Mr. G. Fred G. Bannister.

Mr. Bannister is a Royal Naval Veteran of the Second World War and a member of the Royal Canadian Legion for more than fifty-eight years. He is a Life Member of the Royal Canadian Legion and he has been presented with the Meritorious Service Medal and Palm Leaf.

He is an active founding member of Branch 36 in 1957, and has served the branch in all capacities.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bannister was a service officer for many years, assisting veterans in acquiring benefits and entitlements and assisting with their pension appeals. He continues to visit and speak to students during Veterans Week and participates in many church services. He was responsible for securing $750,000 in funding for the construction of a twelve apartment senior's complex in Mount Pearl.

He is an active member of many organizations relating to the care and well-being of seniors and veterans. He was also the longest serving member of the Mount Pearl City Council.

Mr. Bannister is the recipient of numerous awards recognizing his outstanding volunteer work, including: the one-hundred-and-twenty-fifth Year Commemorative Medal; Citizen of the Quarter Century in Mount Pearl; Boy Scouts Certificate of Merit; Kinsmen Club Citizen of the Year, and in 2001, the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador presented him with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medal for his volunteer work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me to recognize this gentleman for his dedication and service to his community and country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand to recognize the bravery of members of 9 Wing Gander Search and Rescue Unit. These pilots and technicians risk their lives every day to save those of other people who have found themselves in danger. Most recently, a Cormorant Crew was recognized for their bravery and dedication during their rescue work after the sinking of the Ryan's Commander in 2004.

During his recent visit to his home Province, General Rick Hillier presented Cormorant pilots, Captain Mike Mondry, Captain Scott Tromp and SAR Technician Master Corporal Absalom Pearce with "Chief of Staff Commendations". Also, this past Friday, Master Corporal Norm Penney and Sergeant Derek Rogers were awarded the Star of Courage medal from Governor General Michaelle Jean.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating these brave men, and recognize their valiant efforts to save lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to inform you of three impressive local companies that, with assistance from the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Fund, are helping to create employment opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador's future depends on our ability to grow and diversify our economy in all regions. We know that small and medium-sized businesses play a critical role in helping us do that, which is why the government created the SME Fund. This fund helps businesses to create employment and to build our economy by providing loans and investments to small businesses in strategic growth sectors, and to businesses that have export potential and need assistance to enter or expand in external markets.

Through the SME Fund, government has allocated almost $45,000 to Labrador Envirotech Incorporated of Happy Valley-Goose Bay to implement a process to purify industrial waste water coming from the operations of the military base, the Voisey's Bay mining site, and other sites in the region. With this funding Labrador Envirotech will have the means to provide a service that is currently only available outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. In doing this, the company will also introduce a new component to our Province's environmental industry, further diversifying this industry and creating excellent potential for future developments.

Versatile Stones Incorporated of Centreville has been allocated $87,000 from the SME Fund to establish a manufacturing operation for cultured stone and brick products in the area. Manufacturing has been identified as the strategic growth centre for the Gander- New-Wes- Valley region through the Comprehensive Regional Diversification Strategy. This endeavour will create up to seven new jobs in the region, and will also diversify the local economy.

Norseman Crafts of St. Anthony has received $100,000 from the SME Fund and $3,700 from the Business and Market Development Program to construct an interpretation centre at a popular tourist site focused on iceberg and whale watching. The building will house a craft shop and provide Internet access to visitors. The Fishing Point site in St. Anthony is a popular tourist area, and the addition of this centre will strengthen the area and provide focus on icebergs and whales as the main attractions for visitors. This project will lead to the creation of three new seasonal positions.

Mr. Speaker, by supporting enterprises such as these, this Administration is continuing to demonstrate its commitment to growing and diversifying our economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I wish Labrador Envirotech, Versatile Stones and Norseman Crafts success with these new ventures.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I think it is good, it is a good initiative, and certainly I applaud the minister and the department for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. I think we all recognize that it is small and medium-sized enterprises that are indeed the backbone of the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. Megaprojects come and go, and we all appreciate the benefits of them, but I think it is the staying power of those small and medium-sized enterprises that help to sustain our economy.

I would say to the minister, one way that she could help small and medium-sized enterprises is to have the Premier live up to the commitment given in the Blue Book to reduce ferry rates by 25 per cent over three years. I know of a small business on Fogo Island, a transport company, he has eight trucks and it costs him $152.50 every time he has to leave the Island.

Live up to the commitment that you gave in the Blue Book and that will be one way of ensuring that company can survive, because they are having a difficult time trying to even keep up with increased ferry rates, something that they did not expect when this government got elected.

Then, of course, there is the infamous Department of Business that we are still trying to find out what it is all about. We know that people have been hired, but nobody can point to any results. Of course, when the minister responsible, who happens to be the Premier, was asked to appear before the Estimates Committee of this House, he refused to do so. So, we still do not know what is happening with the infamous Department of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: It is another way, if this government wants to be up front and really deliver for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they might want to tell us what is going on.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also wish to congratulate the initiative of Labrador Envirotech and Versatile Stones, as well as Norseman Crafts, for their initiative and new projects. I am glad to see the government helping them out in their efforts, but I do want to say, though, we are talking here about seven new jobs in one case, three seasonal positions in another case. When you weight that in the balance of the loss of jobs in Stephenville, the loss of jobs in Harbour Breton, the loss of jobs with fish plant closures, it is not much to show for a rural diversification strategy, I say to the minister.

I congratulate these people. I think the Labrador case is one which is needed to be done to make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador firms are active - in this case, a Labrador firm active - with the Voisey's Bay project instead of a mainland firm. That should have been part of the strategy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave? Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. HARRIS: That should have been part of the strategy when Voisey's Bay was developed, that there should have been a development fund available for small business enterprise so that they could be sure to participate fully in the operations long before the project started.

I hope that in the development of the next major project that is being anticipated in Labrador, that this kind of money is being spent up front by the developers of the Lower Churchill to make sure that there is maximum participation by Newfoundland and Labrador companies in that kind of development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, Abitibi officials have stated that, tomorrow, severance cheques will be sent out to their employees in Stephenville; and, once that occurs, the mill will not reopen. I understand that the Premier, or his minister, have scheduled a conference call with the union and the company for tomorrow.

I ask the Premier: Will you be looking for solutions, an extension to the deadline, or is this just a post-mortem phone call?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the conference is already over with. It happened this morning. It is not tomorrow. It happened this morning with the union and their negotiators. In terms of - there are a couple of things I want to lay out.

One, they have another proposal going to Abitibi today, they informed us. Secondly, with respect to mediation services, which we talked to them about, we were informed this morning by the union that is something that they certainly would be looking for, but the company does not want anything to do with any mediation services.

I guess, in response to the question, the conference call occurred this morning. The union has another proposal going back to the company, and we will wait and hear what that brings this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, when Abitibi announced it was closing the Stephenville mill in July, I think it was, the only issue on the table at the time was that of energy. After the Premier announced he was willing to put in up to $175 million of taxpayers' money into that operation, the company came back, almost the very next day, I think, looking for concessions from the union.

I ask the Premier: Why did Abitibi put concessions on the table on the eleventh hour when they were not mentioned into the lead up to the closure of the mill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are not in a position to be able to control what the company does. The company is doing what it is doing and, quite frankly, a lot of it we disagree with.

We have a reached an agreement with them in good faith. We put a very reasonable offer on the table, to the best of our ability. We stretched our ability in order to try and salvage the best interests of the people in Stephenville and the Bay St. George region generally, and we worked in good faith with them.

With regard to the union itself, we also indicated to the union that they had our complete support, that we would not support any stripping of their agreement in any manner whatsoever, and indicated to them that we had reached an agreement with the company and it was now up to them to try and reach an agreement with the company themselves, which was what they wanted.

We did not act until this morning, until the minister - and the Minister of Education, as well, also had a discussion with the union this morning. Immediately after that, because I wanted to wait until that happened, I made an immediate call to John Weaver, because that was the appropriate time to do it, and indicated to him the importance of this, where the government stood, that we have put our offer forward, that, in fact, the union now had another offer that had gone to them and we expected them to act in good faith and complete the deal today and put the people of the Bay St. George region out of their misery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when in discussions with Abitibi regarding the $175 million that the Province is willing to put up to keep the mill open, the issue of concessions must have come up somewhere along the line when you or the minister were in discussions with Abitibi.

Can the minister or the Premier tell us what he or the minister said in response to the company's demand for concessions when they were raised at the negotiating table, which I obviously believe they were at the time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The premise for the Leader of the Opposition's questioning, Mr. Speaker, is not correct. It has no foundation in fact, has no foundation in truth, and it is borne out by the fact that he was not at the negotiating table.

For eighteen months, this government negotiated with Abitibi in good faith along the lines of trying to provide a solution on rising energy costs because of the increase in the cost per barrel of oil. For eighteen months, when we negotiated with Abitibi with respect to Stephenville and Stephenville only, it was about energy and energy only. We believed, and we believe today, that we met the objectives of what that mill needed to stay alive, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Not once did Abitibi talk about concessions. As a matter of fact, throughout the course of those discussions they had nothing but praise for their workforce and that the workforce in Stephenville was a model for the rest of their mills in their empire.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I thank the minister for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources are on record as saying they would not allow Abitibi to strip union contracts. Today, in Stephenville, workers are pitted against workers, community groups against the union, a friend against friend, in an effort by the company to force the union to take concessions. Premier, you sat idly by for the last couple of months and watched this psychological warfare unfold.

I ask the Premier: What are you now planning to do at this very late stage -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - in finding a resolution to the mill's problems that we have?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Sitting idly by. This is the member who said, in late July or early August, after he met with Abitibi, they were not asking for too much. When we reached an arrangement with Abitibi, he said we gave them too much. Now, which is it?

Mr. Speaker, the union themselves voted overwhelming to reject the offer by Abitibi and the raiding of their contract. We will not stand with a corporate giant against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. It will not happen!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say, finally, that the arrangements that we have put forward - and the Leader of the Opposition and his crew on the opposite side of the Legislature need to decide for themselves what side they are on - strongly supported the arrangement that we put forward by the community, by the town, by the union, and by the rank and file in the Bay St. George area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, a short time ago there was an incident at Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook, in which there were calls to 911 for ambulatory emergency care but there was no ambulance at the Health Care Corporation to respond. I ask the minister if this is a regular occurrence at Western Memorial, and has it occurred at other hospitals in that region?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am fully aware of the incident that the hon. member refers to. We have had discussions with officials at Western Health. There is presently a review being undertaken, and I encourage that review. It is important that a review of this particular incident be undertaken. I am certainly a strong believer in that once that review is completed, that not only it be shared amongst stakeholders in health but that if be made public, and I look forward to the results upon completion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that there was a private ambulance available to respond, but there was no call made by the Health Care Corporation. I do not think I have to tell the minister how serious an issue this is. It is always a life-and-death situation, and I am pleased to hear that there is an investigation.

So, I guess I have to ask: What other measures are being taken right now to restore confidence in the ambulatory and the 911 service in that area? And, also to ask: Has the Western Health Care Corporation been instructed to use private ambulatory care when their ambulances are not available?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, Western Health has put in an arrangement, along with its partners, namely: the fire department, the RCMP, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, reliable ambulance service, which is the private operator that the hon. member refers to. There is a regime in place to respond to situations when they occur, but, again, with respect to the incident, Mr. Speaker, it is obviously being taken seriously. A family has made some relatively serious allegations, as you are aware, and I look forward to the review. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is important that this review be shared with the public of the Province upon its completion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this week we asked some questions about the Eastern School District School's Organization Plan. Today the board released an explosive report, which recommends a closure of twenty or more schools and cuts to another fourteen. These cuts will adversely impact on the thousands of students in the district if these recommendations are followed.

I ask the minister: Does she agree with the recommendations contained in this report or will she take them off the table the way she did with health care recommendations that affected her own district?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, a report was released to the school board last night and released publicly today. That report was an independent report. It was done by an independent consultant by the former school board, and requested by the former Director of Education, who is no longer there to accept the report.

Mr. Speaker, the report is there. There are some very inflammatory recommendations in that report. That report has not been accepted by the board. Some recommendations may be accepted. Some may be reasonable. I think some are probably ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, I didn't request the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I did not commission the report or put the parameters to that report and I am certainly not going to stand up and publicly defend it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Very interesting, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I understand where the minister is coming from but I can assure you -

MR. SULLIVAN: What number is that?

MR. BUTLER: It is number two, I say to the Minister of Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, if these recommendations are carried out it will be another kick in the teeth to rural communities in this Province by an uncaring government. Mr. Speaker, schools are a critical part of this Province. A quick review of the report indicates closures of schools in Heart's Delight, Winterton, Green's Harbour, Holyrood area, Harbour Grace, Upper Island Cove, Clarenville, Grand Le Pierre, English Harbour East, Petit Forte, Burin Bay Arm, Lamaline and Placentia.

I ask the minister: Is she and her government willing to stand idly by and see that those closures take place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat it again, in case the hon. member did not understand the first time around.

That report was done by an independent consultant. It did not receive parameters from this government or from me, as the minister, as to how we want to see the schools shaped in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, they are recommendations. The board may go with some recommendations. They may question more, but, quite frankly, there are a number of those recommendations that will probably never be implemented. If you think for one minute that this government is uncaring or going to sit idly by, all I can do is say: stay tuned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say those were very fine comments from a minister who slashed twenty HRLE offices in rural communities and caused more hardship on the people of this Province. To say the least, I am a bit skeptical about hearing her defending rural communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this explosive report also recommends cuts at other schools in other rural communities: Western Bay, Victoria, Little Heart's Ease, Random Island, Swift Current, King's Cove, Catalina, Bonavista, and Lawn.

Does the minister understand the implications these recommended closures would have on rural areas, and which ones does she consider that should not be considered from here on in, what she just mentioned, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want the hon. member to know that I was born and raised in rural Newfoundland. I continue to live in rural Newfoundland, and I raise my family in rural Newfoundland. I happen to work in St. John's, and come here when I am needed to be here for work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bishop's Falls is not a rural (inaudible).

MS BURKE: No, Bishop's Falls is not rural Newfoundland. That is a city, that is, out there.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to say is, that was an independent report. The board will make decisions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked, and the minister has been given time to respond.

I recognize the minister and ask her to conclude her comments.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is out past the Overpass.

What I want to say, and I do not know how often I am going to have to say it for the hon. member to understand, it was an independent report. It is not a report of this government. It is not recommendations that we are bringing to the board or bringing to the people.

What is also important about that report is, that was done without consultation. The report has been written before the parents or the stakeholders have had a chance to look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: I question the logic, getting the report out there before you go out and talk to the people who have a vested interested in it. I have lots of questions on that report and, as I said, I am not publicly defending it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I say to the minister, I hope she continues on better with this report than she did with the Hay Report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I really encourage parents to read this report and get vocal about these changes, because this minister and government obviously will not stand up for the community schools in rural Newfoundland. It goes beyond rural Newfoundland, that schools are being threatened in this report. It is also neighbourhood schools right here in St. John's: St. Mary's, Virginia Park, St. John Bosco, I. J. Samson.

I ask the minister: Is she willing to allow this board to abandon such sound educational principles and allow the accountants to control what is happening to our education system, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show, when you come in with prescripted questions, you do not know what you are responding to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: You have to respond to the same question over and over, because the answer is there but you have to stand up with your script.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Opposition finally realize that government does sometimes have to make decisions and have to work with boards, and we do not arbitrarily let the boards sometimes come out with consultative reports -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: - that is how it stands. A prime example of that was in the Hay Report. There was stuff in the Hay Report that did not make any sense at all and it was pulled off the table!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I will overlook the minister's arrogance, but I say to her: I hope she gets involved, like the Premier did, in the Exploits by-election.

Mr. Speaker, this whole process is mired in politics. How can parents expect to get a fair hearing from this school board when the director is a defeated PC candidate who was hired through a flawed process involving an appointed board stacked with PC hacks?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: One thing I want to make perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, is, when that new Director of Education was hired, he was not given the questions to the interview.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, that particular situation she is talking about, the questions, there was no process to go through. There were no positions filled, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave District.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say that Mr. King did not need any questions.

Mr. Speaker, the defeated PC candidate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is going to be impossible to continue if we do not have the co-operation of members. I am asking members on both sides for their co-operation. Time is passing.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave, who is putting a question.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The defeated PC candidate in the District of Grand Bank, Darin King, was hired by an appointed board which included former political staff people from the PC Party.

Given that Mr. King is now about to make decisions about cuts to the school system impacting on thousands of students, will the Premier admit that this is one of the many political friends he has put in place to carry out his plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to defend Dr. Darin King. He is well qualified for the position, and he just happens to have been a former candidate. He happens to be a person, I guess, who ran in an election but is well qualified for the position.

What I need to make perfectly clear here is the fact that Dr. Darin King is the Director of Education and there is an elected school board that represents the people that will make the decisions and that will review the recommendations and that will consult with the stakeholders out there as they move forward with their plans for the education (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are also for the Minister of Education, concerning the school organization plan.

Mr. Speaker, this consultant's report, that is called a consultant's report only by the minister, has quickly turned into a plan to close nineteen schools, to downgrade ten others, and take programs away, close part of them, and to remove programs from some other schools. This board is determined to make a decision on this in the first week or early March, they say in their comments, and the only consultation they are planning is allowing people to make written submissions between now and the end of January, during the Christmas season and the federal election and all of that.

Is the minister satisfied that there has been adequate consultation and this plan is going to allow people to adequately assess what is going on and make the proper kind of representation to ensure that whatever changes are made, are made with full, whole consultation with everybody having an opportunity to participate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up a very important point in this process. There will need to be consultation on any recommendations that the board feels is reasonable and may be implemented. I really do not feel it is necessary to consult on stuff that will never happen. But, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of dynamics going on right now. Christmas is coming up. There is a federal election on the go, but I do feel that if we are going to move forward and make any fundamental decisions or anything that is reasonable, that the stakeholders and the parents who have some say in this process, have to have access to an appropriate consultation process, and I will ensure that that happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In this report there is no reference whatsoever to school -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report makes no reference to school attendance zones, which is very important for the survival of particular schools and the closure of others. There is no adequate consultation, as the minister, I think, now agrees, but I am very interested - maybe she should tell the people of the Eastern School District what stuff will never happen because that will, perhaps, alleviate some of the concerns.

I know there is a proposed new school for Torbay, which was predicted in this House by me a couple of weeks ago, but what stuff will never happen, so that some of the people can stop worrying and not have to worry over Christmas about whether a school will be closed or downgraded or treated in the matter that this report recommends?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the board that received the report last night, the report was tabled to them last night. They have to review the report. They have to meet as a board and they have to make some decisions. I will work with the board; they will have to work with the people they represent; they will have to work with the communities. I cannot give a date as to when they are going to come back and remove some issues that will not need consultation because they are not going to be implemented, but I will work with the board. I will speak to the board and I will see what kind of time lines they will establish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we all know by now of the political patronage appointments by this Premier. We hear of people being appointed with no qualifications for their positions. Mr. Speaker, the height of political patronage reached its limit when the Premier got his Chief Financial Officer from the last election, who happens to be the Vice-President of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, and appointed her to the Transition Committee on the school board and now she is seconded, taken from her job at the College of the North Atlantic - doing what, we are not sure - and she is working now for the Department of Education.

I ask the minster: What is the official title that Nada Borden has? What are her duties and where is her office located?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the person whom the hon. member is referencing right now is Nada Borden. Nada Borden has been working in the field of education for quite some time. I am not sure, right now, what her title is. I will take the questions under advisement and I will provide the information to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, just to show the political patronage of this position, under the Freedom of Information this person is a consultant for the White Paper, on the $96 million White Paper, and the minister does not even know, and does not even know where her office is? She is getting paid -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is her office?

MR. JOYCE: Where is her office? We do not know. I have a good idea. Here we are shipping seniors out because we do not have the money. Shame, minister! Shame on you, you do not know where she is and how she is getting paid.

Mr. Speaker, this is the height of political patronage. Her old position is being filled by another instructor. The competition was advertised, interviews held, and the selection made for her old position. She is retired or soon to be retired. She is retired. The position is filled. It states any information obtained by the Freedom of Information request that the Department of Education is reimbursing the College of the North Atlantic.

I ask the minister: How much will this blatant political appointment cost the taxpayers of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will report back on the details of the secondment, but that was an issue that was resolved between the Department of Education and the College of the North Atlantic and was not made at the political level.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, here we have the minister for Humber East saying they never had the money to keep the seniors and here is the minister, she does not know how much it is costing her department? You don't know how much it is costing your department to have her seconded? You don't know?

Under the Freedom of Information, your department is reimbursing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the information we received under the Freedom of Information -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: - had a request for Ms Borden to be given a position from her job for the 2005-2006 school year, with renewal on a school year basis. If you want the information, I will give it to you. The actual letter requested that she be at this position from August to December, 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Now that we know Ms Borden has retired, or soon will be retired, will this position be filled by a permanent employee? Will the minister tell the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocation of sixty seconds has expired. I would ask if there is a response from the government side?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, if the secondment in which this person has gone into is a permanent position, it will be filled on a permanent basis. If it was a contract position for a time limited period, it will be fulfilled as the person retires. If it becomes a permanent position of the department, we will fill it on a permanent basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for one more question.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, people in my district cannot get fair treatment in getting the roads they live on cleared during this winter.

I have a question for the Premier. I want to know: How much did it cost the taxpayers of this Province to pave the road to your golf course in Southlands?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there was land that was developed in the Southlands area that was owned by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and there was going to be a second development going in that area as well. There were complaints by the residents of that area, who have some very expensive homes in that area, who have made representation to the City of St. John's about the fact that the roads were not paved into the subdivision. The paving would have happened as the second phase of the development went ahead. But, Mr. Speaker, the city approached Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to have the road that was put in by the previous government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table for hon. members the Department of Government Services Annual Report. This report also includes the following: the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Committee; the Boiler Pressure Vessel Appeals Board; the Boiler Pressure Vessel Advisory Board; the Buildings Accessibility Appeals Tribunal; and, the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table Activity Letters for the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Board and the Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Appeal Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports by standing and select committees?

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am pleased to table the following documents today: the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In the routine proceedings, we are doing Tabling of Documents.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, today I table documents from: the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation; the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation; the Newfoundland and Labrador Industrial Development Corporation; and, the Lottery Corporation.

Also, pursuant to Section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 fiscal year.

Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 2005, I wish to table the attached list of guarantees that are provided to local governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects.

The first report that was prepared under Section 5 of the act includes those guarantees issued between January 14, 2004 and June 8, 2004 under the authority of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, and the guarantees provided under the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 2005, from June 9, 2004.

Further, pursuant to section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling twenty Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2006-2007 to the 2011-2012 fiscal year.

Further, I would like to table before this hon. House the 2004 Annual Report of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Pooled Pension Fund. This report includes all of the financial statements for the fund for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, that will conclude the reports for today at least.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MS DUNDERDALE: Pursuant to section 7.(4) of the Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises Act, I wish to table the attached list of companies that have entered into EDGE contracts with the Province since the last report to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, and myself, I am pleased to table today the Annual Report of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

Also, I am pleased to table today the Annual Report for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we all realize that things can get raucous sometimes during Question Period, depending on the type of questions being asked, and responses, but I would just like to make a point that the Speaker brought the Member for Bay of Islands to an abrupt halt during Question Period and said he had exceeded his sixty seconds to ask a question.

I have been here in this position for a little while, and I do not know at what time I have ever been told or advised - I know we have thirty minutes for Question Period, and I know we are told to keep the questions short and keep the answers short, and we do not always follow those rules, but I certainly was never aware that we were limited to sixty seconds to ask a question or sixty seconds to give an answer in that case.

I think, if we are going to be bound by certain rules from the Chair in that regard, rather than abruptly sit a member down in that case, I think we ought to know the rules that we are playing by here in the first instance.

The other part of the point is, we have a stopwatch over here, too, and it was not sixty seconds in the case of the third question by the Member for Bay of Islands.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is normally wide latitude. I do not think the member has a point of order, personally, and I will explain why. There is normally wide latitude given in terms of - particularly with different issues, the Speaker, sort of, judges the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I listened to the member opposite, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I don't expect the same courtesy, if you would be okay with that. Thank you very much.

The fact of the matter is, that when you are on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I only asked. I only asked.

I say to the Member for Bellevue, again, I sit and listen to every member as respectfully as I can. Even you, I do that to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I mean that. I do it to everybody. No, no, I did not mean - hold on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, please -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am trying to speak to the point of order. I did not mean that to come out like it sounded and I apologize to the member because I was just trying to reference when everybody speaks. No, I apologize for that. It did not mean to come out that way.

To the point of order that the member raised. Normally when members ask a question, you have wide latitude on your first question and then supplementary questions are supposed to be more to the point and not an opportunity to give a speech. Now, the member has been sat down. The Premier was sat down yesterday because he was going on too long. I have been sat down. The Minister of Health has been sat down. So, I think that, on balance, the Speaker has done, generally, a very good job of trying to provide fairness to everybody in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to belabour the point. I have no disagreement with the comments of the Government House Leader as to how we have done it. My concern was the comment by the Speaker about the sixty seconds. I realize, and I agree with what the Government House Leader just said but, all of a sudden, when we are told in the middle of Question Period that you have sixty seconds. I am not aware of such a rule that we are bound by here or we are ever expected to be bound by. I have no problem with people getting sat down. I just want to know, as a point of order in this House, is there such a rule? And, if so, we will live by the rules as well. I just was not aware of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair attempts to be fair to all members in this House everyday. Members of the House will recall that, on several occasions, I have mentioned that we would try to keep our questions and keep our answers within the general sixty seconds.

Some Houses have adopted very strict rules. In Ottawa, it is thirty-five seconds for questions. It is thirty-five seconds for answers. Some Houses have forty-five seconds for questions and forty-five seconds for answers. In fact, the Canadian average now is moving towards forty-five seconds for questions and forty-five seconds for answers. In some places, like in Nova Scotia, you have a little longer time. In New Brunswick, it is sixty seconds for a question, maximum, and sixty seconds for the answer. My tendency, and I said to the House two weeks ago, that I would try to keep questions and answers to a maximum of sixty seconds. That was said by the Speaker. The general rule - members can look at the record in Hansard, it is there. If the House leadership has difficulty with that, I suggest they would consult with the Speaker and perhaps take it up in the appropriate forum.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My petition today is surrounding a resolution that was forwarded to me by the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union Local 63 in Grand Falls-Windsor and it came out of their regular meeting on November 23. They wanted me to present this petition and ask government to support their resolution. It goes on to talk about the importance of the forestry industry to our Province and to our country. It calls upon this government, along with our federal government, to put into place a National Forest Strategy; investments in forest land base; assistance to the industry; action to provide stable and affordable energy for the forestry sector; a strong stand to defend Canadian workers, communities and companies affected by the Softwood Lumber dispute; government's fiscal policy to ensure the value of the Canadian dollar maintains in competitiveness of our forestry industry; labour involvement in the forestry industry sector council to be involved in forest industry policy, worker training and adjustment programs.

What they are saying in this resolution is that - when I relay it to the situation in Grand Falls-Windsor - on April 27 of this year the axe came down for Grand Falls-Windsor when our mill was faced with closure of number seven paper machine, and here we are now, almost eight months later, and we really do not have a clear outlook on what is going to happen to our mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. We have asked the government to stand to Bill 27. They said they will. However, even at this date, we still do not know what is going to happen. I spoke to John Weaver, CEO and President of Abitibi, last week. I made a telephone call to John Weaver, and he told me that their ultimate goal was to actually take out the number seven paper machine. He did not define any time line. He did not define any amount of money that would be used for upgrades to number three machine and he also had no interest in upgrading number seven paper machine.

Mr. Speaker, these are the issues that are out there. They have been out there for eight months. It has affected our economy in Grand Falls-Windsor and all of Central Newfoundland. There has been a cloud of uncertainty hovering around Grand Falls-Windsor and, in fact, you can see it. We don't have the construction this year that we have had other years in the past, our commercial construction is down, a lot of people who have had business expansion plans have put them on hold, and people who have been wanting to purchase big ticket items have no idea what the future will hold for them in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Even though the government are saying they are going to stand to Bill 27, they have not secured from the company their plans about reinvestment in number seven paper machine, nor have they secured from the company the plans to upgrade number three machine, nor where the money will come from. There has been disagreement, really, with regard to the investment in number three paper machine. When I spoke to John Weaver myself, he indicated that it would take about $20 million to upgrade number three paper machine, but the reports I have heard out of Grand Falls-Windsor from the company, from the union and from other people, and indeed from government itself, is they are talking in the area of $40 million to $60 million. Who is right in this regard, and when can we expect to get a clear answer for the people in Grand Falls-Windsor? We are almost approaching a new year now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: May I have a moment just to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS THISTLE: We will soon be leaving this hon. House for the Christmas recess, and it is on the minds and in the hearts of everybody in Grand Falls-Windsor and in Central Newfoundland, that we have to get these issues cleared up. We have to start off our new year knowing that we have two paper machines in our mill. We have to start off in the new year knowing that we have a company that is going to upgrade our number three and our number seven, so people can get on with their lives.

I would ask the government to go and talk to the company and get those clear answers for the people of Central Newfoundland

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of my district, concerning Sunday hunting.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in this Province take part in hunting activities throughout the year and, indeed, they spend a lot of money in the economy pursuing this activity. It is past time that the laws of this Province were changed, that the regulations were changed, that will allow hunting to take part on Sundays.

Mr. Speaker, some of the outfitters in this Province have expressed concern as well. For example, some of the outfitters who conduct activities in Northern Labrador, on the Quebec border, are facing competition from their Quebec counterparts; because, in the Province of Quebec, Sunday hunting is allowed in that area. Therefore, they find it more difficult to attract customers. They are at an unfair advantage, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to attracting customers because of the fact that camps next to them, a couple of kilometres away, hunters are allowed to come in there and hunt on Sundays.

Also, Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province work Monday to Friday, leaving very little time to pursue hunting activities. You finish up on a Friday night, you finish work, you drive a long distance in many cases to get where you are going to hunt, and if you have an unsuccessful day on Saturday then you have to turn around and drive home Sunday morning. You may pass a moose or caribou, or whatever it is that you happen to be hunting, on your way home; but, because of the fact that it is Sunday, you are not allowed to hunt. That is unfair, Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the people who signed this petition, and myself. We think it is high time that this rule is changed, and allow people to hunt on Sundays.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in Labrador, for example, during the caribou hunt, many times we travel 200 or 300 miles to where the caribou herds may be. If you do not happen to see any animals on your way Saturday, and you are coming back home on Sunday and you run into 400 or 500 animals on a lake, you are 100 miles from the closest person but, because again of the fact it is Sunday, you are not allowed to harvest the animals that you have a licence for.

We are calling on the minister to initiate the change in the regulation that will allow Sunday hunting to take place, and we ask the minister to do this immediately so that the caribou hunt in Labrador can be conducted on Sundays in the upcoming year, and that, for next year, in the entire Province, the people who hunt big game will be able to do it during the season.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave of the House to make a statement, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The member seeks leave to make a statement to the House.

Has leave been granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In May, 1993, I walked through the doors of the House of Assembly for the first time. It was indeed an awesome feeling. Today, I stand to make what may be my final few comments in this hon. Chamber as the Member of the House for the great District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

I would like to thank some people who have been involved in my political career thus far. As always, may I begin by thanking my wife, Sandra, and our three children, Fabian Jr., Mark and Heather. Without their constant support, encouragement and love, this dream of mine would never have become a reality.

All of our families play an important role in our political lives and create a solid foundation so we can continue to do the work we were all elected to do. Many things may change us, but we start and end with family. To my parents, Walter and Julia Manning, who have always stood with me through the challenges of public life, thank you for your support and encouragement throughout the years.

To my loyal and trusted personal assistant, Ekie O'Reilly, who has gone above and beyond to ensure my office and my constituents were always well taken care of. To the people of the former District of St. Mary's-The Capes, and the present District of Placentia & St. Mary's, I want to thank them for allowing me the honour and the privilege of being their voice in the House of Assembly. I have strived each and every day to give it my best and, all the while, have created magnificent memories that will, indeed, last a lifetime.

To all the people who are a part of the operation of the House of Assembly, from our Table officers to the many Pages throughout the years, to the people who produce Hansard each day. I remember many notes being sent my way from the Hansard office, wondering about what exactly it was that I had said. Many times I could not even remember myself. I thank them for their patience.

To our Sergeant-at-Arms, thank you, and may you enjoy good health in the years ahead. Thank you to all our security personnel and Commissionaires who play an important role here each and every day. I have enjoyed some wonderful conversations with these people over the years.

To our Broadcast Centre personnel, the Legislative Library, who work behind the scenes, thank you for your assistance and co-operation. Thank you to the members of the media, who have treated me very well over the last twelve-and-a-half years.

I would like to thank all the Members of the House of Assembly, both past and present, for the opportunity to work side by side with them through our different roles here in the House of Assembly as we worked together for the betterment of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Politics for all of us is a temporary trust, and it will come to an end. All that is left at the end of the day is a sense of satisfaction of what we were able to achieve, and about our family and friends.

Colleagues, today I leave what has become a second home, a place where I have made friends and, as I have said before, created many, many memories that will last a lifetime.

May I take this opportunity to once again say thank you, and may the spirit of Christmas fill your hearts and homes throughout the coming days.

Until we meet again, may God hold each and every one of you in the palm of his hand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By leave, in keeping with the traditions of this House on past occasions when members have indicated their leave-taking from this House, I would like to say a couple of words recognizing the importance of the occasion when a member, having served this House for eight years, has decided to move on.

It is indeed, as the member said, a great privilege and honour to serve in the House of Assembly, and the member has done so on two separate occasions, with a small break in between, and has earned the respect of people on all sides of the House for his work in the Assembly.

In the past we have - I remember, in 1997, when the former Member for St. John's West, Rex Gibbons, left this House to seek a seat in the House of Commons, comments were made about the importance of the role of a person in our Legislature, and acknowledgment that, in leaving in the way that he is, an hon. resignation to seek a seat in the House of Commons, that, too, is an honour and a privilege which I have had. I have had the occasion to serve in the House of Commons.

I think, as was said on that occasion from other parties, we wish him well but not too well in the immediate future, seeing as how members of other parties support other candidates.

I do wish to acknowledge the service of the hon. member in the House. I think, regardless of political parties and regardless of political differences, we all share the privilege and honour of sitting in this House of Assembly, speaking on behalf of our constituents, and doing the best job we can in the circumstances that are presented to us.

I would like to acknowledge the member for his service to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Motion 2, dealing with the resolution before the House with respect to the future of the Citizens' Representative.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 has been called.

Motion 2, the motion moved by the hon. the Government House Leader.

The last day, I do believe, we had an amendment put forward and the Chair had ruled that the amendment was in order. Therefore, we are now debating the amendment put forward by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

I believe we were having speakers to that amendment and that is where we are in the proceedings right now.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: If there is no one else speaking that is fine, but I understood that the debate stopped when I raised the point of order during the speech of the Government House Leader. I do not know if he wishes to continue his speech or is going to pass it on, but since Your Honour went to the Member for the Bay of Islands, I just want to remind the House that it was during the speech to the amendment of the Government House Leader that the proceedings were adjourned. If the Government House Leader is finished his speech, then that is fine with me.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was merely indicating where we were in the proceedings and then the Chair looks around the Chamber to see who is standing in their place. The Chair recognized the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands who was the member standing at that particular time. I assume that is the person who was standing, unless there is some agreement otherwise.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, as I began the other day, and I think it is important that we all understand and recognize that - I guess in the twelve years that I have been in the House of Assembly, this is the first time that the House has been asked to deal with one of the independent officers in the House through a resolution. I think it is important that we take as much time as necessary, all of us, to do exactly that, to debate and discuss. I think some of the points made by members the last day about the information that members had, but certainly wanted to be made public, was important. The Internal Economy Commission met. I know myself, the Member for Bellevue, temporarily the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans and other members met, and we released the report through the Speaker - or gave direction to the Chair of IEC, which is you, Mr. Speaker, to release that report.

This has been a very difficult situation since the tabling of the Auditor General's report last year. I have said very little publicly, as members of the IEC, or the Commission, directed the Speaker to be the person speaking on this matter until we could bring some resolve to it.

Now, for the record, I think it is important for us to understand how this transpired in the last year. Last December the Auditor General tabled a report. For the record, the Auditor General is also an independent Officer of this House, and I want to take some exception right upfront to the remarks that I have heard publicly from Mr. March, who I have known for some time, a likeable gentleman, but I do take exception to the remarks that he has made publicly about the bureaucracy being after him and somebody else being after him. I can say with absolute honestly - and I think all members who sit on the IEC can say with absolute honestly - that we tried to deal with this issue in the most professional, upfront and respectful way to Mr. March. To the best of my knowledge, there was no interference by the bureaucracy. The situation that the Citizens' Representative finds himself in is because of a situation by another independent Officer of this House when he made some judgements on - the Auditor General goes into every department. So, let me say that up front.

After the Auditor General's report was tabled there were significant concerns registered, and that is part of the public record. I am not going to rehash that today, but what was of paramount importance to the members of the IEC, what was of critical importance, was that this is a situation that we had an obligation and a duty to deal with the serious allegations made in the Auditor General's report. Your Honour, I repeat that for everybody who is listening. That we had an obligation and a duty to deal with the allegations that were made by one independent Officer of the House on another independent Officer of the House, because that is exactly the situation that we, as members of this Legislature and your representatives on the Internal Economy Commission, found ourselves in.

One of the decisions we took immediately - there was lots of correspondence that was transferred back and forth, and that is all matter of the public record. I know that the Citizens' Representative has said on occasion: I've got all the transcripts. I can support what I am saying today with absolute factual information. I know he has said publicly that he has never been given - I think back last May, that he wanted to meet with the IEC - or last March, I think some time - but that opportunity was never provided. I want to say right upfront today, that is an absolute fallacy. The Citizens' Representative was provided, last spring, with three separate opportunities to come to meet with the Internal Economy Commission. I do not accept the notion that he should come before the House and speak to members.

Members need to ask themselves this question: Has the Citizens' Representative phoned you individually, to come and meet with you about the concerns that he had? I would certainly be willing to meet with him. I state that for the record today. I would be willing to meet with him prior to when we vote upon this, but that call has never come. I want to be absolutely crystal clear, that in terms of process, the Internal Economy Commission provided the Citizens' Representative, on three separate occasions, for him to come meet with us, and he refused each one of them. We even provided him the opportunity to say that we would meet in the House. The commission, on behalf of all of us, would provide him the opportunity for paying for any legal costs that he felt that he should have joining him at that meeting, and he said: No. It goes against the statements that were made publicly, as if we, as a Commission, had some deep, dark, undermining reason that we wanted to get rid of the current Citizens' Representative. I take offence to those statements. I take offence to them on behalf of the Commission. I take offence to them as a member of this Legislature because what we were concerned about, and were only concerned about, was that due process would be served, and I believe it was.

The Commission, in a unanimous way, decided that in order to bring more clarity to this issue - there were questions raised about what the Auditor General had said. There were other questions raised with respect to the Citizens' Representative's view of that. We made a unanimous decision to hire an independent legal council.

Now, the question that we need to ask and the question that begs to be answered is: Why did we hire an independent legal council, because this House has jurisdiction over itself? This House is the sole arbitrator of decisions within its domain. We did not wish to involve any department of government, nor did we. We did not ask the Department of Justice to provide us an opinion, nor would we. So we hired a very reputable, independent legal council to provide for us an assessment of the issues that were contained in that report. A very in-depth analysis was tabled here yesterday for all members of this House and for every person in the general public to look at.

This is not a partisan issue. I have listened to the Citizens' Representative publicly talk about the partisanship potentially of this. I take exception to that, because this is not a partisanship issue. The current Citizens' Representative finds himself in a situation of his own doing, not of the doing of members of this House, irrespective of our political affiliation.

The independent legal report that we commissioned came as a result of actions initiated by the Citizens' Representative himself, and the allegations and commentary that was provided by another independent officer of this House, the Auditor General. That caused the IEC and the Internal Economy Commission to take the action that it deemed was appropriate, maintaining this: what was paramount was, the credibility of the Citizens' Representative Office was at stake; and, more importantly, or at least of equal importance, but in my view more importantly, the credibility of the House of Assembly was at stake, the credibility of each and every individual member in our ability, or our inability, which will be judged over time, to deal with this issue effectively.

I want to say for the record that I take exception to any commentary by anybody, the Citizens' Representative, the current one, or anybody else, who says that this is a personality-driven issue. It is not, and I am willing to say that here or anywhere else.

The fact of the matter is this - again, I want to come back to the point that I made earlier - that we have a duty and an obligation, as individual members in this House, to decide for ourselves, as individual members, on how we are going to vote on this issue. How I wish to vote, or how the Member for the Bay of Islands wishes to vote, that is a matter between me and my own conscience on the merit, or demerit, of the argument that has been put before us. We need not judge each other on how we vote because that is an individual decision that we, as members, have been asked to make, and one we must, like it or not.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the issues - I am not going to go into all of the issues that are here; they are a matter of the public record - the process, in my view, has been well served. We have struggled with this as an Internal Economy Commission because of what I just outlined; because, not only is the reputation of an individual who has played a critical role and an important role in the development of Newfoundland and Labrador's society, particularly in the trade union movement, at stake - that is one thing that we need to balance and weigh - but, again, what is important for us to understand, and from my point of view as an individual member, is that really what is at stake is the credibility of that office. We have been asked today to make a judgement on whether the conduct of the Citizens' Representative is such that it has warranted his absolute dismissal from the position that he is in.

I want to just take a moment, if I could, to belabour again, this House, as an institution, its credibility is at stake. For us to ignore, out of hand, the allegations made by another independent officer of this House would not do - if we ignored that all together, and forgot about those allegations, and did not deal with them in the way that we are expected to deal with them, then what are we saying about ourselves or what do we say then about another independent officer of our House? That his opinion is not worth the paper it is written on? That the role that the Auditor General of this Province plays as an independent officer of the House of Assembly, independent, arm's-length from government, that his opinion does not matter? Are we saying that, if we say it there, does it mean that what he says about any other government department, that does not matter either?

We were in a situation where we had the institution itself, the House of Assembly, two independent officers; in terms of what was discovered, and the responses, where did we go? Here is where we went. We went directly to independent legal counsel to investigate the matters in a more diligent and in-depth way. Now, I am not going to go through the three issues that the independent legal counsel identified, because one of them is enough for me to cast my vote.

I was a member of the IEC when Mr. March was hired as Citizens' Representative, so I have been part of the history of the creation of this office. I did not come to it lately. I was part of the Official Opposition at the time.

The independent legal review, in my estimation, if you look at it, has uncovered what I think presents us with what I believe is no other choice. It certainly has provided me and has directed me, as an individual member of this House, with why I will be voting in the affirmative for this very, very important resolution. The issue is the contravention of the act by the Citizens' Representative.

When Mr. March was hired, everybody understood that the Citizens' Representative can only work for the citizens of the Province. As a matter of fact, the legislative framework that we operate under, that he operates under, or any future Citizens' Representative operates under, means that he can only work for the citizens and the Citizens' Representative. No Citizens' Representative, irrespective of who they are, is allowed to do work for anybody else - is not allowed to get paid for doing work for anybody else.

Now, while it is clear that Mr. March was under the impression, apparently provided by a former premier, Premier Grimes, that he had some things that he had to clear up with respect to another involvement with the trade union he used to be part of, it is very clear that in the analysis from the legal opinion that much more work occurred while he was Citizens' Representative. That work continued to be contracted with NAPE. Now, it could be NAPE, it could be Fortis Properties, it could be Aliant, it could be DF Barnes, it could be a corner grocery store, the law of this Province is clear, that as Citizens' Representative you can only work for the citizens, and to do otherwise you contravene the Act, you contravene the legislation. As individual members in this House, one of our obligations and duties is to live within and uphold the legislation of the Province. Our other duty is that if we don't like it we have an obligation to move or change it, which we do all the time in this House.

For me, the analyses provided by the independent legal opinion with respect to Mr. March's extracurricular work activities are sufficient on the face of it, and in my view demonstrate clearly, and without question, the fact that Mr. March knowingly - because his own public statements which are laid out there, both in a very public and an open line way for example, demonstrate that while he was conducting such work and while he was doing such work, he was also saying publicly to citizens, I am not allowed to do anything other than be the Citizens' Representative. My opinion is based upon the legal opinion that was provided to the IEC, it is based upon a process that we went through, that we believe was due process, that served the interests of everybody involved well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, and having laid that out, because I think it is important to lay the process out, to recap I will say this: Opportunity was provided for Mr. March to meet with the IEC on three separate occasions, he refused. Opportunity was provided for Mr. March that the IEC, meaning the House of Assembly, would pay for his legal counsel for those meeting, he refused. I reference that again just to drive home the point, because the Citizens' Representative has been saying that, that opportunity was not provided to him. It was. He has had a full year to meet with individual members in this House, if he so sought to or if he wished to. If he had called me I would have called him back. If he wanted to meet with me, I would have met him. I doubt that there is a member in this House who would not have afforded him that courtesy. I am convinced of that, but I do not know if he did. I can only speak for myself. I know that he did not call me and ask to meet with me. Whether he did with other members on the other side of the House, I would be interested in hearing that. I would be very interested in hearing if Mr. March, who has asked to meet with MHAs, and we provided him to meet with the committee of the House, known as the IEC, but I would be very interested in hearing if Mr. March himself, in saying publicly that he wanted to meet with MHAs, I would interested in hearing if he phoned and asked for such a meeting. Or, the converse of that, if any member had phoned and asked him, because I think that is very, very important. I will say, for myself again, that if Mr. March wants to meet with me, all he has to do is phone and I will provide him that courtesy, because I think it would be important to do so. But, to date, since last year's tabling or filing of the Auditor General's report, I have never received such a call.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the amendment put forward by the member, and when we get back to the main resolution, I will be voting for the dismissal of the Citizens' Representative; not because of any personal differences that I have, because I know of none that I have with the man, but because of the absolute contravention of the act itself, which we, as Legislators in this Legislature, have the duty and the obligation to uphold.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Government House Leader, definitely, I understand the position that you are in. I can assure all members here, and the IEC, that I am not here to criticize or attack the IEC or the Auditor General. I am just not here to do it and there is no suggestion that anybody said I would be, but I will be supporting the amendment put forth by the Member for Grand Bank that we afford Mr. Fraser March the opportunity to speak here in front of all of us.

I do not want to get into the details of the report that was done because that speaks for itself and, you know, with legal opinions sometimes you can get one from one law firm and another one from another law firm. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am just saying sometimes - and that is why we have a court. Sometimes in a court they decide which legal opinion that they are going to agree.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go back to my own personal situation - and if you want to talk about a chance to plead your case and a chance to stand up and say what was the real truth of it and to be heard. I just want to go back to last year - well, 2003 when I won the election in the Bay of Islands. I know the Speaker and the IEC are well aware of all of this, but two months after, the day before - they had sixty days, I think it was, for the election to be contested. I received notice on, I think it was December 19, at my Christmas party; Christmas Bay of Islands party. That is when the notice was timed to be served to me from the respondent. At that time it was Mike Monaghan. It was the Christmas party, the last day. It was not 10:00 a.m. in the day when it was given to the media. It was late in the evening at my Christmas party. It was given to me, that I was named as a respondent to overturn the election of the Bay of Islands. All that day it was in the media, the whole domain, about how Eddie Joyce, the Member for the Bay of Islands - my name was mentioned. It wasn't the member, because Eddie Joyce was named as the respondent for all the allegations that were made in the District of the Bay of Islands.

To accompany all of these allegations, there were some thirty affidavits that were signed by people, sworn to and delivered to the court, to bring this case to court. I think there were twenty-eight or thirty, somewhere in that range. Everybody here is aware that an affidavit is a legal document, and that when you sign it you swear it to be true. There were some twenty-eight or thirty affidavits that accompanied this petition to court saying that this election should be overturned, and I was named as the respondent. The whole day, in the whole public domain, I had to defend these affidavits that were made by Mr. Monaghan in the courts about me. I make no bones about it, I have said it, there is no doubt in my mind that this was politically motivated. Absolutely, no doubt in my mind.

I will just give you an example. Mike Monaghan, who happened to be the person who ran against me - sure, he is a good friend of the Premier, that is fine - he is now Vice-Chair of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. John Sweetland, one of the lawyers who helped with this case for Mike Monaghan, he is now Vice-Chair of the Labour Relations Board. Kimberly Burridge, another lawyer who represented Mike Monaghan, or was the lead lawyer, she is appointed to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. I guess that is all by coincidence, I guess it is. This is why it puts me in bad taste with this whole incident with Fraser March, how people can go out and get affidavits signed, take the affidavits, put them in court, and have me dragged through it.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, and anybody who read the affidavits, there were some thirty affidavits written, put in the court with the petition by Mike Monaghan to have this election overturned. Out of the say thirty affidavits, there was not one mention of my name. There was not one mention of a Liberal worker. There was not one mention of a Liberal person who was connected to my campaign in one of those affidavits, and I had to go out and defend the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff because they were not named in this as a co-respondent, or as a respondent or as a first respondent. They were not mentioned. Every accusation that was made in those affidavits dealt with the DRO or the poll clerks under the Chief Electoral Office staff. Every one, but yet my name was in the domain about how my election was challenged for irregularities, and I was the defendant.

AN HON. MEMBER: It had nothing to do with you.

MR. JOYCE: It had not one thing to do with me. Absolutely, not one! Not one person they dealt with was mentioned in one of the affidavits. And you wonder why we think people should be able to come and appear and explain their case.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go through a few affidavits that were put in. As we all know, an affidavit is somebody swears that what they are saying is supposed to be true, or to the best of their knowledge it is supposed to be true. Just to give you one of the affidavits that was put in, Mr. Speaker. It was put in by a guy from Curling. It was about a polling station over in the town of Irishtown and Summerside, in a Summerside poll. The affidavit was that the DRO, who was not from the area, she, that day - when fifty-three people came in - he left, I think, 2:20 that afternoon. Fifty-three people came in and she never asked for one ID from one person coming in. She never asked one person to swear on the Bible; not one person out of the fifty-three. She did not, at any time, ask anybody for an ID; she was not from the area. That was put in the affidavit in the court that I had to go and try to defend this DRO and poll clerk.

When the truth came out, the person who was named in that affidavit for that day, never worked for the Clerk Electoral Officer - was never working that day and not even from the area. She was living over on the other side of the bay. Never, ever worked that day for the Chief Electoral Officer, but her name was put in an affidavit in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and she may have to go defend herself, why she never asked people for IDs. She never worked that day - never worked that day - so, you wonder, from my first-hand experience, why we think we should give people and afford people to come in and state their case.

Now, we have to remember here, Mike Monaghan is a lawyer, John Sweetland is a lawyer, Kimberly Burridge is a lawyer; so, when they hand in an affidavit that they assume is going to be true, you say: Well, boy, that has to be right because three lawyers are agreeing with that.

Here is this person who, when she saw a copy of this here, she nearly fainted. She could not believe that her name was put in a Supreme Court document and she was not even working that day. The Chief Electoral Officer, at a later date, confirmed that person did not work for the Chief Electoral Officer that day - and you wonder why we need an opportunity to go and defend ourselves.

Another affidavit was put in, Mr. Speaker, and this was part - as we all know, at election time, at 8:00 p.m. the doors have to be closed. There was an affidavit put in, which again we all assumed was true. It was signed by the people or sworn by the people. Mike Monaghan put it in with his case. The affidavit said that the door at the church, which holds, I think, six or eight polling booths, was not locked at 8:00 p.m. An affidavit - a very serious allegation.

You get the affidavits and, in between that, I, someone who had absolutely nothing to do with it, someone who was not involved whatsoever, because I was named as a respondent, which I had absolutely nothing to do with, and because I had to defend the people I knew, because the Chief Electoral Officer never got involved with it, because he was not named as a respondent, I had to go hire a lawyer, which I did.

In between, the gist of all of this, when the truth came out about the door not being locked, the building manager that day who was controlling the whole building, at 8:00 p.m. when he locked the door, he noticed that the lock was not working properly. What he did, he stood at the door and, as people left, he let them out. In between that, he called the maintenance manager of that place, of that church, to come and fix the lock. The maintenance manager happens to be an RCMP officer.

When the truth came out, the door was not locked because the guy was fixing the lock. There was not one person that went in or out. The people who were in there voted, left, but anybody who was not in there at 8:00 p.m. was not allowed back in.

We have two people who are saying, here is what happened. Yet, the person who was supposed to oversee the building, or the election that day at those polling stations, had to defend himself to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador for an affidavit that you say, well, it has to be true because three lawyers did this so they have to know what they are talking about. When this man sat down and pleaded his case and said, here is what happened, they said, (inaudible) affidavit, okay, that one does not count. That one was thrown out.

This is why we need an opportunity for Mr. March. I do not even know Mr. March. I do not know if I ever spoke to the man in my life. I may have said hi to him in passing. I do not even know the guy. I have no malice towards him, if he should stay or go. I have no malice whatsoever towards Mr. March, but I just know my personal experience.

Then we talk about other things coming through, Mr. Speaker. Here is another affidavit, again signed by two different people: the DRO poll clerk left the area, left the whole area at that time, leaving the polling booth unattended. It is a very serious allegation. These two people were elderly people and they were, at the time, given a copy of what was said about them, that they may have to appear in front of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador because both of them left the polling station at the same time.

Once again there was an affidavit signed to that effect, delivered to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, delivered - it was put in there again by the lawyer of Mr. Monaghan. Mr. Monaghan was a part of it, and I am sure John Sweetland was a part of it. They were going around getting affidavits, getting everybody together, signing the affidavits, right happy, and, when the truth came out, that never happened. When the actual truth came out, there were about six or eight polls in that area that day and that polling station could never be left alone all day; it just could not be left alone. When that truth came out, those people were saying: What are you talking about?

Here is another situation where these two individuals were named in a Supreme Court document with no foundation. The people who did it, the lawyers, Mike Monaghan, Kim Burridge and John Sweetland, are officers of the court. I am not saying that they did know, but I am sure they did do due diligence because they had to go to the DROs or poll clerks. They would have found out that it never happened, I am sure of that, absolutely sure of that. People wonder why, then, we have to let Mr. March appear here to speak in front of us.

The other big thing, Mr. Speaker, in the affidavits, with my personal experience, IDs, visual IDs. Was that acceptable? That was trained by the Chief Electoral Officer, if you know somebody you are all right to do it. If you can verify that yes, you know this person, that is part of the training process. If you can guarantee the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador accepts it, why can't the Chief Electoral Officer?

Mr. Speaker, there are people with affidavits signed against them who had to go and rebut this information. Get this now - and you want to know why we think Fraser March should come in and give us the itty-bitty details - do you know who they had to rebut and refute the information about IDs? Do you know who they had to do it, some of them, about seven or eight of them? Do you know who it was? Their sons. The affidavit said that the people who they let go through, they did not know it was their son. When they were interviewed, and they went through the list, their son was on the list because they did not ask their son - and I think in three cases it was their daughter - and they did not ask them for an ID, that ballot was no good.

Those people were named in Supreme Court documents of Newfoundland and Labrador, had to defend themselves, and were told that they had to go to court now to testify that yes, that was my son. I know him. I mean, how ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

Then, when all this information was put forth, the case never made it to court. It just did not make it to court. Yet, although there were three lawyers who were there, the three lawyers were there who got all these affidavits, went around the district, got all these affidavits signed, got all this information signed, stapled it all up, made it look good, passed it into the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, it cost me what? Twelve thousand dollars to defend people who I should not have had to defend. It cost me $12,000 - that is fine, that is still going on - but that cost me $12,000 for me to defend DROs and poll clerks and whatever, and when the information came out it had nothing to do with me. The information was thrown out. It did not even make it to court. It did not even make it to court. The judge, himself, in a preliminary ruling, said that visual IDs are accepted because it is the training part of the Chief Electoral Officer. It did not even make it to court.

Here we have some thirty poll clerks and DROs with possibly having to appear in front of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador with no recourse, only to have someone like myself defend them. Later on, the Chief Electoral Officer, after petitioning the court, did get involved . Had no involvement whatsoever, absolutely no involvement, in any wrongdoing; absolutely none. When the case in the Bay of Islands was complete, Mr. Speaker, with the thirty or so affidavits, not one charge laid; not one charge. Absolutely not one charge laid! I think it was the 19th of December or the 20th or 21th , people got these affidavits filed in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador telling them - over the Christmas holidays it was on their mind - that they may have to go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and justify something they had no part of. When the truth came out, when they sat down face to face, got to the nitty-gritty, got to the facts of it, absolutely no foundation.

If I gave everybody in the House those Supreme Court documents, those things that Mike Monaghan, John Sweetland and Kim Burridge put in, you would say: My God, what a legal document. How can these three lawyers be wrong? How can they be wrong? There is no way in the world they can be wrong because they are officers of the court. Mr. Speaker, I contend to you here today, not one charge, never even made it to court, and you wonder why I am going to vote for the Member for Grand Bank's motion to have him appear. A prime example is how I was named in Supreme Court documents without any foundation, all for pure political gain, absolutely no foundation. My name was not mentioned once, not a Liberal worker mentioned once, not a Liberal person who was involved with my campaign mentioned. It cost me $12,000. It cost thirty DROs and poll clerks tension all over Christmas because they had to appear in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and not one of them had to appear because it was thrown out of court. Then you wonder why I think we should have someone face to face.

Given him the opportunity, right or wrong. I don't know what Fraser March is going to say. I have no idea what Fraser March is going to say. I have no idea if Fraser March is going to come in here and give us the information and we are going to say, well, boy, you are wrong on that, we may have to get rid of you, or you may be right, we can keep you. I don't know. I honesty don't know. I can tell the members of this House, from my own experience, my own personal experience, that until you give the person the chance to stand up in front of you and state the information, good, bad or indifferent, as I had to do in the Bay of Islands on behalf of the DROs and poll clerks, you will never get to the bottom of it.

When a person is accused of not accepting someone's ID, when someone is not accepting someone's ID, and then, when you get the person down face to face and she signs an affidavit - the person who I never asked for an ID was my son. Mr. Speaker, that is what the people and the DROs and poll clerks of Bay of Islands were faced with. That is why I feel very strongly, from personal experience, that Fraser March should be given the experience of coming into this House and stating his case. Because I know, from personal experience, however you want to take it - my personal experience is, when you sit down face to face and get to the nitty-gritty, it is not always what it is on the paper.

I had three lawyers who were standing up with the affidavits, and they were that thick, Mr. Speaker.

MS FOOTE: Who were they again?

MR. JOYCE: They were Mike Monaghan, who was the person who ran against me; John Sweetland and Kimberly Burridge. They had affidavits that thick - affidavits, Supreme Court documents. It was so thick, the affidavit, that I wasn't delivered a copy. I wasn't given the courtesy of a copy being delivered to me. Over at the court, it was too thick for the person to even photocopy for me. They had to wait for them to bring a note. That is how thick it was. Everybody said: Oh, my God, what a nice document. Thrown right out, right out of the court, not one charge, not one charge, never made it to court. It cost me $12,000 - I will conclude now, Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up - it cost me $12,000, caused tension and stress to DROs and poll clerks, with no foundation whatsoever.

That is why I am going to vote for the Member for Grand Bank, for her motion, from my personal experience, that a person should have the opportunity to speak here in this House, speak to the people who are going to make the decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to say a few words and speak to the main motion to dismiss the Citizens' Representative. I would like to make some general comments, Mr. Speaker, and then I will be more specific.

There are five Officers to this House of Assembly, and all of the Officers of the House of Assembly are required to be independent. All of the Officers of the House of Assembly have their own legislation, and that own legislation sets the roles of the Officers of the House of Assembly. It indicates what their responsibilities are, and also what their parameters are, and each Officer of the House of Assembly must abide by his or her own legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, being an Officer of the House, since there are only five, that it is a very privileged position. As I indicated, every position has its own legislation, and the legislation is very specific as to what each Officer can do. I would like to indicate, also, that each legislation for each Officer of the House of Assembly, while it outlines the roles and responsibilities, it also outlines the process which must be followed in order to remove that Officer of the House of Assembly from his or her position.

Mr. Speaker, when you are an Officer of the House of Assembly, you report directly to the House of Assembly. You do not report to a minister or a deputy minister. You have access directly to the House of Assembly through the Speaker. As I indicated, this is a very privileged and honourable position.

When you are an Officer of a House of Assembly, because your roles and responsibilities are outlined in your own legislation, most Officers of the House of Assembly refer daily to their legislation. They know exactly what they are allowed to do, they know what they are not allowed to do, and most take the requirements of their legislation very seriously. Most of the Officers of the House of Assembly that I have known, Mr. Speaker, refer to their legislation on a daily basis. They take very seriously their role, and they ensure that they do not deviate from what is in the requirements of their act.

I would also like to make the point that, Mr. Speaker, since the Officers of the House of Assembly hold very honourary and special positions, the public needs to have confidence in them, and also we, as Members of the House of Assembly. Because the Officers of the House of Assembly report to us directly, we also need to have confidence in them.

Having said that, because the Officers of the House of Assembly report directly to the House of Assembly, governments are often quite leery of what an Officer of the House of Assembly may say. So, of course, there has to be protection so that the government of the day does not inflict harm or damage on the Officers of the House of Assembly. We do not want the Citizens' Representative or the Auditor General or the Chief Electoral Office to be in fear of being just plucked from their position because they have said something that the government does not agree with.

As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, each officer has his or her own legislation, and they must follow it. They must preserve their credibility, they must preserve their independence and, in the case of the Citizens' Representative, the independence requirement is clearly outlined in section 4.(2) of his legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in looking at this matter, I started with the Auditor General's report. Now we, as Members of the House of Assembly, are fully familiar with the role of the Auditor General. First off, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General brings to the House of Assembly only matters that he or she deems of significance. There is quite a lot of work that is done by the Auditor General that never comes into the House of Assembly. In this case, the Auditor General felt that the findings of his report were so significant that he wanted to bring it to the attention of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, in reporting to this House, is very conscious of what he or she says. Every phrase in the report is examined to ensure that it conveys the right information and the right impression. Every word, every phrase, is clearly examined to make sure that it does not provide any misrepresentation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, when we received the Auditor General's report we reviewed it very carefully. One of the issues there was non-compliance with the Citizens' Representative Act. There was also a lot of information regarding expenses of the Citizens' Representative Act. Mr. Speaker, the most important section of that report was the failure of the Citizens' Representative not to comply with section subsection 2 of his act.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Auditor General's report, we have the information in that report. The IEC has also considered the matter, we have an independent legal opinion, but I think it is incumbent upon all of us to read the information that has been provided; but, at the end of the day, we have to make up our own mind.

Mr. Speaker, after reviewing the information that has been provided, it is very clear to me that the Citizens' Representative has not complied with section subsection 2 of his act and, as a result, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the main motion to dismiss the Citizens' Representative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find myself in an awkward position here today, discussing whether or not the Citizens' Representative should be hired or fired. I guess he is hired. I guess we are deciding the ultimate decision for him, his future; however, my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, has made an amendment to the motion. She is basically saying that she would be in favour of having the Citizens' Representative request honoured by asking to come before this hon. House, stand before the forty-eight Members of this House of Assembly and state his case. I think that is a very reasonable request, because what we have before us in this document is really, first an opinion of the Auditor General, which we value as being an officer of this House, and also several opinions from lawyers. As we know, everyone who stands in this House or sits in this House - we have forty-eight members here and I would venture to guess that we all have a different opinion on this matter or we probably should have if we want impartiality here today.

Mr. Speaker, this is all about integrity. For one member, myself who stands in this House and represents the people of Grand Falls-Buchans, I came here with my integrity intact, in February, 1996, and whatever year that I determine I want to leave or the people of Grand Falls-Buchans do not want me any longer to represent them, I hope that I will leave with my integrity intact as I came to this hon. House. That is the basis of all who stand and represent their constituents in this House. Reputation is key. Reputation is everything, in my opinion, and it should be in the opinion of everybody here in this House.

I want to talk about democracy. It was just a couple of days ago that the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General for our Province, stood with a minister's statement and talked about democracy and this being the Year of the Veteran. All ears were listening to the Minister of Justice. We all agreed that what he was saying was so very important, that those who had sacrificed, even the freedom that we enjoy today, had sacrificed life and limb so we would have the opportunity and have full access to democracy. A representative from our side, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, stood and responded, and also one of the members from the New Democratic Party. We all agreed that democracy was the foundation to our civilization, and democracy gives us the chance to stand here today and utter what we feel is the decision that is going to be made here today.

I want to talk about some of the things that came out of this particular report that the Internal Economy Commission agreed upon yesterday to present to this House. The situation that we find ourselves in here today is that we are almost requested to be judge and jury of the Citizen's Representative, whether or not he will be allowed to continue his work or he will be dismissed. However, what we have not had so far was the opportunity to hear the accused point of view. We have not heard the accused point of view. I know that there was an opportunity or a couple of opportunities afforded to the Citizens' Representative, Fraser March, by the Internal Economy Committee. However, he did not want to avail of that particular forum. He felt that in order to get his message in perspective he would like the opportunity to come into this House of Assembly and stand before each and every member, the forty-eight of us. Actually, we are his employers, as are the people of this Province, the taxpayers who pay the salaries and agree with having a Citizens' Representative.

We are in a bit of a dilemma here now as to where we should go. There are many questions that I would like to ask Fraser March if he were here in this House today, because there are three issues that are basically being brought forward by the Auditor General. Did Mr. March carry on a business while engaged as a Citizens' Representative? Did Mr. March submit and receive payment for private vehicle travel usage which was not eligible for reimbursement or improperly claimed? Did Mr. March lack impartiality? Now, Mr. March is saying that he is innocent on all three counts. Is he? That is the kind of thing we could determine if we had him here in front of us and we were able to pose that question face-to-face.

I would also like to ask Fraser March, if he were here in this House of Assembly: Was his quality of work ever questioned? Does he have any document on file talking about his quality of work? Was that ever questioned, or his performance as a Citizens' Representative? Was he ever advised by the Internal Economy Commission that he stop performing outside union activities? Was he ever advised by the Internal Economy Commission that he should cease union activities? Was there ever a letter written? Is that in his file?

Unfortunately, the way this is set up today, it appears - from what I have heard the Government House Leader say - that he will be voting to fire Mr. March at the end of this exercise. Unfortunately, he does not share the ideal that we should have the so-called accused person in our midst so we could have a clear answer from Mr. March on a lot of questions that are not contained in this particular book of information.

You really cannot say that an individual is guilty. He is really innocent until he is proven guilty. When I look back to his term of office, the appointment is for six years. The way that this particular representative can be removed, the Lieutenant Governor in Council - for people who may be viewing today, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is Cabinet. The Cabinet can, on a resolution of the House of Assembly, carried by a majority vote - now, let's talk about majority vote. The Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, we are in the minority here to begin with. The vote will be a majority vote. We know that the government side has the numbers. So, they can determine how this outcome is going to be before this was ever brought to the House of Assembly.

It says that the Cabinet, on a resolution of the House of Assembly, carried by a majority vote of the Members of the House of Assembly - actually voting. We can actually stand, each one of us, and say how we are going to vote - may, for cause - and according to this motion there is a cause - remove the Citizens' Representative from the office or suspend him or her. Now, that is the term of office. We know how this can actually come about. The Citizens' Representative does not have an opportunity, as I am hearing today, to actually come in and state his case.

I think back to yesterday during Question Period, when the three female members from the Official Opposition, my colleagues, stood here and directed our questions to the Speaker. These were concerning six women, six high-powered, influential, professional, competent, leadership quality for certain, six women who could not have an opportunity to refute the decision that was made against them. As the Government House Leader said, when he stood on his feet: The hiring and firing is at the prerogative of the Premier, the pleasure of the Premier.

When I look at each one of those six individuals, you know, if we were looking to put people in these offices, I wonder, if we did a Province-wide search or even a cross-country search, would we get any better individuals than the people we had in those offices? However, at the whim of the Premier, those people were removed. What does that do? It disrupts a career. All of those individuals are professionals.

When I think back to the Annual Report of the Public Service Commission, one of the findings was: temporary appointments are excessive. Now, here is the Public Service Commission, who is the watchdog for hirings, other than if we are talking about deputy ministers or anyone who is hired by political appointments and so on. This is the Public Service Commission, who is supposed to be the watchdog on all hirings in our Province, and they are saying temporary appointments are excessive.

Here is the interesting part: They constitute approximately 70 per cent of all staffing actions. Now, can you imagine? You are hearing that a lot of appointments have been made where there was no competition, no interviews, no nothing, and here is the Public Service Commission confirming that, that temporary appointments are excessive, and approximately 70 per cent - can you imagine? - 70 per cent of all staffing actions are done by temporary appointments. Why are they done by temporary appointments? To avoid the usual competition -

The Government House Leader wants to know what I am reading from. It is the 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Public Service Commission.

When you look at all of the young people out there who we are trying to encourage into a professional career with our public service - while we were the government, we offered a program, a Graduate Recruitment Program, for fifteen young people every year to compete, to actually have employment in our Public Service Commission so they would be future deputy ministers and future leaders and future professionals who would be shaping the direction of our Province.

What happened when this government came into power? They cancelled that program. I know, when we instituted it first, we had upwards of 500 and 600 young graduates applying for an opportunity to get into our Public Service Commission, but that has since been cancelled, taken away from any young graduate, and now we are hearing that disturbing line, trend, as well -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If I take any time from the member's time for my point of order, I will gladly give leave. If it is a minute or whatever, I will put it back into the member's time, because I am not interested in interrupting her presentation here this afternoon, but I do want to point out for her that the document she is citing, 2003-2004, about temporary employment, and most of that going into the public service, eight months of that document that you are citing was when you were the government. I want you to be clear on that; for four month we were.

MR. SULLIVAN: And she was President of Treasury Board.

MR. E. BYRNE: And you were President of Treasury Board at the time. So, part of the statistics you are referencing are your own, when you were President of Treasury Board and a member of government at the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: I am absolutely stating the facts. We went to the polls in October, and these are the results. You were going to do something different.

MR. E. BYRNE: You are quoting your own results.

MS THISTLE: No, I am not quoting my own results. I am quoting your results, and it is clear that you do not want to hear these matters.

What are we saying here? This is a recommendation and a finding by the Public Service Commission. Can you imagine, over 400 managers through all government departments had to seek help through an Employee Assistance Program, over 400 managers from all departments of government. I mean, you are pretty far gone - had to seek help.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, it was when you dropped the axe.

Just the admission of wanting to seek help is a very stressful issue, so 400 managers had to seek help because they had these issues of stress where their jobs were cut and so on, but what we are dealing with today is Fraser March.

I am sure there is a lot of stress with this whole matter; but, when I consider his request to stand before this House of Assembly, I consider that as quite reasonable. He is representing an office, and right now there are third parties giving the evidence. There are different opinions. If you hired another ten lawyers to sort through the evidence that has already been compiled here, you would get ten more different opinions.

The Auditor General is basing his findings on his opinion. Lawyers are doing the same thing. The Internal Economy Commission is challenged with sorting through what all of these people have said regarding Mr. March's -

We just had a little bit of an upset here in the House. Someone slipped, but no harm done.

I will continue with my speech, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The member has been recognized to continue her speech, and I thank her for her understanding.

MS THISTLE: As the Speaker said, someone just slipped accidentally on the floor but they are fine.

I wanted to continue in my request made by my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, on her amendment on the motion, the main motion, that Mr. Fraser March be given the opportunity to appear before this hon. House and state his own case.

When he states his own case, we will then decide whether or not we accept his viewpoint, or part of his viewpoint, or whether or not we accept what the Auditor General has said, or whether or not we accept what other lawyers have said in this situation.

There is a lot at stake here. The Office of the Citizens' Representative was a much asked for request by the now government. When they were in the Opposition they wanted this particular office to come into effect, and we did as well. Many people have benefitted by that office being in effect. In fact, when I look back to my own district, the people of Badger who had some appeals regarding the Badger flood of 2003, Fraser March looked into those issues. He came back and wrote a report that has become a very important document. I am sure that it is even looked at now, when you look at the flooding in Stephenville of September 27. So he made some strong recommendations at that time that would assist that kind of a situation in the future. I am sure that if you were to call around this Province and look at the issues and the circumstances that this gentlemen has looked into with regard to a citizen's complaint about how government has handled a particular situation concerning them or not handled it to the best of their ability.

Mr. Speaker, what we are asking here today is not really unusual. I would hate to think that in a democratic House like ours, patterned after the British Parliament, that democracy is key. If we were to afford Mr. March the opportunity to stand here in this House and we all had an opportunity to get clarification, ask more questions - because we are relying on the evidence that has been complied in this manual here. That is what we are relying on. We are relying on what people, the Auditor General and auditors, and our own Internal Economy Commission has put together as evidence. We have read this. I have read it. I have read it a couple of times, but there are still questions. Apparently, it is down now to - the travelling claims have been, more or less, taken out of the picture. I think they are down to - one issue that is of major importance is whether or not Mr. Fraser March was impartial and whether he acted on behalf of his union to conduct business during his term in office as the Citizens' Representative.

However, I would like for Mr. March to be standing here in this House of Assembly. I would like to put those questions to him because if we leave here, whether it be Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, and we do not have those questions on a face-to-face, a direct chance to ask Mr. March these questions and we do not have a chance to get this information, there will be a decision made here by this House of Assembly on a majority vote, and the government has the majority here, we will always wonder: Did that man have the opportunity to state his case? Did that man have the opportunity to defend his actions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS THISTLE: If I could just have thirty seconds?

MR. SPEAKER: There is a request for leave to make some concluding comments.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.

I just want to conclude by saying that this is not an unreasonable request. I think if any of us here found ourselves in this circumstance, we would like to be able to come into this House and make our situation known and then it would be up to the members of the House and they would have a clear conscience when they decide to issue their vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and it is a - a lot of times you rise and you enjoy saying what you have to say and you can shout out the things that you want to say but it is something that, I guess everyone of us when we stand here and talk about somebody that most of us know and talk about taking somebody's job, then it causes us concern.

Mr. Speaker, the person that we are talking about is the Citizen's Representative, the former Citizen's Representative, Mr. Fraser March, who I consider a friend of mine. I will tell you, I do not come with any malice towards this individual or for what he stands for. People associate Mr. March sometimes with trade unions. Well, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been a member of a trade union all my working life and have been proud to be a trade unionist. So, I certainly do not hold that against him.

I recall myself, Mr. March and Mr. Morgan being part of an organization where we travelled across the Province forming a Rural Boat Owners Association. We were the founding members, I say to members opposite, and to the Leader of the Opposition. We were founding members of it. Many times we got in a car and travelled to a meeting, which was well attended, and certainly enjoyed his company and enjoyed his wisdom in bringing forward the concerns of what we knew at that time to be injustices and what we thought was wrong. I still feel that many of the things that are being done are totally wrong and still agree with the message that we carried at the time. My understanding is that association has been very active and has membership right across the Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I am not an active member of it now. It has nothing to do with being part of government. Neither is Mr. March, I do not think, I say the hon. Leader of the Opposition, but it is a good organization and it gives people a voice when people band together and they carry some weight. I guess, just to clue up on that thought, probably the same group can be commended and given recognition for what the federal government is announcing now, even though it is a small change, to treat all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians like other people in Atlantic Canada when it comes to a recreational fishery.

Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with here today - what it is, it is, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. Being a member of the Internal Economy Commission - seven members of this Legislature sits on the Internal Economy Commission. You, Mr. Speaker, as the Chairperson in your capacity as Speaker; me as the Deputy Speaker, in my capacity as Deputy Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson; the Government House Leader sits in his capacity as Government House Leader; the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is a member of that committee; the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is a member of that committee; the Member for Bellevue is a member of that committee, and the Opposition House Leader, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, are the seven members who constitute the Internal Economy Commission.

I guess our first indulgence in dealing with this problem was brought about approximately a year ago - some time last January, if I recall correctly - when we received a report from the Auditor General raising concerns about the spending of the Citizens' Representative. That was the first, I think, that I heard of it and it was probably the first that you heard of it as the Chairperson of that committee. We wrestled with the problem of what to do and where we should go and how we should handle the problem, knowing the sensitivity of it. I think we had something like eight meetings. The Internal Economy Commission met for something like eight meetings to deal with this one issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is was a little bit of an awkward situation, and I guess the reason why it was referred to the Internal Economy Commission is because of the improprieties that the Auditor General saw or heard in the spending practices of the Citizens' Representative; more than what he was doing in carrying out his duties or in not carrying out his duties, whichever way you want to look at it, and doing other work while he was the Citizens' Representative. That was why it was broached and brought to the Internal Economy Commission.

Mr. Speaker, at that particular time, if I recall correctly, we also got into, and the Auditor General made us aware of, some other things that were happening as well. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the travel of the Citizens' Representative. I am not going to get into how long it would take Fraser March or Roger Fitzgerald to travel from Gambo to Deer Lake, or from Deer Lake to Stephenville, or from Gander to Newmans Cove. I am not going to get into it. I don't care where the Citizens' Representative went to eat. I do not care if he ate at Tim Hortons, or Mary Brown's, or if he was down at the Strand. I am not going there, Mr. Speaker, but, when we, as Members of this House of Assembly, come here and take an oath -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - to carry out our duties as the Member of the House of Assembly, with that oath comes some responsibility in the fact that we have to carry out and abide by the rules and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this is the place where rules and regulations are made. This is the place, Mr. Speaker, right here in this Chamber, where the rules of Newfoundland and Labrador are instituted; and if we, as legislators, if we, as the people who are bringing in those rules and regulations, are not going to see that they are upheld, then shame on us. Shame on us, Mr. Speaker, because we are not doing due diligence to the position that we were elected to serve.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that I hung my hat on, the reason why I thought that we should get an outside legal opinion, and from a reputable lawyer - and, I heard the Member for the Bay of Islands and I agree with some of the things that he said. I do not know how many people have ever gone to court, have ever lost a case, who were happy with the lawyer who represented them. I have never heard of it. There are many lawyers who sit in this House. I am sure some of them took part in probably some divorce cases. You go and talk to both parties involved in a divorce case and ask what they think of the lawyer who was representing one of the individuals. They can stand here all day and tell you how bad one lawyer was, and how much the other lawyer allowed the other individual to slip away with, without getting their fair share. That does not hold a lot of weight with me, what one person's opinion is of a particular lawyer, or what happened in one particular court case.

Mr. Speaker, when you see the glaring example of a job description - which we all have to live by. Every one of us, no matter what job we have ever had, have had to abide by a job description. It is clearly stated what is expected of you, what your duties are, what you can and what you cannot do. That is in your job description. If you look at the job description of the Citizens' Representative, it says quite clearly in the Citizens' Representative Act: The Citizens' Representative shall not hold another public office or carry on a trade, business or profession.

That is pretty plain, I say to members opposite. Sometimes legislation is written in riddles that is hard to understand, and we do not know what one clause means because it refers to another one, but that is pretty plain. The Citizens' Representative should not hold another public office or carry on a trade, business or profession.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. March was nominated and unanimously supported in this House back in 2001, I think it was December - around this time of the year, if I recall, in December, 2001 - and he sat in the Speaker's gallery there, we all gave him applause because we thought it was a good choice. It was a good choice, no doubt about that. I am not saying it was not.

Mr. Speaker, what we heard at that particular time was a situation where the Citizens' Representative was supposed to have approached the former Premier and instructed him that before - when he took this particular job, he asked for a grace period of something like two months to clue up the loose ends of what was happening at that particular time with his involvement in, I think it might have been NAPE but it does not matter which trade union it was, or even if it was a trade union. He asked for a two month grace period in order to complete what he had committed to do. In the words of the Citizens' Representative, and I have no reason not to believe him, it was granted.

When you look back - and I am not going to read what is in this. This is public knowledge now. It was distributed yesterday. Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian can access the steps of what went on with us reaching the conclusion we have in order for the Government House Leader to bring forward this resolution with the dismissal of the Citizens' Representative.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, in reading this particular copy, that Mr. March failed to tie up his loose ends. In fact, he took on new duties, and some of those invoices went to.... In fact, Mr. March billed NAPE for thirteen full days of services performed after February 1, 2002, for a total sum of $3,900.

Mr. Speaker, apparently, on February 1, 2002, Mr. March charged set-up fees for the arbitration board to be constituted after the date of his appointment. An invoice dated August 12, 2002, discloses that Mr. March had been appointed to an hours-of-work study dealing with school support staff.

So, it was obvious that this individual was not abiding by the rules and regulations and the Citizens' Representative Act that was passed in this Legislature - unanimously, I might add - passed unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to the IEC as well, because, while the Opposition House Leader sat as a member of the IEC, he did excuse himself for every meeting that we had if the Citizens' Representative came up for discussion; but you, as Chairman, Mr. Speaker, if I recall, you, as the Chair of that Committee, offered the Liberal Party, the Opposition party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, an opportunity to put forward another member to replace the member who excused himself because he thought he might have been in conflict. There was still a member there. The Member for Bellevue was still there.

If I recall correctly, as well, the IEC Committee voted unanimously to go and look for an outside opinion. We thought that if we were going to do this, we would do it right. We would do it proper. We would get legal advice. So, we approached Mr. Harrington, came forward, told him what we wanted, told him what we were looking for, told him the information that we needed, told him that we wanted to find out what our legal options were, where we should go with it, what the proper procedure was.

We got the legal report back and it stated quite clearly, quite clearly, what we should do, where we should go, and that is what we have done. That is what the Internal Economy Commission proceeded forward with unanimously, I might add, and that is what the Government House Leader has brought forward here now as a resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the amendment as brought forward by the Member for Grand Bank, where the Citizens' Representative wanted an opportunity to come in and address the House.

Mr. Speaker, I recall, during the NAPE strike, Mr. Puddister put forward a request. He wanted to come in and make representation to address the House. If we are going to allow the Citizens' Representative to come forward and make a submission in front of the House, and have him come forward and address the House, then where do we start? Well, that is where we will start, but where do we stop?

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, in recent memory, that it has only happened on two occasions. Only on two occasions has there been somebody outside of this Legislature who has not been duly elected, who has not been elected to occupy a seat in this Legislature, it has only happened on two occasions. My understanding was it happened back quite some time ago when Mr. Smallwood was the Premier, when Mr. John Sheehan came and addressed the House. I do not think there was anybody here then. I do not know, but I do not think anybody sitting here now was here then. The other occasion, it is my understanding, was when former Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Mulroney, and some other premiers came and addressed the House when the Meech Lake Accord was a topic of debate. Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding and I stand to be corrected.

MR. SULLIVAN: (inaudible) an officer of the House was never (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: My understanding is there has never been. The Minister of Finance - I tell you he is very seldom wrong - indicates that there was never an Officer of the House who came and addressed the House. We are getting ourselves, I think, into a situation that, if we are going to go down that road and if we are going to allow Mr. March to come and address the House, then we have to accommodate everybody else. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is where we want to go.

I will be voting against the Member for Grand Bank's amendment to the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the amendment as put forward by the hon. Member for Grand Bank. I do not know how serious she is about the amendment, but that is the role of the Opposition. I will be supporting the resolution, and I will be supporting the resolution, Mr. Speaker, because I feel it is my duty as an elected member who was put here to uphold the rules and regulations of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to abide by them myself. I see no reason, Mr. Speaker, why I should go against my morals and convictions and what I was elected to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to the member who is now speaking even suggesting in any way that I am not serious about the amendment that I have put forward with respect to this particular resolution. I am dead serious about it, and for him to suggest that I might not be is uncalled for.

MR. SPEAKER: The member should know there is no point of order and the Chair recognizes the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member wants me to withdraw, I will gladly do that I say to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, it is a situation where I feel it is my duty as an elected representative to uphold the rules and regulations that we brought here to this House. That is why I will be voting for the resolution as brought forward by the Government House Leader, but is representative of every person who sits on this side of the House and is representative, I think, of what we have decided on as a commission of this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will end my few remarks and say that is where my vote will be going. I think it is incumbent on everybody in this House to uphold the rules and regulations that we make here ourselves and expect other people to live by.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to the amendment proposed by the Member for Grand Bank to the resolution before the House. The resolution, as you know, is: Be it resolved that that Fraser March be removed from the Office of the Citizens' Representative. The just previous recital to that is: AND WHEREAS section 6 of the Citizens' Representative Act provides that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, on a resolution of the House, for cause remove the Citizens' Representative from office. Then: WHEREAS there is cause to remove Fraser March from the Office of Citizens' Representative.

There has been put to the House an amendment to that resolution to the Member for Grand Bank suggesting that we not deal with the resolution until Mr. March has had an opportunity to appear before the bar of the House and respond to questions or defend himself.

That is an amendment that I support, Mr. Speaker. I support it for the reason that there is a question that arises in all of this. I have listened very intently to the previous speakers outlining the concerns that were raised by the Auditor General, the concerns that were raised by the Employers' Council, the concerns that were raised in the legal opinion of Mr. Harrington, and that these concerns gave rise to a decision by the IEC that they should recommend the suspension of Mr. March, and presumably that they should recommend to this House that he should be, in fact, terminated for cause.

I do not know when they did that, but what we have here is the minutes of the Internal Economy Commission, and the last item of the minutes says as follows: The Commission by order recommended to the Lieutenant Governor in Council during the period of suspension of Mr. March, as recommended by the Commission on June 29 and as authorized by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under Section 7 of the Citizen's Representative Act, that Mr. March be compensated his current salary until the matter is resolved. The secretary of the Commission was directed to convey the decision to the clerk of the Executive Council. That was the meeting of August 18. At the meeting of Wednesday, July 29, which is presumably the previous meeting, a recommendation was made to suspend for cause Fraser March under section 7(1) of the act. The Commission directed the Speaker to write the clerk of the Executive Council in order to convey this decision and also to send a copy of the legal opinion given by counsels of the commission.

I do not see where the commission actually made a conclusion or on what basis the Internal Economy Commission made a conclusion. If they did recommend to the House that Mr. March be suspended or be terminated, it is not at all clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Internal Economy Commission indeed made that recommendation, not from its minutes. Maybe somebody from the Internal Economy Commission can clarify that, but the minutes that are included in the report here say merely that they recommended that he be suspended, and then there is another question that he be suspended with pay. The only words that indicate that the Internal Economy Commission have made any conclusions, in this report, are, it is for cause, that the Internal Economy Commission determined that they wanted to recommend to the Cabinet that he be suspended for cause. Following on that, according to the act, the legislation governing the Ombudsman, the suspension can only be effective to the end of the next sitting of the House, and therefore the House must do something with it. What we are doing with it is debating the motion of the Government House Leader that he be terminated for cause, presumably, based on this report.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the problem that I have with this report is that it does not reach any conclusions. If you read the report, we do not know what - of the concerns raised by the Auditor General - were accepted as cause by the IEC. We do not know what parts of Mr. Harrington's opinion were accepted by the IEC. If you read Mr. Harrington's opinion, it is pretty clear that this is a general, legal opinion about matters of concern that were raised and he gives general advice. The kind of conclusions that he reaches - you know, the words ‘it is arguable' appears many times. It is arguable that - and here is an example, a good example based on a few ifs.

For example, on page 18 of his report: It is arguable that Mr. March's action in connection with NAPE's unionizing efforts were at odds with the duty to remain independent. It is arguable. Was that accepted by the Internal Economy Commission? Was it not? We do not know. We do not know what the Internal Economy Commission accepted or what they did not. There are a lot of assumptions here, as you would expect in any legal opinion, because the duty of a lawyer in giving a legal opinion is to canvass the options, canvass the possibilities.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this legal opinion is not about whether or not an officer of this House should be discharged by the House based on this, it is a legal opinion from an employment perspective as to whether or not there might be sufficient grounds for an employer to discharge an employee in certain circumstances. We are not talking about an employee here. We are talking about an Officer of the House of Assembly. As an Officer of the House of Assembly, Fraser March is entitled to a certain level of treatment and dignity by this House. I am not suggesting he was treated without any dignity by the IEC, don't get me wrong. The IEC did what it thought it should do in inviting him to come to a meeting, a meeting at which the Internal Economy Commission indicated that they would have their lawyer and he could come with his lawyer, and he declined to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the IEC does not have the power to discharge Mr. March. The reason I support this resolution is because Mr. March, I believe, is entitled to come and answer to and ask questions to and speak to the people who have the decision-making authority, which are the members of this House. That is the fundamental and basic reason why I support this particular resolution, because it affords him that opportunity.

The Internal Economy Commission does not have the right to discharge Mr. March. In fact, I believe they did not even have the right to suspend him or recommend his suspension in the circumstances that were before the IEC.

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am telling the Member for St. John's North that I do not believe they have that power, because the legislation, under which they were operating, refers, in my opinion, to an emergency situation. The power to suspend, or to recommend a suspension, is an extraordinary power granted to the IEC which, generally speaking, only has administrative function with respect to officers of the House; looking after their salary and managing their accounts and paying their travel claims and all of that sort of stuff. With respect to officers of the House, particularly ones who are statutory officers of the House, in my view, there is a different regime at work and a different plan that applies.

Let me read from the Citizens' Representative Act. Section 6 says: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, on a resolution of the House of Assembly carried by a majority vote of the members of the House of Assembly actually voting, may, for cause, remove the Citizens' Representative from office or suspend him or her. So, the power to suspend also rests in the Cabinet after a resolution of this House. After a resolution of this House, they may remove the Citizens' Representative or suspend him.

The power to suspend does not rest with the IEC, it rests with the Cabinet. However, there is a special provision. Section 7, suspension when House not sitting. Where the House of Assembly is not in session, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, in other words the Cabinet, on the recommendation of the IEC, the Internal Economy Commission, may suspend the Citizens' Representative, and there are certain conditions that apply. It does not say for cause, because cause is left to section 6. It says: May suspend for incapacity, neglect of duty, or misconduct, but the suspension shall not continue in force beyond the next ensuing session of the House of Assembly. I guess that is why we are debating it today, because if we close the House of Assembly today without reaching a conclusion here, the suspension will be over; null and void, finished. It appears that the supporters of this resolution do not want that to happen.

So, which was it? Was it neglect of duty, was it incapacity or was it misconduct? The Internal Economy Commission did not tell us. They said it was for cause when they recommended a suspension. What does cause mean? Well, we do not know what the Internal Economy - we do not know what facts they found. We do not know what facts they based their recommendation on and we do not know what conclusions they reached from those facts in order to make the recommendation that they made.

When the suspension was made public, Mr. Speaker, in August or September, I objected. I objected because I did not think that the suspension was proper and in accordance with the act, because the act provides reasons for suspending the Citizens' Representative, all of which look to or speak to or indicate that there is some urgency to act. What are they? Incapacity. Well, supposing the Citizens' Representative became mentally ill, mentally incompetent, unable to act because of incapacity, could not perform his job because he was incapacitated by an illness or some other reason. That is an emergency power. That is something that happens and you have to act. When the House is not in session you have to act. You cannot have the office unfulfilled. You can't have a Citizens' Representative not able to perform his or her duties and still remain in office. It may be a mental illness of such a nature as to require, in the public interest, that the person be suspended because of the nature of the illness.

The second reason, neglect of duty: Supposing the Citizens' Rep wasn't showing up for work, left town, left the country, neglected his or her job, didn't show up, and the House wasn't in session so you couldn't deal with it. Another emergency situation that has to be dealt with, that you wouldn't call the House of Assembly together on, but you would have to act.

The third reason, misconduct: Now, that is the only one left. What kind of misconduct would justify an action when the House of Assembly is not in session? Is it conduct that was brought to the attention of everybody, the whole Province, in January? Is that the kind of misconduct that the IEC acted upon when the House was not in session? The House was in session in March and in April, in May and in June. A couple of weeks after the House closed, on June 29, the IEC made a recommendation that he be suspended. The House was in session during June. I forget the exact dates but I can find them out. The 15th or the 10th or the 12th we were here, we were debating FPI. If there was a necessity to act in the middle of June, we could have acted. Why did the IEC wait until the end of June and then purport to act in accordance with section 7(1). That is kind of a legal question, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to go on and on about that, but just as my opinion.

Mr. March was suspended by action of the IEC, and here we are today. The IEC, in its minutes, gives no reason for the recommendation to suspend Mr. March, and other than collecting these documents together and presenting to us the various comments of the Auditor General and the further legal opinion of Mr. Harrington, this is what we are asked to go on.

I want to ask hon. members who are being asked to be judge - we are the judge and jury here, Mr. Speaker. We are the judge, we are the jury, and I guess the ones who are being asked to pass sentence as well. I want to ask hon. members: What have we got? We have a series of opinions and a recommendation - by the way, I am interested in the recommendation of the Auditor General. The Auditor General goes through, in this first report in January, all these comments and there are twenty-five pages of response there as well. What does the Auditor General say? Well, the Auditor General says the Citizens' Representative should comply with the Citizens' Representative Act, fair enough, comply with the Public Tender Act, fair enough, if the Public Tender Act applies to the Citizens' Representative - and I do not know if it did. In fact, Mr. March says, in his defence, that the Public Tender Act did not apply to the Citizens' Representative when the first annual report was prepared outside the Public Tender Act. So, does anyone know the answer to that question? Was it enforced or was it not? Did the IEC consider that? They did not. Are we able to consider that here today? I have not heard anybody refer to that.

Recommendation number three: Ensure that all out-of-Province travel is approved in advance by the Speaker of the House of Assembly as required by policy. So, presumably, he breached the policy and he should comply with it.

Number four: Comply with government's entertainment policy and executive compensation travel rules. Apparently, he had lunch with somebody and he did not say who is was. One of his lunches was with somebody - that is what I read there - he had lunch with somebody and he did not put the name of the person it was, so the Auditor General says: I cannot tell whether this was in keeping with his job or whether it was not.

Well, that is that is unfortunate, so the Auditor General cannot tell us if it is verifiable or not. The executive compensation travel rules, he should comply with them because there were some anomalies disclosed.

Establish formal policies and procedures governing the provision and use of cellular travel phones and ensure that all use is properly monitored.

Then he had some recommendations for the Office of the Clerk, because the Clerk's Office - it is not the Clerk himself, but the Clerk's Office of the House of Assembly - they look after budgetary matters and payment matters. The Office of the Clerk of the House of Assembly should provide sufficient information to the Office of the Citizens' Representative to enable that office to monitor its expenditures and to charge expenditures of the Office of the Citizens' Representative to the correct expenditure account categories.

When I read these recommendations, I do not see anything there saying the Citizens' Representative should be hauled on the carpet to account and brought before the House of Assembly for gross violations of his duty. I do not see that. I have seen other reports by Auditor Generals. I have one here from the Auditor General of Canada on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in Ottawa. They disclosed gross inaccuracies and abuse of discretion. Mr. Radwinsky, I think his name was, he used to go off to Paris and have dinner with people and charge thousands and thousands of dollars to the Government of Canada, gross abuse of his discretion, and do all kinds of things that were absolutely, totally, outside -

MR. LANGDON: Out to lunch.

MR. HARRIS: Out to lunch, as the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune says. Out to lunch, but more than out to lunch, Mr. Speaker, gross abuses of the public trust.

What do we have here? Some suggestions that there may be compliance issues that have to be resolved. Is that any different, Mr. Speaker, than a government, whether it be an Auditor General, whether it be this one or the former one, saying that the government violated the Public Tender Act here, here, here and here, or that the government did not follow the Financial Administration Act when it transferred this amount of money to that account from one other?

Were there witch hunts established as a result of that, Mr. Speaker? Did people get fired? Did ministers resign when the Auditor General said that the Minister of Public Works violated the Public Tender Act on this occasion or that occasion? Is that what has happened automatically when there are violations of rules or regulations?

These are things that have to be - I am not here to defend Fraser March, by the way. I am not even speaking to the merits. I am just raising questions, just as the Member for Bay of Islands did when he talked about what happened after a whole series of allegations were made, sworn affidavits, presented to the Supreme Court, and he went to court and all of them fell apart.

I am just saying that the indictment, if you want to call it that, contained in this document that was tabled in this House just yesterday raises more questions than it answers about whether or not there was cause to terminate it - or is cause, not was cause, because we are here to determine whether there is cause. Is there cause to terminate the appointment of Fraser March as the Citizens' Representative?

What I am saying to the hon. members of this House is that, given the nature of the Office of the Citizens' Representative, and I will say -

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if I could have a few minutes just to refer to some references?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I just want to refer to Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice. Erskine May, as people present will know, is the guiding principals of Mother of Parliaments in England, the United Kingdom.

The Citizens' Representative in our Province is the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is also known as the Parliamentary Commissioner. In the U.K., the Parliamentary Commissioner for administration - I will read this out. On page 246 of Erskine May, the twenty-third edition, 2004, says: The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is an independent statutory officer widely known as the Ombudsman, and is removable only on an address from the two Houses.

It is same as we have here, only an address or a resolution from the House of Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the U.K. The point I wanted to make here is the function of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is to investigate complaints referred to her - in this case, it is a woman - by Members of the House of Commons, from members of the public, who claim to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with actions taken by or on behalf of government departments.

What it says here is that she - it is a women - is accorded the privileges of an Officer of the House of Commons. So, we recognize that the Ombudsperson is an Officer of the House of Commons in that case. In our case, the Citizens' Representative is an Officer of this House and is entitled to the privileges of this House.

There is ample precedent for an Officer of the House of Commons, or the House of Assembly, to be called before the Bar of the House to answer questions, and I refer hon. members to the authority that is most commonly used in this House, and that is the House of Commons Procedure and Practice known as Marleau and Montpetit. In that volume, on the section on Privileges and Immunities, page 97, referring to Censure, Reprimand and the Summoning of Individuals to the Bar of the House, there is a series going on for three pages outlining the circumstances in the past where individuals have been called before the Bar of the House of Commons. Many of them go back 100 years or more.

In 1873, a Returning Officer was summoned to appear before the Bar to answer for his actions in a contested election. He appeared., asked and receive permission to have counsel, legal counsel, and answered questions. The House adopted a resolution criticizing Mr. Bell's actions. He was recalled to the Bar, the resolution was read out to him, and he was discharged. I do not think that means discharged from his job; I think he was discharged from the Bar of the House.

There are further lists here and I will not bore you with all of them. An interesting one was Louis Riel on March 31 to April 1, 1874. Louis Riel was ordered to attend in his place in the House for having fled from justice in the matter of the murder of Thomas Scott. He failed to attend and was later expelled from the House. Three witnesses were summoned to appear at the Bar in relation to the Riel matter, all three appeared and were questioned. One of those was the Attorney General of Manitoba and two police officers in Ottawa. There were a whole series of examples going from page 97 to page 99 and beyond, I think, of people being called before the Bar of the House to answer questions.

What we are dealing with here is whether or not - because this House has the power to summon Mr. March. It is not a question of according him the privilege, although it is a privilege, it is one that he has asked for. He has asked for the right to speak to and answer questions from those who are sitting in this House who are being called upon to judge whether or not there is cause for his removal from office. He is entitled to defend himself before this House. He has a right to, in my belief, under the rules of natural justice.

The IEC, in my view, did not have the power to fire him and could only recommend his suspension in extraordinary emergency circumstances. He refused to appear, he did not want to appear before the IEC, which was his right. They did not hire him, they did not have the right to fire him, they did not have the right to suspend him. They were entitled to make inquiries. If what the IEC is saying, we think there is cause because he refused to come and talk about it, well that is another thing, but they are not saying that. They are saying, we are basing our decision on the material in the Auditor General's Report and presumably the refutations of Mr. March which they must have dismissed, I suppose, the comments about the Conflict of Interest Act and the discussion about his work, whether or not he was carrying on business contrary to the section of the Act.

I have a very interesting situation on that, and I know I am asking for great indulgence to make comment on it, but I have with me a copy of the Parker Commission Report on the allegation into facts and allegations of conflict of interest concerning Sinclair Stevens. Now I was in Parliament when Sinclair Stevens was there, and he resigned. He was a minister of the federal Crown. Minister Justice Parker made a report in 1987 -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I acknowledge I am going more than a few minutes.

This report was made in 1987 and Mr. Justice Parker found there was a conflict of interest by Sinclair Stevens. Well guess what, Mr. Speaker? In 2004 the federal Court of Canada overturned the ruling of Mr. Justice Parker, when he said that he defined conflict of interest and then found him guilty of it. He made a whole set of findings here of facts based on evidence before him. We have a situation here which we do not have the evidence before us, we do not have legal counsel defending Mr. March, and we do not have the right to appear here.

One final point I want to make, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, because it is in relation to comments made by you in the past, that it was a black and white question of whether or not he had engaged in a trade or occupation after he was appointed to the House. I guess I want to discourage members from thinking that, because something is in black and white means that it is sufficient grounds to throw somebody out of office who happens to be conducting an office. There are other considerations that happen when you look at this. I tell this story because I was in the House of Commons when this was passed and I took this report with me. It came out in December, 1987. I took it with me on my vacation. After being elected to the Parliament of Canada, a long labourious campaign, sitting in the summer and working all fall, we had a Christmas vacation, and I went down south. I took this book with me and I was on a beach down south somewhere and I was reading, in the back of it, one of the appendices of the House of Commons act. It says here that - and it is in black and white, section 17 of the House of Commons act - that if any Member of the House of Commons accepts any office or commission, or is concerned or interested in any contract, agreement, service or work that, by this act, renders a person incapable of being elected to or sitting or voting in the House of Commons, or knowingly sells any goods, services, wares or merchandise, or performs any service for the Government of Canada, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, for which public money is paid. Then it goes on to say, the seat of such a member is thereby vacated and his election is thenceforth void.

Mr. Speaker, I was in a law firm with certain members of this House and that law firm had contracts with the Government of Canada, and as a partner in that law firm, I was a beneficiary of those contracts. When I read this contract in black and white, and I was a lawyer - I am still a lawyer and I was a lawyer then.

MR. E. BYRNE: You weren't a Minister of the Crown though, Jack, were you?

MR. HARRIS: No, but that is not the Minister of the Crown, it is the House of Commons act. The seat is vacated. The seat of the Member of the House of Commons is vacated.

When I read this on the beach down south, I want to tell you it ruined the rest of my vacation. I was reading this in black and white and it said, my seat is vacated, my election is controverted, I am finished. After all the work that I have done to get to the House of Commons, I am toast, I am gone. As soon as I came back to Canada, I found my way to Ottawa as quickly as possible. As quickly as possible! I can imagine, Mr. Speaker, that you would do the same thing. I went to the House of Commons, went to the Speaker's Office, and said: I have to talk to somebody. Do you have any legal advisors or whatever? I want to be sure this is in confidence now, I need some legal advice. Sure enough, they promptly made an appointment for me with a lawyer who was on the staff of the Speaker. The Speaker in Ottawa has a bigger staff than here, and there were lawyers assigned to the Speaker's Office and meeting with members.

I met with this fellow in the lobby of the House of Commons and I told him my dilemma. I pointed to section 16 and section 17 of the act. I said, I am reading this, this means that I am finished. I am in big trouble here and my seat is vacated, my election is void. I am a part of these contracts, I am a partner in this firm, et cetera, et cetera. What am I going to do? He smiled. This was six months after I had taken office. I said: What am I going to do. He smiled and said: This happens all the time to new members. We are always advising new members when these matters come up as to what to do. He said: This legislation was put into effect 100 years ago when the railway was being built and there were all kinds of members of the House of Commons participating in railway contracts. This provision was put in then. He said: Here is what you do. All you have to do is go and see your accountant, talk to your partner and say, look, you know, make sure that any benefits that you receive from these contracts is taken back and undone, and that in the future if there are any contracts with the Government of Canada for legal services that they are put in a separate category and you do not participate as a partner in the benefit from these contracts.

I just tell that story so that hon. members will know that, what is written in black and white in a Statute is now always what applies to officers of the House of Assembly or to members of the House of Assembly. The fact that you potentially violate the Public Tender Act on occasion, or violate the Financial Administration Act, does not mean that this is automatically a sentence of doom for you, as the previous Auditor General well knows. She accused previous governments - for her ten years as Auditor General - of breaking legislation, of violating acts, and told them to fix it. Hopefully they did, Mr. Speaker.

If somebody had told Fraser March to fix things, presumably he would too. I do not know. That is something that we have to ask him. We have to give him an opportunity to respond to the House of Assembly, which is the only body that has the power to make a decision about his future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few comments about the recommendation itself and the proposed amendment to that recommendation. Before I do, with all due respect to my learned colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who is a lawyer by profession and obviously speaks to this issue with some degree of expertise, given his background in labour law, I assume that he is somewhat of an expert or perceived expert in this area. I am a little bit confused, Mr. Speaker, and I want to clarify a couple of points because my comments and my decision to vote in a particular way on this issue are not necessarily a reflection of the recommendations of the Auditor General.

The previous speaker seems to indicate that the recommendations or the comments by the Auditor General are not clear in making a recommendation to take an action. I have always understood that the role of the Auditor General is to protect the financial integrity of the Province, in a general sense. So, what he does or she does will complete an audit, do an investigation and make statements of fact based on the information that they see and the audit that they have done. The Auditor General has done just that in this particular case, have reviewed the series of facts. Actually, the commentary seems to center around three particular points. The Auditor General has made a series of statements about verifiable facts. Reviewed information, reviewed documentation and came to certain conclusions. That is the Auditor General's role.

I, myself, as I sit in this Legislature - or as a legislator in this Legislature, will not be making a decision based on a recommendation or relying on a recommendation of the Auditor General. I just want to make sure that I am clear about what we are doing here. We are not relying on a recommendation of an Auditor General. We rely on the statements of facts made by the Auditor General and accept the assertion that he has made, that I have completed the audit, I have verified the information and in the absence of somebody, in this case Mr. March, coming forward with some new information or a different explanation, I will come to that conclusion. So, as we stand here today, and as I stand here today making some comments and maybe Monday voting on the issue, I will be influenced by not necessarily the absence of recommendations but the facts.

I say, Mr. Speaker, in this legislation here now we are going to be looking at whether or not this House should vote to suspend the Citizen's Representative based on the information that we have here. Do we have - the hon. member earlier mentioned, do we have cause? Not to simplify the issue, because it is not a simple issue. It is a critical issue, a serious issue. We have a responsibility in this House to make an informed decision. We have before us - and I had to ask myself two things. One, what was the process followed here? Was it reasonable? Did Mr. March have an opportunity to present information, to appear and represent himself, or have someone represent him, come to the Commission of Internal Economy and to make an argument, to make a statement and to refute the information? Was the process legitimate or was it flawed? I need to consider that. The second thing: What are the facts of the case? Do the facts that are presented have merit, and how might they influence my decision? As I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, that is the position I find myself in. That is the two questions I will ask.

On the issue of process, as I read the documentation - and they are not necessarily opinions, these are facts. These appear to be letters that have been written to Mr. March making an offer to appear and to give evidence, to refute the information, speak on your behalf. As I look at that and I look at the fact that he has not taken it upon himself to avail of that opportunity, but obviously has left it to rely on the information as presented, the facts of the case as presented, I have to conclude that there was a process here. Obviously, a lengthy process, a painstaking process where my colleagues in the commission sought advice, sought a legal opinion from an extremely reputable individual to give them an opinion on what it is they should do.

So, as I stand here today, I have to be satisfied that there was a reasonable process here and Mr. March, in this particular case, was afforded an opportunity to in fact defend himself, to refute the information as presented. I can stand here today and say that based on what I see here, I am satisfied myself that the process is not flawed. He had an opportunity to in fact participate in a discussion, and in his defence participate and have an opportunity to present information or evidence that would refute the information that is presented.

One of the things it does come down to - and I say to my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, it is not a simplification. It is not necessarily saying it is in black and white, but at the same time we cannot ignore the act itself. That is what we are asked to consider here. What were the parameters? What were the conditions of employment? What does the legislation say that governs this particular position? The question clearly, and I refer to the Citizens' Representative Act, where it says: The Citizens' Representative shall not hold another public office or carry on a trade, business or profession while holding this position.

I say, Mr. Speaker, as I look at the information that is presented here, clearly, and in the absence of anything that tells me to the contrary, the information and the evidence seems to speak for itself. There is a chronology of dates and events and circumstance that maps this out, from the date of the appointment in the House of Assembly in December, 2001, up until now. There is a sequence here, and those dates and sequences of appointment and the conduct of the Citizens' Representative in this case, beyond that date of appointment, will clearly confirm for me that the conclusion drawn by Mr. Harrington in his legal opinion and the conclusion drawn by the Commission of Internal Economy is reasonable and based on those facts.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here as a Member of this Legislature and looking at the issue before us, I am convinced that the resolution as put forward is a reasonable one and one where the facts speak for themselves and one that, as I stand in this House, will support. Which brings me back to the amendment as proposed by the Member for Grand Bank, who obviously, before making that decision and coming to that conclusion, would want to have Mr. March appear before the Legislature here and to have a discussion within the Legislature.

We have to ask ourselves: Is the role of the Legislature to act as a court, act as an arbitration hearing? How do you, in fact, orchestrate such an event? In the absence of that, what do we rely on? I do not necessarily agree with the assertion of my colleague opposite who suggested that the Commission of Internal Economy has no role, no authority. I think in the legislation itself, it gives the Commission of Internal Economy just that kind of control. In fact, he, himself, referred to it in section 7 of the legislation. So, obviously, the legislation clearly envisaged the Commission having a significant role in a process like this, or had a role and responsibility to represent the people in this House in issues like this and, in absence of this House sitting, they would act on our behalf. Basically, when the House sits we will come before it, review that same information that was used at the time the suspension occurred, and we would use that same information that they used to determine how we would eventually dispose of this issue.

So, I say, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard yet any reasonable argument, any reasonable basis for supporting the amendment as put forward for the Member for Grand Bank, to have Mr. March appear in this Legislature, appear in this House to represent himself before all forty-eight of us in this Legislature. In saying that, I also have not heard anything that would make me change my mind in terms of the ultimate disposition of the resolution before the House which would see this House vote, either today or Monday, to terminate the employment of the Citizens' Representative for cause.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I will not say it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to make a comment about a bill such as this, or a resolution such as this, but I think, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon all of us - in my view, at least - if we are going to stand in this House and vote on an issue as significant as this, to deal with an issue that pertains to an Officer of this House, where we all voted to appoint Mr. March earlier in 2001, that we should all be able to speak to the reasoning and rationale for any vote that we are about to take in this House later today or on Monday.

On that point, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise today to speak in favour of the amendment that is put forward by my colleague, the Member from Grand Bank. All she has asked for is to amend the resolution that is being put before us to include the fact that, before we make this very important decision, Mr. March should be given the opportunity to appear in front of, and on the floor of, the House of Assembly to give his side of the story and to answer questions that we might have to ask him, in light of the fact that we, basically, are his employers.

I will talk later as well, Mr. Speaker, about how different individuals can stand on the floor of the House of Assembly, like my colleague just did from Trinity North, and say the information that he has received is sufficient for him to make the decision that Mr. March should go. I have read the same information and I have arrived at a different conclusion, and we should at least be given the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. March.

Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I have always been a student of history. We should know why we are here today. Back around 2001 we hired the Citizens' Representative. It was a result of a number of things, one of them being that, for three or four years prior to that, the Opposition, who is now the government, always proclaimed that we should have a Citizens' Representative, only they would say the Ombudsman. In 1989, when the Liberals took government, there was an Ombudsman in place at the time, and that individual was let go. From 1989 until 2001 we did not have a Citizens' Representative, or an Ombudsman, and there were arguments made why we should have one. The Premier of the day, Roger Grimes, when he came in, in 2001, decided that he, indeed, was going to appoint a Citizens' Representative or an Ombudsman. There was a whole process involved that Mr. March had to go through.

When the Premier of the day decided that he was going to select an Ombudsman, he advertised the position. I do believe it was advertised in all the local papers, and there were a number of candidates. I cannot tell you the number exactly. The Clerk of the House could certainly tell us. There was an interview process and it was carried out between, I think, some time in January - no, December 1 to December 3, 2001, and there were some candidates who came. Let me tell you who interviewed Mr. March, along with others, for the position of Citizens' Representative.

One was the Clerk of the Executive Council; and, for anyone out there watching today, the Clerk of the Executive Council is the most prestigious - or the position is, anyway - civil servant in the provincial government. That is the pinnacle of the civil service. I would assume that all civil servants aspire to be the Clerk of the Privy Council or the Clerk of the Council. That is the individual who sits in on all Cabinet meetings and such.

The second one was the Deputy Minister of Justice. He also sat in on the interview process, or she at the time. The third one was probably the most, I guess, if you want to be, impartial individual we have in government, and that is the Clerk of the House. The Clerk of the House, a very distinguished gentleman, I must say, his integrity has never been questioned and his impartiality has never been questioned, not that I am aware of.

So, there was an interview process carried out by what I consider probably to be the three most influential civil servants in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, if you stop to think about it, if you think about what we were talking about yesterday when it comes to the hiring and the political patronage, and how people are put into positions, Mr. March certainly was not a political appointment. He went through the process. He was interviewed and, to top it all off, what had to happen after he was interviewed and selected for the job? That job, his position, had to be approved - Mr. March had to be approved - by the forty-eight Members of the House of Assembly, and he was.

So, after the selection process, after it was advertised, after the interview process occurred by these three distinguished individuals, and he was selected to be the Citizens' Representative, before he could be hired, we had to, in this House of Assembly, agree that he was, indeed, the person. When his name was presented to the House of Assembly back in 2001, it is my understanding, what I remember of it, that he, indeed, was unanimously accepted by every Member of the House of Assembly. There were no nay votes that day in the House of Assembly, I might say.

Now, if you look at what has been happening in the last two years under this government, and you look at the process that they have used for hiring people, I will list a few of them. I know the Premier got very upset with me yesterday when I talked about the process that he used in hiring a group of party supporters and giving them plum jobs in the civil service. None of these people went through interviews, I am about to tell you today. The jobs were not advertised. There were no interviews conducted. Certainly, the House of Assembly did not have to agree to hire them at the end of the day.

Len Simms was appointed by the Premier to head up the Housing Corporation in Newfoundland and Labrador. Glen Tobin, another prominent PC who used to sit in the Cabinet with the Tory government, was appointed to Chair the Liquor Commission. Joan Cleary, we have all heard her name, defeated PC candidate in the last election, she was appointed to be the President of the Bull Arm Corporation. LeeAnn Montgomery, a friend of the Premier's, an agent for the Premier's Deputy Minister, Ross Reid, in previous elections, was appointed the Lobbyist Commissioner. Mike Monaghan, another PC candidate, lawyer in Corner Brook, another PC candidate who was defeated in the last election, was appointed Vice-Chair of the Liquor Commission. Then, yesterday, we heard that the Premier's son-in-law to be was given a job, without an interview process, to be a PR Director in some department or in the Premier's Office, I do not know which.

What I am trying to say here is that all of these positions were filled by PC candidates and PC friends without ever going through an interview process. What I am trying to say is that Mr. March responded to an ad in the newspaper or on television for a job and was picked, selected by three of the top civil servants in this government, and then approved by every member in this House of Assembly, unlike any of those people I just mentioned, and we are here today to determine his fate.

I am being asked today, if I vote yes to this amendment - if I vote yes to the bill that is going to be before the floor tomorrow, I will be doing something that I have never done before, and that is fire somebody. I have never had to do it, and I certainly hope that I do not have to do it. If the facts are right at the end of the day maybe I will, but right now I do not know the facts.

Mr. March occupied the position from 2001 until 2005. In fact, he is being paid today as the Citizens' Representative. He is off on pay, but he does not occupy the position.

Mr. Speaker, what happened for Mr. March to be removed from his position as Citizens' Representative was precipitated, my understanding is, by the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador, by a report that the Auditor General wrote on the Office of the Citizens' Representative. In that report on the office of the representative there were a whole host of issues that he found wrong with the behaviour or the conduct of the Citizens' Representative and as a result, the IEC, or the government - or maybe I am wrong - the IEC decided that they should review his contract. Some of the things in the Auditor General's report -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Pardon me? All right, go ahead.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order.

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

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

Again, I do not want to take any time from the Leader of the Opposition. Whatever time I take in making my point, he certainly can have it at the end of his time.

There was no review of Mr. March's contract. The IEC, with your representative on it, made a decision to move to outside council to give us another viewpoint on what the Auditor General's commentary was with respect to Mr. March. So, it was not a review of his contract. We wanted another viewpoint. All members of the wanted to get independent legal council to review the commentary and the allegations that were made by the Auditor General to either confirm or deny what happened. So, it was not a review of his contract. That is an important point to make -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And the commentary in the Auditor General's report, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his indulgence.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. A point of clarification. I believe there has been understanding that was what was being said.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Government House Leader because I certainly did not mean to say what I said.

Anyway, because of allegations that were made in the Auditor General's report, we thought it was necessary to at least examine and to clarify if indeed what the Auditor General was saying was true. There were a number of allegations made by the Auditor General.

I will read one of them to you, Mr. Speaker, just to show that we did not look at all the allegations the Auditor General made. One of them was that the Auditor General accuses the Citizens' Representative, Mr. March, of contravening the Public Tender Act, when in June, 2003, the office paid $11,182 for printing services for the 2002 annual report to the House of Assembly without being public tendered. What the Auditor General was saying is that Mr. March contravened the Public Tender Act when he spent $11,000 for the printing of a report.

Mr. March wrote a piece here claiming that this could not be the case because the Citizens' Representative, Mr. March himself, could not have contravened the legislation as the legislation, the Public Tender Act, did not apply to the Citizens' Representative office. He also goes on to say that even if his office fell under the Public Tender Act, he did not break the act because it is my understanding that you do not have to go to tender for a contract that is less than $10,000. You do not have to go to tender. He says there was not one contract let for the printing services but two, totaling $11,000.

The point I am trying to make, I guess, Mr. Speaker, is that the Auditor General made a lot of accusations. The Citizens' Representative has said that some of these are not true, but this is in the report that was prepared by the lawyer that we hired. I do not know the answer. I do not know if Mr. March contravened the act or if he did not contravene the act, the Public Tender Act. Even if he did contravene the Public Tender Act, I say to my hon. colleagues, that is not the first time that it happened. It happens all the time in government. In fact, it happened last spring after the Premier got the Atlantic Accord. He wanted to put out these feel-good ads to make us feel good because we had a couple of billion dollars in the bank. He hired a company -

MS DUNDERDALE: It is trivial.

MR. REID: It is trivial. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal says it is trivial. It is not trivial when somebody's reputation and job is on the line, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: It is not trivial when somebody's job, employment and his reputation is on the line. I would thank you if you did not interrupt with those silly remarks anymore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, even if Mr. March contravened the Public Tender Act it is not the first time that it happened and it will not be the last time.

The Premier, to make himself look good after the Atlantic Accord was signed last year, said he needed to have a feel-good ad so that we could feel very proud of ourselves. He hired a public relations firm in this city and he paid $200,000 of the taxpayers' money. Guess what? Under the law it says if you spend more than $10,000 you have to go to a public tender. Did the Premier put that up on public tender? No, he did not. Was the Premier fired? Are we being asked if we should fire the Premier here today, because I could vote for that? But, no, we were not. The Auditor General, this year in his statement, will probably say the Premier contravened the Public Tender Act, but we will not be asked to vote in this House on whether or not we should give him the flick, I will guarantee you that.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying here is that was one of the allegations that the Auditor General made about Mr. March, and there were a host of others, but it is my understanding that all we are looking at today are two allegations. Well, two main ones. Number one, is whether or not Mr. March could substantiate the travel claims that he presented to the House for payment. Number two, was whether or not Mr. March was under the employ of a union while he filled this position. That is my understanding of it. Correct me if I am wrong.

I have heard what Mr. March said with regard to his travel claims. I have heard what our lawyer said with regard to his travel claims and believe me, I cannot honestly stand here today and tell you who is right. I would like to have Mr. March sit here in front of us so I could ask him about his travel claims. I did have the opportunity. I was afforded the opportunity last week to have a briefing with the lawyer who is representing us on this case. I have to confess, when I left the meeting I had more questions unanswered than when I went into the meeting, and I am not saying anything negative about anybody, but we were in there for an hour or hour-and-a-half , myself and a couple of my colleagues, along with others, along with the Speaker, and a couple of others, and I had more questions when I came out than when I went in, because I do not know.

One case in point was, at some point, one summer Mr. March flew from St. John's to Nova Scotia and picked up a car and drove back from Nova Scotia. When he stopped in Port aux Basques he had a meeting arranged with a client; with an individual who was requesting his help to make a case to government. That is what he is supposed to do. So, he stopped in Port aux Basques, had his meeting with the client and drove to St. John's. He put in for a return trip from St. John's to Port aux Basques and return. Now, some people might say: How could he claim a trip from St. John's to Port aux Basques and return, when he did not drive from St. John's to Port aux Basques and return? He just drove from Port aux Basques to St. John's.

I find that a little too technical, because Mr. March could have easily scheduled the meeting for a week later, or three days later, or the next day, and he could have come back from Nova Scotia, arrived in Port aux Basques, drove to St. John's, and then left the next day and drove from St. John's to Port aux Basques and returned to St. John's and claimed the trip. He could have done that. That was one of the things.

Now, there are a whole of host of them. They are questioning whether or not Mr. March made the trips that he made. I cannot stand in front of you today and say that he did or he did not. I really cannot. I have heard what the lawyers had to say. I have heard what the Auditor General had to say.

The Auditor General, I think, was almost pretty - I think he was pretty, well, blunt, in saying that he did not make the trips, or he could not have made the trips. My understanding now is, that is a little iffy. Maybe he could have made the trips.

To me, there is no proof here that he was padding his expense account, not categorical - what do you call it? What do they call it in the law, if - anyway, what I am saying is that right now it almost looks like it is circumstantial evidence. What I would like to be able to do is question Mr. March as to some of these claims, but we have not been afforded the opportunity.

That was one of the reasons we are being asked to let me Mr. March go, because of his expenses, that they cannot substantiate some of his expenses. I do not know if he can, because we have not talked to Mr. March.

The second one deals with whether or not, after being hired by government, that he continued to work for a union in this Province. We all know that when Mr. March was hired originally, that he was indeed; he had some contracts with a union. We all know that there was a conversation somewhere between him and the Premier as to how long he could carry on his union duties and still sit as the Citizens' Representative. I do not know exactly - it says two months in this book - but I do know, Mr. Speaker, that even if he did carry on his duties, you have to ask yourself the question: Is that reason enough to fire the man? Because I happen to know, in my mind, that we all had complaints about Mr. March - and I say we. I think it was common knowledge among the members who were in the House of Assembly at the time that Mr. March was actually out there associated with the union in some way or the other. Whether he got paid for it, I do not know, but we all had complaints from home care employers that Mr. March was carrying out duties that he should not have been carrying out.

The point I am trying to make is, if we all knew it, why did we have to wait for an Auditor General's report three years later to come out before we acted upon it? Why did we have to wait? I can honestly say that I think if I went up into my office and dug through my files, I would find probably a letter from somebody in this Province, and I am thinking it might be from the Bonavista Peninsula, who wrote government, wrote someone in government - because I am sure I was not the principal of the letter; I probably had a copy - where they complained about Mr. March's activity, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes.

I am saying quite honestly, and I have talked to some of my colleagues opposite, they agree that there were rumours or letters or something out there saying that he doing it. We all knew it. Why did we all sit on our hands and do nothing until the Auditor General's report came out? Because, if you follow the Premier's logic, as we did on the Atlantic Accord last year, the Premier wrote Paul Martin a letter when we were discussing the Atlantic Accord, and what we wanted out of it. The Premier never got a response from Paul Martin, but the Premier stood in front of provincial and national television cameras, he stood in this House, and he said that he wrote the Prime Minister a letter and, because he did not get a response to the Prime Minister, he took that as a letter of consent. He said that if there were any problems with what he was asking of him, the Prime Minister would have written him back and said: Here is the problem.

What I am saying is, if we knew and we said nothing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. REID: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The member has asked for leave.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I have a minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: To clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. REID: What I am saying is that, because we said nothing did we, in fact, give Mr. March consent to continue what he was doing? If we thought it was wrong, why didn't we call Mr. March in and tell him it was wrong, and tell him to cease and desist? Because we all make mistakes, Mr. Speaker. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it is better to nip it in the bud - you have all heard that - nip it in the bud, tell people what they are doing -

AN HON. MEMBER: An error in judgement.

MR. REID: Sometimes people make an error in judgement, Mr. Speaker, as we know, and they get up and say: I made an error in judgement. Please forgive me. Don't take my job.

We have a tendency, when someone admits that they made an error in judgement, to forgive them, I say to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think that if we knew - now, some people might get up in this House after I sit down and say, I didn't know, I didn't know, I didn't know, but I think if you all had to be honest, those of you who were around at the time, heard rumours or saw something that would lead you to believe that he was, in fact, doing something. The fact that none of us said anything - if you follow the Premier's logic that silence is consent, I do not think we should be here today voting to fire him.

There are so many things unanswered in this report and, believe me, I am not being political on this one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

MR. REID: Oh, no, hear him up there.

All I am doing is presenting my feeling on this, Mr. Speaker, because, as I said, I read the report, I had the briefing with the lawyer that we hired, and I still have a number of questions that, in my mind, are left unanswered. The only way, I think, that these questions are going to be answered is if Mr. March appears before this House; because, Mr. Speaker, all forty-eight of us are, in actual fact, Mr. March's boss. Not one of us, not the IEC, the seven members of the IEC, which are two Liberals and five Tories, the NDP are not represented on it, I know that my two colleagues who sit on the IEC are eyes and ears on the IEC. They come back and tell us what is going on in there, not often in detail because we have other duties and sometimes we do not get into detail as to what is happening in the IEC.

The point I am trying to make is that all forty-eight of us are Fraser March's boss. I, personally, would like to be able to at least hear his side of the story, because in any court you like to hear the evidence from the accused.

Sometimes they refuse to take the stand, but in this case it is not the case because Mr. March has asked to come before the Bar in the House of Assembly and present his case. It would not be the first time that we had a stranger, as you call him, Mr. Speaker, someone who is not an elected member, stand in the House of Assembly.

I remember when the Meech Lake debate was on, and the old House that we operated out of was up on the tenth floor. I can remember when Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of Canada, stood in the House and gave a speech, and John Crosbie, Frank McKenna and others, so it would not be the first time, on an important issue, that we had strangers admitted to the House and being able to give a speech.

I would assume that the day the Prime Minister of the country was here, Prime Minister Mulroney, if somebody wanted to ask him questions that the Prime Minister would have felt that he, probably, would have had to answer them, and if he did we would have given him the opportunity. All I am asking is that we vote for my colleague's resolution, the Member for Grand Bank, that we afford Mr. March, before we find him guilty, at least the opportunity to sit or stand in this House and answer some of the questions that I would like to ask him, and I am sure there are others.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Government House Leader, the Clerk of the House informed me a short time ago that the report tabled in the House on December 6 under Tab B does not contain certain excerpts from the Report of the Auditor General tabled on January 26, 2005. Although the Auditor General's report was previously tabled and all members have copies of the report, it was the intention to include that document with the package presented to members on December 6. As Speaker and Chair of the IEC, we wish to table a supplementary report so that all members can have complete files. In other words, there is an inconsistency between the Table of Contents - there is a part of that that was omitted at the printers and we wish to table that now. Although all members already had copies of that in their files previously, now it has been tabled officially.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, before putting the adjournment motion, I want to move, according to Standing Order 11 - and I advised the Opposition House Leader of this - that the House on Monday, December 12, not adjourn at 5:30, and do further move that, if necessary, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10 o'clock.

With that, I will put the adjournment motion to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe the Government House Leader means to give notice of the motion and then move the motion on Monday.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I give notice, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 nor at 10 o'clock on Monday, December 12.

With that, I now put the adjournment motion to the floor, that the House reconvene on Monday, December 12, at 1:30.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that this House adjourn until Monday, December 12, at 1:30.

All those in agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stand adjourned until Monday, December 12, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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