House of Assembly
Newfoundland and Labrador

Private Member's Motion 
Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Home |  In the House | Private Member Motions

MR. SPEAKER: It is 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon. This is Private Members’ Day.

I call on the hon. the Opposition House Leader to continue with his resolution.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is what we know as Private Members’ Day. That is where private members, privately, as opposed to being a government member or an opposition or a third party, get to put forward certain resolutions.

The resolution that was put forward by this member on Monday deals with the issue of the Chief Electoral Officer’s failure or refusal to do an investigation involving the matter of certain funds that were identified in a recent court case involving Mr. Byrne, who was the Member for Kilbride, and what happened to those funds.

The resolution calls upon the House - in summary it says: BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls for an independent, third-party investigation to determine the extent and nature of transfers of public funds into partisan political operations and campaigns of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, some of the members opposite got quite upset when I raised a few questions in the House this week about this issue. There is a very good reason for raising the issue. It is not as important, in my view at least, as to which party is involved here. It is not as important as to the quantity, even, of monies used there. The important part here is: Has the Chief Electoral Officer done his job? That is the sole crux of this issue: Has the Chief Electoral Officer done his job? The bottom line is, here: He has not done his job.

Just to put this into context – and I only have thirteen minutes – Mr. Reynolds, who is the Chief Electoral Officer, at the time of his initial appointment, for example, there were questions raised as to whether he was biased or unbiased.

There were people over on this side of the House who voted against him. I believe the Member for Port de Grave voted against him. The Leader of the Opposition at that time voted against him. I think the current Leader of the Opposition voted against him. This member happened to vote for him, and said publicly to the man who was sat in the gallery: Look, I do not know you; I have no reason to judge you. How should I? I take you at your face value. People tell me you are an honourable man of integrity, and I accept and respect that.

Guess what? I have not changed my opinion on that, as to his reputation. I do believe that Mr. Reynolds is still a man of integrity. I am not questioning that at all. The question is: Has he done his job and exercised his responsibility as he is required to do under the Elections Act? That is the only issue here. That is the only thing that is being put forward, and hopefully, once I have an opportunity to explain this, it will be made clear why I think he has not done his job and why I think the job needs to be done.

Now, we had certain revelations in the Byrne case. We did not reveal them, nobody did. It was done as a result of consultations between the Crown prosecutor in the case and his defence counsel in the case. They prepared a statement of facts and they said this is what we agreed to. Nobody else came up with it. That was signed and put before a judge who was dealing with the case. There were certain amounts referred to. It did not all deal with whether they were used for political purposes or in the campaign or against a certain party. They dealt with a number of events and circumstances that Mr. Byrne allegedly or not allegedly anymore, he agreed, that he had used the funds for and that was stated in the agreed statement of facts.

Some of the circumstances related to money that was paid in respect to a by-election that was held up in St. Barbe back in 2001. Some money referred to money that was paid to workers in an election in 1999. Some was used from his constituency fund, it says, to pay for money that was done by certain lawyers for the party. That is not unusual that lawyers do work for political parties and give opinions. We have had them done in the Liberal office. I am sure the NDP has had them done, governments get them done, PC parties get them done. Nothing is unusual about that, but that is the facts. It does not just relate to the by-election and whether or not the Elections Act was contravened vis-à-vis that by-election. It relates to other matters because whether it is a by-election or whether it is any other activity, parties have obligations to report.

Now some people have the assumption here that there is an allegation being made that the party did not report. How could a party report if they did not know anything about it? Nobody is suggesting here that any party knew anything about it and failed to report it or did not comply, intentionally, deliberately. That is not the issue here. The question here is when it came up it referred to Mr. Reynolds and said: Don’t you think this requires an investigation? Check it out; see what it is all about. Now he summarily dismissed it. You can use whatever word you want to say how Mr. Reynolds dealt with this issue but the bottom line was it was dealt with suddenly. He dealt with it abruptly. He dealt with it swiftly, rapidly. The bottom line was he exercised a judgment and a conclusion very quickly and he said there is no need for an investigation.

The only thing that I could find reported in the media as to what allowed him to come to that conclusion was he said he made a few phone calls. Now, we do not know in the public who he made the phone calls to, we do not know the results of those phone calls. That has never been elaborated upon. Nobody has ever been informed as to what the results of that were. So, he has just said he did not want to go study the issue. By the way, do not get hung up on the word investigation. I do not care if you want to call it a study, a review, an examination, whatever you want to call it, an analysis of it.

We are just looking for some governance and proper, informed commentary from the Chief Electoral Officer about what he thinks about this issue. He just summarily said: No, I am not going to deal with the issue. Now I think that is inappropriate. He has an obligation under the act to get into the details and find out what was going on. He might decide, for example, once he gets into them that he wants certain things kept confidential. That is his prerogative, nobody is denying that. Nobody thinks for a minute that his findings are going to overturn the by-election in 2001. Nobody is foolish enough to think that. The very gentleman in question who was involved in the by-election won it back then, won it twice since. What it the point? The issue is: Were the rules complied with? If they were not complied with, what can we do to strengthen the rules? It is not a case of punishing anybody for not complying with the rules. But, he concluded that there was no need for even – he just did a cursor review of it. That is the only information we have.

He also stated that he thought it was dealt with downtown because the court case was dealt with. That is not true, not so, Mr. Speaker. The court case downtown dealt with a criminal matter involving Mr. Byrne and the Province, and the country. It had nothing to do with whether or not the Elections Act was complied with or whether any provisions of the Elections Act were not complied with. That was not the case. It is also the case - he thought for example, that the money referenced was already dealt with and ordered to be paid back and so on. That is not the case, according to the prosecutor in the case.

Mr. Reynolds also came to the conclusion that: well, it would not matter anyway because it was only $3,000 being talked about, therefore they would not have been over the legal limit. Therefore it was not an issue, it was irrelevant. But, how do we know if he does not do an investigation, or a study, or an analysis to find out what was the total amounts involved here? There is more than $3,000 here. That was in St. Barbe. What about the other issues? What about the other monies that it is agreed - it is now a fact, it is not supposition anymore. It is a fact before the courts of this Province that monies that came from the provincial till, vis-à-vis the constituency allowance, got used for party purposes. That has not been examined by him. He has not commented on those issues. We are talking in a range of about $30,000 mentioned in the statement of facts. We are not talking about just $3,000 in the by-election. I think that, in and of itself, shows that his commentary about why it was not necessary is incomplete, it is faulty. He used faulty reasoning to come to that conclusion, so how could his conclusion be acceptable?

Now, talk about what the CEO would historically do as the Chief Electoral Officer. We have had some examples recently that the Chief Electoral Officer, no matter who he was, no matter what the issue was, they went out and checked it out. It could be the foolishest things in the world. For example, we all remember the case of the Premier supposedly gave a donation to a charitable group during a campaign. Somebody twisted it and said he was trying to buy votes. Now somebody actually reported that to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer of the day, I do believe it was a Mr. Green, rightfully said: foolishness, foolishness.

We also had a report, I do believe, from someone complaining, who said the PC Party were using a Winnebago type vehicle and was the use of that vehicle a contribution under the Elections Act, and if it was, should it have a value attached to it? The Chief Electoral Officer of the day reviewed it, came back with a written report and said: no, I looked at it; not a problem. That is fine. Everybody lived with that. Everybody moved on, but at least the CEO took the issue, reviewed the issue, investigated the issue, took the time to write up his report, got all the facts and said, not a problem.

We also had the case of the trustees, and I am sure some people are going to talk about: oh, partisanship, it is only because Mr. Reynolds was partisan. Well, the last one we had the issue of somebody made a complaint to the CEO about the Premier would not tell who his trustee was on his blind trust. That went to the Chief Electoral Officer as a commissioner for members’ interests. He looked at it, he investigated, a Mr. Furey, I do believe. He came back and said: foolishness, rubbish, not a case. The Premier does not have to say who it is. Guess what happened? It was done, it was heard, it was investigated, the ruling was made and life went on, folks. Life went on, but the job was done. Nobody just said, well I am not even going to look at it. It does not warrant it. I will make a few phone calls and that is the end of it. That is not how the past records of CEOs have dealt with things, and that is not how it should be dealt with here.

By the way, it is not only the Opposition, and this is coming forward through the House of Assembly by way of a private members’ motion. It is not only the Opposition who have raised these questions. Anybody who has lived in this Province in the last three weeks, it is not only the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, who actually formulated it into a private members’ motion and brought it here, who has raised this question. The Leader of the NDP has raised the question. The Leader of the Official Opposition has raised the question. Every blogger who exists in Newfoundland and Labrador has raised the question. There have been literally dozens of callers to the Open Line shows who have raised the question. One of the individuals who runs the open line shows raised the question; Mr. Simms. The editor of the local newspaper, the Telegram, raised the issue. This is not coming from the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. This has been raised by dozens and dozens of people in the public domain.

I have a copy here of the article from Mr. Wangersky, the editor of the Telegram. He said, Poisoning the well, and he went through his reasons as to why he thought the CEO had made a mistake and why the CEO should have investigated the matter.

Guess what, folks? This is only the first step. This is only the first indication. This was a case involving Mr. Byrne. What happens if, in the other outstanding cases, it raises its head again? Nobody, who has ever been a member of the House of Assembly, no party that has ever been involved in politics in this Province, is immune from what has happened here. This only happens to be Mr. Byrne’s case. What if next month it becomes a case of one of the other individuals who was a member of the Liberal Party, and the allegation comes up again? Are we all going to close our eyes to it and say, nah, we didn’t do it when it was Mr. Byrne, but because it is Mr. Anderson or somebody we are going to raise it now. If it happens to be Mr. Collins who was a member of the NDP, do we say, okay, we are going to jump back now and do that one? These cases haven’t concluded. It is not a case about parties. It is an obligation that we have, as members of the House. We voted the man in. We have an obligation to see that he does his job.

It so happens, those are the facts we deal with today. Next month it may be a member of the governing party who is up on a private member’s motion saying, this was revealed in a court case downtown last week involving Mr. Anderson or another gentleman of the Liberal Party, and say, we want an investigation. I think we would be foolhardy to look up and say, no, we shouldn’t do that, close your eyes to it. The public have had enough, when it came to the Auditor General and when it came to Justice Green, with what is happening with MHAs.

I am putting this forward because we have to insist that the CEO properly does his job, that he enforces the requirements of the Elections Act. That is all this is being put forward for. We could very well, next month, be facing the same situation again.

In conclusion, I am disappointed with the fact of what Mr. Reynolds didn’t do. I think he ought to have done it. I think he misstepped. I think it was a misjudgment on his part. I think he should do a thorough complete investigation, and once it is done he should report upon it.

People are misinterpreting this to be a witch hunt versus an investigation. Call it what you want, but it is going to come back to haunt every member of the House of Assembly if the man is kept from doing his job and doesn’t do his job. I submit he didn’t do it properly, so we, as members of the House, have an obligation to say that it is done. I don’t think he is the right person to do it now. I think he has given the perception of bias now in his actions; no question. I do not think he would be the right person to do it. That is why I suggest that it should be done by someone independent.

This is the purpose of this motion. As I said, you can start flinging mud if you want, you can start saying it is all wrong, you can start getting personal, we can delve into clauses if we want to, but at the end of the day, folks, it comes back to one question here: Did Mr. Reynolds fail to do his job, and if so –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, ten seconds just to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just to clue up here, Mr. Speaker, the submission is that I think this cries out for investigation. I think Mr. Reynolds has prejudiced himself now to the point where he should not do it, but we, as members of the House, should insist that it be done by some third party.

I call it a third party, but I do not care, really, if the government appoints who the third party is, personally. I really do not care, but I do think it ought to be done.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The resolution that we have before us today is a very serious one and it is one that has implications for all of us. It is one that has elements of a very painful history for members who are currently sitting in this House and who have sat here in the past. We are talking about the integrity of former MHAs and current MHAs, we are talking about the integrity of people who play a part in the political process, and we are talking about the integrity of our Chief Electoral Office. All of these things are very serious issues. They are issues that some of us would like to move on from and go forward in a very positive way.

Politicians, as a whole, have not been kind to the general public in some instances and have not been kind to themselves, especially in terms of constituency allowance scandals and what took place in this House of Assembly during the years that the Auditor General did not have access.

Mr. Speaker, in the resolution, and in the remarks that are being put forward by the Opposition House Leader, there are tremendous assumptions that have no basis in fact.

I stated publicly this week, as our government has stated publicly and as the Premier has said, that we have great confidence in the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to do his job. Mr. Speaker, despite what the Opposition House Leader has had to say, there is no evidence to support that he has not done a serious and thorough investigation of this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: He has not taken enough time, as far as the Opposition House Leader is concerned, but, you know, I am sure and I am confident that the Chief Electoral Officer has given this due consideration, that he has sought other opinions other than his own, and based on the information that he has, he has made a judgement that there is no need for any further investigation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the Chief Electoral Officer has used his judgement when rules have not been followed. I can give you a recent example, Mr. Speaker. After an election is held, we are given a deadline as to when all of us must file our election expenses, and for the 2007 campaign all four parties involved in that campaign were required to report by April 1 of that year. There was only one party in compliance with that part of the Election Act, and that was this party. The other three parties had not filed, and they could have been subject to fines and censure by the Chief Electoral Officer because they did not do what the act required them to do.

What did the Chief Electoral Officer do, Mr. Speaker? He granted extensions after his office reviewed reasons and determined that they did not involve wilful neglect or intent on the part of the chief financial officers of these parties. He used his judgement, Mr. Speaker, and that was alright with the crowd opposite when it worked for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: But they are calling into question now, and they are trying to dress it up as something other than it is.

It is like the old saying goes, Mr. Speaker, you can put lipstick on a pig but a pig is still a pig. In this case, this is not about the ethics or the independence of the Chief Electoral Officer. This is about the misspending of constituency funds by members of the House of Assembly. That is what this whole bill is about, this whole resolution is about, Mr. Speaker, and it is as partisan as it can get from the first Whereas down to the last word in the motion itself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader talks about the Chief Electoral Officer not doing his job. Well, I am going to submit that if the people opposite had done their job we would have never been in this position in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we got into this mess because the Auditor General was kicked out of this House of Assembly.

I am going to read to you from the Auditor General’s Report in the year 2005-2006 when he talked about the IEC Committee. The members at that time were Lloyd Snow, Beaton Tulk, Paul Dicks, Kevin Alyward, Gerald Smith, Loyola Sullivan and Tom Rideout. He talks about the fact that there were two very significant actions taken by the IEC which paved the way for the elimination of controls. Those two very significant actions were: In 2002 the IEC directed that the Auditor General’s Office cease performing audit work. This decision was made after, Mr. Speaker, the IEC was informed by the Auditor General that there appeared to be questionable constituency allowance items being claimed by a member who was also a Minister of the Crown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: A Minister of the Liberal Government.

In 2000, the Internal Economy Commission Act was amended, amended here in this House of Assembly by a majority Liberal government, so that the officials at the House of Assembly establishment were not required to send supporting documentation to the Office of the Comptroller General. As a result, all documentation was retained at the House of Assembly establishment and therefore not subject to any meaningful review, scrutiny, or challenge by either the Office of the Comptroller General or the Office of the Auditor General.

The Auditor General went on to say that these two actions effectively eliminated any possibility that questionable payments would be detected by officials outside the House of Assembly establishment.

What an indictment, Mr. Speaker! What an indictment of the people who sat in this House of Assembly at that time and who has the face of a robber’s horse, as my former colleague used to say, to come in and bring this kind of motion before us today.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer is charged with the responsibility to ensure that all monies associated with a campaign - any campaign, a by-election or a full general election - are spent appropriately. Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer is not responsible for funds that are used in any other circumstance for a party. He or she is not responsible for legal opinions that have been acquired by the party or where those funds came from.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer, in our opinion, in his investigation, has clearly established that the party was not aware of where Mr. Byrne got the funds. The candidate was not aware of where Mr. Byrne got the funds, and the campaign was not aware. The money did not supersede the amount of funding that was allowed to be spent in the by-election, and there is no evidence anywhere to support that the outcome of the election would have been any different had those monies not been spent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning the fact or challenging the fact that those monies were used inappropriately. It was not the right thing to do. Those monies were not spent properly, and there is a price being paid today, Mr. Speaker. There is a price being paid by the person who made that decision, made that very bad decision. He has rightly been taken to account for that in this Province and he has paid a very heavy price for the mistakes that he made; but, Mr. Speaker, we became aware of the inappropriate contribution to Mr. Clarke, or the inappropriate fund from which the funds were used to give to Mr. Clarke, and I just want to read the last statement in the agreed statement of facts in which the Auditor General, John Noseworthy, stated that the excess spending would not have been discovered but for the government’s request in 2004 to do a review of the House of Assembly’s finances. It was only when the Auditor General reconciled each cheque issued by the government to MHA claims that the excess spending of constituency allowances was discovered.

Mr. Speaker, that is the bottom line here. This government came in, and they did not agree with what was happening here in the House of Assembly. They had promised transparency and accountability as they laid down the planks of their platform in the 2003 campaign. When we got here, the Premier of the day - the former Leader of the Opposition, who was not the Leader of the Opposition, I might say, in 2001 when this by-election took place, the new leader who was representing and leading his party in the 2003 campaign, stated quite clearly that we will be transparent and accountable.

The crowd opposite make light of that, and have a great deal of fun poking around with that sometimes. Sometimes words are important, but actions are even more important, Mr. Speaker. Not only did our Premier talk the talk; he walked the walk. As a result, there was a great deal of embarrassment for people in this Province. There was a great deal of hurt, not only for the people here in the House of Assembly, not only for the families of people who were engaged in wrongdoing, but for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, because their trust had been betrayed. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been let down, and that is a burden every one of us carries in this House.

I cannot do anything about what happened before, other than to make a promise that my own behaviour will be ethical, that I will keep my promises to the people who have elected me here and supported me here. That is all any of us can do, is to be accountable, to be open and to be transparent on a go-forward basis.

Mr. Speaker, for somebody to rise in this House and accuse the people who undid their wrongful actions that allowed these kinds of events to take place is almost too much to bear.

Mr. Speaker, you know, it was not ethical either for Mr. Byrne to do the things he did in that campaign. If the crowd opposite, if my colleagues opposite, want to engage in a debate on ethics on that campaign, where we had the Liberal candidate who was not a member of government handing out cheques, government cheques, all over the place, if we want to have a discussion of ethics, that is something we are more than prepared to engage in, on this side of the House, but to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Chief Electoral Officer of this Province when there is not a bit of evidence to support it is offensive and ludicrous, and it is why members on this side of the House will not be voting for this resolution.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. We are dealing with a very serious bill today, a very serious issue, and I have to say I thought when we dealt with all of the issues and the fall-out of things that happened in this House back in 2006 that there was nothing else that would really disturb me. I guess I thought I had seen it all and heard it all. I knew that once the court cases happened, where the people actually were in trial or whether a court case took place in the way in which Mr. Byrne’s did, that there definitely would be information in the statement of claim that might surprise us, but I was absolutely shocked when I saw the news that the statement of claim included fraud with regard to elections, because elections are so important.

Elections are the place where the people in this Province finally get to tell us, the people that they have voted for, whether or not they think we are doing a good job. That is the place where democracy comes to a very important fine point, the time when people can go into ballot box and vote. We know it is extremely important because we have an Elections Act that governs elections, governs every single aspect of elections, not only money. It governs every single aspect of elections, and all kinds of attempts are made and everything is done to make sure that the elections are carried on well.

We all know how important elections are on an international level. We have, for example, in countries where sometimes they have not experienced elections, or where their experience of elections has been very, very negative, and elections are not carried on in a good way. They are not transparent, they are not legally – well, they are criminal sometimes; you get all kinds of fraud going on. In countries where they recognize that and start to move forward with elections, you get observers who come in from outside, international observers.

When South Africa, finally, apartheid ended and they were going to have their free election for everybody who lived in that country, you had people in there from all over the world, monitoring. When Mexico was dealing with the fact that they had elections that were fraud-ridden, back in the 1990s in particular, there were elections there where people came in from all over the world to observe the elections. I was privileged enough, actually, to be part of that team that went into Mexico, a part of the team from Canada. Teams went in from all over the world. So it is worldwide, it is international, our desire to have elections that are free and that are clean. I think they are the two words that we would want to put to elections: free and clean.

So, when we get word that a former member of this House not only defrauded people of their money, of the public money, but used that action to also insult our elections system, it is very, very disturbing, and I think this House, and the Chief Electoral Officer who does the work of this House in monitoring elections – and that is the fact: the Chief Electoral Officer does the work of this House, takes on our responsibility to monitor elections, and is mandated to make sure that the Elections Act is not broken, and that if there is a break of the Elections Act that he or she will investigate that break, that breach of the act. It is an extremely serious mandate that the Chief Electoral Officer has, and the Chief Electoral Officer is accountable to this House, so if we, in this House, accept an act of that Chief Electoral Officer then we ourselves have done the act as well.

Now, I want to take that point and I want to talk about it in terms of the motion that we have in front of us today. Maybe some people are wondering why the resolution is looking at just one party. Well, the thing is that what we are dealing with, the action of Mr. Byrne, was an action as a member of the one party that is named in the resolution.

In doing the study that I thought was necessary in preparation - not for today, I did it before today - for the meeting of the executive of the New Democratic Party last week, I read carefully the Elections Act. Something that is very clear in the Elections Act - and I do not know if my colleagues have done some of that research that I did. If they go to paragraph section 327 of the Elections Act there is an extremely important piece there that I am sure that my friends on the government side of the House would be very concerned about, and maybe they are not aware of it.

The main point of paragraph 327 of the Elections Act is that a party, any party, has a vicarious responsibility for anything done or omitted by an officer, official or agent of a political party or a trade union.

Now that is a fact; that is in the Elections Act. That means that all of us, if one member commits a criminal act - and it also covers if an officer does not do something that you are supposed to do - that if one of us does that, the party that we are part of is responsible as well. For me, that was very important when I read it. I said, holy cow! That is what I said when I read it.

I really ask the members on the other side of the House, the members of government who make up the party that Mr. Byrne was part of, to look at their responsibility under the Elections Act. Now, it is the party that has the responsibility so it is not the caucus. That was why, last week, when we had a discussion in the executive of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, we decided that we wanted to put our concerns as a party to the Chief Electoral Officer, and a letter was sent to the Chief Electoral Officer signed by the president of the party, and the president sent that letter to the other presidents of the parties in the Province and sent it also to the leaders of the parties.

So it is the party responsibility, but the caucus in this House is the caucus that comes from that party and it is the caucus that appointed Mr. Reynolds. I would hope that the caucus members from the Progressive Conservative Party would see that in this House they too have a responsibility for the actions of Mr. Byrne.

I have to tell you, that if this were my party, if I find out, as leader of the party that I represent that a member of my party – and let’s face it, we all still have trials or court cases coming up. So we are all in this together. I certainly hope I am not going to find it out, but if I found out that a member of my party did the kind of thing Mr. Byrne did, in relationship to an election, then I would be the first one out there begging the Chief Electoral Officer to do a full review, because I would want to know how deeply that action went.

We do know, from the statement of claim, that Mr. Byrne’s actions involved more than just that by-election, that there were other elections implied as well.

I cannot see why the members on the government side of the House are not begging Mr. Reynolds to get a third party, because I agree with the mover of the motion that is on the floor. Mr. Reynolds has become so compromised now that he, himself, cannot do a review anyway, and there is nobody else in his office who could do it.

So, it is obvious that if a review is done, and I really plead with you to realize a review needs to be done, because the party that you are part of – and I am speaking to the government members now – the party that you are part of has a vicarious responsibility for what Mr. Ed Byrne did. You should also be doing what I said I would do, and that is saying you have to have a review. There has to be a third party, and we are going to make it happen.

The people of this Province have been through enough. I mean, we are going to have no - as people who stand in this House, we are going to have no credibility left. We will have no credibility left if we do not take action on this. If you vote against this motion today, I say to my brothers and sisters on the government side of the House, if you vote against this resolution today you are telling the people in this Province that you do not care. It is their money. The thing is, it is not the money, it is not the issue, because somebody can say it was not very much money. No, it was not, that is not the point. It was a criminal act, and Mr. Byrne implied his own party in his criminal act.

The thing that I want the Chief Electoral Officer to look at is: What is wrong with our system that made this possible? Because we all know, we have all been part of elections; we all know how they run. We have been doing them for years, whether we did it as people who were elected ourselves or we did it as people who worked in campaigns. We all know the role of the official agent. We know what the official agent is responsible for. We all know the role of the Chief Financial Officer of the party. We all know that both the campaign and the party have the right to spend money in equal amounts. So if the campaign spent $27,000 the party can spend $27,000.

We also know, and I am asking us to search ourselves around this, we know this is true. That if a party, and we all can do it, brings in somebody from outside. I had people brought in from outside for my own campaign, but when we do it we all know, all people involved in the campaign and in the party on that level, Chief Financial Officer, the official agent, we all know whether or not the person is being paid in cash. We all know whether or not the person is being paid in kind, because that has to be accounted for.

I cannot imagine, in the elections I have been involved in, and I have run myself, as we all have, but I also have chaired election planning committees for campaigns and the election planning committees meet regularly, we all know that, unless the Progressive Conservative Party does it differently. We all know when the time comes for the report, even though the official agent is responsible, we all look at it, we all talk about it on an election planning committee, and one of the questions that gets asked is: oh, that person got paid. If it is in kind, are we sure we have the in-kind contribution noted there? If the person is getting paid, well who is paying the person? Is it where the person is coming from? Sometimes, for example, in our case we may get somebody from a union that is an in-kind contribution. Is the party paying for the person? Is the campaign paying for the person? That is all part of the election planning committee.

So I want to find out how you could have this thing happen in an election where neither the official agent nor the Chief Financial Officer or anybody seems to be taking responsibility for the fact that there was no reporting done on the payment that was made to Mr. Clarke. Number two, that nobody tried to figure out: well if he was paid, who paid him? I cannot believe that. We should all want to find out how that could happen. This is so basic to our democratic process that I am really shocked that we are going to be voting on this around party lines here because this is such a moral and ethical issue. It is a moral and ethical issue, and I am very serious about this.

I really invite the members of the government, if you do not have it in front of you, take the Elections Act out, read section 327 of the Elections Act and ask yourself in all conscience if you really can vote against this motion today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the NDP that I have no problem voting against this resolution because it smacks of pure partisanship. It smacks of partisanship, and for her to stand in this House this afternoon and suggest that the members of this party and this government do not care about the expenses that were incurred in an election in 2001, or that we do not care about the misappropriate and inappropriate use of government funds, Mr. Speaker, she need look no further than the actions that we took in the spring of 2004, in the very early days of us coming into government to allow the Auditor General, insist that the Auditor General come back into this place and investigate the expenses of this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, uncovered the unsightly mess that was here as a result of the actions of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Liberal Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the days of 2000 when the IEC Commission, which, as my colleague as already said, was comprised of Mr. Lloyd Snow, Mr. Beaton Tulk, Mr. Paul Dicks, Mr. Kevin Aylward and Mr. Gerald Smith who made the decision because one of their colleagues, maybe one of the ones who are on the list, I kind of believe that it was actually, but in any event, because the Auditor General’s office had come in and had a look at the books in the place in 2000, realized that there was a possibility of some inappropriate expenses and some inappropriate claims, as I think the report said on artwork and wine. So we might not have to think very long to figure out where the problem was.

The decision of the government at the time, Mr. Speaker, was to tell the Auditor General: Here is the door, find your way out through it, and do not look back. Then they turned around and amended the legislation to ensure that the Comptroller General’s office, who would have had some oversight and had some ability to detect some of this inappropriate spending, they amended that so there was no supporting documentation required to go to the Comptroller General’s office. As a result of that, we have a $4.5 million mess on our hands, Mr. Speaker; five MHAs who are out the door, either charged or convicted right now, and a serious stain on the political face of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what this hon. crowd opposite, and the hon. Liberal Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, did in 2000, Mr. Speaker, and tainted us.

Mr. Speaker, the three members who are sitting in the Liberal Opposition right now were involved with that government at that time, in one way or another, and they have the audacity, the face, Mr. Speaker, to come in here yesterday and put this private member’s resolution on the table, and to ask for an investigation into the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador on our election expenses. It is almost too much to be able to swallow. To know the kind of actions that they undertook in the election of 2001, in January of 2001, and what happened back there, Mr. Speaker, is revolting.

I was in that by-election. My colleague ran in St. Barbe, and I ran in the Straits & White Bay North. I can tell you, what Mr. Ed Byrne did with $3,000 of constituency allowance money, we all acknowledge, was inappropriate and was illegal, and he has been taken to task for that. As my colleague said, and everybody knows, he is paying a very heavy price for it. My understanding is that he has been ordered by the court to repay it; but, as the Deputy Premier has already pointed out, if he is not to repay it, the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador accepts responsibility for it and will pay it. So, Mr. Speaker, what is the issue here? Mr. Paul Reynolds, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Opposition House Leader is calling into question the integrity of the Chief Electoral Officer.

Well, as my colleague said, they did not have any problem with Mr. Reynolds’ integrity back in the spring of 2008, April 2008, when they were supposed to have their election expenses filed, and they were supposed to have their declaration in to indicate to everybody and to the public and to the Chief Electoral Officer where they got their money, how much they spent, and what they spent it on. They had no problem with Mr. Reynolds’ decision at that time, upon reviewing the facts and granting them an extension so they could get their files in order and get their report filed. They had no problem with his independence back then, Mr. Speaker. They accepted his decision then.

Maybe he should not have made that decision. Maybe we could have called into question his integrity and his independence at that time, because we had filed. We were on time, we were in compliance with the act, but the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador was not in compliance with the act –

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor the NDP.

MR. TAYLOR: - and the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador were not in compliance with the act. I do not know who the other party was – the Labrador Party, I guess – were not in compliance with the act, but we were in compliance with the act, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, don’t go coming in here and standing up on a soapbox and getting up on your high horse and being holier than thou. Like my father used to say, they are more holy than righteous; that is what their problem is.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the New Democratic Party talking about how this needed to be investigated, and what have you. The investigation has been done.

I listened to the Opposition House Leader talking about how the investigation is not done. Mr. Reynolds may or may not, he suggests, have looked at the $3,000 contribution that came from his constituency allowance. The question there for Mr. Paul Reynolds to answer is not where the money came from. That is a question for the Auditor General and the court and the RNC, and they have delved into that. That is who has responsibility for that, and they have exercised their responsibility appropriately and the actions have been taken and a person is in jail right now.

Mr. Reynolds has to look at, was it declared? If it was not declared, in this case, would it have exceeded the amount of money that Mr. Young, or the Member for St. Barbe right now, would have been allowed to spend on the campaign at that time? Clearly, that $3,000 would not have exceeded the election expense allowance on that campaign in that district at that time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the people who was involved with the campaign at the time - I am just reading this from the VOCM Web site - apparently was on VOCM last night. "One of the candidates in the 2001 St. Barbe by-election feels the Chief Electoral Officer has made the right decision not to open an investigation into an expense controversy. Both Opposition parties are calling for an independent review." Blah, blah, blah. "However, the NDP candidate back then, Steve Carey, told VOCM Backtalk with Ryan Cleary, an investigation would not change anything. Carey, who finished a distant third, says one cannot call into question the integrity of Wally Young, the man elected then, and MHA ever since."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That statement, Mr. Speaker, is from a person who was a lot closer to it than anybody else in this House at that time, other than the sitting member. I think that speak volumes, because Mr. Carey has stepped above the partisan politics that we see demonstrated by the four Opposition members here in this House today. He stepped above that. He recognizes that what was done was inappropriate, was illegal, but the price has been paid for that. The person who did it has been called to task and has been sentenced as a result of it.

The PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador have said that, if required, the party will repay the funds. So, Mr. Speaker, you really have to ask, what is the question here? What is it that the Opposition House Leader is trying to get at? In this day and age - since we came to government, we have tried to ensure the openness, accountability, transparency and what have you of all the expenditures of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader, in this introduction of this resolution, questioned the Chief Electoral Officer. As I said, his words, I do not know exactly what they were, it will be in Hansard tomorrow, but basically what he said is that Mr. Reynolds exercised a very swift judgement, that he acted quickly, that he acted decisively and did not want to study the situation.

Mr. Speaker, it was a $3,000 contribution that was inappropriately sourced. It would not have materially changed the outcome of the election and, even if it was declared, it was compliant with the amount of money that was allowed to be spent on that election. So, what was Mr. Reynolds supposed to do?

I heard the Opposition House Leader again talking about how there are other funds, somewhere in the order of $30,000, that were sourced from constituency allowance by Mr. Byrne and used for party operations, supposedly. The only piece that is within the purview of the Chief Electoral Officer, as far as I know, is the $3,000 that was spent on the St. Barbe campaign in the by-election of 2001. That is the only thing that he has authority to look at. He has no authority to go and look at how some funds may or may not have been sourced from constituency allowance and then utilized to conduct research for the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where the RNC came in. That is where the courts came in. That is where the Auditor General came in. That is who has responsibility for that.

Mr. Speaker, none of this – I say again, none of this - would have happened, number one, if the members opposite, in their infinite wisdom in 2000, had not kicked the Auditor General out of the House, and none of this would have been done – uncovered, identified – and none of the prosecutions would have taken place, none of the charges would have been laid, none of this would have uncovered and laid bare before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, had it not been for the election of 2003 when Premier Williams and this government were installed in this place as the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Because, Mr. Speaker, if – if, and I know this was a remote possibility, very remote, but if – we had lost the election back then, can you imagine the kind of shemozzle that would have continued to happen here in this House of Assembly? Can you imagine what would have happened over the course of the past five-and-a-half years, given what happened in the three or four years prior to that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, for them to get in here and question whether - the $3,000 and the inappropriate spending, nobody on this side questions it, but to stand up…. As I said, I went through that election. Mr. Beaton Tulk was the Premier at the time, and Mr. Beaton Tulk was also, if I remember correctly, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Now, if you want to talk about inappropriate spending, let’s just look at the Community Economic Development Program. The INTRD slush fund, that is what it was unofficially known as, internally. The political slush fund of the minister is essentially what it was, somewhere in the order of $500,000 if my memory serves me correctly, no application requirements, no criteria, basically, for how it was spent. In the fiscal year 1999-2000 there was $4,400 spent in the Straits & White Bay North out of that fund.

MS DUNDERDALE: How much?

MR. TAYLOR: There was $4,400. There was no election on the go, you see; but in fiscal 2000-2001, $1.23 million; $1,232,452. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you how that was spent. I can tell you how that was spent. That is where the chequebook was sitting on the table in a room in St. Anthony Motel in the lead up to the election and during the by-election of January, 2001. I know that for a fact.

There were broomball teams that had $10,000 contributions made to them. There was garage doors bought for fire halls. There was all kinds of stuff done. I cannot remember all of it now but I tell you there was - but when you go down to 2001-2002, it drops back to $309,200. Now I suspect the vast majority of that, in my recollection, was carryover from projects that they funded in 2000-2001 during the election. The election took place on January 30.

Look at this now, in 2002-2003 I was the member. I can guarantee you now there was not very much money coming my way in 2001-2002 or 2002-2003 or 2003-2004, I can guarantee you that while they were the government. I am going to guarantee you that the roadwork that is going to be put in Port de Grave district this year by me, as minister, to the current Liberal member, that Liberal district, is going to far exceed what I got in three years in total, while I was sitting in the Opposition and they were sitting in the government. So I can guarantee you, we do not stoop as a government to the levels that they stooped to and the treatment that they inflicted on the people of The Straits & White Bay North and St. Barbe district in the couple of years immediately following their by-election loss in 2001.

In 2002-2003, $50,000; 2003-2004, $50,000. The same thing was borne out in St. Barbe district. In 2000-2001, $633,486, an election was on the go; 2001-2002, $294,000, spill over from the projects that were funded in the by-election; 2002-2003, $41,650; 2003-2004, $40, 543. So, if there is anything that needs to be investigated was how the public purse was utilized to try and buy votes in the by-elections and the general election - in the by-elections of 2001 and the general election of 2003. Mr. Speaker, if that was investigated and how that money was spent in a variety of districts around the Province, I think it would be a real eye opener for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, my time is just about up. I can go into a whole lot of stuff where inappropriate spending has taken place on the public purse. I am not going to get into it too much today because it takes away from the issue at hand. The issue at hand is how election expenses were sought and how they were spent in the by-election of 2001.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General looked into it. The Auditor General rendered his judgment. It was turned over to the police. The police did their investigation. They turned it over to the courts. The courts did their work. Mr. Speaker, the charges were laid, the prosecution took place and the man is in jail, and the money is being repaid one way or another. So I would like to ask the Opposition House Leader, what is his point? Why is he calling into question the integrity of the Chief Electoral Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador? He did not call it into question when he ruled in their favour back in 2008. I do not call this ruling in anybody’s favour. It is irrelevant. The $3,000 is going to be repaid. The $3,000 was inappropriately sourced and a person is in jail as a result of it, that is it. If they had done their job back in 2000 and let the Auditor General uncover the dirt and the filth that was going on in this place we would not be here talking about this today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and have a few comments with regard to the private member’s motion that was put forward by my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile.

I can assure you, the comments that I had prepared for today, I am going to go a little off track. I had no intentions to be even considering any partisan comments, but I cannot help it because I have heard it a couple of times from across the way. I do respect every individual in this hon. House. I think the group on this side of the House are more than the crowd opposite, even if you are only considering the four of us, there are nine other of your colleagues over here as well.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about what we are dealing with here, we have better names than being called the crowd opposite. I want to say that each and every one of us, when we get involved in an election we have an Election Act to follow. I do not care who was on the IEC back at that time. God love each and every one of them, they are from both political stripes, I do not care.

I agree with how the Auditor General came in and did what had to be done here in this House, but those issues, in my comments that I have to make, I do not think have anything to do with what we are dealing with here today, not from my perspective. I honestly believe –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleagues opposite and I hope I get the same respect from them.

I want to take us to the Election Act. We have heard very little about the Election Act. Each and every one of us, we appoint a Chief Financial Officer. The candidate for every district and the Chief Financial Officer are responsible for whatever goes on in that district. Regardless of where the money comes from, it has to be recorded.

I know it has been said here that the candidate – and I have the greatest respect for the gentleman. As a matter of fact, I was on the Northern Peninsula when that by-election took place. I do not say I made a very big difference in the outcome, but I was there. Mr. Speaker, he is an honourable gentleman. I stand here today and I do not think for a minute that he knew what was going on here. I do not think the Chief Financial Officer that he had in place knew what was going on and I do not think the party, the Progressive Conservative Party knew what was going on, but there was one individual, and probably others, who definitely knew what was going on. They knew what the Election Act states and how it has to be recorded.

I heard a comment, I do not know who it was now, said that the CEO is not responsible for where the money comes from. I have to say, I beg to differ. Each and every one of us, we know what we can do in our districts, we know who we have to report to and we know what money we can accept, and it has to go into the Chief Electoral Office. I am sure if they saw something that was not in place we would be notified before long. Regardless of how it happened, whether this might never have happened, if the Auditor General was allowed into the House is one thing, and I agree with that, but we have to go by the Election Act regardless of where it came from and how we solicit contributions.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to go into the cheques that were made out, I was on the Northern Peninsula. I know issues that happened up there. I am not going to bring that up. I do not think it has anything to do with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I was not there for that reason.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Regardless of what I was there for, and I do not have to go very far –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: I do not have to go very far. I do not have to go very far, Mr. Speaker. All I have to do is go back to the last election. All I have to do is go back to the election of 2007. If I want to stand here and bring up what was done, all I have to do is go to Port de Grave district in the election of 2007, but I will not do that; 2007, our last election. No, no, I will not go there because I do not want to bring politics into this. This goes beyond politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: And I say some of the hon. members opposite –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I must have struck a chord with some of them. They know what I am referring to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the political end of this because this is too important. I want to go to why this was brought forward and just go into some of the comments our Chief Electoral Officer has mentioned since this has surfaced. He went on to say there is no evidence that anyone other than Mr. Byrne was involved. I would venture to say, being a candidate myself, and we have forty-eight of us here, don’t tell me none of us knows what goes on within our districts to some degree, someone on a campaign team. They have to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: To some degree we do. (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: That is right, to some degree.

I can assure you that if I was paid $3,000 I would want to know where it came from, who gave it to me, and is it reported. Because, if you are a good campaigner and involved in an election, you would know and want to know where it comes from because it has to be reported.

Mr. Speaker, he also went on to say there is no evidence available to support a contention that the outcome of the by-election was affected by the actions. He said there was no evidence available. All the more reason that maybe a more thorough investigation should have taken place. I can assure you, maybe some evidence would become available. To say that someone of the calibre of the individual who was called to that district to take part in a by-election did not make a difference.

I want to go to another by-election that I was involved in one time, and this has nothing to do with exchanging hands of money, but just to say how an individual can help to effect an outcome of not only a by-election but a general election.

I go to Bonavista North. As popular as my hon. colleague is there, I have known him for years, a very honourable gentleman in his by-election, I was down there. Do you know the biggest comments that were made by all parties that were there? It was the hon. member that was there helping him to organize the campaign, to know what was being done. My hon. colleague from Conception Bay South, that was the big issue. To say that someone comes into a by-election and does not play a part in an election, we all must have our heads in the sand. Because, for the Chief Electoral Officer to say that anyone who went to any district did not have an effect on it, I do not think is proper.

Mr. Speaker, the other comment that has been made, and maybe I am out to school on this one –

AN HON. MEMBER: Out to lunch.

MR. BUTLER: Out to lunch, whatever, school lunch.

He stated that the cost of the by-election was approximately $17,000. This came from the Chief Electoral Officer. He said they could have spent twenty some-odd thousand dollars. So, he said, even if the $3,000 was a part of it, it did not affect anything.

Mr. Speaker, is that saying if we do not overspend we can do what we like with any money that comes in? I beg to differ. The $3,000 has to be recorded. It should have been recorded. People involved in that by-election knew that it should have been recorded.

Back when it came to the floor when this gentleman was hired as Chief Electoral Officer, I think my hon. colleague stated very clearly that I did not support him. It was not because of the individual. Hansard will show I have the greatest respect for the individual, from the comments that were made by hon. members opposite, from people who worked with him when he was in the municipal government and so on. That was not the issue, but it is the thought of the public perception that maybe one day something would surface and his reputation would be placed on the line because of the position that he held. I do not care what political stripe it was, regardless of who was there, and I think it has come back. The reason I voted against him at that time, I think it has come back. What this gentleman is wearing today, there is no need of it. There is no need of it. All he had to do was carry out – I know it has been said that an investigation has been carried out, but I do not think it has been thorough enough, and the reason that I am supporting this today is for that very reason.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments I just want to say that I believe that with our Elections Act we have a gentleman there to carry out the work that has to be done. I could not agree more with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources and also responsible for Forestry and Agrifoods, when she said: We have every confidence in his ability to do his job.

I concur with that. All I am saying is, proceed with it. Do what has to be done. The public deserve…. It is like my hon. colleague said, and I think probably some others, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi stated very clearly that many people are speaking out about this. That is the public perception that is there. It is unfortunate if this individual is wearing this because he did not proceed with this investigation. All we are asking is, if he is not prepared to do it, that the hon. House of Assembly would ask that an independent, someone outside, or someone can be appointed by government to review what has been done.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place and listen to what has to be said by others.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been listening to the comments made on this motion this afternoon with some interest, and there are some real contradictions. I just want to bring attention to a couple of points that I think are really important to understand here, because the members of the Liberal Party opposite have tried to take great pains - as did the NDP try to take great pains - in talking about this not being partisan, and not being political, and trying to make sure they are perceived as being squeaky clean in this process, and having nothing but ultra-true motives here, and nothing that would cast any doubt at all around what has been driving this process only the want to be open and transparent.

My colleagues have been very clear in their comments about this government’s track record in opening this House, opening the processes that this House is involved with in terms of members’ spending, how this House functions, the transparency, the openness, and holding people to account. I will not belabour that point because it has been made very clear by my colleagues, but when I hear comments by members opposite talking about this not being partisan I think you need to go to the motion, because no one has really referenced the motion in any fashion here today, Mr. Speaker.

If we read the motion on the books as it is now, the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED piece, it says, "…that this House of Assembly calls for an independent, third-party investigation to determine the extent and nature of transfers of public funds into partisan political operations…."

Mr. Speaker, the Member for The Straits talked very eloquently about public funds being used for political purposes during this same by-election. So, if we are going to actually do an investigation, I wonder why the motion doesn’t read: spending by all parties in that by-election.

If you really want to be truly non-partisan in this process, maybe we need to amend this piece here and say that we want to go into that district, we want to go back to that by-election, and we want to look at spending by every single person, every single party, so we are able then to talk about the donations to the volleyball teams, the donations to the fire departments, and the donations to all of the other non-profit and charitable organizations. All of that kind of expenditure needs to be examined, Mr. Speaker. All of that expenditure needs to be examined.

If they were truly sincere and honest about wanting to be non-partisan about this piece, then why not include that? It becomes very telling, Mr. Speaker. It becomes very telling about how partisan this actually is when you read the last part of the sentence when it says "…and campaigns…." Not just a campaign but "and campaigns" - meaning all campaigns of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot read that paragraph and say that this is not all about partisan politics. This is about cheap partisan politics, trying to discredit a member of this House, trying to discredit an officer of this House in doing his role as the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Port de Grave just said something that is also pretty telling. I think what he said was, if I heard him correctly -and if I was wrong Hansard will correct this tomorrow - but he said: I do not think it was enough. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite acknowledged that the Chief Electoral Office had done a review and had looked at the facts before him. He looked at the facts before him and the member opposite acknowledged it a moment ago. But his word is not enough.

Really, what we are talking about here is the opinions of the members opposite about whether or not the investigation was sufficient; not whether or not an investigation was done. I think we would all acknowledge, the members opposite just did, that the Chief Electoral Office did look at the facts of the case. They looked at the facts of the case. He understood what happened here. He was able to speak to what actually happened here, because he was very clear, acknowledging that something had happened. An individual had actually been tried for that. There had been a decision made in a court of law that ruled on the use of the money and ruled on how the money was actually sought and gotten and came into the possession of the former leader. That has already been acknowledged, and the members opposite are acknowledging that,

Two things, I say, Mr. Speaker, are becoming very apparent here. It is an issue of partisan politics, and the second is, they are questioning the degree to which the investigation was done. There has been an acknowledgement here today on the floor of the House of Assembly by the Opposition party, that an investigation has in fact taken place. There has been an investigation that has taken place, by the office. It is not satisfying their interest and their interest is in partisan political politics, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that is happening here, Mr. Speaker: The motion talks about, compromised and biased his ability. Mr. Speaker, the members opposite, by extension of this motion here, are asking the House to dismiss an officer of the House. If we take this motion and we stand in this House, not as parties but as individuals, as individuals we will stand in this House today, we will not be voting along party lines, we will be voting as individuals. Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to stand in this House today by the Opposition party and, by extension, pass a motion that says we believe there is an inappropriate investigation. An investigation has been done but we do not think it has gone far enough. On the strength of their not thinking this investigation went far enough they want me and other members in this House to stand today and pass a resolution that would see us, in effect, asking for the resignation, or we would fire - as members of the Assembly here we appoint officers to this House so we can terminate officers of this House.

If we stand here today, we are being asked to terminate, by extension of this motion, the Chief Electoral Officer of the Province. The question for all of us is: Is there enough evidence? Has anyone investigated the conduct of the officer of the House? Is there enough evidence to ask for his dismissal today, because that is what we are doing. We are saying here that the officer has been compromised and has biased his ability and willingness to investigate potential misconduct on the part of members of the governing party.

We are going to stand in this House today and say that this officer of the House is no longer fit to hold this position; he should be fired today. In fact, if we stood today and passed this resolution we would have to stand instantly behind it and pass another motion to fire the Chief Electoral Officer. That is what we would, in effect, be doing.

Now, I am asking members opposite in this House: Is it reasonable, based on the information that you have presented here today, for us to do that? What we have heard here today is that, yes, we have a responsibility as members of a party, and as a party participating in an election campaign, the party has a responsibility to be in compliance with the Elections Act. We all understand that. We all understand our role as legislators, as members of this Assembly, to debate and to talk and to uphold our responsibility to the House. We understand our role in election processes as being part of a political party, I say, Mr. Speaker, very clearly. But when we stand in this House and vote on a motion, we need to understand the content of the motion. It is always nice as well, for motions like this, to understand the motivation. Let there be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt at all, this is motivated by nothing but cheap politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The thrust of this motion started, I say, Mr. Speaker, when the motion was put forward to appoint the current Chief Electoral Officer in the first place. When that happened, I say, Mr. Speaker, when that came forward, when, in fact, the motion was made in this House to appoint the current Chief Electoral Officer to the position, this process started at that moment. Because from the very instant that motion came forward there was an attack on this man’s personality, this man’s person, this man’s integrity, his history, and his work performance. Every single aspect of this man’s performance and history came into question the moment his name came forward. This is just an extension of that initial attack on an individual’s integrity and his ability to do his work in a very unbiased fashion.

All you need to do, Mr. Speaker, is read the rest of the motion, when it talks about investigating all of the campaigns of the Progressive Conservative Party. The Progressive Conservative Party, this particular term in office - since 2003, we have had one general election, we had a general election in 2007, and there have been eight or ten by-elections during that same period. This motion calls upon an investigation of our party, the Progressive Conservative Party only. It does not call upon an investigation into election spending, it does not call upon the House to ask for an independent investigation into all by-elections, it zeros in on one - one, Mr. Speaker, one! – when we have already had members opposite acknowledge that there has been an investigation, but not adequate.

I say, Mr. Speaker, when we examine motions before the House here, as legislators we have a responsibility to understand the implications of passing a motion, and the implication of passing this motion here today is to fire the Chief Electoral Officer. The wording might say to carry out an independent investigation, but the result of our passing this, as suggested here, talks about a person who they describe as now biased in his ability and willingness to investigate potential misconduct on the part of members of the governing party. Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, they are asking for the removal – a bit cute. I will give them credit for crafting a nicely worded motion, but too cute by half, because the implication is that we would be firing a person in this House. and we have not debated that today. We have not talked about the performance of a person who would warrant a firing, a dismissal, but that is what we are talking about. That is what we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker.

I mean, this is almost as bad as the members opposite standing in this House and saying that Grand Falls-Windsor cannot support an addictions centre - the same thing, Mr. Speaker - standing in this House making irresponsible comments, making comments that are not founded, bringing into question the integrity of people, bringing into question the ability of a community, or a region and a community, to support an addictions centre, talking about making political decisions, and accusing us of making a political decision to establish an addictions centre in Grand Falls-Windsor which can be supported, in fact, by the community and by the region. Then they accuse us of being political about it, and come to the House and introduce a piece of trash like this motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: And have the unmitigated gall to stand up and say, boys, this has nothing to do with politics.

How foolish do they think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are that they are going to believe that has nothing to do with politics? This has all to do with politics, all to do with cheap politics, and that is what this motion is all about.

Mr. Speaker, not representing a party, not on behalf of a party, not on behalf of a caucus, I am telling the House today, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that I personally, as an individual, as a singly elected MHA, I am not supporting this motion because it reeks of cheap politics. It is partisan politics of its worst. Furthermore, I am being asked, as a person in this House, in voting for and supporting this motion, by extension I will be actually supporting the termination of an officer of this House, and I am not prepared to do that. I cannot do that. I am not prepared to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I have had a few minutes to make a few comments on this trash of a motion, and I am not prepared, for a moment, to entertain supporting it in any fashion, modify it, amend it as it is written here because it reeks of nothing but cheap political gamesmanship by the members opposite.

Now if, however, they want to come back some time and introduce a motion that we would go back in history and take the last ten or fifteen elections, general and by-elections, and have someone examine expenditures of ministers, expenditures of parties, expenditures of the governing party of the day, examine the accounts of Municipal Affairs, examine the accounts of innovation, industry and trade, those accounts where there was some flexibility to spend money to try to influence or manipulate public opinion. If he wants to do that, if he wants to bring in a motion like that some day, well I will be prepared to stand and have a different kind of debate, but a motion like this that isolates an individual, isolates a district and brings into question the spending habits of a party, a party that has made a great contribution to Newfoundland and Labrador, I say, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to support.

I thank you for the opportunity to have a few comments, but clearly, I will not be supporting this motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader to close the debate.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened intently to the commentary from all of the speakers this afternoon. It is good to see the discussion because this is the whole purpose of the debate of course, it gets the information out. The public who are watching this needs to know both sides of the issue and issue, and that is the whole purpose of it. I had three speakers, of course, from the Opposition side and three speakers from the government side.

I have to say, I have to hand it to the government members, they are the masters of deflection, no doubt about it. I never heard one bit here today that was of substance dealing with the resolution, not a bit. I heard all about partisan politics, I heard all about why we should not do this, I heard all about twists and the wordings of the resolutions and so on, but I never heard one good reason, never heard a suggestion as to why this should not be done.

I am just going to backtrack over a few of the comments that were made in the short time that I got to conclude. The Minister of Natural Resources talked about the extensions being given by the CEO in 2008 because the Liberal Party, of which I am a member, were late filing their forms. Guess what, folks? He investigated that. He knew all the facts of that, and he made a decision to give an extension. He did his job. I am glad to see the man did his job. He did his job.

The other comment about the Auditor General and so on, and what the famous IEC did. Well, guess what? I heard names being popped around about Liberal members; I never heard too much being popped out today about who else sat on the IEC. I never heard too much about Mr. Sullivan’s name, who was a member of the Opposition party at the time. The vice-chair, I believe, of the IEC. I never heard too much about Mr. Rideout’s name, who was on the committee, who also made the same decision. I never heard too much, by the way, never heard too much because there was an amendment. I never heard any discussion on this piece. There was actually an amendment made to the act and a whole bunch of people voted on it, some of whom spoke today. Some who voted spoke today. Go back and check the records about who voted. Never mind who is on just the IEC, record the vote. That is easily enough done.

Now, the other thing was talking about the CEO had no authority to look into anything other than the St. Barbe issue. Not correct at all, Mr. Speaker. That statement was made by the Minister of Natural Resources. That is not correct at all. Anything that involves elections or expenses and party fundings in this Province, the Chief Electoral Officer has a right to look into. In fact, he has an obligation to look into it. They file statements every year. You tell them where you got your money from, you tell them what you used it for – actually, you get it audited before you give it to them and then he does his own auditing process. So never mind what he can and cannot have the authority to do. He has the authority.

As I said, a lot of comments here to deflect from the real issue. In fact, one of the government speakers today talked about – he was involved himself, in the 2001 by-election that was held on the Northern Peninsula, the current Minister of Transportation and he used the word ‘inappropriate’ spending. If there was inappropriate spending in that by-election or in the by-election that involved the member for Clarenville area, who is now the Minister of Health, it should be investigated. If there is evidence to indicate that there was inappropriate – inappropriate was the word he used – expenditures, it should be done. Nobody is denying that. No question, it should be done.

Integrity; you talk about today, comments were made about a tax upon the integrity of Mr. Reynolds. Now I do not know which of the other two members over on this side attacked the integrity of Mr. Reynolds, it certainly was not this speaker. It certainly was not this speaker who attacked him. In fact, in the last while since Mr. Reynolds has been there, I indicated that I had voted for him back when we did the debate in this House when he got sworn in. I said at that time why I voted for him. I said at that time why I would not vote for him. In fact, I got to know him a little bit after because him and I had several disagreements after. Let’s not mistake each other. We had several down-and-outers when it came to disputes between me and the Chief Electoral Officer since he got put in that position. Guess what? When the discussions were over and the debates were over between me and him, they were over. You put your case on the table –

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whatever time I take – I will not be long – from the hon. member I will certainly have no problem in him having that time on the end.

Mr. Speaker, when he says he does not call into question the integrity of the Chief Electoral Officer his resolution speaks differently. "AND WHEREAS the Chief Electoral Officer of the Province, through his actions and inactions, has been shown to be compromised and biased in his ability and willingness to investigate potential misconduct on the part of members of the governing party." That is a direct attack on the integrity of the Chief Electoral Officer and it can be interpreted no other way, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

There is no point of order. The member’s comment has to do with the interpreting of the resolution.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, there is no point of order because it is rubbish, it is nonsense. Never! Just because you say someone did not do their job in a certain circumstance that is not attacking their integrity. There are all kinds of rules and laws and requirements and guidelines.

It is like the Minister of Innovation and Trade, there may be mundane regulations and rules over there that he might fail for whatever reason not to imply or not to use. To suggest in this House in a Question Period or anywhere else that he did not do what he was supposed to do is not saying he is a bad person. That is what we are saying here. We are saying here that Mr. Reynolds failed to do what he is required to do under the act. That is what this is about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) biased.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The members opposite are talking about biased. Absolutely! Absolutely!

This man, Mr. Reynolds, the Chief Electoral Officer of this Province has created a perception of bias, not only in my eyes folks, in the eyes of the public. He has created the impression that he is biased and that is why this investigation should be done and should be done by a third party other than himself.

I will conclude with my last comments about – again, just to reiterate, the man did not do his job. There were rules and acts that he did not follow. It needs to be done.

I will give the Minister of Health, who spoke today just previous to me, credit for one thing. He made a comment that maybe the resolution should have been broader, to talk about all parties in that particular by-election. No problem. No problem, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome it. If there is any government member here who wants to make that amendment, move it and pass it, and then we vote on the resolution, not a problem. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with expanding the resolution to include the Liberal Party, the NDP Party, and any other party that was involved.

Now, let’s see if they can put their money where their mouth is on that one. Let’s do the amendment and let’s vote in favour of the amended resolution which they called for. Let’s see if they can do that. Mr. Speaker, I suggest they are not going to do that. They do not have the gumption to get up and do that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, back to the Minister of Health and his comments. I wasn’t going to say this, but this was brought to my attention by the Member for Exploits. He said: Don’t say anything about my buddy - he said this - the fellow we used to call the centrefold for Trust magazine.

Now, those were the words that were applied to the Minister of Health years ago, and his colleague reminded me. Anyway, I have never seen anybody with such bafflegab. Nowhere in this resolution – nowhere in this resolution - does it say, Mr. Speaker, that it calls for the resignation of the Chief Electoral Officer.

You talk about spin. If anybody can point out – and, by the way, anybody who is watching this in public knows they can go on line and you can read all of this for yourself. You do not have to take my word or his word for it. You can go on line. Nowhere in here whatsoever does it say that the Chief Electoral Officer should resign. Nowhere does it say here that the Chief Electoral Officer should be fired. It is not in there.

Now for that man, that minister, the Minister of Health, to get up here and suggest that is even in that resolution is absolutely not correct. It is not correct whatsoever, and people out watching this, by the way - because there are more than just the forty-eight of us here - the public…. That is the purpose, of course, for these debates, and why television is so great, because the general public gets to see what the resolution is. They get to read the resolution. They get to hear the arguments put forth from both sides, and they will be the ultimate judges.

Guess what? We are going to vote on this shortly in here. We are going to vote on this and, even though the decision on the resolution is made here today, the consequences and the implications are going to be felt long after this Chamber, and far, far from this Chamber. That will be determined, and that is the great benefit for TV. That is the great benefit of having the general public see what goes on. That is the great reason, because we are only forty-eight voters in here. We are only voting as forty-eight MHAs representing forty-eight districts, but the people out in the District of Lewisporte, the people out in the District of Baie Verte, the people down in Grand Bank, the people out in Corner Brook, they see this. They see this. They know and they see the spin that is being placed on this.

So, rather than vote upon the motion here - they will not even amend it. They make a suggestion it should be amended, and then they do not even have the gumption to amend it. There you go. Now, how much more cowardly can you get, Mr. Speaker, to stand up and say we should make an amendment, it should be broader -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - the mover of the resolution invites such an amendment, and nobody stands up and does it.

Why didn’t the Minister of Health, in his good graces and his good intentions, move the amendment? I am sure either one of us would have seconded it. We had no problem with that.

Yet, no, we do not see any such amendment because they do not want to have an amendment. That is why, because if they make an amendment they are going to have to vote for this resolution, and they will not find themselves voting for this resolution.

To suggest that we want to fire the Chief Electoral Officer – rubbish! He talks about rubbish. He is talking about rubbish. The resolution is quite clear. The man was given information in his capacity as CEO of this Province, the Chief Electoral Officer responsible for the administration of the Elections Act. He did not take the time to do an investigation. He said he made a few phone calls. He said the information was not available, but guess what? How do you know the information is not available, how do you even know what information there is, if you do not do an investigation to find out what information there is? Now, that is a pretty good one. Without even looking into this, he became the judge and jury.

If the police, for example, think you did something wrong, the police are smart enough to go out and say: Well, let’s go check this out. Let’s investigate this. They go out and they do an investigation. They talk to everybody who might potentially be involved. They try to determine all the facts. They look for all the pieces and bits of paper that they can find that might be relevant, and at the end of the day they come to a conclusion that this person either did or did not do something wrong. If they think there are reasonable grounds that he did something wrong, they would turn around and lay a charge.

That is an investigation, folks. That is an inquiry of substance. That is where some details are looked at. That is not what this gentleman, the CEO of our Province, did when it came to this incident. He did not do that, and all the motion is directed to is to say that he did not do his job.

Now, I do not care - really, I said today, I do not care who they have do it. I feel strongly now that he should not do it. Regardless of who does it, that does not take away from the fact that he did not do it, we still need it done, and somebody should do it. Because he is refusing to do it, and says it is not necessary, there is only one other person in the world, one other institution in the world, that can get it done, and that is this House of Assembly; to say, thank you very much, you have to go do it. Either you have to do it or somebody else has to do it.

That is what this government is refusing. I would predict they are going to vote against this because they do not want anybody to go looking under any of these rocks. They do not want anybody to go looking under any rocks. I am saying look under all of the rocks because next week we could be back here with a different situation. We could be here next month; we could be here next year with another situation. God forbid, if we have to stand up here next year and say: oh no, we are going to close our eyes to that one too. It could be a Liberal, it could be an NDP, it could be anybody. If we are going to close our eyes to these every time and say we cannot look or we do not want to look, we are going to be in serious, serious trouble in this Province on a go-forward basis.

This is the beginning. If this happens today, this is the beginning I predict of a bad, bad trend, and we will find ourselves back here in years to come regretting the decision that we made simply because one gentleman, for whatever reasons, did not do the job he is entrusted to do. I do not care what the outcome was. I would think the party, in this particular case, would be anxious to say: we did not do anything wrong, let’s clear the air. Why is everybody being so hidden about it? Why is everyone so defensive and sensitive about it? If the issue is to clear the air, why wouldn’t we have it cleared? We are not going to clear it by keeping the light off and keeping things under the rocks, but yes, we will see now if the rocks are going to moved or not. We will see if anybody is prepared to turn on the lights on this issue, or any other issue, when it comes to the Chief Electoral Officer. I predict that they will keep the lights off and we will still be in the dark, the public will still be in the dark as to whether the Elections Act was or was not ever violated as a result of this incident.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Does the House approve the resolution as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready?

Order, please!

Are the Whips ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the motion as put forward by the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Ms Michael.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion as put forward by the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Skinner, Ms Whalen, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr Collins, Mr. Ridgley, Dr. King, Ms Pottle, Ms Sullivan, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Oram, Mr. Kent, Mr. Dinn, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Baker, Ms Perry, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Pollard, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. Peach, Mr. Verge, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Harding, Mr. French, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Loder, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes three, the nays thirty-six

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair declares the motion lost.

Motion defeated.