The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon the House of Assembly welcomes sixteen students from the English 1101C Adult Basic Education class of the Discovery Centre in Spaniard's Bay. These students come from the districts of Bellevue, Trinity-Bay de Verde, Harbour Main, Carbonear-Harbour Grace, Port de Grave and Placentia & St. Mary's. They are accompanied by their instructors Ms Paula King and Ms Margaret Taylor.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The members' statements today will be from the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two volunteer firefighters with the Spaniard's Bay fire department, Mr. Weldon Seymour and Mr. David Healy, who received their firefighting long service bar and certificates of recognition on February 1, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Weldon Seymour on twenty-five years of dedicated service and to David Healy for twenty years of dedicated service. Both gentlemen are to be commended for their loyalty and commitment to the residents of Spaniard's Bay and surrounding area who depend on the fire department in times of emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in extending congratulations to Weldon Seymour and David Healy on a job well done.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate A.J. Whiffen of Grand Falls-Windsor, who has been making a name for himself in the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League, as a valued member of the Weyburn Red Wings team.

Mr. Speaker, A.J. Whiffen was recruited to the team last year, and is the only rookie to ever be recognized as the club's starting goaltender. He was recently honoured with the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League rookie of the year award, after achieving a league best save percentage. As his team face the playoffs, his coach has been quoted as saying that "Whiffen's play and upbeat attitude are going to be key factors in the team's playoff hopes".

It is commendable that this young man only graduated from high school this past December, and has already captured the interest of nine teams from high end schools.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating A.J. Whiffen for his outstanding achievements thus far, and in wishing him the best of luck in his future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Cynthia Colosimo Robbins - Cindy Robbins - of Forteau, Labrador, in my district, who provided illustration for a book published by author Paul O'Neill of St. John's and printed by Flanker Press.

Mr. Speaker, the book was titled How Dog Became a Friend and was not an easy story to illustrate since its setting is about 3,000 years ago in Labrador and involved the Maritime Archaic people. The book is about how a dog became friends with mankind, going from a wild creature to a civilized one. It is a very old Arctic tale and a true one and intended for children between the ages of four and nine. Ms Colosimo Robbins work was described by Mr. O'Neill as absolutely marvellous and that it caught not only the spirit of the story but the feeling of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Ms Colosimo Robbins on her incredible display of artistic ability and Mr. O'Neill for capturing a perfect literary tale of Labrador history in print for children forever, and I ask members in this House to extend our congratulations to both of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to offer congratulations to the seventeen young ladies who participated in the recent Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador Pageant. These young ladies represented their respective communities very well indeed.

I am happy to report that for my district LeDon Byrne was the third runner up in the pageant, while Laura Woodworth, also of Grand Falls-Windsor, took top honours and is now the new Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ms Woodworth is an excellent choice and will prove to be a worthy ambassador for all young people in this Province. She is an extraordinary young lady. Laura is involved in her community in many volunteer organizations, is a high achiever in school - in fact, she is enrolled in several university courses while still completing high school, and as well, is a talented musician. Apart from being named Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, Laura was also the winner of the Miss Academic Award, displaying her competence in disciplines such as current affairs, governance, and the entertainment industry.

To both LeDon Byrne and the new Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, Laura Woodworth, I offer my sincere congratulations and best wishes of all constituents of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, and I am sure of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Master Warrant Officer Stephen Jeans on becoming the recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal, Military Division, from Governor General Michaelle Jean.

The award recognizes individuals for bringing honour to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.

Master Warrant Officer Jeans was the company sergeant major, Indian Company, 2^nd Battalion in Afghanistan from January to August of 2007. He is being recognized for his leadership, exemplary performance and extreme loyalty to his soldiers and the mission during diverse and complex operations while under intense enemy fire.

Mr. Jeans and the 143 men who worked for him were seeking out and fighting the Taliban in the Kandahar district. They saw action sixteen times out of twenty-four planned operations, in addition to four other unplanned engagements.

The mission in Afghanistan was Mr. Jeans' fifth time overseas since joining the Canadian Forces in 1982.

Mr. Jeans and his wife currently reside in New Brunswick with their two children. He is a former resident of Cape Ray, in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile in Newfoundland and Labrador, and his mother Margaret Jeans still resides there.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Master Warrant Officer Stephen Jeans on receiving this distinguished award. All the best to Master Warrant Officer Jeans and his family, and we thank you for your contributions to our great Country.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Special Olympics team of Newfoundland and Labrador on its recent participation in the Winter Games in Quebec City.

Being active and participating in sports is important in everyone's life. The Special Olympics offers something extra. Its mission is "To provide year-round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of sports for children and adults with an intellectual disability in Newfoundland and Labrador, giving them continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy and participate in the sharing of skills and friendship with their communities and other Special Olympics athletes and their families."

I would like to give special recognition to Team NL's floor hockey team who won the gold medal in Division C of the 2008 National Winter Games. What a great victory! I would also like to recognize all of the participants who collectively brought home thirteen medals. This was truly wonderful representation from Newfoundland and Labrador. We should all be very proud of every athlete who participated.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Special Olympics play a vital role in supporting youth and adults with intellectual disabilities. They deserve the highest recognition for increasing the quality of life for many people in our communities.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Special Olympics team of Newfoundland and Labrador on their participation in the 2008 Winter Games.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to inform my colleagues and the people of this Province of an initiative that has changed the lives of over 135 children in our Province for the better.

In Budget 2007, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced that we would cover the cost of insulin pumps and supplies for children with Type 1 diabetes up to eighteen years of age. This strategic investment of $1.4 million resulted in significant and positive improvements in the lives and health of these children.

Mr. Speaker, Type 1 diabetes, which used to be known as Juvenile Diabetes, means that the body does not produce enough insulin to turn food into energy. Some of the serious complications of this type of diabetes include heart disease, blindness, nerve damage, and kidney damage.

Recent studies have found insulin pumps to significantly reduce the risk of complications for children with Type 1 diabetes. The insulin pump also allows children the freedom to be children - to play, to attend school and play sports without regularly having to stop for insulin injections.

Mr. Speaker, since we made this announcement, I have heard many accounts of the incredible positive impact these pumps have had on these children and their families. Parents no longer have to wonder how they will afford to pay for the pump, and they no longer have to administer multiple injections to their children on a daily basis.

I would like to quote a letter I received from one such parent living on the West Coast. Mr. Speaker, the writer said, "The announcement of the Insulin Pump program for children last spring was a welcome relief and an answer to our prayers."

This letter was incredibly meaningful for me, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health and Community Services, just as it is for all members of this House and all members of government, knowing that we are truly making a difference in the lives of children in this Province.

This is a real good announcement that we made last year and we are starting to see, over the course of the last twelve months, testimony like this coming in, a true testimony of the effect this has had on children and families in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

This is certainly an important issue, and one that was lobbied aggressively by the Diabetic Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact I remember, along with other colleagues in the House of Assembly, attending an information session, a dinner, that they held at the Holiday Inn a year ago where they made a very strong pitch to the minister and to government officials at that time to bring this about; and we, as an Opposition, certainly supported it and pushed for it in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are 135 children out there today who are receiving these insulin pumps. What I do not know is if that is meeting the entire need and the demand that was there, and if there are children still out there who may not be receiving them. That would be important as well, to be able to accommodate all of those who are in need.

Mr. Speaker, there are 31,000 people in our Province today who suffer from diabetes, and a number of these people are struggling when it comes to being able to provide for the income support you need to manage this disease.

I get calls in my office on a regular basis from people who are low-income earners, and people who are on income support, or, when they are being assessed for drug cards and drug coverage, that all of the expenses they require as diabetics are not being taken into consideration; and that includes things like the supplies that they have to buy to be able to look after their disease and manage it, whether that be needles or syringes or whatever the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, I think that government needs to focus on that particular problem and look at: Is there a way that you can be more accommodating to the people –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

- more accommodating to those who find themselves unable to pay for the expenses that come with suffering from this disease, and see if there is another way that those legitimate expenses can be calculated as part of their drug coverage.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I, too, applaud this. I was very pleased when I saw that the Budget was going to cover the insulin pumps and supplies. I was delighted for the people with diabetes who had lobbied for this, and I was delighted to see that government did respond.

I now encourage the minister, and the Minister of Finance as well, to think about other groups in our society who are in special need when it comes to medications that they need for healthy living. I think particularly about our senior citizens.

We have so many senior citizens who cannot access drug cards, and I continue to get phone calls and letters from these senior citizens. I believe that we have to, once again, look at a universal drug plan, but our first step could be to make sure that every single senior citizen has access to a drug plan instead of having to prove that they need it. People who are just outside of the income range are suffering, and I really encourage the two ministers to think about that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to announce that Ms Allison Kelly of Howley is the provincial winner of the Canadian Securities Administrators' Financial Fitness Challenge Contest. That was a mouthful. Allison is a seventeen-year-old high school student who will be attending St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia in the fall to study nursing.

Allison was one of 17,000 young people from across Canada who entered the contest during February to prove their financial fitness knowledge through a series of on-line questions. This was an 81 per cent increase over last year's participation in the contest, showing that our young people are indeed taking an interest in their financial affairs.

The challenge was open to Canadians age fifteen to twenty-one years old. Participants were asked questions and provided information on budgeting, saving and investing, and they were encouraged to learn more about smart financial practices through other Web sites. Winners from each province and territory will receive a $750 scholarship.

Mr. Speaker, contests such as the Financial Fitness Challenge are designed to raise awareness about positive and healthy financial practices. By targeting young people we are ensuring that, as adults, they will use and follow the responsible financial behaviour they learn now.

Even though the contest is over, the Web site www.financialfitnesschallenge.ca is active year-round so that young people can still use the interactive features that share important tips and knowledge of financial awareness.

The Canadian Securities Administrators will offer this contest again next year, and I am looking forward to seeing even more interest by our young people.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Allison for her success and I am sure that all hon. members will agree with me that she has a bright future.

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.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and to also congratulate Allison Kelly of Howley on winning the Canadian Securities Administrators' Financial Fitness Challenge.

I guess it just goes to show, Mr. Speaker, how talented many of our young people are, to compete against 17,000 people from across this country and come out the winner. I am sure the knowledge that she has obtained from this challenge will help her, not only while she is going through post-secondary but for the rest of her life, and we want to commend the Canadian Securities Administrators on saying that they are going to continue with this very important program.

If I could have a lighter note, Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to say - I know she excelled in financial administration - we want to commend her going into the nursing field, and hopefully when she graduates she will come back to the wonderful Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and help us with the nursing shortage we have right here at home.

We want to congratulate her, Mr. Speaker, and wish her all the best in her future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I am very pleased to join in congratulating Ms Allison Kelly of Howley as the provincial winner of the Canadian Securities Administrators' Financial Fitness Challenge Contest.

It is wonderful, and I am sure that the money she has won is also going to help her as she goes to university in Nova Scotia to study nursing. I hope that both her income and the income of other students will be large enough, as years go on for them, that they will need to be able to do financial planning.

You know, I think of many students who have heavy financial burdens as they proceed with their post-secondary studies, for whom financial planning does not have very much meaning because they are so heavily into paying debts, so I encourage the government to keep that in mind and to once again consider a full needs-based grants program and reduced interest on loans for our post-secondary students.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair calls Oral Questions, the Chair would like to recognize a former Member of the House of Assembly, a long-time Cabinet minister here and a Cabinet minister in the federal government, Mr. John Efford.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also take notice of a couple of other gentlemen in the gallery today: the Mayor of Gander, Mr. Claude Elliott, and the Mayor of Labrador City, Mr. Graham Letto.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are focused around the faulty ER-PR testing, and the information that has been coming forward out of the public inquiry and also from some of the responses that the Premier gave in the House of Assembly yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier stated that his government would never deliberately hide information affecting the health of the people of the Province, specifically related to breast cancer. What the Premier fails to realize is that this whole discussion is not about what the government did; it is about what the government did not do. It is about the lack of action that was taken by government in disclosing information to the public.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister, Minister Ottenheimer, claimed that their government wanted the people to know. So I ask, Mr. Speaker: Why did government fail to respond to any media interviews or reports on the issue, and deflect it all to Eastern Health, prior to the spring of 2007?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the matter was being dealt with by Eastern Health. The department had decided, in its own wisdom, that in fact Eastern Health were on the front line on this. They were closest to it. It was a very technical matter, and they were dealing with it.

Minister Ottenheimer has indicated in his testimony that in fact he wished to go public with it, but on the basis of medical advice that he received, either through his department or otherwise - I do not know exactly which medical advice or what medical advice it was - had basically indicated that it was in the best interest of the patients.

We cannot lose sight that this is about the patients and their care and their treatment. The other thing we cannot lose sight of is, these problems arose, Mr. Speaker, from 1997 until they were being dealt with in 2005. So the bulk of these had already happened. Unfortunately, the cancer had occurred. Unfortunately, the testing had occurred. Unfortunately, the mistesting had occurred. So what Minister Ottenheimer was dealing with was to try and handle a very delicate and a very difficult situation, and was dealing with medical professionals and taking their advice in the best interests of the patients. So, the first right is not the right of the public to know; the first right is the right of the patient to know – because it is about the patient. It is about their care, it is about their health, their welfare, the stress and duress that they are under.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member, I seek guidance from the House - and this is the same line of questioning that was happening yesterday, a very sensitive matter - are we going to make it time sensitive or allow members free to give the answers that they want to provide? I seek guidance.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We suggest we revert to the old rules and have timelines, that the Leader of the Opposition ask her questions and the Premier answer in the time allotted.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What I will do under those circumstances, within the timelines, if I cannot finish an answer to a question in the timeline, I will continue that answer in response to the next question.

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

MR. PARSONS: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not the prerogative of the Premier to decide. If he is asked a question, he is going to answer. The people will judge whether he answered it or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my question today is about when government knew what they knew, and why they failed to act in disclosing the information to the public.

I understand yesterday the Premier talked about the fear and anxiety that this would cause in patients. I think we have seen the tremendous amount of fear and anxiety over the course of this particular ordeal.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Premier of what his minister said on May 15 of last year. The current Minister of Health stated in a media scrum outside of the House: I understand and appreciate the dilemma that Eastern Health have found themselves in trying to balance their responsibility to the patients who needed a change in treatment and a responsibility to protecting the interest of the organization in the event of litigation.

I ask the Premier: With everything that you stated in the House yesterday, do you feel that your minister's comments were appropriate in this case?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the member opposite got the location right. Yesterday she cited as my having said it in this House.

I will ask the member, if she is going to use a media clip, that she put it in some context. I think my comment to the media last year - and there was some comment before that and some comment that followed that quote, but - it was in the context of information shared by Eastern Health in December 2006. I was commenting on something that they had done, not commenting on government's position, not commenting on my personal opinion about what should or should not be done. My comment was around why they did what they did, and that was the nature of the question that I was responding to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Premier and it was very clear: Do you think the minister's comments were appropriate in light of this situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have the benefit - or detriment, for that matter - of being trained as a lawyer, so the way I would look at things and the way that people who are not lawyers look at things is completely different. I have the benefit of that training, so I understand the legal implications. I can certainly state categorically though that anybody, whether it happened to be the hon. minister or it happened to be officials in departments, are concerned about litigation. They are concerned because they do not understand it. They do not understand the consequences.

I can tell you from this government's perspective, and I demonstrated very clearly that the memo that was present when you were in Cabinet and when your government was in office, which was a Dr. Ejeckam memo, back in 2003, I tabled that before this House at the earliest available opportunity. As well, while your government was in office that laboratory was closed down for five weeks, but I will also state for the record, I do not blame you, or I do not blame the Grimes government, or I do not blame the Cabinet for that. This is not about a blame exercise. What we are trying to do with it, as a government, is deal with a very, very complex problem and find solutions to make sure that this does not happen again to the best of our ability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier, again, is trying to deflect the issue and politicize it and that is not going to stop us from asking the questions, Premier.

The first account of this issue known in the Department of Health was under your government in July of 2005. That is the facts.

Let me ask this question, Mr. Speaker. The Premier stated yesterday that he could not recall whether senior staff in his office briefed him on the ER-PR testing issue in July of 2005. So I ask the Premier: Have you since asked your staff, did they brief you at that time or did they not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have had that conversation with my staff, and council for the commission has also had that conversation with my staff when my staff were interviewed by Mr. Coffey at the commission and we willing went down and undertook those interviews. Quite frankly, my staff and myself do not remember a conversation.

Now, I will repeat it again. That does not mean it did not happen. I have thousands and thousands, as you do, conversations in the course of a year and some of them cannot be remembered. I can tell you something, if there is something of major importance that was put before my staff and presented as a major issue and then was presented to me, I would certainly remember it, but I certainly cannot remember it. I can tell you that the practice of my staff, who are extremely professional, when critical matters come into that office to our attention, then they come to my attention. This particular note that came in on that day at 2:30 in the afternoon said that this matter required no action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that someone in the Premier's office, if they had been told that the health of thousands of people in this Province was impacted by something that was happening in our hospitals, that someone at the senior level at least would remember if they had a conversation with him or not.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier indicted that it was too early to assign blame but I think the first blame has been inflicted in this issue by him and his government, when you decided to fire the former CEO of Eastern Health, the former Deputy Minister of Health, and both of these people were let go and related to this issue.

I ask the Premier: Is that not considered accountable actions to these individuals and assigning blame?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have had enough, Mr. Speaker. For this person opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, to try and assign blame to this government for what happened to cancer patients who were improperly tested by a testing procedure, whether the procedure that was in practice before we came into office was wrong, because in April of 2004 when we were in office a new procedure was put in place which detected the problem. You are now trying to lay the blame for those patients and their situation and the consequences of mistesting on this government for something that happened between 1997 and 2004, is nothing but political games and it is shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier may want to divert the issue. He is the one who said yesterday about assigning blame. There are two top civil servants in this Province who have been dismissed related to this issue. I am just asking the questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we asked yesterday about the conflict position that Robert Thompson, the former Deputy Minister of Health, and the Clerk of the Executive Council have been placed in by acting as the government liaison to the Commission of Inquiry. We are not insinuating that Mr. Thompson is not qualified for the job, however, he has been subpoenaed to appear at the Commission and has been directly involved in the process, as has been shown in documentation tabled with the Commission. Those are facts.

I ask the Premier: Will you remove Mr. Thompson from his position as the government liaison to the Commission of Inquiry knowing that he has been subpoenaed to testify?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So we will throw some dung at Mr. Ottenheimer and we will throw some bung at the Premier and we will throw some dung at Mr. Abbott and we will throw some dung at the rest of them, Mr. Tilley, and now we are going to try and smear Robert Thompson. Well, shame on you! You worked with that gentleman. I have to tell you, and I said it yesterday, he is singularly, in my opinion, in our opinion as a government, the best person to have in that position right now in the best interest of the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You know, I gave the Leader of the Opposition credit for more, taking the high road. You mentioned to me in the weeks before we adjourned, there was an issue came up in the House about deaf children not getting treatment within three years. I immediately, as soon as Question Period was over, walked over and said if that is true, we are going to deal with that. That is the way I operate. That is the way I was hoping she was going to operate, but you are no different than the rest of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I am going to say to the Premier, he can go on the offensive all he likes. He can spend the whole afternoon. It is not going to deter me from asking the questions. The fact of the matter is, is this has nothing to do with the character of Robert Thompson. It has to do with the fact that the man is acting in the interest of the government, providing information from government departments to this commission and has been subpoenaed to testify as part of the commission. Isn't he not in a conflict of interest? Even good people, Premier, are in a conflict of interest on occasion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our goal is to get the best possible result for patients in this Province. We called that inquiry to get to the bottom of it. We wanted to find out what went wrong. Yes, hon. members opposite asked for the inquiry but we did not have to call the inquiry. We called the inquiry and it was to get the answers. Then what we do in order to try and get to the bottom of it, we put the best possible people in place. We have a head of the Commission of Inquiry down there, Madam Justice Cameron, who is an exemplary individual. Now, if she went to a doctor, is she in conflict? Is that what you are saying? If anybody has had any exposure with the medical system, are they in conflict? Madam Justice Cameron worked for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador at one point in time, is she in conflict? How do we get anybody with any expertise to act in a manner so that they can advise or make decisions on the basis of their expertise to be involved in a process that ultimately will lead to better patient care and diagnosis and save lives?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is a complete deflection from the issue. What we are asking is if you want to be open with the people, give the inquiry the right to use a process that is independent of government to search for the information pertinent to the inquiry and not have government managing the release of its own information. Will you agree to that Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is implying the conspiracy theory, that there is some act of government here, some intention by government here to hide: We are going to try and hide all this information, and if we can get Robert Thompson or somebody else to pluck out something, then we can hide it! We have nothing to worry about, we have nothing to hide. We have acted throughout this in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador overall, and also the patients, more importantly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We have done absolutely everything to the best of our ability with good intention. We are not trying to hide any information. Why would we try and get Robert Thompson, a very ethical individual, to put himself in a position where he is in conflict of interest and he is going to do something wrong? By saying that, you are implying he would do it and we would ask him to do it. Nothing is further from the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Premier is getting so upset over a few questions if he has nothing to hide. We are asking for an independent process for the Inquiry to access information through government departments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Who are the other members of the government Cameron Inquiry liaison team besides Mr. Thompson?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I could be wrong in this. I can't tell you the government liaison team. The only person who I would be involved with would be Rolf Pritchard who is government counsel, and Mr. Thompson.

Now, as a result of the review committee that he has been set up to head, he has his own staff there. The people who would be liaising with government, for want of a better term, I would think would be Mr. Thompson and Rolf Pritchard. I stand to be corrected on that, because that is not something I have even looked at.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Premier, yesterday you stated in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition – and it is on page 248 of Hansard, and I quote – "I do not think I have formally received a subpoena but I have certainly been asked to testify and have actually, in fact, appeared before commission counsel three months ago and gave them my full testimony at the time."

For the sake of clarity, have you or have you not received a subpoena to appear before the Cameron Inquiry, and if not are you prepared to appear before the Inquiry if requested?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I said I hadn't received a subpoena, not knowing whether I had or not - because as you know I would have to be served with a subpoena. I have not been served with a subpoena. What I didn't know is whether the Department of Justice had accepted a subpoena service on my behalf. My understanding is they have not, I have not had any communication.

Simple answer: No, I have not been served with a subpoena. The answer to the second question, would I attend and provide testimony before the Cameron Inquiry: Absolutely!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You also indicated, in response to the Leader of the Opposition's question yesterday, which I quoted from, that you appeared before the Commission counsel three months ago and gave them your full testimony at that time. Can you tell us when it was you appeared and who it was you spoke with at that incident, three months ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I cannot tell you what day it was, it was about three months ago. I think it was early in January, if I remember correctly, I do not have the date. I was asked to appear by Mr. Coffey and Ms Chaytor, who were counsel for the Commission, and counsel was with me at that particular point in time.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to my knowledge at least, it is the first time anyone in the Province knew or was aware that the Premier had had any interaction with the Commission, was based on his statement of yesterday. That is why I am asking these questions for clarity.

I say to the members, we know quite well that this government only answers questions that they are asked. We found that out from Mr. Ottenheimer last week.

Premier, to clarify this issue again, of this meeting that took place three months ago. You used the word testimony. Did you actually give testimony under oath at this meeting three months ago to Ms Chaytor and Mr. Coffey? Was it recorded?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Testimony is a term that I used. No, it was not recorded, it was not under oath.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

For the record again and clarity, regarding this meeting three months ago, were you asked by counsel to appear, or did you volunteer to go meet with them? How did the meeting come about?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I do not know. I think the request came from counsel to ask me to go down and discuss the issue with them, with a view to providing testimony. I did not have a direct conversation, to my recollection, at all with counsel, with regard to going down and appearing, and I think it probably came through Rolf Pritchard at the Department of Justice, I would think so.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Premier, how many current or former members of your staff, to your knowledge, have been issued subpoenas compelling their testimony at the inquiry, and would you undertake, they being your staff members, to table copies of those subpoenas in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have not discussed with all my staff as to whether they have been subpoenaed or not, so we can certainly find out who has been subpoenaed and who has not been subpoenaed (inaudible) and table it.

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

MR. PARSONS: I did not get the Premier's answer whether they would table those subpoenas in the House.

Premier, how many and which current or former members of the civil service have been issued subpoenas compelling their testimony at the inquiry? Will the Premier undertake to have those subpoenas tabled here in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we will now seriously consider, as a government, whether we will continue to answer questions on that inquiry. We are going to go to the inquiry now and we are going to seek direction. I ask the Minister of Justice to go to the inquiry and seek direction as to how far we can go in this House with regard to the details of the inquiry and subpoenas and what is proper procedure and what is right and what is wrong because, as I said yesterday, there is a process that is going on here. So I qualify my answer to you on tabling subpoenas. We will take direction from the inquiry on this.

This is about letting this inquiry go its full process. We cannot usurp the authority of that commissioner down there and we cannot start to try and make decisions here in this House of Assembly as a result of this kind of questioning as to what people in the civil service have received subpoenas. I will get a directory out tonight and I will phone everybody in the civil service and I will ask them if they haven't, and if I am allowed to give you the information, then I will.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect to the Premier, I mean it is up to him what he will or will not answer, I realize that, but we are certainly at liberty to ask the questions. I would say that anything I have asked here, by the way, has nothing to do with substantive testimony being given to an inquiry. I have simply asked questions of the gentleman, the Premier of this Province, who stood up here yesterday and talked about taking full responsibility, some pretty simple questions. You are the head of this government. Who in your government, ministers, or who you have control over as the government in a civil service, have been subpoenaed? Now I am not asking you what they said. I am not interfering with what they said to the inquiry. Can you, or don't you know, or is this a case again that you do not know? What is the answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is about the patients. This is about finding solutions to problems that are life-threatening problems. The hon. member opposite asked me if I know who in the civil service has been subpoenaed. I do not know. There are 30,000 people in the civil service. I have not talked to them all recently. I do not know. Why don't you get serious and zero in on the issues that are important to the people of this Province, the victims out there who are now being jockeyed around with political gains and political football and I am being used to deflect questions. I am answering questions. You put them and I will answer them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier does not have to lecture me about who is affected by this and the impacts. I have friends and I have people who come to me as constituents who are very much involved in this issue and they have a right to questions being asked and answers being given.

I say to the Premier again, maybe I will ask you something - you do not know about the 30,000 people who you are in control of and whether they have been subpoenaed. That is a very simple thing to find out, I would think. Maybe this one is a little closer to home.

Your Social Policy Committee of Cabinet, did they ever discuss this issue? That is your Committee, of your Cabinet, did they ever discuss the ER-PR issue, and when?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Social Policy Committee. I am not aware of a discussion.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question. I am looking for some clarification from the Premier with regard to a response that he gave yesterday when he said that the Cabinet did not discuss the faculty ER-PR testing until the spring of 2007, but yesterday, after reading documents tabled by the Commission of Inquiry, they tabled them yesterday, I noted a Cabinet directive November 4, 2005, Cabinet Secretariat note November 2, 2005, and a confidential memorandum to the Executive Council October 26, 2005. All of these were concerning the funding of new cancer drugs.

The memo had included with it a communications plan and analysis that describes the fallout or bad press of the faulty hormone testing and all of these documents are being tabled as being linked together.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to pose her question.

MS MICHAEL: A question coming up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, what I am asking is: Would not the content of all of those documents have been shared with Cabinet and been part of their discussion as they made a decision about spending $2 million on -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What I will do is I will take those dates and notes under advisement and go back and check the record. It is my understanding you are saying it is related to approval of drugs, cancer treatment drugs?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

PREMIER WILLAIMS: Okay, I will check that. I can provide the information, or if you wish to ask the question again tomorrow, then I will respond.

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

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I will ask the question tomorrow and I imagine the Premier will have an answer for me. Thank you very much, Mr. Premier.

My next question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

One of the major concerns of the Commission of Inquiry is the maintenance of quality control for hormone receptor testing. Last year we were told, and we know, that there is quality control testing ongoing, and the control would be to send a random cross-section of the test to Mount Sinai for sampling.

Could the minister now please give to this House an update on how those quality control measures are proceeding to ensure the reliability of hormone testing in the lab in this Province? It has been a while since there has been an update publicly, I think.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand it, these quality control tests are still being carried out. The results of those, I do not have that level of detail with me but I will undertake to provide it to the member opposite.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a direct follow-up, I wonder if the minister, then, would include in the report that he will bring to us the latest rate of concurrence of the Mount Sinai reports with the testing that is ongoing here in our own lab?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: What I can undertake, Mr. Speaker, is that any quality control tests that are being carried out in the ER-PR lab at Eastern Health, and the results of those quality controls, I will be able to table those when I get them from Eastern Health.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health.

I have been informed that in the last two nights there have been fourteen patients admitted to the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's, who have had to spend the night in the ER on stretchers; and, while some of them were found rooms yesterday, other patients were admitted and again there were fourteen patients on stretchers last night. I have been told that this is because of a shortage of beds, and that there are beds at the Health Sciences Centre that are not in use right now.

I ask the minister if that is the case, and if he is aware of the problem.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do understand, Mr. Speaker, that in recent days there has been some pressure in the emergency department because of increased activity and there have been some pressures on beds, acute care beds.

The other part of the question with respect to whether or not there are beds within Eastern Health or within the Health Sciences Centre that are vacant, that is a piece of information I do not have. I do have an understanding, as I said, that they have been extremely busy in recent days and there have been some bed pressures on the acute side, and it is because of some increased activity not just in terms of the emergency department but increased activity with acutely ill patients from the in-patient perspective as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, time for a quick question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister if he could look into the fact that there may be beds closed. I have been told there have been some units closed down, that there are beds that are not in use, and it is due to a shortage of staff being available to look after the patients being admitted into those beds. I ask if he could check that out and report back to me, please.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: By all means, Mr. Speaker. Anything that I can find out for the hon. member, I would be only too glad to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for question and answer period has expired.

Before the Chair moves on to the next item on the House proceedings, the Chair would like to recognize the Mayor of Leading Tickles, Mr. Harry Hallett, who is in the gallery today, and also the Mayor of St. Anthony, Mr. Boyd Noel.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Tabling of Documents.

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

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

Pursuant to section 25. (5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am today tabling five Orders-in-Council relating to the funding of pre-commitments for the 2008-2009 and the 2012-2013 fiscal years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

As required under the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission. Those meetings were for August 29 and November 28, 2007. Those minutes have also been circulated at a previous time to hon. members.

I would also like to table, in compliance with the Public Tender Act, the report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the months of May, June, July, August and September, 2007, and the report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the months of October, November and December, 2007, and January and February, 2008.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 65. (e), I would like to move that the following members do, in fact, constitute the Election and Privileges Committee: the hon. the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame; the hon. the Member for St. John's East; the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; and myself, as Government House Leader, the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition with regards to a long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area. There is no need to read the prayer of the petition, the body of the petition; it has been presented before and accepted, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that back in 2001-2002 Conception Bay North was number one on the list for a long-term care facility. As I present those petitions, I am going to start a program now that I am going to call ABC - Anything But Conception Bay - because we know, Mr. Speaker, they were number one on the list back at that time and we know that they have dropped out of sight. People say they are on the radar, but I do not think there is very much on the radar these days with regards to a long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the facilities that are there have served their purpose. We have two facilities in Carbonear, there is one in Clarke's Beach, and they have served the purpose, but it was determined back at that time –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) close down (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I reference the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I am not saying to close down any one, but we all know we need a long-term care facility.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to call upon my hon. colleagues but I guess I know where some of them stand on this now. They have already spoken out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I want to call upon the Minister of Justice, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the Member for Bellevue, the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, and probably it takes in the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's as well, to petition government and ask that at least if they cannot come out and say yes, we can build a facility in the near future, ask government to have another assessment done and see what went wrong: why an area of the Province could be number one on the list for a long-term care facility and all of a sudden you are not up to a standard to be accepted.

That is not speaking out against all the other centres, all the other communities in this Province that have had long-term care facilities in the past and the ones that have new facilities now. We are not against that. We know each and every area of the Province needs those facilities. The need is there. By building a new long-term care facility in the Conception Bay North area, it will also alleviate the problems that are encountered at the Carbonear General Hospital.

I call upon the members opposite, the members of the government, to step forward and ask this government if they would even consider asking that an assessment be done for the Conception Bay North area so that the people can have a long-term care facility which is greatly needed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Before the Chair moves into Orders of the Day, the Chair would like to bring members' attention to Standing Order 26.(4) as it relates to Oral Questions. The Speaker brought this forward yesterday and talked about prefacing Oral Questions by reading from letters, telegrams, even our own Hansard, I say to members, is unparliamentarily. While members can refer to documents and to statements said by hon. members, reading the document itself is certainly against our Standing Order.

While the Chair is not going to stand everyday after the act takes place, I just want to bring it forward for the second time and in the future the Chair will stand when this Standing Order is not adhered to.

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to do first readings, Motions that are on the Order Paper.

I would like to call Motion 2, standing in the name of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, first reading of a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy, Bill 18, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Finance shall leave to introduce Bill 18 and that the bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy," carried. (Bill 18)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy. (Bill 18)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 3, first reading of Bill 19, standing in the name of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Finance shall leave to introduce Bill 19 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," carried. (Bill 19)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 19)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Motion 4, Bill 14, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice, An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act, be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Justice shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act, and the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 14 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act," carried. (Bill 14)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act. (Bill 14)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 5, Bill 15, standing in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999, now be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999, and that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 15 and that the said bill be now read a first time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999," carried. (Bill 15)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 15)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible.)

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

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

It is my pleasure to inform the House that I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The letter is April 4, 2008.

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of the sums required for Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2008, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:_______________________________

John C. Crosbie, Lieutenant Governor.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message together with the amount be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the recommendation and the amount, along with the letter, be provided to a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

The Committee will now debate Motion 1, the resolution that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions regarding the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 13)

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2008, the sum of $10,700,200.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2008, the sum of $10,700,200."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have just gone through a procedure here, and I know the Opposition House Leader from time to time talks to some friends of his out there in TV land to try to explain what is happening here. I will try to do that now, after we have just gone through this procedure where we talked about the Constitution and talked about moving to Committees of Supply.

At the time of the Budget we pass a bill called the Main Supply because the government has no right to pass legislation, or to spend any money, I should say, unless that has been first approved by the people's representatives, the Members of this House of Assembly.

We went through a procedure a while ago in which we asked for Interim Supply. That is the second one. We had Main Supply, which is the Budget bill, and we have Interim Supply, which is recognizing that there has to be a certain amount of debate that takes place around the Budget and there will be some time before that debate is completed and the Budget is passed. The government comes before the House, as we did not too long ago, and sought Interim Supply which provided the government of the Province with funds to pay its bills and pay its employees for a three-month period of time that will end at the end of June.

This is Supplementary Supply, what we are doing today, and I have been advised that there are two types of Supplementary Supply that governments will bring before the House. The first one is: if, in the main Budget, there is a certain amount of money allocated to a head of expenditure and if that money is all spent and the House of Assembly is sitting then the government will have to come back, if it needs more money for that head of expenditure, and seek Supplementary Supply and seek the approval of the Members of the House of Assembly to allocate and spend additional monies.

What has happened here, and what we are dealing with here, is what happens when the House of Assembly is not sitting and the funds in a particular head of expenditure are fully expended and an emergency or urgency comes up and government needs more funding. A great example would be emergency funding, when we have a tropical storm and there is damage done to people. If the House of Assembly is not sitting, then what government has to do is seek the issuance of special warrants signed by the Lieutenant Governor. Those special warrants authorize the government to spend money.

Of course, what will happen is that as soon as the House of Assembly reconvenes, the amount of the special warrants and each of the special warrants must be tabled in this House within I think it is fifteen days after the House reconvenes, and we did that. I stood in this House and tabled the special warrants some time ago. Today we are here seeking ratification of those expenditures, seeking ratification from the elected representatives of the people of the Province, and that is the purpose, why we are here today.

Now, what happened, just to explain to the people who are watching and the people who may not understand this, I received a letter from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, John C. Crosbie. It was dated April 4, and he reminded me that the Constitution Act of 1867, which was referred to here by the Speaker and by the Chair, that sections 54 and 90 make it unlawful for this House to adopt or pass any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenues, or of any tax or impost that has not first been recommended to it by the Lieutenant Governor.

The Lieutenant Governor provided me with a message recommending the adoption of a Supplementary Supply bill in respect of the fiscal year from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008. I stood here a few moments ago and I informed the Speaker that I had a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and we all stood up and the Speaker then read that message from the Lieutenant Governor. I have a copy here if anyone would like to have a copy. We are now into Supplementary Supply and I am now standing to introduce or to at least speak to Bill 13, which seeks Supplementary Supply totalling $10,700,200 for the 2007-2008 year which ended on March 31, 2008.

Bill 13 makes reference - and that bill is on your desk - the bill makes reference, it is called An Act For Granting To Her Majesty - that is the government - Certain Sums Of Money For Certain Additional Expenses. Now, the Budget bill does not have the word additional in it; Supplementary Supply bills do. So, what we are seeking here is clarification of the special warrants that were issued by the Lieutenant Governor when the House of Assembly was not sitting.

I would like to refer you to the Schedule at the back of the bill which lists the Heads of Expenditure, where the money was spent. The first one is the Legislature, $2,572,300. The second one is Justice, $3,844,900, and the third Head of Expenditure set out in the Schedule is Municipal Affairs for $4,283,000, for a total of $10,700,200. Again, these expenditures were urgently needed. They had to be incurred prior to year end of March 31, 2008 when the House of Assembly was not in session. The Special Warrants were tabled by me in this House on March 11, 2008. The need for the Special Warrants, of course, had not been anticipated when we passed the Budget bill or the main Supply bill for 2007-2008. The Special Warrants were urgently required to enable government to provide funding for unanticipated costs because the House was not in session at that time. It has been the practice to table these warrants in accordance with the Financial Administration Act and to seek formal ratification of the warrants through the House of Assembly through Supplementary Supply bills, and we are doing that here today.

As I said, there were two Special Warrants issued for the Legislature. The first one was for $563,000. It was issued on September 10, 2007 to provide funding for unanticipated costs relating to special ballots and poll division size for the October 2007 General Election.

The second warrant under Legislature was issued on December 11, 2007 for $2,008,700, and that was to provide funding for costs that were anticipated in implementing the recommendations of the Green Report called Rebuilding Confidence: The Report of the Review Commission on Constituency Allowances and Related Matters.

With respect to the Department of Justice there was one Special Warrant. It was for $3,844,900. It was issued on August 7, 2007 and its purpose was to provide additional funds to enable the Department of Justice to meet its financial requirements related to the Cameron commission, the judicial commission of inquiry on estrogen and progesterone hormone receptor testing for breast cancer patients.

With respect to the Department of Municipal Affairs there were two Special Warrants. The first was for $1,283,000. It was issued on July 17, 2007, and the purpose of that Special Warrant was to provide additional funds to compensate homeowners who were affected by landslides in Daniel's Harbour on the Great Northern Peninsula.

The second warrant of $3 million was issued on December 10, 2007 and the purpose of those funds was to provide monies to compensate property owners whose property had been damaged by Tropical Storm Chantal.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will conclude my opening remarks on this specific Supplementary Supply Bill that gives legislative authority to the Special Warrants that I mentioned, and that, as I indicated previously, were tabled in this House on March 11, 2008.

This bill is a money bill and that means that all members of the House are entitled to speak on any particular topic that they wish to. Normally when a bill comes to the House members are required to speak to the principle of the bill, but money bills give all members the opportunity to talk about general things that are affecting their districts, and this is a good opportunity for members to give their maiden speeches. I understand there will be one today and I am certainly looking forward to hearing the hon. Member for Bay of Islands give his maiden speech, as I know are the people in the Bay of Islands.

With that, Mr. Chair, thank you, and I urge passage of this Supplementary Supply bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to speak to the Supplementary Supply bill that has been put forward by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. For those who do not know, whenever there are bills before the House of Assembly that deal with financial matters of government, that the debate is very broad and wide-ranging and you can pretty well debate any particular topic that you want.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about some of the issues that came forward in Question Period today and yesterday in the House of Assembly. There is absolutely no doubt that we are asking questions and debating an issue in this Province today that is probably the most significant health issue to ever affect the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt and no question about any of that. In fact, to that extreme, we have a public inquiry ongoing in the Province around it. An inquiry, I might add, that resulted because of the lobby and the asking of the Opposition.

Back on May 15, when this issue first came out in the spring for debate we took it to the House of Assembly on two or three different occasions. In fact, we even brought in a private member's motion at that time asking for a public inquiry to be launched in the Province, and it was after considerable debate in the Legislature that government finally agreed that they would have a public inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, we have a job as an Opposition to ask these questions, and we intend to ask them. In fact, we have dozens and dozens more questions that are coming forward every single day, every hour that this inquiry is unfolding and we will be bringing them to the House of Assembly. As long as the doors are open and we have questions around this issue, we will be bringing them forward.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I am really taken back by the response that we have seen from the Premier on a number of these questions. First of all, we have been able to establish that he first knew about the incident in October of 2005. We have been able to establish that he does not know if he was told in July of 2005 about this by his senior staff or not, but we do know that his senior staff was informed, both his communications director and his chief of staff.. There are e-mails that have been submitted as exhibits at the inquiry that are stating the same.

We do know that two top leading officials, senior bureaucrats, who were given a raise, I might say, only a year ago, and the Premier's defence for giving these individuals a raise, some of them up to 18 per cent, his defence on that was the fact that they were very competent and great workers in his office and he did not want to lose them. Mr. Chairman, that was the reason they were given raises. Yet, when they were given information in July, 2005 saying that well over 1,000 men and women in this Province whose health had been impacted by faulty testing in our hospitals, they failed to communicate the message, or if they did communicate it, no one remembers.

Well, Mr. Chairman, how could someone not remember being told that thousands of persons' health in this Province was affected? Thousands, not a dozen. Even if it was one or two, but we were talking over 1,000. Now the numbers kept changing as the retesting was done. As new information came forward the numbers kept changing, but initially in the briefing notes, in the information that is now being tabled and the testimonies that are being given at the public inquiry, we are learning that back in July, 2005, when the Department of Health and senior officials in the Premier's office were informed of this issue, that it was thousands of people that they were talking about who had wrong testing in laboratories in our health care centres in this Province and today no one remembers having that conversation. Well, Mr. Chairman, to me that does not speak of competence, I am sorry. I am sorry, but any senior person within government and especially in the Premier's office who is being told information like that and cannot recall if they had a discussion with the leader of the government around it, is not competent in the job they are doing and that would be my assessment of it. Mr. Chairman, we are going to ask these questions and we are going to try to get the answers because the people in this Province want the answers.

I have to say to members opposite, they are not the only people who have heard from the victims here, who have heard from the families, we have heard from many of them as well. We have heard from many of them. We have sat and listened to their stories of how they found out the information, how long it took to get the information, when their retesting was done, then how long it took for them to get the results, and I have never seen as much horror around any story in my life as I have seen around this entire ordeal. To say that there was anxiety caused to these people, or that there was fear instilled, is an understatement.

Government was cautious. They said we did not come forward and disclose information to the public in a period of eighteen months because we did not want to cause anxiety and fear amongst people in the Province. Well, what did they think was actually happening? Every time a person was getting a phone call saying that your tests results were wrong and you need to be retested, there was fear being caused then. There was anxiety for those people then.

Every time an individual was notified that their treatment had to change, and should have changed a year before, or fourteen months before, don't you think there was anxiety and fear in those families? Don't you think there was stress for those individuals? Can you imagine the stress that people, individual patients, were under when they found out that they had been wrongly treated, that they had unnecessary surgeries, that they took radiation and chemotherapy that they may not have needed?

Don't talk about stress and anxiety and fear around the disclosure of information when you know, and know very well, that there was much more at stake for these individuals. They had the fear, they had the anxiety, they went through the stress and they are still doing so. Mr. Chair, that does not explain away government's rationale for not informing the public.

We just had a previous Minister of Health and Community Services testify at the stand, testify at the inquiry, and say: I came to the House of Assembly every day prepared to answer the questions and no one asked me.

Have you ever heard of such an idiotic response in all of your life? Any minister, in any government - not just your government but in any government - has an obligation first and foremost to the public and the people that they sit and represent. Mr. Chair, to say I didn't answer because no one asked - what a cop-out. What a cop-out!

In fact, in 2005 Clare Gosse from the Independent has already stated that the Department of Health was contacted for comment and they refused to comment. In fact, if you look at all the media articles over that period of time you will find out that never once did the government comment during that period of time. It was always deflected to Eastern Health and Community Services to comment.

There were many opportunities for Minister Ottenheimer to be able to respond to that issue. He did not need to wait for the media to call him, or the Opposition to ask. We have seen ministers in this House stand and give Ministerial Statements on things that were non-issues, things that were unimportant, things that were irrelevant to the issues and the things that were going on in the Province at any particular time. We have had numbers of statements – I can go through Hansard and pick out hundreds of them - over the twelve or thirteen years that I have been here. There is absolutely no excuse why any minister, on any given day, cannot stand in this House of Assembly and give a Ministerial Statement on any issue in this Province, or any issue that affects their department or their government. That has always been the process.

In fact, if we went back through Hansard, I can find a number of Ministerial Statements in which ministers came into this House and stood up and made a statement on issues that were not even in the media yet, that nothing had been done with. In fact, in cases there were only verbal statements made because they had not even had time to sit down and prepare a written statement and present it to the House of Assembly. So, it has been done. That was only an excuse, and an excuse with very little substantial information or accreditation behind it, in my opinion.

Mr. Chair, we have asked a question here now on four different occasions, in four different ways: Why did government not go public and release the information over a period of eighteen months? Other than the fact that we are being told that it might have caused fear and anxiety and stress for people, other than that aspect - we have already seen tremendous fear, tremendous anxiety and ongoing stress with all of these individuals and families that were impacted, so that holds no water for me - the other issue was the fact that numbers were changing, that information was changing. Well, information will continue to change. We will continue, as this issue unfolds, to find out how many of the 108 women who have deceased, if they could have been saved if their treatments had been changed. We will find that out as this inquiry is ongoing. We will find out if other remedies could have been put in place earlier that could have saved the lives of individuals, could have changed the course of treatment to make things better for people. We will never know the full information and facts and numbers - as government like to refer to it - to all of these things for a long time to come. Is that a reason not to talk about it? I do not think so. It is never a reason not to talk about it. Just because numbers change and information shifts, does not renege government of its responsibility to inform the public and inform people.

Mr. Chairman, the reality of what has happened here is that government failed when it came to communicating appropriate information and messages to the public, and at some point, someone has to admit to that failure. I cannot believe that there were e-mails circulating within government departments that actually talked about how they could keep this out of the media, what they could do to quieten it down, what they could do to let it blow over before the House of Assembly actually opened. None of that is a myth. That is all fact. That is all written and disclosed and tabled and exhibited and is being included as part of this particular inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of actions that were being taken within government. So I am the messenger. I am asking you the questions. I will take the brutal attacks from the Premier. I will tolerate his offensive behaviour, his angry and vehement words that come across the House of Assembly, with no answers. I have no problem with that, Mr. Chairman, but it will not deter me from asking the questions that need to be asked of this government, and that is why you choose to ignore it, why officials in departments were sending off e-mails that were talking about letting the issue blow over, letting it be covered up and things like this. I am not making any of this up. All of this is being submitted as part of this inquiry. It is being reviewed, it is being questioned, it is being read, it is being looked at, and those things, Mr. Chairman, cannot be ignored.

Mr. Chairman, I have some issue with the fact that there are individuals who are being appointed to oversee the interests of government in this particular liaison, in this particular inquiry. They are the official liaison people with government. I have some concern about that, Mr. Chairman. One of the individuals I questioned the government on today was Robert Thompson, who was once the Clerk of the Executive Council, the highest bureaucratic office that any civil servant can hold in this government. He was also, after this ordeal broke open in the Department of Health and John Abbott was offered a lesser position, in which we all know he was pushed out the door, and he left the office of Deputy Minister of Health. We will find out, I guess, he is being subpoenaed to the public inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, then Mr. Thompson took over as the Deputy Minister of Health. He managed government -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will certainly conclude my remarks when I debate again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Chairman, I rise here today with great pride and honour to represent the beautiful District of the Bay of Islands.

On October 9, 2007, I was given the confidence to be their representative in the House of Assembly. From the day I received the nomination until the Election Day, a lot of hard work went into my campaign and I could not have done it without my family, friends and my new friends that I have gained.

I would like to extend my thanks to my family: my wife, Vivian, my two beautiful daughters, Stacy and Mallory, and my mother, Marie, who encouraged me from day one. I would like to thank my brothers and sisters and other members of the family and offer my deepest appreciation and thanks.

I would also like to take this opportunity, too, Mr. Chairman, to thank my campaign manager, Richie Park, and the entire team in my campaign who took so much time away from their family and friends and worked endlessly for approximately three weeks.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a couple of stories that occurred while on the campaign trail. In the first incident my campaign manager, Richie, and I went to the Town of Lark Harbour and was invited in by a lovely woman who sat us down at the table and the first question she wanted answered was: Who is the oldest? My campaign manager, Richie, was seventy-one years of age and I am fifty-four.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: A few days after we went to McIver's, and this time I took another helper with me by the name of Joe. At one point I was up standing on the steps talking to this beautiful lady and she happened to look down and saw Joe who was accompanying me, of course, and she responded to say something to the effect: Oh, that's your young fellow down there, is it? Mr. Chairman, Joe is sixty-two years of age and I am fifty-four.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: I was telling this story to one of my colleagues, I think it was the hon. Member for Exploits, he told me if I looked old when I am young, when I get old I will look young.

So, that brought me back to an incident there about three weeks ago when the hon. Premier was telling the story of 2041, when we are going to take possession of the Churchill Falls project, in its entirety. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to that particular day of sitting with the hon. Premier who will be ninety-five years of age and I will be ninety and still look like I am here today. I am looking forward to it.

Continuing on, I would like to thank the citizens throughout my district for giving me the mandate to represent them in this beautiful House. Many thanks go out to the hon. Member for Humber East and Humber West and our hon. Premier for their work, they helped me going door to door during the campaign. Without this wonderful combination of family and friends, I doubt it very much if success would have occurred.

When I was thinking of running years ago in my district, my family told me to run with the same approach I used in everything else I sought to do. Whether it was doing the best job I could do as an independent insurance adjustor, whether it was scuba diving, repelling off cliffs in Summerside, running and successfully becoming the fire chief of the HIS fire department or becoming a lay minister in our church - each act took determination to complete and I used the same determination to put me where I am today in provincial politics.

Mr. Chairman, just one of the many areas of concern which was voiced to me over and over during the campaign and even right up until now, was the conditions of the roads. Being from the area, of course, and driving over the roads everyday, you cannot realize the advanced condition until you took a trip to both sides of the district and only then could you understand the complaints and how they were justified.

Other issues which were brought to my attention, Mr. Chairman, during the campaign but not limited to was a lack of cell phone service in certain areas of the Bay of Islands, the landfill site at Wild Cove, home care for senior citizens, and water and sewer infrastructure and so on. Mr. Chairman, these concerns have been acknowledged and have been passed on to the applicable departments for consideration.

As for the roads and upgrades, I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works for meeting with me several times and discussing our highways and work that had to be completed. I would also like to thank the minister's support staff from the Regional Director in Corner Brook to the Members of the House of Assembly. I could not ask for any better direction and assistance than what was provided to me by these fine people. It is wonderful to see $73 million go into the Provincial Roads Improvement Program for 2008-2009.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the hon. Minister for Transportation and Works again for over $2 million for road servicing for this fiscal year. With the monies remaining from last year we will be investing $2.5 million into road improvements this year, and this was well appreciated by the District of the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Municipal concerns also were brought to my attention by all the towns, and I would like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the financial assistance provided to the district to date. My hon. colleague agreed to meet me on a moment's notice when requested. Of course, I cannot forget the fine staff he has and I have most respect for these fine people when providing assistance to me.

Health care also is a major issue, and that was brought to my attention by not only young people but the seniors. Many thanks go out to the hon. Minister of Health and his parliamentary assistant and the whole staff throughout the Province.

Mr. Chair, I could spend all day up here thanking the various ministers and hon. MHAs and their staff for the work they helped me with this past six months.

Mr. Chair, the District of the Bay of Islands is unique to the point it covers both sides of the Bay of Islands and a portion of Corner Brook. Basically any announcement for Corner Brook is reflected back to all residents on both the North and South Shores.

The hon. Member for Humber East and the Premier and hon. Member for Humber West

have worked hard for the area, and of course announcements such as the long term care facility at a construction cost of $68 million, a new courthouse at a construction cost of $19 million and a new provincial addiction treatment centre at a cost of $3 million are just a few of the major investments. As everybody knows, plans are in the works to have a regional hospital constructed which will run in the vicinity of hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Chair, the whole West Coast is going to be affected in a positive way by these major announcements.

We are fortunate, Mr. Chair, to have such close ties with the City of Corner Brook as the city is regarded as the regional centre for practically the whole Western Region of the Province.

I would like to publicly thank Mayor Pender and his counselors and staff for being successful in obtaining the ECMA awards next February and the Provincial Summer Games this summer. Mr. Chair, the Bay of Islands has a high employment rate thanks to major companies which have set up in the area. As the Bay of Islands and Bay St. George are known for their abundance of herring and mackerel the past number of years, the trend continues today.

In the Bay of Islands we have two fish processing companies that continue to do business, greatly enhancing the labour market. For example, Barry Fisheries operates a mink farm as well as fish plants in Curling and Cox's Cove and employs 470 part-time and fifty full-time employees on an annual basis. We have Allen's Fisheries in Benoit's Cove, another major employer using hundreds of local people for their processing and secondary processing within their facilities.

Mr. Chair, we cannot forget the construction companies within the district, the general contractors, the roofing contractors, again bringing employment within the rural area. Retail operators such as confectionery stores, gas stations, and the second-biggest pig farm in Newfoundland and Labrador is located in Summerside, also contributing to the labour market. It is great to see our Province's employment rate at its highest level in thirty years.

We have also seen the construction of seniors' homes within the district, such as the Lohens Complex on O'Connell Drive, the Guardian Angels Seniors Home in Lark Harbour and the Mountainview House in Meadows with its million-dollar view of the Bay of Islands; and plans, of course, are underway for seniors' cottages to be constructed in the Town of Irishtown.

Mr. Chair, the District of Bay of Islands is maintaining its own when it comes to its population. I have reviewed the community profiles as provided by the Greater Humber Joint Council and it appears the population from 2001 to 2006 was only reduced by a mere fifteen people. I would think that if a census was taken today we would find an increase in its population. Here again it shows the confidence people have in the district, and one of the most valuable resources, our young people, are starting to come home and find employment in our Province.

These are exciting times for the Bay of Islands; we have so much potential. I would like to take a few moments to discuss some of these ventures which will take place hopefully within the near future.

One such venture would be the oil exploration in the Lark Harbour area. We understand drilling will take place within the months ahead, and everyone is so excited about a possible major oil discovery which will result in a major industry set up in the West Coast of the Province.

With oil exploration going on in the Bay St. George area, the Bay of Islands area, the Deer Lake Basin, and up as far as Parsons Pond, who knows, we could be looking at the construction of a third oil refinery within this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular to the West Coast of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Chairman, this is just one of the areas that is so positive for the district, but we do have so much tourism potential which is basically untapped, on both sides of the Bay.

I recall, Mr. Chairman, visiting the Guardian Angels Seniors Home in Lark Harbour where I spoke to one of its seniors, Mr. Elias Tuma, who is about 96 years of age, and a business person all of his life, who, quite frankly, informed me of the lack of tourism in the area; but this is changing, Mr. Chairman. We are working in conjunction with the local Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to establish a tourism board for each side of the Bay. The York Harbour-Lake Harbour Tourism Committee has already been formed and we are hoping that the North Shore Committee will be up and running by this fall. Hopefully, all towns will get involved.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, we do have encouraging signs of tourism development such as the construction of Candlelite Bay Inn in York Harbour with its breathtaking view of the Bay of Islands. We have boat tours offered by Crystal Waters Boat Tours in Curling and True North Adventure Tours in Cox's Cove. Both companies, which are locally owned and operated, offer professional tours in and around our scenic Bay.

We also have two marinas within the Bay of Islands. The major one, of course, would be the Bay of Islands Yacht Club in Curling, which is full to capacity and looking to expand. We also have one under construction - its first phase is concluded - and it, too, is looking to expand its facilities to meet the growing needs of the area. This is another example of how proud our local people are, and the amount of volunteer work that goes into our towns.

Now, I would like to thank the volunteers within our towns, whether they be from the churches, Lions Clubs, wellness committees, recreation committees, 4H groups, senior organizations, cadet corps, school breakfast programs and various other groups of importance. These people make a difference, and a town could not operate without these wonderful volunteers.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the various councils throughout the district, and the service they are providing to the people. So much work goes into the running of the towns, and these men and women have to be recognized. I enjoy working with these fine people for the betterment of their towns.

Another group of people I would like to honour here today, Mr. Chairman, would be the various volunteer fire departments. I had the occasion of attending over half of the local fire department's annual balls, and it is amazing the commitment and professionalism these fine men and women are providing to their towns.

I would also like to acknowledge and recognize the fine men and women, especially in our own district and the Province, who are members of the Armed Forces, and pray for their safe return from overseas, especially from the war-torn Country of Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, as you can see, I am quite excited about the potential of the district, and I do see a bright future ahead. I feel our leader, and other members of the Williams' government, gave the citizens of this great Province of Newfoundland Labrador a sense of pride and hope for the future, which began in 2003.

As Mr. Kevin Blanchard of McIver's stated during the campaign, when he met with the hon. Premier: You are the only fighting Newfoundlander left - implying, Mr. Chairman, that our Premier is the only fighting Premier we ever had.

This brings me up to another story, Mr. Chairman, that our Premier does have an influence on young and old alike. I would like to take this time to tell a little story about my grandson, Wesley, who, at the time of the visit to our campaign on October 8, was at the campaign headquarters when the Premier attended. I was looking at Wesley and saw him looking up at the Premier, who was standing on a chair and giving a talk, and since that time, of course, as a two-year-old, he was quite amazed and he never forgot that incident, to the point now, when he sees the news come on at six o'clock, he says: Come on Poppy Terry, the news is on; let's go see Premier Danny Williams.

A couple of months ago I saw him with an imitation cell phone, talking to somebody on the telephone. I said: Who are you talking to? He said: I am talking to Premier Danny Williams.

So, Mr. Premier, if you get a call any day this year from a little fellow asking you to reduce the prices on tandies and tookies, you will know it is Wesley.

Now, Wesley is not remembering just the Premier; he is remembering everybody here. He is actually learning the minister's names of the various departments: the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Health. So he asked me to pass along and ask the Premier not to make a Cabinet shuffle too early in the future.

Mr. Chairman, this is a time for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to smile. We thank our Premier and entire Cabinet for giving us the opportunity to be masters of our own destiny. We thank you for the largest personal income tax cuts in the Province's history; a poverty reduction strategy that national anti-poverty leaders acknowledge as a model for the country. We thank you for increased funding for new diagnostic and other medical equipment including a new MRI machine for our local hospital. We thank you for insulin pumps for our children; new prescription drugs for those who need them; record spending on education; the best post-secondary student-aid package in the country; the investing of a multi-billion dollar strategy to improve infrastructure throughout the Province, and many other programs.

Mr. Chairman, the most common question asked to me over the past six months is: How do you like your new job? I tell them: If you like helping people, as I do, this is the perfect job.

Mr. Chairman, like all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I stand here today proud, strong and determined.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All I can say is it must have been some speech that was just made by the Member for the Bay of Islands that he got a standing ovation in the House of Assembly from his colleagues. I will have to read up on it in Hansard later on, Mr. Chairman, because I had to step outside on important business. I will make sure and read it and see what I missed. It must have been a big announcement. He must have pre-empted the Budget. I figure he pre-empted the Budget this evening, more than likely.

Mr. Chairman, no doubt, I want to congratulate the Member for the Bay of Islands on his maiden speech in the House of Assembly. Certainly, I am sure it was a big event and he is happy to be here to represent the people of his district.

Mr. Chairman, before I finished my comments last time, I was talking about the events surrounding the public inquiry that is ongoing in the Province today and actually talking about some of the issues that I raised in Question Period in the last day or so. One of the issues I raised is that around Mr. Robert Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I raised the issue not in any way to diminish the character of this individual or to underestimate the ability of Mr. Thompson to do any specific job within government, because I have known him for a long time in my political career and have served in departments in which he has worked and been involved in. So, Mr. Chairman, I know of the fine qualities that this individual possesses, but it does not exclude him from being in a position of conflict. I explain that because Mr. Thompson was the Clerk of the Executive Council, the highest civil servant position that you can hold within government, in the period of time that this issue was being raised and brought to the attention of government.

Mr. Chairman, subsequently when John Abbott was dismissed from the Department of Health and Community Services as the deputy minister, while this issue was unfolding, the person that government chose to put in that office to replace him was Mr. Robert Thompson. So, he then went into the department as the deputy minister. He managed the messages of government around this issue as the Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services. When the public inquiry was announced, Mr. Thompson was then selected by government to be the main liaison person to the public inquiry for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Subsequently since that, he has now been asked and subpoenaed to testify at this public inquiry. Now, while he is being subpoenaed, he is also the person who is searching all the government records, all the government archives, all the e-mail systems, for any information regarding this particular ER-PR faulty testing and submitting it to the inquiry - the same individual. Now, Mr. Chairman, is there anyone else who does not see the conflict here, besides the Premier, because there is an obvious conflict for this individual?

Mr. Chairman, I know of many cases where good people, and it has nothing to do with whether they are good, bad or indifferent, but lots of cases where people find themselves in a position of conflict and have to remove themselves. For example, you look at town councils in this Province, and boards. All the time there are people who sit on those organizations and groups who have to remove themselves when decisions are being made because of a perceived conflict or because of a conflict. We have seen it all the time. I know business people who sit on municipal councils who remove themselves from decisions as to what business taxes will be instated in the town and things of this nature, because they are in a conflict.

Well, we believe, Mr. Chairman, that Robert Thompson is in a conflict in this particular case and should be removed as the main liaison person for government - or at least, Mr. Chairman, he should not be the person managing the information that is to be submitted to the inquiry. In fact, what we are asking is that the inquiry be given an independent process whereby all the information in government is gone through, all the archives are searched, all the databases are checked, all the briefing notes are read, all the minutes are reviewed, and the appropriate information that needs to be submitted to the public inquiry is indeed submitted in its entirety. That is all we are asking.

Mr. Chair, the fact that government maintains that they want to be open and transparent in this entire process would certainly mean that they would want to see the same kind of an independent process, but I gathered today, from the Premier's remarks in the House of Assembly, that is not where they are; that they are going to make sure that Mr. Thompson is the only person who gets his hands on any of these files, in any of these departments, and he will be the person who determines what is submitted to this inquiry and what is not.

Mr. Chair, the point that we are trying to make has nothing to do with the character of the individual but has everything to do with the fact that they are in a conflict of interest, they have been subpoenaed, and therefore they should be removed. Now, whether government wants to keep them in the loop is entirely up to them. That has nothing to do with what I am referring.

Mr. Chair, I want to raise another point because yesterday the Premier was very adamant in Question Period about those who want to assign blame. In fact, he attacked the CBC, the national news, he attacked the local media - I think it was The Telegram in particular, and I think the local CBC radio station - for comments that they had made, for questionnaires that they put on their on-line sites, and things that he felt were not reflecting a very good image of the government, and was very offended by it. Actually, he talked about blame, and the fact that one of the questionnaires pointed to who should be blamed, and took great offence to that.

Well, Mr. Chair, in my opinion, the first one to inflict any blame in any of this was the Premier himself, and the government members opposite; because, when this all happened, the first person to get the flick was George Tilley, the CEO of Eastern Health. So, was the firing of George Tilley not assuming blame? Was that not pointing the finger and saying: You are somewhat responsible here.

No one else could make the decision to fire the CEO of Eastern Health, only the government, only the minister in the department and the Premier within government. Was that not inflicting blame in some way, by saying to George Tilley: You didn't do a good job at this and we are upset with you? You are gone. You are out the door. Pack your bags. Clean out your desk.

To me, Mr. Chair, that was inflicting blame. What about John Abbott? John Abbott, who was a long-time deputy minister through successive governments, was the Deputy Minister of Health and was given the flick, shown the door, taken out of that position, and we all know the only person who has the right to remove a deputy minister is the Premier himself. A minister cannot remove a deputy minister. Only the Premier can appoint and remove deputy ministers within the government - for those who do not know that. Well, John Abbott, at the time that this issue was heating up, was removed from the position of Deputy Minister of Health by the Premier.

Now, we were told in the media and in some of his comments that the reason was: We offered him another position and he did not want it. Well, I think they offered him a position as the Deputy Minister of Tourism, which was quite a stretch from the background that he came from as an economist and a Deputy Minister of Health for a number of years.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Abbott took his leave from the civil service as one of the top civil servants that this government had at the time, and probably one of the most experienced civil servants who was serving in the capacity of a deputy minister at that time. If that was not inflicting blame in some way, by taking him out of that particular position, I do not know what it was.

So, if you want to talk about where the blame has already been laid, well, government and the Premier have already laid the blame at the doorstep of two very prominent civil servants in this Province, that being George Tilley and John Abbott.

Mr. Chair, they do not want to hear about those issues, they do not want to talk about those issues, and they use character assassinations and anger, and throw words back and forth across the House of Assembly, and take a very offensive, aggressive approach to try and shut down questions from the Opposition or questions from the media. Well, Mr. Chair, it is just not going to fly this time. It is just not going to fly this time, because we intend to ask the questions that we have here.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I sit here in amazement as I listen to the Opposition again today. The inaccurate, irresponsible comments being made are simply beyond my ken. I cannot believe what I just heard; the Opposition Leader stating that the Inquiry should be given an independent process. Will she not listen to what she is saying? She is questioning the independence of the Inquiry. She is questioning the independence and impartiality of Madam Justice Margaret Cameron. Does she realize what she is doing?

When she refers to offensive and aggressive approach, when I hear comments like that, can I say, well, she doesn't have the legal training? Well, Mr. Chair, she has been sitting in this House now for a number of years and it seems to me for too long the Liberals have gotten away with saying whatever it is they feel like saying. When I hear the questions coming from the Opposition House Leader today, I wonder: how could he, as a practicing lawyer, have so little knowledge about the inquiry process? When I listen to the questions put to the Premier today, all I hear are accusatory, irresponsible questions.

This Inquiry is independent. By its very nature it has to be independent. Madam Justice Cameron has been sitting on the Court of Appeal at least for ten if not fifteen years. She sat at Trial Division, if I remember correctly, since 1985. She is perhaps now one of the senior jurists in this Province. I simply sit in amazement when I hear this kind of comment.

Which brings me to the point – and I am sorry that I have gotten engaged in such an elementary discussion, but unfortunately I feel it is required. When I listened to the condescending tone of the Opposition House Leader today or yesterday, I am not going to adopt that tone, I am going to adopt an instructive tone. I am gong to say: Sir, here are some of the cases you can read if you want to talk about this kind of thing.

The inquiry process is not new in this country. We have had the Red Cross inquiry in the early 1990s. We have had the Westray Inquiry, the Gomery Inquiry, and there have been two major inquiries that I have been a part of, the Lamer Inquiry in this Province and the O'Driscoll Inquiry in Winnipeg.

The purpose of an inquiry is to determine the truth, what happened, how did it happen, who did what and how can we prevent it from happening again. Now, that is what we are trying to do. That is the purpose of the inquiry.

Unfortunately, when political hyperbole gets thrown into the mix, the truth can be lost because what the Opposition is doing by asking the kinds of questions they are asking and making the kinds of comments they are making is detracting from the seriousness of the situation that we have before us, Mr. Chair. As pointed out by the Premier, peoples lives are affected. There were tragedies and ongoing tragedies, and as a government we have an obligation to get to the bottom of what happened, and that is why this inquiry has been called.

Unfortunately, in this country, Mr. Chairman, inquiries are only usually called in light of a tragedy. So, what we have is an inquiry that serves three or four purposes. One, it is investigative. Mr. Coffey, I can assure the members of the Opposition, and Ms Chaytor, they will conduct their roles quite well. They will get to the bottom of what occurred. It is educational, so that the public is informed of what took place and how it occurred. It is a fact finding role and that is where Commissioner Cameron will come in. She does not need the Opposition to tell her what the facts are.

I heard the Opposition House Leader, I heard the Leader of the Opposition say: these are facts, they are written in stone. Well, nothing is a fact until Commissioner Cameron finds it to be one. They may have their opinions, but they have to distinguish opinion from fact. At this stage there are no facts. There are simply ill-informed, misconceived and prejudicial opinions that I am hearing from this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: The other aspect of an inquiry, and this applies globally to all inquiries, is preventative. We want to know what happened so we can prevent it from happening again. We all have to work together. How often have we heard the word blame? It is not coming from us. We want to find out what went on.

As for what happened with a deputy minister, if that is relevant to the inquiry I am sure the Commission counsel will find that out. As for what happened with the CEO, I am sure that if it is relevant to the inquiry they will find that out.

Mr. Coffey, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, is a very experienced and thorough lawyer. There will be no stone unturned. The difficultly I am having as I listen to this today is that: Is the Opposition setting out to jeopardize the fairness and independence of the inquiry? Now perhaps they should ask themselves that question as they continue down this road. This inquiry is to determine how this terrible tragedy could have occurred. There is no place, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, for political gamesmanship and irresponsible commentary, and that is what I saw today, again, is inflammatory comments.

Now the Opposition House Leader may get up and say later: Well, I don't have to tell him what to do. Well, I am going to suggest to him that there are certain case laws he might want to read before he comes back into the House and starts talking about this inquiry and the inquiry process. Then he can take what he reads and learns and he can inform the Leader of the Opposition of some basic principles of law. One of those basic principles of law that applies to inquiries are the rules of natural justice. Everyone has a right to be heard and everyone has to know the case against them. It is the equivalent of the presumption of innocence. But, in the Opposition side of the House, there is no presumption of innocence. We all knew everything. The Premier did not do anything.

Let's let the inquiry run its course. Calmer heads should prevail and the inquiry should be allowed to do its job. Because if not, Mr. Chairman, what is going to happen is that sooner or later the question is going to be asked as to what are we doing in the House of Assembly with the ongoing inquiry? We are not set up to conduct this inquiry. You take bits and pieces, you take them out of context and what happens? Then we get the smearing of reputations. The irresponsible smearing of reputations like the Liberal Leader has done today.

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated: A person's reputation is oftentimes the best, the most valuable asset he or she has. So to state, as the Liberal Leader has stated, that Mr. Thompson is in a conflict. Why is she using the word conflict? Is there a legal term she is using here, because if there is I am not hearing it? Is it real? Is it perceived? She equates it with the town councils. So, as the Premier pointed out today, Mr. Coffey worked for the government, he was the Assistant Director of Public Prosecution. Is he in a conflict? Madam Justice Cameron worked here in the Department of Justice one time, is she in a conflict? There is nothing else. This is an ill-conceived or misconceived attempt to smear Mr. Thompson's reputation and I would suggest to you, sir, that that is not fair. At the end of the day, Madam Justice Cameron or Commissioner Cameron will make her findings.

One basic principle - and perhaps I should not have to remind the Opposition House Leader of this, but in regard to his condescending tone yesterday, perhaps I will. You are not judge and jury. You are not judge and jury and perhaps you should take that into account.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: No, and I am not trying to be. All I am saying is let the procedure play out. Let it follow its natural course.

Sir, I say it to you today - Mr. Chairman, what I am asking the Opposition to consider is to tone it down a little. If there are reasonable questions - how many subpoenas have been issued? Mr. Opposition House Leader, well, there is a Web site, you might want to check that. You might want to phone Mr. Coffey. Now excuse me if I am using the tone that you used toward me yesterday, but it is going to be a long four years, Mr. Opposition House Leader, I can tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Finally, what I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, is that at some point there is going to have to be an assessment as to whether or not the actions of the Opposition are in fact doing damage to the inquiry, to the impartiality and independence of the inquiry. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when the Liberal Leader comes back into this House, she should be asked, what did she mean by the fact that the inquiry should be given an independent process, because that shows an abysmal lack of understanding or a callous disregard for the principles that underlie our justice system.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. minister his speaking time has expired.

MR. KENNEDY: My final comment, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this inquiry is to find the truth, and that as a government is what we are committed to, and as the Premier said yesterday, we will accept responsibility.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did not interrupt the minister during his speech because I did not want him to lose his train of thought or whatever. Again, I would have thought the Chair might have corrected him on the fact that he was referring to the Leader of the Opposition as the Liberal Leader. I believe the Chair has already given instructions in this House that we refer to parties by their proper titles or whom they represent. I just bring that to the attention of the minister, so that maybe in the future - and I realize he is a rookie, so some of these House procedural rules he has to learn.

Anyway, my first comment would be - before addressing this particular bill I would like to make somewhat of a public service announcement, and that is concerning - it is certainly off the topic here, but warranted. I made a member's statement in this House a few weeks ago about Hockeyville, and it has nothing to do with Interim Supply or Supplementary Supply, but for the information of members of the House, and the Province, indeed, the final list in the voting for the five finalists concluded on Sunday past. The decision will be announced tonight on CBC, starting at 7 p.m. Eastern Time. The community of Port aux Basques, of course, is in the running, my hometown, so I certainly encourage everybody to stay tuned, and tune in and see if we were successful. In fact, we are not only representing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador but we are indeed representing all of Atlantic Canada.

I believe the nearest place to us who are hoping to accommodate a pre-season NHL hockey game, which is part of the contest if you win, is in Quebec. So hopefully, with the support of everybody in the Province and without - because I am sure we have had pictures of students in Qatar voting for us, and everywhere else all over the world - hopefully, the numbers were there to justify Port aux Basques being chosen.

A couple of issues - I was not going to address this. I had no idea, of course, that the minister was going to respond in the manner that he did, and my comments were not directed in any manner, shape or form towards the health issue and the Cameron Inquiry. I had no intention of responding to same, but I will for the purpose of clarifying a few issues that the minister said.

I appreciate, by the way, the fact that this gentleman, the minister, stood on his feet yesterday and talked about not being negative, talked about not being condescending, talked about not getting emotional, and talked about being rational. I am not going to get personal here, but I would suggest that the tone of the minister's comments today – and he talked about wording that I used in a letter as being inappropriate, and tone and so on. I would suggest: Cool down. We are going to get lots of time in four years to debate any issues we want to in this House. Nobody has to get hot under the collar, or squirm or whatever. We are going to get an opportunity - the Minister of Justice and I - I say, over four years, to have a thousand battles. There is lots of time. There is no big urgency. We are going to get to go at each other quite often.

As I indicated, any chance I get to put the minister on the hot seat over an issue, I am going to do it. That is part of my obligation; it is my responsibility. If I am going to be effective as an Opposition member, I intend to do that. I intend to do it.

The other thing I commented on yesterday was that we would not be muzzled, and this member is not going to be muzzled, and I stand by that. I am not going to get emotional and shout and scream across there, as if we were in some American trial – a lawyer screeching across the House - and we are going to show you. That is not the way I operate. I am going to respond, and I will respond in due course.

I am not the least intimidated, if that was the minister's intention - intimidating this member - shout and bawl and I am supposed to sit down and squirrel and crawl under the seat and not look over across the floor. You have to get that understood; that does not happen in here. That does not happen in here. I have a right to speak here, and I will speak. I just want to make that clear.

We will get lots of time to tangle. There are going to be times, I am sure, when you are going to have information that I do not have, that you are going to say I ought to have known that, and that is fine. Lots of times there are going to be pieces of information that I would like to have, and that is why I am going to ask the questions, because I would like to get my hands on the information, and that is perfectly understood, but a couple of the things that he did say today need to be corrected because they are absolutely not true - I say this to the minister - they are not true, a statement that you made today.

You said that the Leader of the Opposition was questioning the impartiality of Justice Cameron. You said that. That is absolutely not true, and incorrect. At no time – at no time, and Hansard will show - did the Leader of the Opposition question the impartiality of Justice Cameron – never – and for you to stand up here and suggest that the Leader of the Opposition did this is not proper. It is not proper at all.

What the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier in Question Period was: Should there be some kind of independent process to make sure that the inquiry has all the information they need? That is all. The Leader of the Opposition put that in the context of - go back and check Hansard - she said we are dealing with a person who was the Clerk of the Council, who was subsequently appointed by the Premier to spearhead or liaison with the Cameron Inquiry, who we now know has been subpoenaed to appear before that inquiry, and she simply said: Is it fair that the person who is going to have to give evidence as to what he did at certain times or in certain places, is it fair that that person be also the manager of the information that goes to the inquiry?

Now, that is a pretty simple question. It appears to me - I mean, common sense would say that there is…. Maybe it is not a conflict. I am not suggesting that it is, and the Leader of the Opposition did not suggest, but it certainly looks to be. It certainly is perceived to be.

All the Leader of the Opposition said was: Is there some way? Were you prepared to appoint someone, somehow, some process, so that we have assurance, the public has the assurance, that all the information is provided?

Because, by the way, from what I have been hearing on the testimony in the last week or so, that has been one of the major questions: Who knew what, when? What information is out there?

Anybody who has watched the programming of this on the Web sites, or has been there, it is pretty obvious that information is coming out in dribs and drabs. That is factual, and that raises the concern: Are we going to have this - contrary to compromising the impartiality of the commission, the question asked was: Is there a way to guarantee that the inquiry has everything they need?

To take that and twist it, as if somebody is questioning the impartially of Justice Cameron, goes beyond. My question would be, instead of attacking the Opposition, instead of attacking people personally here and saying you should be ashamed, and all of that stuff, why couldn't – I asked simple, straight questions to the Premier today. There was no embellishment of the questions and the Premier, in fairness to him, got up and to the first two or three questions, boom, boom, boom, gave answers, no embellishment. There is nothing wrong with that. Nobody was upset about it. Nobody was offside about it. Nobody was comprised about it. There was nothing political about it.

What is wrong with that kind of rapport and questions in the House of Assembly? I have heard a lot worse. I have heard all kinds of political accusations back and forth. This was a straightforward question and the Premier handled it as such, my question of him. So there is nothing wrong with the Opposition asking: Is the system complete now? Is there anything that needs to be done to make sure the inquiry has all the information? If there is, would the government consider it? That is all. We are posing questions. We are making suggestions. Would you consider it?

I agree in terms of contacting Mr. Coffey. I am going to personally call Mr. Coffey, because I have some questions and issues. Do you feel satisfied with the process, Mr. Coffey? Any citizen in this Province is entitled to ask Mr. Bernard Coffey that question - anybody. What is wrong with asking him? Do you feel comfortable in the system? Do you feel, given how the information is coming out in dribs and drabs, that you are getting it all? Is there an issue? What is wrong with asking that legitimate question? It has nothing to do with compromising their impartiality.

It is like the Lamer Inquiry which the member was involved in, the minister was involved in. I mean, this person here was the minister who started the Lamer Inquiry. It is not a case of we don't want to find out information. I was the Minister of Justice when the Lamer Inquiry concerning the wrongful convictions was started. Maybe I am not as educated or as informed or as intelligent as the current Minister of Justice, but I do know something about inquiries. I think the Lamer Inquiry was a good inquiry, a good commission. In fact, if you go back and check the record the current Minister of Finance, who was then the Minister of Justice I believe - it did not stay status quo from the date that it was appointed by myself. I do believe there was a change in the Terms of Reference somewhat, even after the inquiry got started. All I am saying to the Minister of Justice is that because something is done, it does not make it absolutely proper. Circumstances happen that might require a change in the inquiry process. To question whether or not you have enough resources or you are getting the information that you want, to suggest that is a leap to suggesting impartiality just does not make sense. It just does not make sense.

Maybe he is amazed, as he says. He cannot believe it. He is amazed that we would ask such questions. Well I am sure that the minister - he has been a lawyer for a long time. That is why you ask questions, because you do not know the answers. If you are going to be condemned because you even ask, what is the purpose of a question period? Oh sorry, we are not going to ask you any questions because you might be upset.

By the way, on this subpoena thing, there is one person who is the head of this Province and that is the Premier. The Premier stood up here yesterday and said he was the head of the Province, and he is the head of the civil service and he was asked a straightforward, simple question today by this member. Do you know what members, first of all, of your staff have been subpoenaed, and secondly, do you know what members of the civil service have been subpoenaed?

MADAM CHAIR (S Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It appears that again my point was lost and I will not reiterate it other than to say, my concern that I have expressed today is that the actions of the Opposition in this House are potentially jeopardizing the ongoing Inquiry process. What is being missed by the Opposition House Leader is a very basic premise. It is up to the Inquiry to hear the evidence, to subpoena witnesses and to make determinations. What I am amazed at is not the questions themselves but the lack of content in the questions, the lack of understanding of the process that is outlined in the questions. I am hearing terms thrown around, like conflict of interest, without any legal basis or perspective and that is what concerns me.

What I would suggest - and Hansard will demonstrate what was said. What happened here is the Liberal leader, the Leader of the Opposition, said, in talking about Mr. Thompson: Is it appropriate that he be in this position considering he was the top civil servant and now he is in the role that he now occupies? The Premier had answered that today. The Opposition Leader said she questioned that comment, and then the comment made - and I have a note, and I will assure you, I assure the Opposition House Leader, that my note is annoyingly correct, that she stated: The Inquiry should be given an independent process.

Now, if the Liberal leader wants to apologize for her comments and indicate that she does not understand the process, so be it, but to say that the inquiry should be given an independent process at a minimum implies, if not expressly states, that it is not independent. Now there is no great leap in logic there. There is no, I would suggest to you, semantic gymnastics on my part. It is simply, the Inquiry should be given an independent process. Hansard will reveal what was said.

Finally - and this is what I would ask the Opposition to consider - as the Premier has pointed out, this is about tragedies, it is about people and we are all attempting to find out what happened, to find the truth. The truth will be found; it is in capable hands.

I would suggest that questions taken out of context, comments made for political purpose, and, as the Premier pointed out today, simply asking questions with a view to embarrassing people or tarnishing their reputations is inappropriate. At the end of the day, if there are people who are going to be held responsible, there is a process that I am sure the Opposition Leader is aware of, where notices of misconduct can be sent out. The notice of misconduct indicates that you could be found in misconduct. At that point, I say to the Opposition House Leader, the commission will make that determination. It is not up to the Opposition. The questions asked should be asked with prudence and with caution. All I am talking about is the process itself and what appears to be the lack of understanding on behalf of the Liberal Leader of the Opposition and the House Leader as to the legal workings of the inquiry process.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again I appreciate an opportunity to finish my comments and again I will address the issue. I was, due to lack of time, cut short the last time. Anyway, I get another opportunity to finish off here.

I say to the Minister of Justice - and we can be back and forth on this, and I am sure we will be, probably as long as the Inquiry is in existence - but I say to him, first of all, if you are going to stand up, I would suggest, and say that Hansard will show this or Hansard will show that, do the basic preparation and find it in Hansard where the Leader of the Opposition, as you say, questioned the impartiality of Justice Cameron. You cannot talk about innuendos and said this or I am sure of this or I am annoyingly correct, if you do not know your facts. Now, if it is in Hansard, I say to the minister, fine, and if based upon it being in Hansard the Leader of the Opposition has to consider eating her words, fine, but until such time as you have the facts, I would suggest we leave it there.

Now, on the issue of the subpoenas again, where I ended off, I asked the questions of the Premier today, as I say, four or five questions. By the way, every question that I asked had nothing to do -

nothing to do! - with the HR issue. The substantive issue of whether there was a problem in the health care issue, whether there was a problem in Eastern Health or with anybody, not once did I reference anything about the substantive issue of the health care issue or the facts. My question of the Premier was very straightforward. I asked him, first of all: Did you appear? I was flabbergasted yesterday, quite frankly. I was not aware, now maybe it was because I was not personally aware of it, but I did not know until yesterday, that the Premier had appeared before commission counsel before.

Now, you can call that what you want. It was not a case of – I did not know. It is like the Inquiry itself, we are trying to find out what you knew or do not know. I did not know that. That is a pretty straightforward question. That has nothing to do with the HR issue. That has to do with, did you, as you said yesterday - am I hearing you correctly that you spoke to them before? He did use the word testimony, I did not make that up. I did not dream up that he said he gave testimony to the commission counsel. That is in Hansard. It is on page 238 from yesterday. That is why I asked the Premier, were you clear when you said you gave testimony, because it raises a question. Maybe the Minister of Justice might feel there is something wrong with it, but when I heard that, that the Premier had already, before the public hearings ever began, given testimony to the commission counsel, that in itself raises the question of process. Excuse me, did I miss something here? I thought that the whole purpose of the inquiry was to have public hearings so that we could find out what the facts were, and all the witnesses were going to get called.

Now, the Premier, quite rightly and succinctly, clarified that for me today. He said, no, I did not give testimony. I went down and I spoke with them. No, it was not under oath. I used the word testimony because I was a lawyer probably, and that is why I used it. That is acceptable. I have no problem with that, but that question in no way impacts on what he is or is not going to say when he goes to the inquiry, or what he said to them three months ago. I never once asked him an iota of detail of what he said to them. Not once. Now if that is interfering with the impartiality of the commission, if that is taking away - if the Opposition cannot ask for clarification when this kind of stuff becomes public, what is the role of an Opposition? I think there are a lot of people in this Province today know now that the Premier did meet with the commission counsel before. I did not know it. He told us yesterday. Now, if we are going to be condemned because we asked the Premier to clarify that statement, there is no point in having an Opposition. Maybe that is the way the government would like it. That is a pretty straightforward, simple question.

The next question I asked the Premier - he is the head of the government. I did not say it. He is, it is a fact. I asked him: Does he know what senior staff members or staff members of his have been subpoenaed? Now, that is a pretty straightforward question. That is not asking who is going to say what, and what are they going to say, and when are they getting subpoenaed and all that stuff. He is their boss. It is his office. Now, that is a pretty simple question. If the Premier of the Province cannot find out who, of my staff in the Premier's office has been subpoenaed, we have a problem in the Province if we cannot find out a simple answer to that. I do not know how that impacts the inquiry.

In reference to the minister's comment about look on the Web site, I looked on the Web site. I certainly did. I got a copy, actually, of the list of witnesses on the Web site. We are not allowed to refer to documents, I guess, in the House, but I say to the minister, I got a copy of the Web site. Premier Williams' name is not on there anywhere. It is not on there. To my knowledge, I do not see the director of communications' name on there for the Premier's office. I do not see his chief of staff being on there. Now that was taken off the government Web site today, at about 11 a.m. this morning. Now unless it has changed since that, the Premier's chief of staff and the Premier's director of communications is not on the Cameron Inquiry Web site saying they have been subpoenaed.

I came in here in Question Period today and asked: Premier, do you know which of your staff members have been subpoenaed? A very logical question, I think. I am not asking him what they said or do you think whatever. I just said: Do you know if they have been subpoenaed? Now, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be the great governing government and at the same time duck basic questions. That is a pretty basic question, folks. My good friend out there Joe Voter, who I always say is out watching this on his chesterfield, he would like to know the answer to that. I am going to find out because if the Premier do not want to tell me, I am going to write to Mr. Coffey and say: Can you tell us if the Premier has been subpoenaed or not? What is wrong with that? Can you tell us if the Premier's director of communications has been subpoenaed? Can you tell us if the Premier's chief of staff has been subpoenaed? It is not on your Web site. You are telling us about who has been subpoenaed, I am just wondering, have they been?

Now, he might decide - and it is in Mr. Coffey's wisdom and his judgement and his co-counsel and no doubt Justice Cameron, who they do or do not call. It is not up to me, or not up to us. That is totally within their parameter. That is why the Terms of Reference are there for them. All I am asking is a question, have they been? Now I do not know what is wrong with that. Unless we are going to be totally muzzled and get mum and say nothing, what is wrong with that basic question?

I asked him a similar question in relation to civil service people. I see some names on there of former civil servants. I see Mr. Abbott's name is on there. I see Mr. Thompson's name is on there. I see Mr. Tilley's name is on there. Is there anybody else been subpoenaed? I know the Minister of Health has been subpoenaed. I see his name there. If that is going to cause a crimp in the government because we ask these basic questions, do you know, Premier, who in the civil service has been subpoenaed and can you tell us? Well, if that is going to be earth shattering stuff and destroy the Cameron Inquiry, we really have a problem. We really have a problem.

The minister is entitled to his opinion. Unfortunately, I had problems – and, by the way, I make myself very clear, it has nothing to do with the individual, but I do not respect the opinion that you have and I do not accept the opinion that you have. There has been nothing done by this Opposition to question the integrity, the impartiality of the Cameron Inquiry, nothing, and the questions I have asked of the Premier will show that.

Now, the Premier had about five or six questions into my questioning with him and I did not get a chance to ask them all. We are going to be asking more questions of the Premier, and we realize, by the way, it is up to the Premier whether he wants to answer or not. That is my understanding of how Question Period works. He does not have to answer at all if he does not want to. He can ask the Deputy Premier, if he wants to, to get up and speak on it. He can ask anybody over there to get up and respond if he wants to, but that does not take away from the Opposition's right to ask him, and I am going to ask him other questions.

Now today in the middle of the questioning I asked four or five very straightforward questions. The Premier gave straightforward answers to the first three or four of them, then all of a sudden things switched. He said: Well, I don't know now. I have to get the Minister of Justice to check with the Cameron Inquiry and see if we should be commenting on this. He did not know if he was going to answer any more questions. Whether he is going to answer questions or not, I would submit -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. RIDEOUT: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I appreciate the leave by the Government House Leader to speak on the continuation of this issue - just to wrap up.

On the issue of the subpoenas - and just to finish off these comments - the Premier is totally within his prerogative not to answer any questions that the Opposition asks him. Absolutely! Nobody is disagreeing with that. It just looked odd when - yesterday the Premier was asking for more time to explain himself when we asked questions. In fact, we came in Question Period and we agreed as an Opposition yesterday if he needed more time to respond because of the sensitive and seriousness of this issue and we did. This Opposition did not try to shut down the Premier yesterday and say there are timelines for you to follow, Premier. We did not do that. We listened.

In fact, yesterday the record will show we asked ten questions, the Official Opposition. Usually, there are seventeen to nineteen questions asked in Question Period, and the reason was because the Opposition allowed the rules to be altered so that the Premier could take whatever time he wanted to respond. So there has been no interference here in terms of trying to shut anybody down. He has been given the full prerogative to speak if he wished.

Now, he came in yesterday and he wanted more time to speak. He came in today and for the first twenty minutes of Question Period he answered. Things went straight. He got a bit upset when the Leader of the Opposition asked him some questions. He got a bit offended and responded. Certainly the questions that this member asked him – I thought it was a pretty straightforward exchange; nothing emotional about it.

I asked a question and all of a sudden: I don't know if I can answer anymore. That's fine too. I don't question that a person might in midstream change their mind and say, well, maybe I should be doing this now, maybe I shouldn't be answering these, maybe I am going to be subpoenaed, maybe I shouldn't answer that.

I don't disagree with the fact that he said, I have to reflect on this. That is fair ball. I didn't get upset about it, that he decided he wanted to check things out again. All I am saying, in terms of the context of the thing, was he chose to speak. He started to speak yesterday and he chose to continue answering the questions today. It is not as if he never spoke and we have been sitting here trying to put his feet to the fire. He voluntarily got up and spoke and said, could I have more time to speak.

All of the sudden to suggest that we did something improper by asking these questions, and then to turn around and try to say we are impacting the impartiality of Justice Cameron, that is a stretch. That is a big stretch.

By the way, because I don't think I know everything, I will ask Mr. Coffey as I indicated: Does he see anything wrong with the questions I have asked here? Because I certainly don't want to do anything that might impact the impartiality of the commission. I certainly don't even want to compromise anybody who might have to appear before the Inquiry. That is the fact finding place, and I agree you have a very competent Inquiry Commissioner and Counsel, and they will get to the bottom of whatever needs to be gotten to. That is their job and that is why they have been appointed and employed to do that. I have no problem waiting for that process to unfold. You have not heard this member ask one single question relating to the testimony that has been heard to date at the Inquiry, not one, nor will I because it is not my position to do that.

Mr. Coffey knows his job, and his co-counsel, and the Commissioner knows her job. They don't need me to be asking questions. they don't need that at all. But that does not pre-empt us or stop the Opposition from asking legitimate questions of the Premier and of the government, any minister in government. I will have a few for the Minister of Justice as well. That does not prevent us from asking questions about certain issues involving the process.

I say this in fairness, the government has to stop being so defensive. This is all about openness and transparency and accountability on the one hand, and then on the other hand we hear the government, the minute you ask a question: you are negative, you are condescending, you do not care about the safety and the health of these patients. Well I say to the members on the government side, none of you, the Premier included, has a monopoly on the concern for the health and safety of patients in this Province; none of you, nor me. I have friends and I have family impacted by this, but for the same reason that I do not get into personal issues of how they are impacted, nor will I, because they have a process to follow as well through their counsel or whatever, that is the reason I am not going to go there and will not go there. For anyone to stand up and suggest that because we ask a question we do not care about these people, that is absolutely unnecessary and inappropriate - absolutely unnecessary!

I am sure there is nobody here in this House who wishes anything but the best for anybody who has been impacted by this, or their family; to deal with the stresses that they have had to deal with here and the stress they are going to have to go through in the future. Nobody has a monopoly on sympathies for these people and concern for these people, but we cannot allow how we feel about individuals impacted by this and their families - you cannot because the government might want to get up and say, you are being negative and you are trying to be political. You cannot say: Well, in that case, we will keep our mouth shut and ask no questions. They must have been legitimate questions. The Premier, up until today, thought that they were important enough to respond to, wanted more time to respond to them.

I just assure the members opposite that this member, for sure, will continue to ask whatever is appropriate, not what I deem to be appropriate, not what I, in my judgement, deem to be appropriate. If it is a sensible, rational, logical question that does not impact upon the evidence being given at the inquiry, and it is for information purposes, there is no reason that it should not be responded to.

We have a government who wants to be open. Can anybody in this Province understand why the Premier of this Province cannot tell us in this House which members of his staff have been subpoenaed? Is there any rational reason in the world why the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot tell us that? Why can't he tell us, for example, who in the civil service has been subpoenaed? That is not rocket science. That is not earth shattering stuff.

I hope, on reflection, that government does not go into it's shell and say, well, we are not going to talk about this any more now, it is all in front of the Inquiry. That will look good in front of the public. You take questions until, for some reason or other, you feel that there are not justified any more or they cause a bit of heat, and then you start to say we are not going to answer any more. I hope that does not happen. Even, by the way, if that does happen, that still does not restrict the Opposition's right to ask.

In conclusion I would just say, lets not everybody go getting hot and bothered. We are not going to get hot and bothered. Let's not let it get lost in the shuffle, that a lot of different people will have a lot of different jobs to do. This member at least - I do not care what you think about the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I do not care what you think about the Member for Port de Grave in the sense of the questions they ask - but this member will ask questions that are appropriate and it is up to yourselves as a government whether you want to answer them. That is all I say. Let the public be the judge of what happened and did not happen. Let the process unfold here in this House, which Question Period is for, and let the process unfold down the street in the Cameron Inquiry as it should down there, and at the end of the day the people will make their decision. The Cameron Inquiry will make their decisions.

For some reason or other there is an assumption by the government members here – and I am not being nasty here, I am not being critical - there is an assumption here that every question we ask has a political connotation. That is the assumption. We cannot tell, because there is some political motivation. It is understandable that one might say, what are going to be consequences of me answering that? How is that going to look if I answer that? I can understand that because we live in a political milieu. I mean, that is part of it. The minister, of course, came back to it in his responses, and I appreciate that, but for God's sake, all we are saying here is, if the question is straightforward and you can give a straightforward answer, what is the point? What is the problem? If it is not a straightforward question, just say: I think your question is out of line; I am not going to answer that. We have no problem with that.

The Minister of Health, I must say, I am surprised. We sat in this House last spring and the Minister of Health was asked a lot of questions. I used the word stonewalled yesterday, and the Minister of Justice had a go at me for using it – I notice the media used it last night, too – but the Minister of Health used to give some pretty long-winded answers last spring to stuff in here. The record shows that, too, in Hansard. In fact, there were lots of times he gave up and gave an answer that everybody was left smiling and saying: What did he say? We know he did not answer many questions, but he certainly had a long speech - but I am surprised. Since we came back this time, I must say, the Minister of Health has impressed me, since we resumed sitting in this spring sitting, because he actually gives answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is hard for you to say.

MR. PARSONS: As hard as that might be to say, that just goes to show that you have to give credit where credit is due again. I said yesterday, you have to give credit where credit is due, and the Minister of Health and Community Services has been pretty forthright in this session. Anything he has been asked – and, in fact, he is even forthright to the point where, if he does not know, he says: Thank you very much, I will take that under advisement and get back to you. We appreciate that, and the people respect that.

My concluding comment here is, the process will unfold and we will continue to ask our questions; and, for God's sake - I appreciate the advice of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General - if this member, or anybody over here, has done anything improper in terms of interfering with any process of the inquiry, by all means, please give us the benefit of your judgement and the benefit of your wisdom and experience, and let us know where we have crossed the line.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Are you getting up?

MADAM CHAIR: Oh, I am sorry. I didn't realize.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I feel like, at some point today, I am in Inquiries 101 – and the Minister of Education gave me a little list here - when I hear the Opposition House Leader refer to the fact that he appears to be amazed by the fact that the Premier was interviewed. That is what I am hearing in his voice today.

Part of the inquiry process is that potential witnesses are interviewed prior to the inquiry. That is what takes place. That is the normal procedure. Counsel sits down with potential witnesses and obtains statements from them or has discussions with them. There is nothing unusual about that. In fact, it is quite normal. So what the Opposition House Leader somehow is suggesting is that it was unusual - the first time I heard this. The Premier was interviewed. Wow! NTV news, here we come!

That is not the point. It is a normal procedure, in any inquiry I have been involved in or aware of. So, I would say to the Opposition House Leader, perhaps before you start distinguishing between normal and abnormal processes you look at what the law says, and how it works. I would suggest to the Opposition House Leader to have that conversation with Mr. Coffey because it is one that I am going to be suggesting that we do have. I will certainly, at the end of the day, as government, want to hear what Mr. Coffey has to say about the discussion in this House of this inquiry.

You stated - and again, the Leader of the Opposition is gone - the Opposition House Leader stated that no one has questioned - I have not questioned, he said, on testimony today. Well, wait now. The Opposition House Leader said to the Premier yesterday – again, Hansard will prove if I am right or wrong – that Mr. Ottenheimer said this. I thought - and I could be wrong; I will concede that I could be wrong – I thought that the Premier was asked certain questions yesterday about testimony given at the inquiry. Now, whether or not that is true, I will look at Hansard tonight.

I say to the Opposition House Leader, as a former Minister of Justice, there is a basic principle that we do not comment on matters before the court. Now, that is accepted. It is one that I understand is enshrined in practice if not in principle. Now, how can one distinguish between the inquiry? Now, I do not know, I say to Madam Chair, the answer to that, but I think it would be prudent to seek guidance from commission counsel as to what should be going on in this House, because the last thing any of us want to do is jeopardize this inquiry.

The Opposition House Leader stated that the commission has competent counsel and they will get to the bottom of it. What I say to the Opposition House Leader, what I say to the Leader of the Opposition: Let them do it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a couple of brief comments again in response to the minister.

Again, if the Leader of the Opposition asked questions yesterday or today that were improper, dealt with the evidence at the inquiry, by all means she should be shown it - I have no problem with that - and if there has been something done in that regard, there is no doubt; but I would suggest that, rather than stand up and make these comments, let's get the facts. If you feel that is the case, you have staff. Take the time, read Hansard from yesterday and come back with something factual, and if it is had - just remember, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has been in the House since 1996. It would not be the first time she stood up here and said: I did something wrong, I apologize for it. That is the process. This member has done it himself on occasion, been misinformed and said things that I should not have said and came back and apologized to either the member or to the government or to the Speaker or whomever, the Chair, for something that I did. That is another one of the basic principles here. You may feel you are as right as anything in the world, but there is a process; there is a parliamentary protocol. I say to the minister, don't stand up and make these accusations that who said what when, when the evidence is there to find. Then if it is, present it.

It is like yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of the Minister of Health and said you said something in the House. She went and did her research, came back later in the day yesterday and stood up on a point of order and said: I'm wrong. He did not say it in the House. He said it outside the House to the media. In question the next day the then Member for Humber Valley asked a question about that report in The Telegram what he said outside. She had clarified that. It is not unusual here.

The other thing is - again, I am not splitting hairs here. Inquiry 101 is fine by me because it is not only this member here who would appreciate knowing the intricacies of how an inquiry works. Maybe that is the benefit, if anything, of us asking these questions because maybe the public will understand a little better what is happening at that inquiry. That is never lost on the public if you do things to help inform them. The public appreciates that. Never mind: don't ask, don't tell. The public would like to know why did such-and-such happen? What is the process there? The inquiry will determine the facts.

By the way, the minister's statement, I could not agree more with the minister's statement he just made, that it is a policy that you do not comment on matters before the courts. I am not going to split hairs here because this is too important to be splitting hairs over. Number one, again, there has been no comment on the matter before the inquiry. The questions have been directed, at least from this member, to process who is subpoenaed. It is not to deal with the substantive facts that it is the prerogative and sole prerogative of the inquiry to determine. No more than it is for me to ask the Minister of Justice on any given day anything about the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and how the process works. It is totally acceptable and appropriate. A lot of times when we ask questions it might not be because I do not know the answer, it might be because I want the minister to explain to the public a certain issue. So, it is information.

There have been no comments on matters before the courts. There have been questions about the process. By the way, you talk about Inquiry 101, let's go back to the basics here and ask who demanded this inquiry. Let's go back, if you want to know about inquiries and who asked for it. In fact, I say to the minister, it was his predecessor, the Member for St. John's South who was the Minister of Justice, who this member asked last May 16, a question and said: Would you call a judicial inquiry? That did not come from government. Government did not sit back in their Cabinet meeting and their wisdom and the first time a judicial inquiry was heard was when it was announced. This judicial inquiry came about because questions were asked in this House by the Opposition: Will you call a judicial inquiry? The answer that was given by the then Minister of Justice was, no. May 16, 2007, no, because there are currently court actions ongoing and it would not be appropriate - words to that effect. No.

Well, that did not last because the Opposition insisted and kept calling for an inquiry and it was May 22, I do believe, when it was announced that there would be a judicial inquiry. So let's not get into this who is trying to interfere with the inquiry. It was this Opposition, this member in fact, who specifically asked for an inquiry first. It was that government that refused and it was only after debate and reflection, and I say good reflection and I commend the government for doing it, that they called an inquiry. So do not go giving lessons in 101 about judicial inquires. This member knows about them and this member was the person who asked for this particular inquiry.

So, it is fine to say we are open, we are accountable, we called the judicial inquiry, but if you go back and look, the government was pretty well dragged and screaming to make the decision. When it became known in the public, and the media reported on it and questions were asked in here, the government decided to do it. Now, that is process again. How did the judicial inquiry come about? That is how it came about. Then the Terms of Reference of course were drafted, and I assume there was discussion between Justice Cameron and the parties that be in government, to decide what the Terms of Reference would be, what resources were needed, and that kind of stuff. That is a legitimate process.

As I said to the former Minister of Justice, the current Minister of Finance, sometimes those Terms of Reference get changed, like it did in the Lamer Inquiry, it got changed along the way. It might get changed again here. God forbid, if something happens in the process and Madam Justice Cameron comes back and says: Whoa, we just came across this - whatever - and we need to change the Terms of Reference. I would think government is going to be open and acceptable to it, that happens. It is not carved in stone what she is allowed to do. If something happens ‘unforetold' or unknown and she wants to come back and ask the government that is her pejorative to do that.

I say to the Minister of Justice again, in conclusion, for the final time, and I will not address the issue again, we will continue to ask questions. We have done nothing improper. We were the ones who demanded this inquiry. Maybe the government wants to take an evasive or defensive stance in asking the questions, that is up to government, but it will not deter and stop the Opposition from asking legitimate questions.

Thank you.

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2008 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: Motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to site again.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to site again. The Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and acting Deputy Speaker.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution, and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2008, the sum of $10,700,200.

On motion, resolution read a first time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance, that the resolution now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2008, the sum of $10,700,200.

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister of Finance for leave to introduce the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 13, and I further move that the said bill now be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating to The Public Service, Bill 13, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the Supplementary Supply Bill, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 13)

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 13)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance that the Supplementary Supply Bill now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, read a second time. (Bill 13)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, at this time normally, according to the rules, we would move on with third reading and there would be no further debate because debate takes place on the Supply bill in Committee, as we all know. First, second and third reading is automatic and happens without debate according to the rules. However, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition was absent, you know, on business from the Chamber and wanted to have a few more minutes to make some remarks on the Supplementary Supply bill. I have no difficulty granting the hon. Leader leave to do that but we understand it is not creating any precedent or changing any rules. We can always do what we like by leave, so by leave I am prepared to grant the Leader of the Opposition leave to have a few remarks before we do third reading and finally dispense with the bill, if that is acceptable.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have leave to speak to Bill 13 at this time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciation the co-operation of the Government House Leader in allowing me to have some final comments as it relates to the debate we have ongoing this afternoon as part of the Supplementary Supply Bill. In fact, I was out of the House of Assembly because I was reviewing and being briefed on one of the exhibits that have been presented at the commission, and that would be exhibit P0 164 which contained information that was submitted in a Cabinet document to Cabinet in October of 2005, information that spoke to how a communication plan should be developed around the messaging of the ER-PR piece. Mr. Speaker, that is the reason I happened to be absent when the committee was called for closure and did not get a chance to have some final comments in that portion of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond to the comments that were made by the Minister of Justice this afternoon and especially as it pertains to the misrepresentation of my questions today in the House of Assembly and my comments, and that being around an independent process for the Inquiry in accessing the information of government, whether that be from government e-mails or from other government files.

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister knew quite clearly to what I was referring and what I was referencing, but he made the choice to misrepresent my comments and I feel that I am compelled to make some remarks about that.

First of all, let me just say that I would never question the integrity of the Commissioner or of the counsel for this Commission as it pertains to this Public Inquiry. He will not hear anything that will question either the impartiality or the integrity of those individuals who are involved or in the job that they have been assigned to do. In fact, I take great exception to the fact that he would even insinuate such because that is not the case. I fully respect the job that these individuals have to do. I fully respect that and I certainly would not call into question their abilities, their integrity or their impartiality.

I think, the mere fact that we question whether a senior civil servant who has been the manager of messages for government around this issue for the past two years, as to whether they should be removed as a liaison officer and the individual providing information to this Commission, was quite legitimate and it was no reflection upon any other individuals who were involved in this commission. The minister knows that, and he knows that to be the truth.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: Whether he agrees with my opinion or not as it relates to Robert Thompson is really of little relevance to me, I say to the minister. What I say for the record is this - you may downplay it, you may undermine it, you may question the significance of it, but let me say this to you - Robert Thompson was the Clerk of the Executive Council when this issue was before government. In fact, I have the Cabinet documents here in which it was submitted to Cabinet in 2005.

When the Deputy Minister of Health was removed from that department and replaced with Robert Thompson, at the time when this issue was ongoing in that department, Robert Thompson was put there as the deputy minister to manage this issue for government, and the messaging around it. He was then later removed and appointed as the liaison officer for government with this commission. He was the person now tasked with the responsibility of searching through the government archives and the database to find all of the information pertaining to this particular issue, and ensuring that it was submitted to the inquiry and exhibited appropriately. This same individual today is now being subpoenaed to testify.

My only question has been: How could you perceive to be independent in terms of this process if you are not going to allow the inquiry to have independent bodies to search through government records, to search through the databases and to acquire the information as it pertains to this?

That was my question. That was where the conflict of interest was coming in. In my opinion, whether you agree with it or not, as I said, it has little relevance for me, but the fact of the matter is that he is in a conflict of interest, and this has nothing to do with the character of this individual. You can misrepresent that, you can deflect it, you can do whatever you want with it; it does not call into question the character of this individual, their ability to do the job in any way, and it certainly does not reflect in any way on the other people who are involved with this commission, including the commissioner and the counsel to the commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is a lawyer; he should know better than to be insinuating and misrepresenting information like that in the House of Assembly. If he wants to, he can read it quite clearly. I have my question in front of me, just as I asked it today. I will not read it back into the record - I do not think it is necessary - but it will speak quite clearly to the fact that what we asked for was a process independent of government – independent of government – to search for the information that was pertinent to the inquiry, and not government managing its own release of information.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about interfering in the inquiry, the best example of interference in this inquiry, that I have seen, is the one in which Eastern Health filed in the courts – filed in the courts - to have information withdrawn or withheld from this commission, which was the only thing I have seen that has really interfered with the commission, with the exception of e-mails that government could not find.

If you want to talk about interference in the inquiry, and impacting upon what is going on here, why didn't your Minister of Health, back months ago when Eastern Health had filed an application in the courts trying to have peer reviews withheld from the inquiry, why didn't your minister intervene then and say: Listen, we want a full, open process. We do not want any information withheld from this process. We want to have everything submitted. We want to have it all reviewed.

Why didn't he do that? In fact, they let it go through the courts, they delayed the inquiry by several months and, as a result of it, the inquiry did win over the case and the information is now being provided. If you want to talk about interference, that was the first interference. If you want to talk about other things that have impacted this inquiry, what about the e-mails that surfaced, that caused another delay of four to five days in this inquiry?

I do not know why the e-mails were eight months being found on a government server, because the new program, the robust search engine that government talks about, was installed on computers up in our office – some of them - back in the summer of 2007. So there is no reason why government needed to take eight months, I say to the Minster of Justice, to find those e-mails.

When he gets up and he wants to contribute to this debate, maybe he could tell me why it took them so long to find them, why this new robust system they talk about delayed the process of submitting information to the inquiry for that long; because I know, for a fact, in our offices that program was on a number of our computers before the end of August 2007, and that was more than ample time for any government department to use that new system, to search for the information and to gather the data that they were looking for. So maybe when you get up, instead of misrepresenting my comments and what I had to say, you might like to answer that particular question for me.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about delays, those were two of the particular pieces that have contributed to delays in this inquiry, if you want to look at delays as interference. It is certainly not our intention in any way to interfere with this inquiry, but we have a right to ask questions in the House of Assembly, and whether you like them or anyone else in the government likes them is irrelevant and immaterial. Our job is to ask the questions. It is government's job to decide if they want to answer them or not. They have two choices: one to provide an answer and one not to, and that always has been the practice. So, by the mere fact that there is an inquiry going on, it does not change the fact that we still want to question the process of government, how government has managed this information, why they have had Cabinet papers with directives in them regarding this issue going back two years and not responded.

We have every right to ask those questions, and so does the inquiry, and we will continue to do so. As long as you want to distort the facts, misrepresent our information, or go out and try and divert the issue, talking about subsequent pieces of information that have no relevance, those things we cannot control, but don't think we are not going to respond to it because we are.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to clarify that for the record before we conclude this debate this afternoon.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the Supplementary Supply bill now be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion of third reading?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, a bill "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 13)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a couple of pieces of business arising from earlier today that, with the concurrence of my colleagues, I would like to revert to.

Inadvertently today, in calling Motions, I called Motion 3, which was Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, for first reading. That is a money bill, of course, and it goes through first reading, second reading and third reading the same as we did here today, after we debate it in Committee of Supply.

That was a mistake on my part, and I believe the Table Officers have indicated that we need to do something to undo that first reading. So, whatever the something is, can Your Honour ensure that the something is done?

MR. SPEAKER: I guess what the hon. Government House Leader is asking for is a motion to rescind first reading of Bill 19.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your helpful suggestion. I would move that the House rescind first reading of Bill 19.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: I thank the Speaker and my colleagues opposite for their concurrence in helping me out of the mess that I created.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, as well, when we put the motion to strike the Privileges and Elections Committee earlier today, I should have asked that the matter be put to a vote, and I did not. So with the, again, concurrence of the House, I would like to move that the motion to strike the Elections and Privileges Committee be approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The House has heard the motion.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 5, I believe it is, the bill on architects.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

The Committee will now consider Bill 5.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services." (Bill 5)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make just a couple of comments. I know I stated this yesterday, but I just wanted to bring it to the floor once again, with regards to Bill 5, just to make a note that we did receive correspondence from the Association of Engineering Technicians and Technologists of Newfoundland Labrador. I understand the minister gave us his response yesterday, but we just want to reiterate that the inclusion we put forward yesterday in the amendment, hopefully, it would be considered, and just state for the facts that we appreciate what the minister has said, that he is willing to meet with those people and there would not be, my understanding, any penalties imposed against them for what they are trying to correct here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, one of my officials spoke to the Association of Engineering Technicians and Technologists of Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday. I am happy to report to the House that they have no problem in regards to it not being covered under this act. They clearly understand that they cannot because the body of work that will be regulated under this act is for design work for larger buildings, et cetera, that they would not play a role in and would not be able to design themselves. This will be regulated under the Architects Act for architects. What they are asking for is that other design work which may be done for smaller buildings that you would not actually need an architect, that it would be regulated in the best interests of the public as well.

So, we are willing to sit down at a later date, hopefully sooner than later, sit down and hear their views and see if we need to regulate this part of the industry under their association. Certainly, we will meet with them within a very short period of time, and hopefully, we will come to some type of conclusion.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 44 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 44 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 44 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and Acting Deputy Speaker.

MR. COLLINS: Mr Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 5, carried without amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed him to report Bill 5 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 5, An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services, now be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 5, An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 5)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes our parliamentary agenda for today. I would like to move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, which is Private Members' Day and we will be debating the private member's resolution submitted by the Official Opposition. So, we adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 2 o'clock, tomorrow, being Wednesday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.