The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the House of Assembly would like to welcome Mr. Goward Heath and his family members sitting in the Speaker's gallery. Mr. Heath is a World War II veteran. Sir, on behalf of the House of Assembly, I say a thank you and welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The House would also like to welcome forty-four Level II students from Botwood Collegiate and the Botwood Boys and Girls Club in the District of Exploits. Students are accompanied by their guidance counsellor, Mr. Darryl Chippett, as well as Mr. Darrell Rice, Mr. Perry Chippett, Ms Darlene Rice and Ms Karen Hancock, all representing the Boys and Girls Club.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The following member's' statements will be heard. The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte, the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits, the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave, the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to one of our war veterans, Mr. Goward Heath.

In 1940, at the age of twenty-four, Mr. Heath joined the Royal Navy and he served until the end of World War II in 1945.

Mr. Heath, who recently celebrated his ninety-third birthday, lives with his wife, Mildred at their home in Lewisporte. Together they have six children, ten grandchildren and three great grandchildren.

In 1954, Mr. Heath joined and volunteered with the Civil Defence and continued with the Canadian Rangers until 1978. He is one of two surviving founders of the Royal Canadian Legion. He spent fifteen years as an officer with the 617 Dambuster Air Cadet Squadron.

For the past forty years he served on the sponsoring committee of the Cadets, a position he retired from at the age of ninety.

Over the past sixty years, Mr. Heath has been an active member of the Remembrance Day Poppy Campaign and the July 1 Forget-Me-Not Campaign.

Mr. Heath still goes to local schools to speak to students regarding his own experiences and to remind them of the importance of celebrating Remembrance Day and Canada Day.

Mr. Heath has received numerous awards, medals, and certificates of appreciation for his contribution to the community, to the Province, and to our country.

Mr. Speaker, veterans such as Mr. Goward Heath, a 93-year-old veteran of war, should remind us all of the price of democracy, the value of peace, and the sacrifices made, enabling us to enjoy the freedom we have in this great Country.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join with me in respectfully recognizing and expressing a sincere thanks to Mr. Goward Heath.

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 another huge milestone for Labrador Preserves located in Forteau, Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador Preserves is owned and operated by Stelman Flynn, and his products, Pure Labrador, are produced by converting bakeapples, partridgeberries and blueberries into gourmet spreads and syrups. Up until recently, Mr. Flynn's syrups, jams and jellies have been enjoyed mostly by locals and tourists passing through Newfoundland and Labrador, but now it has been introduced to the rest of the world, and available on shelves at Sobey's, Price Chopper and Foodland grocery stores across Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Speaker, what originated as a small venture in preserves has developed into a huge enterprise and has already been a boost to the local economy on a number of levels. Further expansion is expected with contracts in western Canada and this would mean a dramatic overhaul for the small family business. Mr. Flynn has been able to master the unique Labrador bakeapple taste and produce a gourmet product that is recognized as a commodity of excellence across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of the House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Flynn and Labrador Preserves on the tremendous success his company has achieved by investing in a distinctive part of Labrador's culture and heritage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise in this House to recognize the outstanding contributions and dedication of Tracey Fancey to the Bishop's Falls Volunteer Fire Department; in particular, for being chosen as Firefighter of the Year. Tracey joined the department four years ago, and was the first female to do so.

Mr. Speaker, Tracey and her husband Steve have two young boys, and she also enjoys a working career as an X-ray technician.

Although Tracey is busy as a mom, and with her career, she still manages to fulfill her commitment as a volunteer firefighter. Along with the regular duties of training, meetings, and emergency responses, Tracey was instrumental in forming a junior firefighting program in the town, which has been very successful since its formation three years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Tracey Fancey on receiving Volunteer Firefighter of the Year for the Bishop's Falls Volunteer Fire Department.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 8, the Bay Roberts Lions Club celebrated their forty-fourth charter anniversary.

The event was held at the Lions Club building with District Governor Kevin Noseworthy being guest speaker. Mr. Noseworthy commended the club for the work they perform not only in the community but in the Province, nationally and internationally. It is truly a club that promotes lionism and takes part in many charities that help those who are less fortunate.

Lions Club members were graced with the presence of four of the founding members: Mr. Fraser Morgan, Mr. Boyd Morgan, Mr. Edgar Russell and Mr. Walter Baggs.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Walter Baggs is the only member to have forty-four years of continuous service and is a life member of the club.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating not only Mr. Walter Baggs but the Bay Roberts Lions Club on forty-four years of dedicated and unselfish service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of the Town of Witless Bay and the Bay Bulls to Bauline Regional Games Committee in hosting the second Regional Games for this region in the past two years. This event was completed, organized and promoted by the dedicated volunteers of the region who, in recognizing the importance of good healthy living for our young people, took on the challenge of putting this event together this past summer.

This event highlighted that community and regional spirit is alive and well, as all communities of the region came together to participate, both volunteers and our youth, from Bay Bulls to Bauline.

A selection of sporting events included: soccer being played on the soccer pitch in Bay Bulls, beach volleyball and softball in Witless Bay, and ball hockey being held at the Southern Shore Arena in Mobile, to name a few.

In total, we had 200 young people from Bay Bulls to Bauline attend this tremendous event over a three day period which gave our youth a chance to experience the benefits of participating in sport for the love of participation and friendship.

This event has built on, and will continue to build on, the sporting tradition of the Southern Shore and I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Regional Games Committee who include: Nick Aylward, Luke Bidgood, Derm Moran, Ros Curran, Ray Brinston, Ken Williams, Darlene Reid, Britney Brinston, Barb Harrigan, Tom Brinston, and Pat Curran, for the outstanding contribution they have made to this region in hosting the second Regional Games.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize Ms Frances Ennis. On Friday, November 7, Frances and four other Canadian women received the Governor General's Awards in Commemoration of the Persons Case. She is the ninth recipient from this Province, and I would like to note that the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women did a public announcement when Frances won this award.

This prestigious award celebrates the Famous Five who in 1929 fought and won the right for women to be recognized as persons under the law. The award was founded in order to recognize women who demonstrate a commitment to the advancement of women's equality.

Frances Ennis grew up in Fort Amherst, a tiny community on the south side of the Narrows. It was a community in those days, and I know Frances had to come across the water to St. John's to go to school, come over by boat. She earned a B.A. from Memorial University in St. John's.

Her career, in the areas of community development, adult education, research and program co-ordination, has focused on women's equality, adult literacy and social justice.

In latter years, Frances has become known as an artist who approaches her art from these perspectives. She brings to her rug hooking a vision of the world that values everyone's contribution, especially that of women, which she believes has been historically overlooked.

I really am pleased to ask the members of this House to join with me in congratulating Frances Ennis and, I think she would want me to say, all the women with whom she has worked over the years, on being a recipient of the Governor General's Persons Awards.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, innovative enterprises are emerging throughout the Province and giving rise to knowledge-based industries. The continued development of these industries is essential to the sustained growth of our Province. As a government, we are committed to providing the necessary resources to businesses so they can develop best-in-class products and services.

A central component of our approach is the Business Retention and Expansion Program or the BR&E Program, as it is more commonly known. Through this program, we work directly with businesses to address growth barriers or specific issues impacting business operations. Together, an action plan is developed that addresses those challenges. By working collectively, we are not only strengthening that particular business operation, but we are also empowering the company to play a greater role in the business growth of their community.

For us, BR&E is not just a program, but a means of enhancing our business counselling services. It is a proactive approach that supports Innovation, Trade and Rural Development's mandate of encouraging and supporting business growth and sustainable employment opportunities.

By working directly with businesses, we create greater awareness of available resources for them to target new opportunities. Through the Business Retention and Expansion program far more businesses are utilizing our business development programs, which from a financial perspective today total more than $23 million – up from just $2 million that was available in previous administrations.

Additionally, the BR&E's planning session facilitate the creation of strong relationships with our regional partners. Through ongoing collaboration, initiatives that support economic development are being formulated.

One of the immediate outcomes of the BR&E program was businesses identifying the need for strong partnerships and business networks.

In the Avalon region, for example, ten private sector enterprises are forming the Trinity-Conception Manufacturing Network. As part of that initiative, departmental officials will help them work through human resource challenges, develop an action plan and utilize the tools of other provincial and federal departments to more efficiently manage their operations.

In the Western region, members of the BR&E team worked with the City of Corner Brook, the Downtown Business Association and the Greater Corner Brook Area Board of Trade to identify opportunities to better utilize the Internet and find alternative financing options. We are also in the early stages of working with companies along the Northern Peninsula and look forward to helping them achieve their objectives.

High levels of collaboration, Mr. Speaker, along with innovative thinking and planning are clear throughout all regions. This collective approach will help position the Province for future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the minister having provided us with an advanced copy of this ministerial release. As a former Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, I can certainly support any initiatives of this government and that particular department which might assist and help the businesses of this Province advance, grow, mature, improve themselves, whether it be from a marketing point of view or a development of their products point of view.

We would like, however, to see more reporting of this, of the $23 million. For example, who in the Province accesses the various funds that are available? What do they use it for? What are the success rates of it? So we look forward, in due course, to getting some of that information from the government.

I notice, as well, that another initiative of ITRD of course has always been trade missions and it is great to see. I have been part of them myself in the past and saw some very successful ventures now existing in this Province as result of those trade missions. I notice the most recent one was in Chicago, I think the Minister of Business was in attendance as well. I am not sure of the outcome. Given our current economic situation, which is global, what kind of reception they had or what the success was but that indeed should not take away from the fact that we need to do those things. Certainly, in the crisis, I believe, crisis economic situation that we are facing or about to face in the next year in this country, and particularly in this Province, we need to do all we can to advance the interests of the businesses that we do have plus anyone else who might have a good creative idea to help the people of this Province.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement. Programs such as the BR&E are excellent programs and needed in a great way in our Province to help businesses as they develop and grow. As we know, not all businesses are able to proceed without venture capital. So the BR&E is extremely important.

We do know though that not enough small and medium businesses are accessing other monies that the government has available. That came out in Estimates discussions both this year and last year, I think, but particularly this year. So I would hope that the counselling portion of the BR&E program, which I think is extremely important, would also help with more uptake in the other programs, such as the small and medium business enterprise fund. I do not know if the counselling means that mentoring is built in, I do not think it is, but I would like to suggest to the minister that mentoring along with counselling, mentoring of other small businesspeople would really help in the growth of the small and medium businesses.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House to inform hon. colleagues of an annual arts festival that just took place in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. From November 19-25, the thirty-third annual Labrador Creative Arts Festival brought together students from across Labrador, as well as visiting artists from across our Province and Canada.

The festival gives Labrador students a unique opportunity to spend an entire week immersed in the arts. Under the mentorship of local and visiting artists, students learn to develop and direct their creativity and gain valuable insights into their own creative expressions.

This year, students travelled from all over Labrador to showcase their talents. They produced and performed their own material, which was well received by the people attending the shows. I understand there was standing-room-only, Mr. Speaker, for many of the performances, which is a testament to the respect and appreciation people in Labrador have for the arts.

Putting off this year's festival was not without challenges. The classic early winter of Labrador played havoc with some schedules, but once again, the organizers worked out the weather and pulled it off with finesse. One very popular piece came from Mud Lake. This community, located just outside Happy Valley-Goose Bay, is accessible only by boat or snowmobile and has just four students in their school. Their entry this year was an engaging comedy called The Sister from Hell, which tells of a sister's return visit to her home community and family.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Creative Arts Festival is a tremendous undertaking that requires many dedicated volunteers to be successful. This year's coordinator was Dorrie Brown, a well-known and respected member of the arts community. I was proud to hear that in May of this year, Ms Brown received the Arts in Education Award from the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council. As well, Tim Borlase, a long-time coordinator and the original pioneer of the Labrador Creative Arts Festival, returned to Labrador to assist in this year's events.

Mr. Speaker, each year a contest is held among students to design a button that will best represent the festival. Since it was introduced in the early 1980s, the announcement of the winner of the button design contest is a highly anticipated occasion. This year's winner is Catlin LaPatourel from Our Lady Queen of Peace Middle School in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I am pleased to provide each member in this hon. House a button of the winning design for the 2008 Labrador Creative Arts Festival.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Creative Arts Festival provides a means for creative and cultural expression for Labrador youth. This government realizes that the fostering of artistic talents in our youth is essential to their social development. This year, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, was pleased to provide $8,000 through the Cultural Economic Development Program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement.

The Labrador Creative Arts Festival has been inspiring young people across Labrador for quite a long time. Mr. Speaker, I reflect today on thirty years ago when I was a young girl growing up in Labrador and had my first opportunity to participate in a Labrador Creative Arts Festival, as I am sure my colleague from Torngat Mountains would have as well.

Mr. Speaker, for us children coming from the coast back then, it was our first experience in a larger town. It was an opportunity to get to go to a movie for the first time in our lives, to be able to go into a bowling alley, to use a swimming pool; and it is not unlike that much today, except that children today have more of an opportunity to participate outside of their northern communities than we would have had back then.

Mr. Speaker, the Arts Festival has not only introduced children in Labrador over the decades to a different part of life in Labrador but it has also put us more in touch with our culture and our community and who we are as people.

Over the years, many of these plays have been written to depict the circumstances that were ongoing at the time. I remember, over the years, seeing plays done on suicide in northern communities. I remember the tiny community of Black Tickle one year produced a play on the contaminated water supply in their community, but it has also been around moments of celebration in Labrador as well, about things like the Labrador Winter Games, about the heritage dog team races and the impact of the dog team in communities over the years.

These children, over three decades, have not only developed their skills and had an opportunity to become involved in theatre and drama, but they have also had an opportunity to express themselves in a way that sometimes we often overlook in very important circumstances.

I want to congratulate the organizers of this festival, Mr. Speaker, and specifically to acknowledge Dorrie Brown as the co-ordinator but, more importantly, Tim Borlase, who was there thirty years ago as a co-ordinator, when I was involved as a young child, and who is still there today and has certainly given a lot to the arts in Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That will conclude my remarks.

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

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

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

I have not experienced a Labrador Creative Arts Festival personally, myself, but I have heard quite a bit about it and I think that the success of this festival may also be behind the decision to have the Arts Smarts program, which I think follows on the heels of this festival, so it, in a way, has become a model for what needs to be done in the Province. It is really a tremendous effort.

The volunteer time, I know, that goes into it, is exceptional, but there is also real money that goes into it so that artists receive money for the work that they are doing as they take part in this festival, which is also an important role that we have to play with artists, which is to offer them the opportunity for them to be able to bring their skills to younger people, and to also earn money for the work that they do.

I am glad that this Province continues to put money into that program, and I hope it will be ready to step in if further decisions on the level of the federal government were to in any way jeopardize this program, because I think there have been shaky moments because of cuts from the federal government level, and I would encourage the provincial government to be sure to stay in there and increase support, if ever necessary.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier stated that unions who have not yet signed a collective agreement with government must do so now or risk a lower wage offer than that negotiated and signed off by CUPE earlier this year. This has caught the unions off guard and is being widely viewed as a tactic to force them to accept government's offer.

I ask the Premier: Why is government adopting such a heavy-handed approach and making pointed threats like this to unions through the media, and not at the negotiating table where the discussion should be had?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In all fairness to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, she wasn't there in the scrum yesterday when I indicated exactly what the government's position was, but I am at a loss to understand - in a situation where CUPE have already accepted what is considered to be a very, very generous wage package of eight, four, four and four over four years, which is front-end loaded, which compounds outs to be 21.5 per cent, we have now seen that PSAC, the public service union, has accepted 6.8 per cent over four years, the Prime Minister of the country, who has referred to the present economic situation as a dangerous situation, and he has also referred, after the G-20 meetings, to it as a near-depression possible situation, and just this afternoon we heard the Opposition House Leader refer to it as a crisis – under those circumstances I am at a loss to understand why I would be considered to be threatening unions when I am indicating to them that if, in fact, the prophecies of the Prime Minister, or even the Opposition House Leader, actually come true and we end up in a depression or a near-depression situation, why they would not take a 21.5 per cent offer right now, when they can have it and when they can get it, rather than in a situation when we are forced to choose between health services or education services or drugs, and not be able to give them that offer.

That was a dose of reality, it was recognition of a very difficult world situation right now, and it was an opportunity, I think, to be frank and open and honest with the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier if any of these unions, or all of them, have made it known to government that they would not be accepting the offer that is on the table, or is the time that they are taking necessary to continue to get through the negotiating practice and process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I can take an example of the nurses - and I want to make it very clear, before my remarks, that we value our nurses in this Province in the biggest kind of a way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The nurses, just two meetings ago, came in, after we had indicated to them that we wanted to meet in June and they indicated that they were not available until September, they came in and the package that we had on the table, which is worth $140 million over four years, which was the eight, four, four, and four package, they came in and wanted a $160 million package over two years. Instead of 20 per cent over four years they, in fact, wanted 24 per cent in two years. They had not moved off that position.

So, first of all, they are looking for a two year agreement as opposed to a four year agreement. Secondly, they are looking for $160 million in just two years when we are offering $140 million over four years. They have basically taken the wage package that we have had and added on another $14,000 worth of extras. So, a nurse at the top end of the scale, when our wage package is in place, will receive $71,000 a year, and we figure that is a very generous compensation package.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know that government is at loggerheads with the nurses union with regard to this negotiation, but I ask the Premier: How does he feel that his approach yesterday, in trying to tell them or force the agreement upon them to take it now, is going to improve an already very stressed and faltering negotiation that is ongoing between the two parties?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: In all fairness, yesterday afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not there and she did not hear my remarks. My remarks were very clear. We said that the offer that is on the table now - we termed the template - is on the table and it is staying on the table; however, what I did point out is what everybody in the room, everybody in the country, everybody in the world, now knows, is that we have a very deepening, dark economic situation. We have no idea where it is going to go. I can couch that statement by saying we are in the best possible economic shape that we could be in, but if we get into a deep recession or a depression situation then this government has to act responsibly. We have to try and protect the social services that we provide to the people of this Province.

Now, when that offer was put on the table we had a situation where we basically had over $100 oil. In the last two or three months that oil has dropped from $150 down to $50, and the statement that I made very clearly said that if oil stays at the price that it is today we would have no choice than to not offer that same wage package under those circumstances because we would be facing multiple deficits of several hundred million dollars every year starting next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The messages are often confusing from government. It is deep and dark recession one day and then if you listen to a couple of your ministers here yesterday, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Industry in their speeches in the House, everything was wonderful and we were going to ride this out with no problems and no difficulty.

Premier, let me ask you this question. Government has maintained a stand that they will not enter into non-pattern bargaining with the sectorial unions, but it seems now that that is a direction that you are prepared to go in if it means negotiating wage rates down and benefits down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have no control over the world economy. As a matter of fact, we have virtually negative influence on the world economy. As a result of that, we have no control, as does the Government of Canada, over the various extraneous factors that are driving the economy in the tank, but we do have to be responsible in the way that we manage the funds.

We have put this Province in a great situation. We will have a good year this year. I indicated yesterday, just outside this House, that we will, in fact, exceed our surplus this year, even if the price of oil is at $50. That puts us in a very good situation. Luckily, we have managed down the debt. We have taken a situation, which we inherited from the previous government, which was a near bankrupt situation and we have had four consecutive surpluses. We have used those funds then to reduce the debt. We have used those funds to lower taxes. We have used those funds to improve health care in the Province. We have used those funds to increase education in the Province. We have put it into municipalities. We have put it into roads. We have put it into a lot of things that place the Province in a very good economically, competitive situation. So we have done absolutely everything right, but if this Province is subject to a world economy that is in the tank, then we have to act responsibly to protect all the things that we have already done.

I can tell you, there is not a person, I don't think, in the country –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his remarks.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think there is a person in the country these days, that would turn their nose up to 21.5 per cent compounded. I am at an actual loss to understand why these unions would not grab this now while they can get it and while we are in a financial position to offer it to them. All I am saying to the union members is if the situation changes (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on the nurses' piece for a moment because nurses have said that they no longer have the time that it takes to do non-nursing duties because of the shortage. Unfortunately, we all know that Central Health has decided to begin disciplinary action against these nurses and have done so in some cases.

I ask: Why is Central Health the only board that is using this tactic, and are they doing it on a directive from government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to what is happening in Central Newfoundland through Central Health, first of all, there is no direction being provided by government. Each of our four health authorities have been given a mandate as they deliver programs and services to direct their workforce according to various human resource policies and collective agreements. What each of the four authorities have done is advised the nurses union that should their membership take any action that is contravention of the collective agreement or in contravention of their code of conduct and code of ethics that governs their practice, then some disciplinary action will occur.

What we are witnessing in Central Newfoundland is an employer who is paying a nurse, or nurses, in various facilities to be in charge during particular times during the day. The nurses in question have decided that they are not going to carry out those duties, which is very much in contradiction of the collective agreement. To say, Mr. Speaker, it very clearly indicates what their role and responsibilities are with respect to that in-charge assignment. Fundamentally, what we are seeing here is nurses deciding, on their own, not to comply with the terms and conditions of their already negotiated collective agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the nurses have a different perspective to this.

So I ask the minister: Are you prepared to rein in Eastern Health and the other health boards on this issue and ensure that nurses are permitted to do their jobs effectively and focus on patient care and not be reprimanded for not completing these extra duties?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is an already negotiated collective agreement in place. One of the provisions in that agreement says that when a nurse is assigned in charge they get an in-charge pay. They get compensated for carrying out certain duties and responsibilities within their unit or within that building. That provision clearly states that not only does it apply to members of NLNU but it applies to working people of other bargaining units. Fundamentally, when a nurse decides that they are not going to agree with or conform with the already established collective agreement, than that is in contravention of their agreement.

The normal practice, I say, Mr. Speaker, if employers are assigning responsibilities to individuals who believe that it is inappropriate for them to do it, there is a well established practice in labour relations and that is you carry out the direction as directed by your employer and you grieve it. There is a grievance process in the collective agreement. All we are saying is if nurses disagree with the process there is a mechanism through a grievance process to do it, so follow it. That is a natural part of labour relations, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Does he think that the public is being well served by having these nurses reprimanded and suspended from their jobs at a time when we have nursing shortages in many of these hospitals and clinics?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been well served for many years and I suspect will continue to be well served by the tremendous amount of work the nurses do in this Province. They are dedicated individuals who do their job in a very diligent fashion. They are well trained by very capable and competent people in their schools of nursing throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are well served today by the nurses in this Province, as they were yesterday. I believe we can all, all of us in this Province can look forward to the nurses of this Province continuing to provide dedicated and very professional support and services to the people who need it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I referenced a 2003 report for residential treatment of services for children, youth and families. Part of the response that the minister said at that time was that this report was done by half a dozen people, and I think it was to belittle the information that was contained in the report. I want to remind him that your people in your department were involved, along with managers from right across the system, consultants and professionals both nationally, provincially and internationally. It took two years and it was done in consultation with individuals and committees right across the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the amount of time, effort and expertise that went into this report, I have to ask the minister specifically: Why did you wait five years before ever dealing with the recommendations that were in this report, and not look at it until these people came forward on television?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was a great speech but I want to remind the member in this House today at least what happens when you assume. I say, Mr. Speaker, when you start assuming things and reading into things, you create all kinds of inaccurate statements and you make misleading comments in the general public. That is what we saw yesterday when the member opposite issued a press release referencing the comments I made in this House yesterday, and nothing, I say, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth.

This government, me as the Minister of Health and Community Services, take very seriously our responsibility for the general health of the population of this Province, and very seriously our role and responsibility in providing mental health services to not only children but adults and anyone else who needs it, I say, Mr. Speaker.

My comment about the report, when I said it was about a half a dozen people, it was a reference to suggest that it was not just one individual who wrote the report, but many minds came to bear. I was not quantifying the number, nor did I go on to say about where they came from. I acknowledged the contribution of people. If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, I remember the contributions that are made by community volunteers, people who provide supports for, people who advocate on behalf of. I think if she checks Hansard, I did acknowledge –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - a variety of contributions made in that report, I say, Mr. Speaker. So I was not belittling at all –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just the contrary, I acknowledge the significance of it and that is why I have directed officials in my department to now pull that report and actually start to review the recommendations with respect to their appropriateness for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I also indicated the serious deficiency that exists within programs and services that are available to help youth within this Province, and the minister's response was that the Janeway had an array of programs and services. I want to remind him that in the discussions that we had with parents and youth and health professionals it certainly appears that they feel the services are not sufficient at this time. In fact, even the Child and Youth Advocate and also the Canadian Mental Health Association expressed directly their concerns.

I ask you, Minister: If you feel the programs and services are there, I want you to confirm for me today whether there is currently a statement of claim against Eastern Health by a family in the Province because of the lack of mental health services that are being offered to youth under the age of 19.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: It is interesting that the member opposite decides to quote the Advocate. What she failed to share with the House and the people of this Province was that around the middle of October – about the 17, I believe – the Advocate was interviewed on CBC, and if she had listened to that, or wants a transcript of it, she would hear the Advocate acknowledging that there have been major improvements in mental health services in this Province.

The children in this Province have been seeing improved services and, just like the Advocate, I acknowledged yesterday that we are continuing to make further investments, and we will continue to make further investments in the future.

We are always looking at ways to improve services, how we deliver them, the breadth of the services, improving the qualifications of the people who deliver it, all with a view, at the end of the day, of providing an enhanced service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is going to quote someone like the Advocate, at least do it accurately and acknowledge the full breadth of her comment, which was that there have been improvements in mental health services for the children of this Province.

If she doesn't want to take my word for it, read the transcript from the CBC Here and Now program on the seventeenth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have read the transcript. I read my notes, I say to the minister, and I have certainly seen the program. I also know that the Advocate feels that there are still insufficient services.

I ask the minister this: Can he confirm for me that there is a statement of claim in the courts today against Eastern Health because of the lack of mental health services being provided to youth in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware that there might be. If the member opposite is suggesting that there is, and if she is citing a statement of claim being filed, I guess she got that from the court records herself, and that is a public document. If that is available, I am certain that the member opposite has already had it. I would need to verify it myself. I do not have any personal knowledge of that today but I will undertake to confirm it for the member opposite. As I said, if it is matter of public record I suspect that their office already has it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Seal Cove Campus of the College of the North Atlantic was closed due to poor air quality. Students and professors became sick and experienced symptoms such as burning eyes and fumes. There was recently a new boiler installed there, from what I understand, and they think this might be part of the problem.

I ask the minister if she can confirm for me today what the problem is in that campus, and if proper inspects have been completed on that facility.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm at this time what the actual problem is. I heard about this issue this morning. What I can confirm is that officials are certainly looking into the matter, and if there is a matter of health and safety concerns they will be taken most seriously and we will certainly make sure that we rectify the situation so nobody is left at risk.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We received complaints back a few months ago about the air quality at this particular campus of the College of the North Atlantic and, as a result, Mr. Speaker, we filed under Access to Information a request for all the air quality inspections for the CONA facilities over the past year. Unfortunately, our request was denied unless we were willing to pay $125 to access that information.

Minister, in light of the situation today, in light of the fact that we have gotten complaints at this campus over the last few months about air quality, I ask if you are prepared to table the inspection reports on those facilities in the House of Assembly so that we can access them free of charge, as they should be to the public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to let the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair know that if there are any concerns about health and safety in any of the campuses of the College of the North Atlantic, if they receive complaints, I would certainly encourage that she send them on to the college or to me and we will make sure that we look into them. I certainly think they are very serious matters that we need to address, as opposed to using them for, I guess, political points on the floor of the House of Assembly.

If there are any issues of health and safety or any particular or specific college that may need attention, that is coming to your attention - because nobody phoned me and told me specifically - if they phoned you, I would certainly like to have that information. We would certainly act on it at any point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MS BURKE: If we are hearing reports that came into the office of the Official Opposition months ago, I would certainly like to have those issues brought to my attention, and I will look into those issues and ensure that if there is a health and safety concern that it receives attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We went through safety issues and air quality issues with this minister before, in schools, and asked for information that we never, ever received.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister today: In light of the fact of the situation that exists at the Seal Cove Campus, will you table the air quality inspections done at that campus in the last year in the House of Assembly so that we do not have to pay to access them through Freedom of Information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Access to Information and how there are charges to receive the information, and the amount of information sometimes that is available, that is pre-established and there is a formula that we use in order to determine what is being charged. I want to make sure that the public understands that we do not come up and put a number on it just based on what we think. There is certainly a way that we deal with that information.

It is also noteworthy that sometimes there are boxes and boxes of information that tie up staff for months at a time, so we certainly need to make sure that the amount that we put on it is by a prescribed formula and we follow that formula.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the air quality testing, and issues that the member just mentioned with regards to schools or colleges, I can assure the hon. member that this government takes air quality and health and safety issues very seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: If there is an issue at the Seal Cove Campus, as has been brought to my attention just this morning, we will certainly look into that matter and, as I said before and I certainly mean, if there are health and safety issues at that particular campus we are looking into them today and we will make sure that no one is left at risk.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A yes or no answer from the minister would be just fine. Will you provide the air quality inspection testing and results in the House of Assembly that were done on the Seal Cove Campus in the last year if, indeed, there were any done?

We know you sent people out there yesterday. We are not sure if there was anything done prior to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot guarantee to table a report if I do not know if that particular report exists or not. We will certainly have a look and see if there are any reports on the Seal Cove Campus that were done in the last year regarding air quality, and certainly the follow-up or the plan from the college to deal with those issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government's interference with the operations at Memorial University, and in particular its interference in the selection of a new president for the university, has been widely condemned within the Province.

I ask the minister: Does she now recognize that her actions were improper and does she intend to take a new approach?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government invests heavily in our post-secondary education, in particular, Memorial University of Newfoundland. We certainly want to make sure that university remains a leader, not just within Atlantic Canada or Canada, but certainly worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a point in the university right now where we do have some changes. We have a new chair of the Board of Regents. We certainly want a presidential search to continue. I am looking forward to meeting with the new chair to discuss that particular issue, but more importantly, the private member's motion that we will be debating here on the floor of the House of Assembly deals specifically with the autonomy at Memorial University because we see that as extremely important. We certainly want to move forward and we want to make sure that that university remains a leader within the academic institutions of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know that the resignation of the former president, Axel Meisen, came eight months before the end of his term, amidst the claims of government intervening in the operations of the university. We also have on record the Chancellor of Memorial University, Mr. Crosbie, who even accused the Premier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - of putting political ambition ahead of educational priorities.

I ask the minister today: Is she concerned about the damage that is being done to the reputation of the university by your heavy-handed actions and interference in this process?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Axel Meisen resigned as the president of the university on his own accord. He certainly never indicated to me at the time of his resignation, and I was at different functions that acknowledged his contribution to the university, there was never any indication that because of any type of government action that he resigned.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to make sure that people understand that as far as the university goes and as far as the courses and the offerings and the curriculum and the way courses are taught and the research that is being done, this government has never and has no intentions of interfering with that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The mid-year financial statement is now almost two months past its due date and yesterday the Premier said it will not be due for another two weeks, or to quote him: For a fortnight.

Mr. Speaker, with the very light legislative agenda that has been tabled for this sitting, that projection by the Premier could potentially mean that the Legislature might even be closed before the update is released.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier to please tell us why this government is holding up the releasing of the economic update? Will it be coming to this floor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As indicated by the Premier yesterday, we are working on the update. There is a lot of volatility in oil prices in the markets right now, and we will be ready within the next couple of weeks to provide that economic update.

As for the fact of whether or not the House will be closed, I can assure the Leader of the NDP that we will sit here as long as it takes and give you as much time as you want to debate that economic update. So, ever how long that takes, we will be here and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in responding to the media in the scrum, the Premier considered the worst-case scenario of our economic situation. He spoke to that today, and he talked about the possible implications for collective bargaining because of looking at the worst-case scenario.

So my question is: Could the government possibly, at the moment, also look at the worst-case scenario when it comes to doing the financial reporting, and is it possible that we could be actually facing budget cuts in the potential of the worst-case scenario?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our budgets and our budget estimates and our forecasting is all done on the best available information that we can get our hands on. It is the best projection of revenues; it is the best projection of expenditures. We go through a very detailed process on the whole expenditure side to make sure that expenditures are legitimate. On the other hand, we look at our revenues.

From the oil perspective, we use the Pira forecast. We rely on those forecasts to the best of our ability, and we try and gauge then of course as well with what is happening right across the country on a national basis and what other jurisdictions are putting into their forecasts as well.

So we do not do a worst-case budget. We try and hit it as close as we can. Now if you get fluctuations, huge fluctuations, as we can, whether it is in oil production or oil prices, they can change a budget surplus or deficit dramatically, as well as variations in the corporate taxes, but we do not budget on a worst-case scenario. We budget on the basis that we try to nail it as best we can, with some conservativism in the event that things go awry or we run into the situation that we ran into this year from a global economic perspective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, based on what the Premier just said, I really do have to do a follow-up that I was not intending.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If you will not budget on a worst-case scenario, why would you publicly talk about collective bargaining based on a worst-case scenario?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Because, quite frankly, it is incumbent upon me and my government and the members of this House to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly our public sector employees, the reality of the situation. Now, I am not telling them anything they do not know. They just have to look at the nightly news or read the papers or listen to the radio and find out exactly what is going on in this world. When we get the top leaders and the top countries in this world worried about a possible near depression situation, I have an obligation, and we all have an obligation, to tell the people of this Province and the public sector employees of this Province, what could be the consequences.

As well, you were not there yesterday. You did not hear what I said. I said this offer is out there. It is a very generous offer. It is the best offer in the land right now, right across this country. We are maintaining it. We are keeping it there. We are going to keep it there, but if the bottom falls out of it completely and oil prices completely tank and we end into a very severe depression situation, it is incumbent upon me to forewarn the people of this Province and the public-sector workers that we may not be able to afford that offer on a future basis. I see nothing wrong with that. That is just a good test of reality, that's all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 26.(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling twelve Orders in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 fiscal years.

Pursuant to section 28.(4)(e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Special Warrant relating to the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

I remind the hon. Member for Port de Grave if he would be kind enough to keep – does the House want to proceed to Orders of the Day or does the House want to entertain petitions, given that this is Private Members' Day and three o'clock being the time that Private Members' Day should start.

I seek guidance from the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BUTLER: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I just want to present another petition on a long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area. I want to go back, Mr. Speaker, to 2003 in the Blue Book that was passed out to the people of this Province, where they stated that they were going to listen to the concerns of the people throughout the Province in regard to long-term care facilities.

We know at that time, Mr. Speaker, there was already documentation on file within the department that Conception Bay North was number one priority with Corner Brook, and another assessment was done in 2007.

They said that they would listen to the people, and I am glad. The Minister of Health stated very clearly, when he announced a million dollars recently for the two long-term care facilities here in St. John's, that they listened to the residents and their families.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, hopefully someone did listen at one point in time in the Conception Bay North area, and I ask that government would reassess the situation and take another look at it, because not only do we feel in that area that they are neglecting the views of the people that have come forward in two different proposals but they are also neglecting the views of the professionals on the front line who also recommended that this facility would go ahead.

I am just calling upon my hon. colleagues in this hon. House, from the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the District of Harbour Main, the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, and the Member for Bellevue, that they would ask government to reconsider the situation and, rather than proceed with the recommendations that there would be two facilities built here in St. John's - and I have nothing against two facilities for St. John's, but at least hopefully in this year's Budget that they will come up with funds to say that the proposal for Conception Bay North area will be reconsidered and they will announce it in this year's Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: I would assume the hon. Opposition House Leader would be standing to respond to a point of privilege that was made yesterday and the House was awaiting his response.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As we all know, on Wednesday, Private Members' Day, normally the House would proceed as of 3:00 o'clock into consideration of that private member's motion; however, there was a question of privilege raised yesterday by the Government House Leader and we are in a position to respond. I am assuming that response would take priority over the private member's motion and we would proceed now.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is right in his assumption that any matter of privilege the House takes very seriously, and a matter of privilege would certainly get precedence over any private member's business here in this House.

I call on the Opposition House Leader to proceed with his rebuttal to the point of privilege.

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

In this House yesterday, the Government House Leader raised a question of privilege with respect to certain comments that were made by the Leader of the Opposition in the media with respect to the actions of the Chair of the Management Commission of the House of Assembly, to the effect that it was a breach of privilege, that she had made or cast aspersions or reflected improperly upon the actions of the Chair, specifically the Speaker.

First of all I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allotting the time that you have from yesterday until today, some twenty-four hours, to allow an opportunity to prepare. I realize that albeit I did request the time for an extension to respond, in view of the complexity and the seriousness of this issue, that you denied that request not because you wanted to but because you had to; because, under Standing Order 34 of our House it says that the response to a question of privilege should come immediately.

I thank you, in fact, for your indulgence of yesterday which gave me twenty-four hours, and I understand why you are hamstrung and cannot give an extension even if you did want to. I realize I could ask for the consent of the House but, notwithstanding that, we are in a position to respond to the point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, for those who are not familiar with the operations of the House - and I think this is very important, by the way, that we take the proper time to respond, because this is not only of concern to us as sitting members. This is of concern to the general public who have been watching what has been happening in the Management Commission of the House of Assembly as well as watching what transpired here yesterday, the news reports that followed on both television media last evening, The Telegram's comments of today, a front page story, so I think it is very important that we take the proper amount of time, sufficient time, to respond to this issue.

For those who are not familiar with House procedures, of course, there are points of order and there are points of privilege, and they are very distinct and separate. A point of order deals with procedural issues in this House – usually: how long you can speak, the speaking times you have, when you have to have leave, when you do not need leave, how the business of the day is conducted, the order in which it proceeds, and so on, and how it is transacted.

That is where the Speaker, of course, plays a very vital role, because members are popping up all over the place, all the time, saying: A point of order, Mr. Speaker - making a point, and the Speaker, in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Assembly, rules whether or not there is a valid point of order, and he makes a ruling as to what should happen to that point of order. That is the role of the Speaker of the House of Assembly, not only here in Newfoundland but in Britain, from which we take a lot of our parliamentary procedures, and certainly in the House of Commons in Ottawa and through the Commonwealth.

That is a point order. They happen quite frequently. Sometimes they are of a serious nature; sometimes they are not. Most often, as I say, it is a procedural issue.

We are dealing with a point of privilege here. A point of privilege is a totally different animal. It is a very serious issue, it is a very important issue, and that is why it has to be taken seriously, not only by, obviously, the Government House Leader who made it and who, no doubt, made it in all seriousness, but also by the persons who respond, and also, of course, by the Speaker of the House.

This House has its own rules, which we have in writing, called our Standing Orders. There are also a lot of things that happen in the House of Assembly that are not written down. It happens as a result of what we call precedents, where it has happened before on certain occasions and we follow those practices over time, albeit they have not found their way into a written form and been placed into an order or a Standing Order of this House. We also have customs in this House.

So we operate here based upon a series of things: Standing Orders, customs, traditions, precedents, and the person who is in charge of administering all of that here in this House, this parliamentary body, is the Speaker of the House of Assembly. That is the difference.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, who is catcalling from the side here, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue.

MR. TAYLOR: Get to it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say again, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - the comments of the member telling me to get to it, I will get to it in my fine time that I need to get this point across, and I would ask for the due respect of the Minister of Transportation and Works, if he could hold his tongue until I am finished.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the point of privilege, it has a long history. It is not something new; it goes back to ancient times. As I say, it is not only here; it is in the House of Commons and it is in the British Parliament and indeed through the Commonwealth. That is the basis of what we are dealing with here.

The Government House Leader alleged yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition – and I have reviewed Hansard from yesterday – she alleged yesterday, in her question of privilege, that the Leader of the Opposition attacked or reflected upon or challenged or questioned the impartiality of the Speaker, and that the Leader of the Opposition did that based upon four sources. The Government House Leader said that one of those was a news release from the official Opposition and that news release was dated November 18, a CBC story dated November 19, a Telegram news story dated November 19, and a VOCM report dated November 19.

For the record, never in Hansard – never in Hansard! – yesterday, or in the comments of the Government House Leader, did she ever give the full details of the commentary that she referred to. She only piecemeal cherry-picked from all or any of those published resources. I want to make that point because I will be coming back to it. It is a very, very important point to remember as we go forward.

We would submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no valid point of privilege raised by the Government House leader, for several reasons.

First of all, the Government House Leader failed to comply with the established and, indeed, required procedures when making a point of privilege.

Secondly, any statements – and I will come back to these, but just the gist of them. The second reason would be that any statements made by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Speaker/Chair were made in the context of the Speaker in his role as Chair of the Management Commission and not in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Assembly.

We will also submit that there is no valid point of privilege because the whole issue of whether or not there were ever any comments made, or ought to have been made in the first place, vis-à-vis the actions of the Chair of the Management Committee, where they were ever valid in the first place. I will come to that third argument.

I will make each of these submissions in turn.

First of all, other than Standing Order 34 of our Standing Orders, our Standing Orders are silent with respect to points of privilege; silent. There is only one section 34 and it basically says, as I alluded to earlier, that when a point of privilege is raised the Speaker must see that the response to that point of privilege is given immediately. Other than that, there is no reference in our Standing Orders to points of privilege. We have also checked the records and there have been very few points of privilege ever raised in our House of Assembly, very few; certainly none that are on par with the question of privilege that was raised by the Government House Leader here yesterday. None!

There was one reference, for example, to the Premier back in 2000, then I believe the Leader of the Opposition in 2002, he made comments after the House closed. He made comments in a year-end wrap-up with the media. He made comments that he did not think he got treated fairly by the then Speaker, I believe, Mr. Lloyd Snow. That was in the context where the Premier was doing a year end, outside of the House comment, and the media printed it. It was never made by the then Member for Humber West, then Leader of the Opposition in the House. So that is a different context. We are not dealing with anything – that is certainly not a valid, on-all-fours precedent that we can refer to here.

It was never raised as a point of privilege, by the way; never raised by a point of privilege in this House, to our knowledge.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we do not have any set rules, Standing Orders, precedents or customs in our House, we again - and this is a rule, this is a custom of ours. When we do not have it already dealt with ourselves, we go to the House of Commons in Ottawa as our authority. That has been fail proof; that has been our sure next step that we cannot deal with it and have not dealt with it ourselves in the past. We look to other legislatures. Particularly, first step, the House of Commons.

I will be referring to Beauchesne, Sixth Edition, which cites a number of cases throughout and a number of rules which are relevant to this case. Now, there are a number of points I want to make here.

First of all, point A with respect to Beauchesne; I would refer to item 31, found on page 13 of Beauchesne. It talks about comments made outside the House. It says, and I quote: "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege."

Now, it is quite clear, absolutely clear, that the only references made by the Government House Leader in her question of privilege yesterday, referred to comments made by the Leader of the Opposition outside the House. Because, indeed, if they were made – and, in fact, she referred to four explicit, specific media sources: the press release that the Official Opposition put out on the eighteenth; the CBC news story on November 18; the NTV report and the VOCM news item which they carry on their Web site. That is the only four, all of which from outside. So it is quite clear, just on that point A alone, we do not have a valid point of privilege. It came from an outside source. It was never, ever uttered within this Chamber or with any committee established properly under this Chamber or the rules of our House.

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I see, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance must have jumped to the –

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect here, I do believe I have the floor, and if the Minister of Finance can hold his tongue he can get a chance to respond. Nobody is going to deny him his right to speak but I do believe right now one of the rules is that the person who has the floor has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, not only did the Government House Leader attempt to try to ground this question of privilege in outside sources, the four media things that I just referred to. My point that you cannot ground a point of privilege based on outside sources is also substantiated by the authorities from Beauchesne. Again, we are silenced. So we refer to the House of Commons as our next reference.

This point that I am making is substantiated by the commentary referenced in items 71.(2), 71.(3) and 71.(4) found on page 21 of Beauchesne, Sixth Edition. It refers there to cases and incidents where members have tried before to make a point of privilege based on an outside source and never has it been ruled upon in a House. There was one incident, I do believe, where they referred it off to a standing committee somewhere for consideration and it was never, ever heard from again. That is the closest it ever came to being talked about. So that is point A as to why this was not a proper point of privilege.

Secondly, the second point I would like to make as to why it is not a point of privilege is because the Management Commission, which was the forum in which the alleged comments were made, is not a part of the House of Assembly forum, the parliamentary system. It is not a committee of the House of Assembly. Now maybe the Government House Leader might think it is or might want it to be, and maybe members think that it is, but you had to get it – and this is not a fine distinction. This is a very clear distinction, and I will explain and show and point out why it is in fact.

The Management Commission is not a committee of the House of Assembly. That is relevant and very important because if the Management Commission were a properly constituted committee of the House of Assembly, the question of privilege could be raised and applied to the Management Commission, but the Management Commission is not a committee of the House so as to attract the issue of privilege at all. Here are the reasons why we say that, because the only committees of this House are those referred to in Standing Orders 47-50, Standing Order 23, Standing Orders 51-53, and Standing Order 43. They are all outlined.

We all know, for example, of our Estimates Committees. We all know of our Privileges and Elections Committee. There is a whole pile of them posted on the bulletin board outside the Speaker's office and outlines who the members of them are.

That is a committee, duly constituted, accepted, recognized, valid, committee of the House of Assembly. Nowhere in the Standing Orders or anywhere does it say, suggest, even hint that a Commission of Management and the Board of Management is a committee of this House so as to attract the rules, the regulations, the traditions, the customs of this House. Nowhere! So obviously, if we are going to take now the rules of a parliamentary body and try to implant them and impose them upon a board of commission which has nothing to do with the parliamentary system, that is a massive, I would suggest, gigantic, inappropriate step to begin with.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to make the point a bit further and to substantiate what I am saying as to why the Board of Management cannot have things of privilege applied to it, we need only refer, for example, to the Citizens' Representative. It comes under the auspices of the House of Assembly. Definitely does. The Child and Youth Advocate comes under the auspices of the House of Assembly. The Chief Electoral Officer comes under the auspices of the House of Assembly. The Auditor General comes under the auspices of the House of Assembly. They are not parliamentary bodies or institutions or committees anymore than the Management Commission is. They are legislatively constituted bodies. They are not parliamentary bodies which function in a parliamentary setting like we do here in the House and like we function in our Standing Committees of the House and even special committees of the House when they are appointed. We have had occasion, for example, when this House has appointed special committees. We did one back in 1999 to deal with the issue of the seal fishery. We did one to deal with the FPI crisis. I believe it was in 2002. When those committees were struck it was automatic, they were made special committees of this House. Anything that applied to the House applied to them like any other committee. That is not what we have in the Management Commission.

Questions of privilege only extend to the House and its committees not to independent bodies established by law. I refer Your Honour and the House to, again, Beauchesne in substantiation of this, to items 106, 107 and 108 to be found on page 27 of Beauchesne Sixth Edition which deal explicitly with how far and to whom a question of privilege can be extended.

Now, Mr. Speaker, point C to make in regards to this first submission, i.e., that the point of privilege and question of privilege was not even properly grounded here, point C I would make is that the government member's point of privilege did not comply with the requirements of item 114(2) found on page 29 of Beauchesne. Again I refer to Beauchesne because our Act is silent and that is the next authority to which we refer. Item 114(2) of Beauchesne states as follows, "A complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House with an opportunity to take some action." Now, Mr. Speaker, there was no such motion made, seconded, duly constituted a part of the question of privilege put forward by the Government House Leader. She suggested that the Leader of the Opposition should apologize but there was no motion, nothing that is in its faintest form ever recognizable as a motion and as required by the parliamentary authorities to which I just referred; nothing. That is another reason why the question of privilege was not properly grounded.

The next point I would make, Mr. Speaker, point D, I guess, generally, I could sum it up by saying, no documents submitted. That is very important, because this is so serious, this point of privilege, we do not deal with it frivolously so we cannot accept frivolously that it is properly grounded. The technical requirements of a point of privilege must also be considered and must, in fact, be adhered to and complied with if you are going to do it. If you take it seriously enough to do it, you must comply with it. That was failed. The Government House Leader, I submit, Mr. Speaker, failed in doing that.

Particularly, the Government House Leader's question of privilege did not comply with item 116 to be found on page 29 of Beauchesne again; and again our rules are silent. When it is silent we look to the House of Commons in Ottawa, the Government of Canada, the parliamentary rules and regulations and customs and precedents as our authority.

Item 116 says, "Should a question of privilege be based on published material, the article in question must be submitted and read at the Table."

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader, as I say, made four references to publications: the press release by the Official Opposition, the CBC story, the NTV story and the Telegram story. The CBC, the Telegram and VOCM, yes, and the press release by the Opposition.

First of all, neither of these publications were read in their totality as a part of the point of privilege yesterday. That is very important. You just cannot pick out a word or a phrase out of a publication to try to ground the point of privilege. That is the whole reason why the second piece of this is there, the submission of it. It must be submitted, read and submitted, so that even if you do not, in the course of referring to it in your point of privilege, in that case, read it in its totality at least the person against whom you made the allegations, and the Speaker, shall have access to and be able to see what it is you are grounding your point of privilege in.

Mr. Speaker, after the Government House Leader concluded her statement yesterday – and, by the way, that phrase from Beauchesne does not say may. That is not discretionary. It says must. Must and shall, in anybody's interpretations of legislative rules or parliamentary rules, is pretty clear. It must be done. That is pretty obvious. It does not say it may be done, or even think about it, it must be done.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be certain here so I enquired of the Clerk yesterday at 3:32 p.m., which was at least an hour after the Government House Leader made her submission, I enquired of the Clerk: has there been any submission or was there any submission made by the Government House Leader of what she just talked about. The response, in the presence of the Deputy Opposition House Leader, of the Clerk, was, no, there has been no submission. That is a point of fact. That is not a thought, that is a fact. We timed it, 3:32 yesterday. I am sure the Clerk will verify that he said it. That is not a question.

My point I am making is that the Clerk verified, an hour after it was made - they had a week to do this by the way. We got twenty-four hours to respond. They had since the alleged publications of November 18 to put this together. They do not comply with the rules of submitting it and yet we get the twenty-four hours, which we are thankful for. Thank you very much. But the bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, she did not comply. There has been no submission, to my knowledge, even up to now. I know that the Government House Leader sent a letter to the Clerk's office and said, we are going to raise this point of privilege. That is fine. That is notice of a point of privilege to be raised. In fact, the Clerk of the House was gracious enough to provide me with a copy of that notification to the Speaker, that it would be raised. That is another requirement. It is obvious that the Government House Leader was trying to follow the rules because she followed that rule, which, by the way, is also to be found in Beauchesne. We followed that rule about at least a one-hour notice. The Government House Leader followed that rule, but the Government House Leader did not follow the rule in the very same book, which said, that you submit the publications that you are referring to.

Now, you cannot have your cake and it too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair takes the comments very seriously as put forward by the Opposition House Leader, and it is a very serious issue; however, I would like to ask the Opposition House Leader – he has been speaking now for half an hour - if he would try to conclude his remarks, realizing the seriousness of it, and keep in mind that the fact that we are trying to decide here is whether or not there has been a prima facie case of privilege. We are not dealing with the case, we are not talking about how it should be dealt with, but we are talking about whether a prima facie case is established. So maybe the hon. Opposition House Leader might try to contain his remarks and conclude his remarks keeping those comments in mind.

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

By no means, what I am about to say, do not take it as being caustic or anything else, or disrespectful to the Chair, but this is, as you say, a very serious situation; and, albeit the rules talk about when to respond, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate to suggest that we rush this. With all due respect, I think I ought to be given whatever time I feel is necessary to make the response.

I do not know of anyone yet who has ever been challenged and had their privileges challenged to this extent, to be told that you do not have an adequate opportunity to explain your case. I mean, that flies in the face of any kind of fundamental freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your concerns but I think it is inappropriate to suggest that I cut this short or not say things which need to be said.

With regard, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of prima facie, that is exactly what I am doing here. I want to present to the Speaker, who, as I understand the procedure, the procedure is that once the motion is made the Speaker has to decide, first of all, do I have a point of privilege? Do I have a valid point of privilege, and is there a prima facie case that there is even a point of privilege?

The whole tenor and purpose of my comment is to show the Speaker that in no way, shape or means is this a valid motion, let alone a prima facie one; this is not even validly on the floor of this House, that it should not even have to go to the point of making a decision if there is a prima facie case. If the determination of the Chair is that we are dealing with an issue that never should be here, we do not even have to get to the point of making a prima facie case; the motion is out of order, period - never mind that we have to go to the next step of that prima facie determination – and that is the reason I take my time deliberately, to make sure that this is all being made perfectly clear, and that there is no misunderstanding as to what we perceive the role of the Chair to be, and what the Chair's determination has to be at this juncture.

To conclude my point on that issue, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader did not comply with the rules. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot understand the rules, which she obviously did by giving a one hour written notice to the Speaker, and then turn around and not submit the documents as required and suggest that it is okay, I did one thing, I am okay, but I did not do the other piece, disregard that. That flies in the face of logic and common sense, to suggest that.

Mr. Speaker, those are my issues, my reasons and points, as to why this motion was not properly grounded in the first place. They are four very valid points - not one, not two, but four - as to why we do not even have a valid motion here that could be substantiated, the basis of, or be on the floor of this House to deal with. I think that is the short and the sweet of it. We do not need to get into the merits of – I have to say to you what I am about to say, following on my second submission, in the event that you disregard for some reason what I said in my first submission, but I do not think we need to get past the first one. There was no technical, necessary, required compliance by the Government House Leader with the rules. She cannot even argue that she did not know the rules. She knew the rules, to read one piece of it, about the notice; she should have read the rules regarding the rest of it.

Now, my second submission, this would come under the umbrella of: When is a Speaker not a Speaker? That is about as simple and generic as I can put it: When is a Speaker not a Speaker?

Our submission is that the point of privilege raised by the Government House Leader is based on an incorrect assumption that the rules, the rights, the privileges, the Standing Orders, with respect to the Speaker, and his governance of the House of Assembly, apply when he is in the role of Chair of the Management Commission.

With all due respect to the Speaker, not casting any aspersions upon what you do here in this House, you are, should be, was the duly elected Speaker of this House by everybody here - I do believe it was unanimous – and, to my knowledge, everybody in this Chamber has always had nothing but the utmost respect for the person who now occupies and governs this House of Assembly and any committee associated with it. Any time anybody has ever overstepped the bounds of propriety with respect to this Speaker, we have always apologized immediately. I want to make that quite clear, right off the top, but we are talking two different animals totally: a House of Assembly, which is a parliamentary body, and a Commission of Management which is an administrative legislatively constituted body.

With all due respect to the Speaker, as I say, he cannot, should not, cloak himself with the rights and privileges attributable to a Speaker when he carries out his duties as Chair of the Management Commission; two separate things. As I say, the Management Commission is not a parliamentary agency or an institution, and none of the rules, the regulations, the customs or even the courtesies that we would extend to each other here in this House or any committee can apply to the Commission of Management.

The Commission of Management is, solely, absolutely and only, an administrative body established by law. The only similarity, in fact – the only similarity! – between the Management Commission and the House of Assembly is that we conduct the business of both here in the Chamber, the physical confines of this House of Assembly. That is the only similarity - the only similarity! - the only connection. By the way, there is a very good purpose and reason for that, and that is because a part of the legislation which we now work under and operate with, which came from the Green Report, said that all meetings of the Management Commission must be held in public unless they deal with an issue of a private nature. They must be public. The only place we have where we could publicly conduct the Management meetings, given the broadcasting facilities that we have, is right here in the House of Assembly.

In fact, it was raised, I do believe by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, early on in one of our Commission meetings, as to; was it appropriate that the Management Commission should be conducting its meeting here in the Chamber, besides the fact that it is awkward in terms of how we are all lined up across one side and dealing with the Speaker and the Clerk and so on and the officers of the House. The question was raised: Shouldn't we have a committee room? Shouldn't we have a room particularly outfitted with the broadcast facilities so that the Board of Management could use it outside of the confines of the House? The Member for Topsail is on that committee, but it was decided, again for financial constraints, why go through the expense and duplication of it in finding the physical space to do it.

That is why we conduct our meetings here, by the way. The fact that we hold our meetings within the physical confines of the House of Assembly does not attribute anything to the rules, regulations and whatever of the Management Commission. I just want to make that clear to the public as well. Do not think that because we are here when we say certain things or do certain things that all the rules that would normally be here when we are a House would apply. The Management Commission, Mr. Speaker, deals only with things of an administrative nature, not a parliamentary nature.

I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to the actual piece of legislation, and that is the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act. We had a set of rules going back years and years and years, called the Internal Economy Commission. That, again, was a separate functioning administrative body. When Chief Justice Green did his commission report last year and reviewed the MHA spending scandal amongst other things, he looked at the organizational piece of the House of Assembly and he decided that the Internal Economy Commission was not properly organized and structured, did not conduct business in an acceptable fashion, i.e. it should be more public, it should not be held behind closed doors, and he subscribed a set of recommendations as to how we could deal with things, one of which was the restructuring of the IEC, the Internal Economy Commission.

He even changed the name; get rid of the IEC reference and refer to it as a Commission of Management or the Management Commission. In fact, not only did he recommend that it be done, he drafted this bill pretty well. There might have been a few little odds and ends, pieces, typographical stuff, that the legislative draftspersons of the House tinkered with to put it into a bill form to bring it into the House last June, but for all intents and purposes, this piece of legislation was drafted by Chief Justice Derek Green and it was the culmination, from a legislative perspective, of what he wanted done on a go-forward basis on this Province, vis-à-vis the House of Assembly and in particular vis-à-vis the Management Commission or the old IEC. If we are going to talk about what the facts are and what the laws are, we have to deal with this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I made the comment of the Management Commission not being a committee of the House of Assembly. Well, that is pretty clear if one were to read section 20. Section 20 of this Act outlines, not very succinctly because it is actually three or four pages long, the duties and responsibilities of the Commission. Now, that is a pretty detailed piece of legislation and section we have here, Mr. Speaker, section 20. Just so that nobody misunderstands what his role was I will just refer to a couple.

"The Commission is responsible for the financial stewardship of all public money, within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act, that may be voted from time to time by the House of Assembly for the use and operation of the House of Assembly service and its statutory offices, and for all matters of financial and administrative policy affecting the House of Assembly, its members, offices and staff and in connection with them and in particular the commission shall…"

Then they go on to get very explicit again: oversee the finances of the House; review and approve the administrative, financial and human resource and management policies of the House and its offices; and implement reviews periodically of the financial management policies.

Nowhere in the law that governs the Board of Management, the Commission, nowhere does it ever say or ever attribute to that Commission parliamentary trappings; never. In fact, it flies in the face of what he did here. He did not leave it to the House of Assembly to decide what the Board of Management could do in this regard. He says, this is how you shall do it. This is what you can deal with.

Now, besides setting the parameters of what the duties and the responsibilities of the Commission were, Chief Justice Green went a little bit further. He got into the nitty-gritty details of how it was going to be structured and so on. What did he say about the structure in section 18? This is where we talk about how the Speaker becomes the Chair of the Management Commission. He could not say the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile or the Member for Bonavista North shall be the Chair of the Management Commission. He had to pick a person, an entity, who would be the Chair of the Management Commission. What was the easiest, logical, most rationale explanation of who was going to be the Chair? He had to use the word the Speaker.

He says, and I read it for the benefit of members again and the public, " The Commission of Internal Economy of the House of Assembly established under the Internal Economy Commission Act is continued under the name of the House of Assembly Management Commission." Subsection (2) says, "The speaker, or in his or her absence, the deputy speaker, shall preside over the commission." Preside over. Subsection (3), "The Commission shall consist of (a) the speaker, or, in his or her absence, the deputy speaker, who shall be the chairperson…" So, there is no question that he wanted the Speaker of the House of Assembly to be the Chair of the Management Commission. That is clearly stated in section 18. Then he goes on in section 20, as I just alluded to, to say what the duties and the responsibilities of that Commission would be.

There is no question that the Commission, in which the comments were even made or that resulted in this whole issue we are talking about here today, they were supposedly made by the Opposition House Leader in reaction to events that occurred in a Management Commission meeting, not events that occurred in the House of Assembly.

MS JONES: Made outside of the House.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Made outside of the House, by the way, which ties back into the earlier point.

MS JONES: Outside the Commission.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Outside the Commission; not even in a Commission meeting.

Now, I would like to point out to the Speaker as well - and this is relevant because it is not captured in Hansard, which I reviewed by the way. It is not captured because Hansard also transcribes the meetings of the Board of Commission. Even though it is not in there and reflected in Hansard, the Leader of the Official Opposition, I do believe, in our meeting of November 18 - and this is very important - asked the question of the person occupying the seat at the end of this table here, who is the Member for Bonavista North, the Speaker of our House of Assembly, specifically asked him: In what capacity do you sit here in this Management meeting? The response of the Speaker was: I am not here as Speaker, I am here as Chair of the Management Commission.

Now, I think that is very telling because that shows that the Speaker himself distinguished and made a distinction between his roles as a Speaker and as a Chair of the Management Commission. That question was made and a response was given, off the record albeit. Now, I was not the only person who was present. The Leader of the Opposition was there. I am sure they are going to say: well, that is tainted information if we say that. The Leader of the NDP and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was there. I am hoping she is going to get an opportunity to respond to this as well because this does not only concern the Government House Leader and the Official Opposition, there ought to be a chance and an opportunity allotted to the NDP to speak.

Mr. Speaker, that question was asked to the Leader of the Opposition on November 18, before the broadcast began, and you made that response.

I would also like to make a point, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to the comments – and this ties in with this whole distinction between Speaker and Chair. Contrary to the comments of the Government House Leader, at no point, even if Your Honour were to say forget about the technical piece, forget about the distinctions between the Speaker in the House versus the Speaker as Chair of the Management Commission, if you were to say pooh-pooh to all of that, nowhere in either of the four publications referred to by the Government House Leader as supposedly grounding this question of privilege, nowhere does the Leader of the Opposition utter the word Speaker. Nowhere! Every single reference - a direct quote of the Leader of the Opposition concerning this issue - was to the role that the Speaker played as Chair. The word Speaker is not even uttered by her, it is as Chair. I am disappointed in the actions of the Chair of the Management Commission.

Now, given what the Leader of the Opposition asked the Chair in that meeting of November 18, given what the Leader of the Opposition told the media after the meeting of November 18, how can we then - that is the very basis that the Speaker told her upon which he was operating. How could somebody now turn around and try to twist that to say in some way she is denigrating, casting aspersions upon, or reflecting improperly upon the Speaker of the House of Assembly? That is a stretch, and the documentation proves that, Mr. Speaker, if you read these publications. Not once was there an utterance of you as a Speaker. It was you as a Chair was the only reference that was ever made.

MS JONES: That is the role that he said he was playing.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: And that is the role, Mr. Speaker, that you said you were playing. We all understand that when we go to the management committee. I do not go to a Management Commission looking upon you – with all due respect, you are the Speaker, but I do not go looking upon you in the same light and as wearing the same hat as you do in here today. It is a totally different ballgame; the same room, different ballgame, different rules. We all carry different hats and do different functions. It does not mean she does not respect you as a person, but it certainly cannot bring the trappings of the Speaker into the house of management.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise one final issue, or submission. I already brought in the two about the technical piece and the issue of the distinction between your role as a Chair and your role as a Speaker.

The third one I would like to raise, and I think this is interesting because I refer, going back here – you talk about grounding of the question of privilege. The issue I am trying to get at here is: Can you raise a point of privilege concerning a matter that if the proper rules and procedures had been followed, that matter would never have existed? I am going to explain that. I am going to explain that because we are dealing here with the Leader of the Opposition's comments in the media, an outside source, as a result of events that unfolded in the Management Commission meeting of November 18, in which meeting, the Chair of the Management Commission cast his vote, vis-à-vis the issue of Opposition resources. That is the gist of what we are dealing with here.

Now, the question is: Did the Chair of the Management Commission ever have the right to vote to cast the tie, to break the tie in that meeting of November 18 anyway? I would submit, Mr. Speaker, not that you did anything wrong, deliberately or otherwise, or innocently. I submit, in fact, that it was innocent, if you did do it. I submit that it was done, that you did vote, and I would submit that legally, properly, you, as Chair of the Management Commission, had no legal authority to vote on the day in question in any case. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is because nowhere is there authority. In the act that governs the Management Commission, nowhere is there any authority which permits the Chair of the Management Commission to break a tie, and I would like to get into a little bit of details here.

I refer, first of all, to the Management Commission meeting of October 15, page 57. This is the comment, and I will quote. This is what the Chair of the Management Commission, i.e. the Speaker of the House of Assembly, this is what you said in that meeting of October 15, and I quote from page 57, "It looks like there is a tie vote. Chief Justice Green, in his recommendations, stated that the Speaker shall break a tie vote. I sensed that something may come forward at a meeting where the Speaker would have to vote. I reviewed the legislation. There is nothing in the legislation that says the Speaker will vote. It is silent."

Now that is the quote from yourself, Mr. Speaker, of October 15. You are quite correct in what you said. Chief Justice Green did, in his recommendations, and I refer to the executive summary, recommendation number 30(1). Chief Justice Green said at that time "The Commission of Internal Economy (House of Assembly Management Commission) should be restructured to consist of: (a) the Speaker, who will vote in the case of a tie." Now that was what Chief Justice Green said. Unfortunately, what Chief Justice Green said in his recommendation did not find its way into the legislation.

Nowhere in the House of Assembly Act, House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, does it ever say or provide to the chairperson of the Commission the right to cast a vote in the case of a tie. We know what the intentions were, but intentions are irrelevant when it comes to actions and the law. The law requires that you can only do what you are permitted to do. You cannot take the law unto yourself. Even though you do it innocently, it is not proper. You cannot substantiate, support, uphold anything that is done in violation to the law. You cannot create your own law on the fly.

So, Mr. Speaker, no disrespect to you, you did whatever you did innocently. By the way, I refer then to the meeting of November 18. I have already referred to your meeting of November 15 wherein you knew there was no such authority to cast a tie vote. You said it was silent. In our meeting of November 18 – and, by the way, you can check the records, exclusively, totally, since we have been holding broadcasted public meetings of the Management Commission you will not find any references to where the members refer to you as the Speaker. You may find a couple; 99.9 per cent of all references in the Management Commission by members are to the Chair or Mr. Chair, not as the Speaker. So we even function as to how we separate the distinction between your roles, Mr. Speaker.

I refer now to the November 18 meeting, which is the meeting from which the Government House Leader grounded her comments. I quote: Mr. Speaker: "Could I see a show of hands? Those for the motion? Those against the motion? Again, we have a tie vote. The situation being that I came here as Chairperson today to cast a vote, which I indicated at the last meeting."

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue here. You acknowledge on October 15 that nowhere does the legislation, the law, give you the right to cast a tie vote. Then, on November 18, you come saying you are prepared to cast a tie vote. I do not know what happened legally, legislatively, between October 15 and November 18, but there were certainly no amendments (inaudible) which permitted the tie vote.

It may be perceived as a technicality again, but the point is, if the vote should never have been made in the first place, if it never should have been made in the first place, the Government House Leader should not be permitted to rely upon a situation that, if we were aware of that in the first place - and we all were aware of that; we all conducted ourselves innocently that day - if we were aware of this, there never would be a point of privilege to deal with because the vote would not have happened, the comments would not have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, and we would still be trying to unravel what do we do with the tie.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, just so we are clear here – I see the Speaker shaking his head, but just so we are clear here again as to the legislation - not only is the act silent, Mr. Speaker, I refer Your Honour to section 19.(3) of the act, which says – it talks about a whole number of things, about proceedings of the Commission and so on - "The commission shall adopt rules with respect to the circulation and preparation of agendas and briefing material to members of the commission and for the orderly conduct of business of the commission."

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we as a Commission have not grappled with this. This is the first time, other than your reference back in October, which we as members did not click into and deal with properly. As well-intentioned as we all might be, we cannot take it upon ourselves. We know now that we are aware of a situation that exists. I firmly believe, by the way - I personally have no problem and do believe - that the Speaker, in his role as Chair of the Management Commission, should cast the deciding vote. No problem. I think that is the clearest, most rational, logical way to deal with it. If you have a tie, the Speaker should vote to break the tie. Let there be no misunderstanding about where this person stands.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the member of the Official Opposition, we believe the legislation should say that the Chair can cast the deciding vote, for no reason simply other than we have absolute faith - I do, at least - in the commentaries and the votes of the Speaker in his role as Chair, but we cannot confuse what we would like things to be and how we have acted with the fact that we are now confronted and faced with the law as it exists.

To conclude that point, Mr. Speaker, we should not be here dealing with a point of privilege, albeit it may be well-intentioned and well-motivated, if we never should have had this situation in the first place. That is all I am saying, that we never should have had this unravelled and the Commission meeting unravelled as it did. We should have been on the ball enough to discover that we had missed this point, that it did not cover off - not only us. Chief Justice Green caught it; he put it in his recommendations. We were not the only ones to miss it. If the legislative draftsperson - this is not about blame, but if the people who drafted the act wanted it in there, or saw it in there - maybe it was an oversight. Nobody did it maliciously. I am sure the intent and purpose of everybody who passed that law last June, 2007, we all wanted to implement in totality, if we could, what Chief Justice Green said.

The point is, somebody missed it. The fact that we missed it, and it is not there, does not excuse what happens after. Once we become aware of a situation, if we have to go back and correct it, that is what this is all about. That is why, in fact, and that is what our principal obligations are. I am going to make a recommendation, of course, and a motion at the next meeting that I am at, of the Management Commission, that we do that, because I think it is proper that the Chair should cast the deciding vote. That does not take away from what happened. It does not make it right, and what we are about here is doing what is right.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I think we have made a proper, detailed, sufficient explanation here, and submissions, as to why the question of privilege that was raised by the Government House Leader yesterday should not stand. It is not a point of privilege. It is not properly grounded. It is based improperly and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we should not even get past step one of whether it is a valid motion. The answer to that should be an unequivocal: No, I am sorry, it does not comply. Therefore, we would never get to the other issue of prima facie.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further commentary?

I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but I would ask her maybe that she would not take an unduly amount of time to make her remarks, as important as they are, and as much as her remarks would be taken under consideration.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate having some time to speak to this. I have not done a detailed legal presentation that the Opposition House Leader has done because I am not involved in the same situation in this issue. I think it is very important that the Opposition House Leader did present what he has presented. I do trust that you are going to give very serious consideration to the case that he has presented with regard to the proposal that there was a point of privilege, that there was a breach of privilege.

As a member of the House Management Commission, I just wanted to take a bit of time to say what my concerns are, because I think this is a very important discussion so that we can get clarification into the future.

In reading some of the documentation that the Opposition House Leader has referred to, especially Beauchesne, I did it because I wanted to get a sense of the history of Parliament with regard to privilege issues. I was impressed as I read Beauchesne about something that the Opposition House Leader said, and that is points of privilege are extremely rare. They hardly ever happen, because they are so serious and one has to be so careful about naming a point of privilege. That is why I think it is important that I say what I want to say here this afternoon.

As a member of the Management Commission, I have always been concerned about whether or not the Speaker, when sitting in the Chair of the Commission, was sitting as Speaker or sitting as Chair. It is my memory that there were a couple of times over the history, or the short history of our meeting in that configuration, that there were some brief discussions about the role that we all play. That is something I remember, and I have not had the time to check it out, but I think it is important to point it out because I know we did.

I remember at one point there just being brief references to the fact that even the members of the Commission, when sitting in the Commission, even though we came from places where we had a role - for example, a representative of the Third Party or Leader of the Opposition, or the roles that we played, the Minister of Finance, for example. When we sit in the Commission we are there as members. So we do not refer to our titles when we are in the Commission. I remember our having that discussion. In actual fact, when we first started meeting we used to introduce ourselves with all of our titles, and we actually stopped it. Now all we say is our name and our district. That is all that we say, and that is something that we did informally. We did not sit down and set out things, rules that we need to set for ourselves has just been - we have been reminded of by the Opposition House Leader that the act says we should do, and I think we should, but we did do that one. Now that is all we say, is our name and our district. We made a decision around that.

I, too, remember that on November 18 the Leader of the Official Opposition did, just immediately prior to the formal meeting starting, say that she would like some clarification from the Speaker: Did you sit in this position as the Speaker of the House or the Chair of the Commission? I, too, remember your response. That, no, I sit as Chair. That was very clear to me. Though it is not reflected in Hansard, because it happened just prior to the official starting – it was almost simultaneous with the official starting. I have a very clear memory of that as well. So that clarified for me what I already thought, because it had informally been said before. I cannot be clear in my memory if it was with you as the current Chair of the Commission or when the former Speaker was the Chair of the Commission. I cannot quite remember. That would be a lot of Hansard to go over to find that one out, but if we needed to, I am sure – if you need to, you have the staff to do that.

I think it is important that at different times we have clarified the fact that the Management Commission is not parliamentary. I think that is the issue, and that is what you are being asked to consider. Though I have not gone through everything with a fine-tooth comb, and I am not a lawyer and have not done all the legal work on this that one might have to do, it seems to me that you have what you need to make a judgement on this, that in my mind would say that we do not have a breach of privilege. We do not have a prima facie case with regard to privilege. That is for you to make the decision. I totally realize that, but I think it is very important that we recognize that the Management Commission is not a parliamentary body. It is not a legislative body. It is an administrative body and we are all there wearing a different hat than we wear when we are in this House. I do think, and I said this when we first started meeting, I do think the fact that we sit in this room in the way in which we have to do it at the moment has affected our behaviour, so that we forget that it is not the Assembly. We relax a little bit with each other, but not a whole lot. We are as formal almost in that meeting as if we were sitting here. I think that affects how we communicate with one another. I know that is not the case, what we are getting at here this afternoon.

I just want to put it out because I think the fact that we are having this discussion is probably going to be very important for us making some decisions about the Management Commission and how the Commission operates from here on in. I do not need to take more time. I did want to stand and to say those things because I thought they were important to say. I regret that the breach of privilege was put on the floor. I hope that there will be a positive response to that as a prima facie case and I hope that we then can go back into the Commission and set up a situation where we are very clear about how we are operating with one another and what our role is in the Commission.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

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

To the point of privilege, I say to the hon. the Government House Leader?

MS BURKE: Yes.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I do want to make some comments because obviously it is a very serious issue that we are dealing with here; a very serious issue is certainly why I brought it to the attention of the House yesterday and made a point of privilege.

I do need to comment on some of the information provided by the Opposition House Leader because I feel that we made a valid point of privilege yesterday and something that is extremely serious. We need to ensure that the appropriate information is shared here in the House of Assembly but, most importantly, with the general public as well.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Opposition House Leader, I did indicate in writing yesterday in a letter to the Clerk that we would be bringing forward this point of privilege. I just want to read a section of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms from the Sixth Edition to indicate why we brought forward the point of privilege and why we certainly feel it is a valid point of privilege that we brought forward. § 115 indicates, "A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House."

Mr. Speaker, that is why yesterday when we started the proceedings of the House of Assembly, which was the first time we had been together as the House of Assembly in this forum since the comments were made and the comments that I had indicated were made on November 18 of this year. So that is why we brought it to the floor of the House of Assembly yesterday, because that was the first opportunity. Now had we decided that we were not going to proceed with it at that time or we were looking into it and wondering will we bring it up at some point during this sitting of the House of Assembly, I think based on that alone, that we would not have put forward a valid point of privilege. So, I certainly want to explain to the people who are watching these proceedings here today, why we did what we did yesterday and why it was important that we had to do it at that point in time.

It also says in §116, "Should a question of privilege be based on published material, the article in question must be submitted and read at the Table." When we submitted yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that meant we brought it forward and we commented on it. It is in Hansard. So, it was submitted here in the House of Assembly. It was done verbally. I acknowledged the sources of information, the dates, and read out what I thought were the applicable quotes at that time. Now I could have entered and read I assume the full article that would have been in the media but I wanted to bring forward what I felt were the statements that indicated that the Leader of the Opposition somehow attacked the character or the workings or the actions, the impartiality of the Speaker of the House of Assembly. So we brought that forward.

Then the next section in Beauchesne, §117 relates to the role of the Speaker. It says, "Once the claim of a breach of privilege has been made, it is the duty of the Speaker to decide if a prima facie case can be established." That is exactly what we are doing here today in the discussions that we are having, the information being put forth, Mr. Speaker, so that you can determine if a prima facie case has been established.

Now there has been some indication here today that maybe because you were acting in the role of the Chair of the House of Assembly Management Commission that somehow you were not acting as the Speaker and in some way you were in a role other than the Speaker. I want to draw it to the attention to the people who are watching the proceedings here today and to the Members of the House of Assembly, according to the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, that it reads under section 18. This has been read here in the House already but I want to draw attention to specific points I want to make about this.

It says, under 18.(1), "The Commission of Internal Economy of the House of Assembly established under the Internal Economy Commission Act is continued under the name of the House of Assembly Management Commission."

Subsection (2) says, "The speaker, or in his or her absence, the Deputy Speaker, shall preside over the commission."

Mr. Speaker, you were at that Commission in your role as the Speaker. You Chair the meetings, you are Chairperson of the meetings, but you attended those meetings, or the Speaker will attend those meetings, because, by law, you are required to be there and be in that role. No one else can fill in, unless it is the Deputy Speaker, who fills in for you in a time whenever there are any proceedings that the Speaker is unable to be there. So I think it is well established that you were in that role specifically as the Speaker.

There were other comments there as well, that we refer to members in the Management Commission as being members. I have often been referred to in a Management Commission meeting, or referred to myself in an introduction, that I am the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East; but, Mr. Speaker, according to the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I am sitting on the Management Commission for one reason, and that is under section 18, subsection 2, paragraph 3, when it explains the people who sit on that Commission; it says the Government House Leader.

I am there because I am a Member of the House of Assembly, but I am there specifically because I am the Government House Leader. If people recall, prior to taking on this role as the Government House Leader, I did not sit on the Management Commission. Therefore, it was by virtue of my role that puts me on the Management Commission. So we are there by our titles and for that reason. Mr. Speaker, it would be the same reason why you Chair those meetings, because your presence and your role is defined in this legislation, and it is there only because you are the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

I also want to speak to the distinction of roles. How do we say you are the Speaker of the House of Assembly when there are proceedings going on in certain committees or here on the floor of the House, but in other times you are not to be considered the Speaker and you can walk away from those duties and those responsibilities, and not have to act in a similar manner?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we certainly can speak to that, as I did yesterday as well when I made my point of privilege, but I just want to remind the hon. House that according to Beauchesne's 6^th Edition, it talks about the role of the Speaker and it clearly outlines that the Speaker is not only the Speaker during proceedings in the House of Assembly or during certain or specific committees. This certainly outlines that the responsibilities and the impartiality attached to being in the Office of the Speaker of the House of Assembly is something that goes beyond just the proceedings of the House.

I want to draw your attention to §168. (2). I read this yesterday and I certainly want to read it again because it highlights exactly what I am saying. It says, "In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity."

That is extremely important because, as government members, we also meet as a caucus. We form a caucus, we meet, we plan as a caucus, and the Speaker who was elected, who normally would be a member of this caucus – and this is very important for people to understand - because the member has been voted, has been elected to be the Speaker of the House of Assembly, he no longer participates in any caucus activities.

By saying that, it means, Mr. Speaker, that you are considered the Speaker and you are considered to be impartial at all times in your mandate for the four years that you have been elected in this General Assembly to be the Speaker of the House of Assembly. When you leave this, you cannot attend a caucus meeting or go to a political function and all of a sudden use the explanation and say: Because I am not on the floor of the House of Assembly, I am not longer held to the same standards of being the Speaker of the House.

The other thing that I found quite interesting here today was the argument that was put forth to say that, because you may not have been able to vote in the Management Commission because the rules were not clear or the rules did not specify that you were able to vote, because of that anomaly you are now open to attack, to say you are biased. It is almost like we are trying to say, well, you know, if you did that and it was not clearly outlined, therefore we can go out and attack your actions and claim that you were being biased in a certain process.

It is almost like two wrongs don't make a right. That is all I could think, when I was hearing it. Because, Mr. Speaker, if, in the capacity that you acted as the Chair of the Management Commission, if you really did not have the right to vote, and it is an issue that we need to address but we did not address at that time, because of that, does that give the members of that Commission or Members of this House of Assembly the right to go out and to criticize and say that you are biased or you are no longer impartial?

It is almost akin to saying that if we are here in the House of Assembly and you make a ruling that is in error, that you have to correct or you will come back and correct or it was just made in error and was not brought to your attention, that we can go out and talk about you being biased or about being impartial. Because an action may have been rooted in a process that was not defined or outlined by law, all of a sudden we can go and criticize and say that you are impartial.

I think that whole argument, to say whether or not the process where these comments about you being biased or being part of a biased process may not have been rooted in a legitimate process, does not give us the right to go out and make allegations against the Speaker. It is almost like it gives us a free rein to go out at that time and make those allegations.

I also want to draw some attention to the fact that in Beauchesne §71 it says, "The Speaker should be protected against reflections on his or her actions." It does not go further there to say: however, if the Speaker makes any decision, or acts in an error or an omission, or in some way that is not following parliamentary procedure, that all of a sudden we can go out and have free rein to indicate that the Speaker is biased or being impartial.

When we read that section, it says, "The Speaker should be protected against reflections on his or her actions." To me, that carries forward in everything that the Speaker does, and that we should not go out, as a person who is acting in capacity of Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: - to make such allegations.

Whether you are the Speaker because you are in a committee, or we are here on the floor of the House of Assembly, you are in the Management Commission, or you are acting in a way, probably, that is outside of the proceedings of the House, I think that §71 of Beauchesne speaks to all times when you are the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

Further to that, there may not be any precedent in this House of a point of privilege that had to be determined as to whether or not it was valid by the Speaker, but I do want to draw people's attention to an issue of March 11, 2002, in these particular Chambers; because, what is important in this is how this particular situation was handled. I think it will show a distinction of how issues regarding attacks on the character or the actions of the Speaker are extremely important.

On March 11, 2002, the Government House Leader at the time was Mr. Lush. He stood on a point of privilege to deal with comments made at that time by the Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Premier. At that time, apparently, and as it has been read here in Hansard, and I will quote this from Hansard, it says, "The point of privilege that I wish to address has to do with the very serious comments made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in questioning the impartiality of Your Honour in early January in The Telegram, on January 3, 2002."

At that time, there was an allegation that was made. It was made outside the precincts here of the House, or the proceedings of the House, and they were brought to the attention of the House on the first day that the House opened, very similar to what we did in this House yesterday.

The difference was, at the time, that the Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, understood the seriousness of the matter and understood that when you have any reflections or any statements that you make that would show that the Speaker is not impartial or that the Speaker is biased, that in fact they were wrong. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, wrote an apology and spoke and apologized in the House of Assembly, which certainly speaks to the calibre and the character of that individual. I think that was very important.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a point in time right now where there have been a number of comments made to say that you were biased, that you were not impartial and that you participated in a process that you expressed a bias. Mr. Speaker, you were working, you were performing your duties as the Speaker of this honourable House. You sat at the Management Commission because the laws of the land in this Province put you there, put you in that position by nature of being the Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: What is particularly important in this particular case is that, whether or not you should have voted or the law says you have voted or we need to set some rules around the voting, to me is irrelevant, because if we look at that and we say it is a point of privilege, that does not count, and any time the Speaker acts in a manner that may reflect an error that we can go out and say that you are biased or that you are no longer impartial. I think there is a serious precedent to be set here if we are going to distinguish between times when we are allowed to go out and talk about the Speaker as being biased or impartial. I think that is exactly what this point of privilege and the decision regarding this point of privilege will do.

I feel that if we do not have a valid point of privilege based on the comments and based on what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador read in the media, I think we are going to have to set definition around times when we go out and actually say that about the Speaker. That is absolutely shameful and it is not reflective of what we do in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair, to be fair, will recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader, but I say to the hon. the Opposition House Leader, very brief comments. I think there has been enough time consumed with this important matter, as important as it is. I think the Chair has heard enough to form an opinion. The Chair will converse with the Table officers. It was the Chair's intention to make a ruling today but with the time of the clock and it being Private Members' Day, I am going to ask that the House would allow the Chair to bring his remarks back and make his ruling tomorrow.

I recognize the Opposition House Leader to make his last brief comments.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to respond as I understand this being of a very serious nature.

The Government House Leader made the motion yesterday, I responded. The Government House Leader today has raised some other issues, not only commenting on what I said but raised other issues and interpreted certain things that I said inaccurately and incorrectly and I ought to have an opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings or any inaccuracies that have been fed to this Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with them in a quick fashion, but there are several.

First of all, the reference by the Government House Leader to Section 115: we absolutely agree that the Government House Leader gave notice of this question of privilege in the timeliest manner possible. In fact, she did it right off the top yesterday. There was no other opportunity until the House opened yesterday to do that and she did it. We make no quibble with that.

Point number two, the submission issue: Section 116 of Beauchesne to which she referred, very clear, very explicit, and I quote. I should have read it the first time, I guess. "Should a question of privilege be based on published material…", which this one was, "…the article in question must be submitted and read at the Table." Nowhere does it say that the submission is verbal notice. Nowhere does it say that reading is sufficient. Very clear: the published article must be submitted. Now, that is clear in any man's language, any person's language.

Thirdly, regarding the right to vote, never have we suggested that the Speaker when he sits as Chair of the Management Commission does not have the right to vote. He absolutely does have the right to vote. He does have the right to vote, but, Mr. Speaker, nowhere does it say in the legislation that the Chair of the Management Commission can cast his vote to break a tie. That is a very big distinction. If the legislation wanted to give the Speaker the right to cast his vote last, that legislation should be very explicit. Otherwise it says that certain members are members. We all have rights. For example, the Deputy Chair is on the Committee. He does not have a vote but he sits there. Nobody is suggesting that you do not have a right to vote but nowhere does it say you cast the deciding vote. The Government House Leader used the word herself; anomaly. Well, Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation in this House, actually they are entitled, An Act To Correct Anomalies In The Law. This is an anomaly as she has acknowledged and you cannot act on what you want the law to be until you make it a law.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, her comment about sitting as Government House Leader. I do not sit on there as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile either. Minister Taylor does not sit on there as a member because he is a minister, or yes he does sit on there because he is minister. It prescribes very explicitly who can sit there. The Government House Leader is there. The Opposition House Leader is there. Another member of the Opposition is there. The Leader of the Opposition is there. We decided as a course ourselves how to conduct ourselves, Mr. Speaker, on that meeting. We dropped anybody's titles, so do not get on there and say I am the Opposition House Leader. We all agreed that titles were out the window. We agreed to operate on the basis that we would refer to our districts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on section 168, item 168(2) that was referenced here. I am rushing through these because you insisted that we do it quickly. But, talking about the impartiality of the Speaker, relinquishing any affiliation to your political party, nobody has any objection to that. That has been the standard for Speakers for time immemorial. Obviously the Speaker does not go to caucus meetings. Obviously the Speaker does not go out in public saying, I believe this and I believe that. That has nothing to do with what your obligations and your duties and your rights are as Chair of the Management Commission. That has to do with what you do in the political sphere. No more than you stand up in here and say, I want such-and-such for the District of Bonavista. You do not do it, because you are the Speaker. We all understand that. We do not have a problem with what section 168(2) means.

The other part is: the Government House Leader is obviously still confused between the roles of chairman and speaker. Even if it was determined that the comments of the Government House Leader were disrespectful, if it was deemed to be disrespectful to the Chair of the Management Committee, it does not make it a breach of privilege. Privilege is a very strictly-defined thing which occurs in a certain environment, and that environment is not, as of yet, the Management Commission.

If we want to create a new standard, if we want to extend the rules of privilege, we should do so, but we cannot hinge a point of privilege now on a standard that does not exist. If we want to create it and specifically say in an amendment that the matter of privilege shall extend to the Management Commission, we should do it, so there is no confusion.

The other point I would like to make: the Government House Leader referred to section 71, talking about reflections upon your actions. Section 71 of Beauschene deals expressly, again, with how you treat a Speaker in his environment of the Parliamentary Legislature, an institution – not what we do or say to each other as members of the Management Commission. Again, you are trying to apply rules that exist in one environment to another institution and has no application unless we decide – maybe we should. If we decide to make them apply, fine and dandy; lets go for it.

The final point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the Premier's apology of March 11, 2002. As indicated by the Government House Leader - and I said earlier the Premier made his comments outside the House, which he did. It was not a comment he made in the House, by the way. It was made outside the House. The Government House Leader raised it, that it was said outside of this House. It never got to be ruled on because the Premier – the Opposition Leader at the time – stood up and said I apologize. There was no need to consider it, because he did it, and he is to be commended for having done it. He is to be commended for having done it, but, Mr. Speaker, no such opportunity was ever extended to the Leader of the Opposition. No such opportunity was ever given to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, before –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the concluding point I am making here, we had no problem with the government having brought this at the earliest opportunity, as expected and required. She did it yesterday.

All we are saying is that the same opportunity – the Leader of the Opposition never had any opportunity, on the earliest opportunity that it was raised, to even apologize. We were not into this House yesterday thirty seconds, your honour, not thirty seconds when the point of privilege was made. Now –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

I would have to refer to the – are you raising on a point of order?

MS BURKE: (Inaudible).

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

MS BURKE: (Inaudible) make one brief comment?

Never mind.

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

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

The point I am trying to make here, the final point, as I say, was do not try to use the March 2002 example as a binding precedent in what happened. We all know that it was raised by the Government House Leader of the day. The Leader of the Opposition of the day got up and said apologize. That did not happen here.

AN HON. MEMBER: She was asked to do it yesterday.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We said – but, Mr. Speaker, the point is being lost here, that if the point of privilege is not a valid point of privilege to start with, nobody is saying there is not going to be an apology forthcoming. No one is saying that the Leader of the Opposition is not going to stand up in this House and apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The issue, Mr. Speaker, is whether there is a valid point in the first place. Why don't we deal with things in due course? The question is, is it a proper point of privilege? That is the whole point here. We need proper rulings, proper groundings upon how we operate.

If it is determined that there is no point of privilege here then we have to leave it to the Leader of the Opposition. What is going to be the next course of action? That will unfold as things unfold, Mr. Speaker. That does not justify why, because she has not gotten up yet to apologize, if she does. Mr. Speaker, you cannot allow either the government to use this issue, which happened in a separate forum totally, you cannot allow them to use your House, our House, as an opportunity to play political football with this. We must make –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I call on the hon. the Opposition House Leader to conclude his remarks.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

My conclusion is that we cannot even get to the other issue. Let's not presuppose anybody's motivations. Let's not suppose what anybody, including the Leader of the Opposition, might do here. We are here to decide, at this point in time, is there a valid point of privilege? Our submission is that it is not, and nowhere under the laws, the rules, the customs and the guidelines of this Parliament, or any other Parliament, can it be determined, I would submit, that this is a valid point of privilege.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

With the consensus of the House the Chair will bring back a ruling tomorrow, being Thursday. The Chair has the consensus of the House to be willing to allow the ample time to do that. It needs some work. It needs some study, and the Chair needs to confer with the Table Officers. So the Chair will rule on the point of privilege tomorrow.

Today being Private Members' Day, and it being 4:38 in the afternoon, I think it would be a shame to call Private Members' Day now and allow a private member's resolution on due time to be debated here.

With that, being Wednesday, the Chair will now adjourn the House –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The Chair will now adjourn the House until 1:30 of tomorrow.

I call on the Opposition House Leader for a quick response, not to do with the point of privilege.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No, absolutely not!

I just want to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that this was the government's day for a private member's bill. As we know, the information and the response on the point of privilege took priority over that. Under our rules, again, the next private member's motion should come from the Opposition, not from the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the point of order because it is the custom of this House that on alternating weeks the motions are called on Private Members' Day, meaning that the government members' side gets a private member's motion and then that is followed by the Opposition or the third party.

Mr. Speaker, the last private member's motion that was called in the House of Assembly was the last day that we sat in the spring session and it was on a motion put forward by a private member of the Opposition from Port de Grave regarding pensions. Our Standing Order 63.(1) says, "The determination of which Private Member's motion shall be called by the Speaker on Private Member's Day rests with each side of the House, with the Speaker calling a motion from each side of the House on a weekly alternating basis."

Because there was no motion called this week, as it stands in this House, the last motion that was called was from the Opposition, and if we are going to play fair and we are going to do it by alternating weeks, this government member's motion should be the next one called in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point of order under advisement and report back to the House.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. of the clock tomorrow being Thursday.