November

26, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 40

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!

Statements by Members

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

Petitions

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.

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--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,

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--vis the House of Assembly and in

particular vis--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

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--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 fo