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

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

I entered the private member’s motion yesterday. I understand protocol dictates we read it in. It is fairly lengthy, so I will read it quickly, it being a matter of public record.

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is the cornerstone of responsible government in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the smooth and proper function of the House of Assembly is essential to good government, effective legislative process and an open democratic society; and

WHEREAS there is a clear, present and pressing need for reform in the Standing Orders and other rules and conventions which govern the operations of the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly instruct the Standing Orders Committee to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing Oral Questions and the legislative process, and to consider, among other things:

1. Methods of elevating the decorum of all members to strengthen the dignity and authority of the House,

2. Examining the convention that the Minister questioned need not respond,

3. Dedicating one question period per week exclusively for questions to the Premier,

4. Establishing guidelines for the advance release of Ministerial Statements and the full text of Bills to ensure that members have sufficient time to examine and analyze their content,

5. Strengthening the operations of Standing and Special Legislative Committees to allow analysis of Bills with public hearings if required,

6. Prohibiting substantive amendments to Private Member’s Motions, and

7. Streamlining the introduction and consideration of Private Members’ Bills.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Standing Orders Committee reports its findings to the House, with proposed changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions, within six months of the adoption of this order;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report be made public immediately by posting it to the House of Assembly website on the day that it is received.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see from the seven items that are enumerated there, there is a whole pile of suggestions that are being considered. My role today would not only be to lay out the motion in general form, make some specific comments regarding some of the 1 through 7 items that are noted, but my colleagues, of course, as time permits today - we are limited in terms of how much time we have - they will also each be making some comments with regard to these items and their experiences in the House, and what they feel needs to be done to have a more productive and effective system as well.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly, of course, is the crucial piece to operating in a democracy. We have a government, of course, which dictates the policy of the day, the direction of the day, but the bottom line is when it comes to the passing of legislation and taking the government policy and putting it into play, it has to be done legislatively and that is done here in this House of Assembly. On occasion, of course, it works quite well. On other occasions it does not work so good. Sometimes we end up with a piece of legislation here that is quite contentious because people do have different policy considerations, and that is the whole purpose of debate, of course, is to let each and every person who is in here, who has a right to speak, to speak on legislation and voice their concerns. At the end of the day, democracy unfolds and a vote is taken. That is the process. There is a good way to make it work. There is a good way to make it more effective, to make it more efficient than what we currently – the situation that we deal in. That is where my comments will be directed today.

For example, we have come some ways with changes. We came into televised debates, for example, some years ago. Back in 2002, I believe it was first in this Province. I think that has been very helpful because there is an old saying in the justice field that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I think that applies to democracy as well. Just about every democratic society in the western world that I know of today have televised debates. We are certainly there when it comes to that.

Most democratic institutions today have an elected Speaker, for example, and it is important. He is the main referee. He is the main cog in the wheel that we call the House of Assembly here. We had a Standing Order change back in 1999 I believe was the actual year, when Premier Tobin was the Premier. That is when we adopted the new Standing Orders saying that a Speaker would be elected. At that time it was the Member for Trinity North, I do believe, or Terra Nova, Mr. Snow, who became the Speaker. He had been appointed under the old process. Of course, because he stayed Speaker for the duration of that government until October 2003, there was no need to use the new system. As soon as the government changed in 2003, of course, this new Administration did in fact use the election process for the Speaker, and that was good to see. So, we have had some changes when it comes to the operations of this place in the last ten years, for example, the televised piece and the election of the Speaker. So that is good to see.

We do, of course, have certain committees of this House. We have committees, for example, Estimates Committees we call them. That each year, when there is a Budget process, they take the various departments that fall into their budgets and they go off. That is when Opposition members and government members get to question the ministers and their officials as to what is in the Budget Estimates. That is a good process but it is not complete, we would submit. It is not complete because it is not televised. There is no reason in the world why Estimates Committees should not be televised the same as the House of Assembly is televised. We have the physical apparatus in place. It is a matter of booking the time to do it.

For those who are out watching, there is quite a difference between Question Period and the Estimates process. In Question Period you can ask a minister a question and you may or may not get an answer. You might ask it of one minister and someone else may answer, but at least in Estimates when you can drill down into the details you get someone to answer, either the minister does it or if he is not up on every little piece and detail of his department budgets of course, estimates, he can defer to whomever his officials are that he or she has with them to get that information. So, there is a good exchange but it is not televised. It is not transparent to the people as to how that information gets out there. Of course, you are left to put out press releases or come back to Question Period and ask questions about it. Whereas we could make it much more efficient if we would simply televise the Estimates Committees themselves, but of course, that has not been done. So that is one suggestion that is being made.

Probably some of the best suggestions put forward into how the House procedures should be revised were put forward by the current government when they presented their 2003 Blue Book we call it, the platform for election. Now, the unfortunate part, Mr. Speaker, is they never followed through. This very government today, the people who are the government, who form the government members of this House of Assembly did not follow through on what they themselves committed to the people of this Province they were going to do.

Now, they can stand up today and tell us all they want about how the system works. They can say all of that, but the bottom line is they obviously thought it was not working properly to put it in their Blue Book, but they changed it. I am going to quote, Mr. Speaker, from one section of their Blue Book. Number five, from the 2003 PC Party Blue Book, and it says - just to give one example. They would set up legislative committees in key policy areas with the power to initiate legislation, propose amendments to government legislation and investigate and report on the progress of government programs in their policy areas. It is not done. Put out there by this government as a good reform for this House of Assembly, not followed through on.

When I talk about Legislative Committees - I already referenced the Estimates Committees. There is a Standing Orders Committee. I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee, as is the Speaker. There are a couple of government members on it as well. We had one meeting last year in June to say that we would look at maybe doing some revisions. We have not met since. There has not been a meeting since.

When you check to see, before last year in 2008, the last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee took place, no one can tell you, Mr. Speaker. Nobody can tell you when the last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee of this House of Assembly took place beyond last year, in 2008, two years ago. Nobody can tell you. Now, that is not good enough for a House of Assembly that is going to consider whether it is or is not working properly. So, that is why the grounding of this resolution is let’s look at what changes might or might not be feasible. If they are, let’s send it off to the Standing Orders Committee and let the Standing Orders Committee get into it in depth and come back with any suggested recommendations that they think we ought to do to make some improvements.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of items here; first of all, the decorum one. This member is no different than anybody else. We have all lost our cool in here. We have all said things from time to time, ashamed to say, but been disrespectful to each other – but that is not what is supposed to be going on in the House of Assembly. I do not think any other Legislature that I have ever watched, except I saw a clip one time from China, I think, where they got into a big fist fight in their Legislature in the China Parliament. I do recall seeing that one, but normally in Western democracies we work on a different basis, a different plateau than fist fights in the House of Assembly; and God forbid that it should ever come to that.

I know there was one incident of a physical altercation in the House some years ago, when a certain person hit somebody, but God forbid if we ever go back to that. That is not to say that anybody is any worse than anyone else here or any better than anyone else, but we all have our faults. We have all been responsible for causing disruption in here, being disrespectful from time to time, and unless we are going to get the public respect for what this institution demands and requires and change that, we are never going to get to where we need to go in that regard.

My colleagues will have more to say about decorum as well, but probably the - in addition to the Estimates being televised, two major issues that this member has had are the standing committees. For example, in the federal House of Commons they have a standing committee on judicial issues, for example, or there is a standing committee on fisheries. So it is quite common that there are legislative committees. The people who actually run the departments, the bureaucrats, for example, they are not the policy drivers when it comes to all this stuff on a federal level. That is a parliamentary committee that is set up. You can call whatever officials you want to the standing committee and have those people input, yes, but one of the obvious means you do it is by having a committee or you strike a special committee of the House of Assembly to consider certain things.

For example, the last all-party committee we have had in this House, I do believe, was with the FPI thing back in about 2002, early 2003. The last all-party committee we had. We had one some years ago when I first came here, under Minister Efford, who was the then Minister of Fisheries, on the seal hunt, and went to Ottawa, and that all-party committee actually made a presentation to the federal parliamentary committee on fisheries, a Standing Committee on Fisheries. So, it does allow you an avenue to bring your concerns, to get different opinions to different policy issues and then when you form your policy at least you have heard from everybody.

The minister, with all due respect today, the Government House Leader, talked about public consultation. I think the Leader of the NDP is quite right. You can put a fine tune on what is public consultation. When you go out and you invite stakeholders in and ask them your opinion that is not public consultation. Yes, it is consultation. It is asking members of the public, invested stakeholders to come in and give some input, but it is not always allowing everybody who might have something to say, just because you are not a stakeholder of a particular group does not mean you should not have some input into it. That is what you would get if you had a public consultation process when it came to all major pieces of legislation.

That brings me to my final point here when it comes to how legislation is presented here. We all live with the system as it exists, but there are some serious weaknesses in the system. For example, the Government House Leader talked about doing thirty-five pieces of legislation. We dealt, last week, in this House with three major pieces of legislation and the Opposition only had a chance to get briefed on them the day of the actual time the bill was called in this House, Mr. Speaker. That is not good enough. That is not good enough when you take something as important as the Human Rights Code and you are going to make it the Human Rights Act, and the Opposition Party, who is expected to get up here and give some proper analysis of it, get a briefing on it from officials the morning of. We did that in the case of the Animal Rights Act that we brought in last week. The day of the presentation in this House we got a presentation that morning. That is not good enough. If it is going to let people be informed so that they can come here and be properly prepared to give some good conscientious consideration, debate and discussion to various pieces of legislation. It is not the most efficient, it is not the most productive and it is not the best way to act.

We already went through the process here one December when we took a quick piece of legislation because the Premier indicated that it was urgent to do it. We did it, no question about it. We went to a briefing at 1:00 o’clock and we were in here by 3:00 o’clock. We repossessed all the properties of AbitibiBowater. To this day, everybody, including the government will say we made a little mistake here, folks. It might be a big mistake before it is all over. That is where quickness, without proper consideration, gets you.

Maybe there was a sense of urgency but to bring that in two hours before you pass such a massive piece of legislation without giving anybody the proper opportunity to evaluate it of their own accord, when you are given it and you are told here is what officials think and that is why we should do this and you do not have the opportunity to go do your own analysis, that is not proper. At the end of the day because we do not have that efficient system of drafting and preparing and getting our legislation here with everybody having input, that is a major weakness in the system, Mr. Speaker.

My speaking time is up and I will turn it over now - I guess one of the government members will have something to say as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few minutes with regard to the private member’s motion that has been put forward by my hon. colleague with regard to the various - the resolution that has been put forward with regard to standing committees and so on within this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read through the private member’s motion that he put forward, just to make a few comments with regard to items number four and five. I just want to, I guess, go into the one where it states, "Establishing guidelines for the advance release of Ministerial Statements and the full text of Bills to ensure that members have sufficient time to examine and analyze their content..."

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague touched on that, but from a personal note I know, this session, there was five or six pieces of legislation that was brought forward that I was critic for from the Department of Government Services. I have to say only that the hon. minister and some officials in his department, from time to time when you want a briefing on it, they are very cordial in that way. I guess that is the way you get through it, but if it was a piece of legislation and the time frame sometimes you receive them, I have to say that we hardly have the time to research into it, to get into it and get the information that we need to be able to debate it in this hon. House. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is something that we should consider through this motion.

The other one I want to touch on is item number five, "Strengthening the operations of Standing and Special Legislative Committees to allow analysis of Bills with public hearings if required…" I want to take this back for a moment to some commitments that were made in 2003 in what we classify as the Blue Book, where the government, when they were seeking election at that time, stated that the House of Assembly will play a key role in enabling real public dialogue that will have a genuine influence on government policies and priorities. They continued by saying that government will adopt an open legislative process to allow maximum consultation with groups and individuals to open forums, particularly through legislative committees. Also, legislative committees will be able to call government ministers, senior civil servants and experts outside government to provide information and analysis in public sessions so that committee members and the public can benefit from informed opinions on specific issues. They also went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that committees will be expected to meet regularly outside of St. John’s if needed to provide better access to the general public.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am going to base my few comments on because we all know that this hon. House received Rebuilding Confidence: Report of the Review Commission on Constituency Allowances and Related Matters by the hon. J. Derek Green, commissioner, dated May 2007. Mr. Speaker, at that time, he went through some extensive research into how the House of Assembly operated and the various issues that transpired at that time.

One of the issues that he did go into – and I guess this one is very dear to me because in June 4, 2008, the Public Accounts Committee, through the Forty-Sixth General Assembly was constituted. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, some of the context that he had at that time with regard to the Public Accounts Committee had to be dealt with because he noticed how there was very little time when the Public Accounts Committee held meetings. He went on to say he felt that it was a political issue and that there should have been more consultation in meetings with regard to either public meetings or hearings.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe and the members that are here today - since we formed, we have had fourteen members, four of the original seven still remain, and I believe we have made tremendous strides with regard to the Public Accounts Committee. I really believe that. We have had fourteen meetings and quite a bit of work have been done along those lines. When we listen to the Green report, I do not think we have gone the full distance of what he is referring to.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned we have had fourteen meetings, but we have also had fourteen members. The hon. members that are on the committee now, they have met fairly regularly. The last three members that came on - we have had five meetings and they have been all in attendance. Some of my hon. colleagues, I am looking at now, one of them who has been there for the full duration – two of them, as a matter of fact, sitting side by side.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to the Public Accounts Committee and what we are referring to here, I believe we have to abide by the rules more and see that those very important committees within our hon. House of Assembly carry out the work that we are asked to do. For that very reason, I believe the work that has been done with regard to the lack of meetings, the political partisanship taken out of it – maybe not 100 per cent, maybe not 100 per cent, but I think we have made great strides - Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we have to adhere to the request that was made by Chief Justice Green that we should hold public hearings or meetings.

I believe once we reach that stage - and we have meetings coming up now, hopefully, the middle of July. We have met and reviewed the Auditor General’s report. As a matter of fact, various committees have met three times with the Auditor General and his committee, gone over the issues, and we will be dealing with those issues.

All I am saying is, I think if we are going to have a review on the committees, whether it is a standing committee or special committees of this hon. House, I think we should take into consideration what Green said and take it to the fullest; because he made a comment that, he felt that if the committees would not work now under the guidelines that he put in place, he felt that he would have to put equal numbers on them.

The reason I am saying that, Mr. Speaker, we bring up some serious issues from time to time, and I know in one particular meeting a motion was made that we would bring forward an official in an enclosed meeting, an in camera meeting, to just check with that official, but it was turned down. Why, I still do not understand; because as Chair, I can assure you, I have no political ambition on this with regard to any topic that comes forward.

I believe that if we had those meetings we would not be just writing letters back and forth – and that is good. When we started, we asked the various departments for their co-operation. I think three or four departments wrote back to us and said they would abide by the rules and regulations, and they have. We did not hear from the others, but they do correspond within the timelines that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time has come, and more so now that we are asking for a review of various issues within our hon. House of Assembly, that this is another step that we should take to make sure that the rules are carried out. We have been very fortunate since we became a Public Accounts Committee. We have also been blessed –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: We have also been blessed, through the Speaker and the Management Commission –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation, please.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say since we formed our new Public Accounts Committee in June 2008 we have had, through the Speaker and the Management Commission, a researcher has been provided for the Public Accounts Committee. That gentleman also did a total review on the process that is carried out through the Parliament in Great Britain, in our own country, and the jurisdictions throughout this country. I think each and every one of us knows how every jurisdiction operates in our country, and I think we should go by the same guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, those are the only comments that I have to make with regard to this. If a total review is done, hopefully the Public Accounts Committee can be included in that, so that, even though we have made great strides, we can take each issue and deal with them on a non-partisan level so that we can either call in officials from within the departments – and government outlines this themselves in the Blue Book, that they thought this is the way the House of Assembly should operate, the committees should operate. They knew there were problems in the past.

I served on the Public Accounts Committee the second year I was elected. When we were in government, we had meetings. The Opposition - as a matter of fact, Ambassador Sullivan was the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee at that time, and we called in officials from the various departments and the Opposition, and the government members - asked the officials questions. It was not trying to pinpoint something on a minister; it was trying to come up with issues to probably correct problems that were within the department. That has happened from time to time.

There has been occasion in the past when they went on the road with their meetings so that they could get the views of the people. When we talk about public meetings, it is not inviting all the public in, and that they take part; nobody can have a part in the meeting. It is just within the confines of whoever that individual is, called before the committee to deal with the issues at hand.

Mr. Speaker, with that, those are the only two comments I am going to touch on. I do believe the other one with regard to the various bills, the various pieces of legislation – I know government cannot get them to you as fast as they would like on times, whether it is through the printing process or what have you, but I believe that whoever is in Opposition – who knows what day the shoe will be on the other foot - regardless of who is there, I think they should have adequate time to have legislation put forward so they can review it in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I will take my place and have someone else speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege this afternoon to be able to stand and take a few moments to speak to this private member’s resolution on reform of the House of Assembly that we presented just a short time ago. As our members have been speaking to specific pieces of this proposal, then I would as well speak to one or two of the clauses that are involved in the resolution.

I would be remiss if I did not speak to decorum, being one of the rookie MHAs, I guess, in the House for this year - certainly not a rookie individual but a rookie MHA coming in, in the fall session, and being involved since then. I believe there is a lot that is left to be desired in terms of the decorum of the House of Assembly. You know, there is no greater witness to that, and no greater confirmation to that, then to talk to visitors who come to this hon. House of Assembly to engage and to just evaluate and take in the proceedings of the House of Assembly. In particular, as we know, most of them will stay for the thirty minute Question Period and most often we will see the visitor galleries empty once Question Period is over. People I have had the opportunity to speak with since I have been an MHA - and before, quite frankly, but more particularly since I became an MHA - about the decorum and what takes place in the Question Period time can be described by them quite often in a word, and that word is horror. It is breathtaking, it is very disappointing, and it really sets them back to come into the House of Assembly and see the way that forty-eight or forty-five or whatever the number might be at that day, that forty-five members or so of the House of Assembly engage in debate back and forth across the floor, so to speak.

We realize that it is something that needs to be improved. I believe it needs to be improved tenfold when it comes to decorum. When we consider this House of Assembly today, we have five members who sit in Opposition: four in the Official Opposition, and we have the Leader of the NDP. We sit with forty-three members and we have nine or ten of those, or whatever the number is, that sit right immediately adjacent to our seating arrangement. We have no problem with that; we welcome them and do not have an issue with that at all, but, as you can appreciate, in any crowd - you stand in a crowd - whether it is at a function of some sort, or a meeting and so on, if you have forty-plus people speaking while you are trying to speak then the noise level becomes quite disturbing. It becomes very interrupting. That is the case that I find, as a new MHA, coming into this House of Assembly.

I have never seen it before. I have been in many arenas in my life, so to speak; I have spoken a lot in my day. I have been in a lot of different settings, but I have never been in a setting where, when you stand and speak, no one listens to you. Not only do they not listen to you, but they all talk and so on while you are speaking. That is the House of Assembly, ladies and gentlemen. You experience it, I experience it, and we do it to each other every time we stand.

I could point out three or four people in this House who regularly listen very attentively to what goes on, but other than that, the rest of us - and I say us because it is not a matter of finger pointing it is a matter of pointing out the process, that when we stand everyone else is on a BlackBerry, as my good friend is here right now, or they are reading a newspaper, or they are reading a clip or they are just having a good old chat. That is the process, so to speak. That is just the way it goes in the House of Assembly. It is very normal for the House but it is not a very normal process is what I am saying. It is just what we do. We all do it.

As our own members speak, as Opposition members speak, as government members speak, we all kind of do it back and forth. It is just the way it is, and very innocent. Quite frankly, the speaking in particular more so than the other things, but the noise level that is generated really adds nothing to the deliberation and the outcome of what is being said at that point in time. I guess, basically, the bottom line is it is time to be respectful of each other as Members of the House of Assembly. We have all come to represent our constituents. We have all been sent by the electorate. We have all been sent for the same purpose. Even though we hold different positions, and most are on the government side, the minority is not on the government side, and some are Cabinet ministers and so on. There is a respect that comes with that position as well, and we recognize that. Yet, we are all here as MHAs and we have the same rights when it comes to coming into the House of Assembly. So we should be able to give the same to each other in terms of decorum, and we should be able to respect and return the same to the others as well.

Another part of the motion this afternoon speaks to number 2, "Examining the convention that the Minister questioned need not respond". What I find quite interesting when we come to Question Period, and the government members who have been involved in Opposition would know that preparing for Question Period takes time. I know for our own selves just being a small caucus, we spend a lot of time in preparation, along with our research people, in getting ready for the House of Assembly every day. We want to come and we want to question the government on issues that are important to the people of this Province. It is not just for the sake of trying to embarrass the government, or to expose a weakness or whatever the case might be, but it is to hold government accountable. Obviously, that is the main purpose, if you will.

Question Period is one of the main ways or one of the key ways that we can, as an Opposition, hold the government accountable by asking them questions. It is recognized as one of the most exciting pieces. As I said, it is the one that visitors want to sit through. It is one that they enjoy to sit and listen to the debate and the exchange between government and Opposition in Question Period. It is often the focus of media coverage as well. Very often it is where the scrums are generated from. It is what we see in the newspaper the next day. It is what we see on television that evening and so on. It is all a reflection of what took place during the Question Period.

What I find interesting about Question Period is that we ask very important questions - and in preparing for today I have taken time to go back and read Hansard in several days over the past eight or ten weeks that we have been here, and I have looked at some of the answers. I thought I would bring some of them in but I did not do that. I chose not to do that, but I looked at some of the questions that I have asked myself to ministers, and I have four portfolios that I am the critic for. While there have not been a lot of questions to some of them, others there have been more, and I have had the opportunity to offer questions to portfolios that I do not directly critique. Yet, to listen to some of the responses that we get back in terms of the questions that we put forward.

The questions, even though there is a preamble to them, typically the question is fairly straightforward. Mr. Minister, Ms Minister, whatever the case might be: Can you tell me why, or can you tell me how, or can you update us? The responses that come back in Hansard, it is almost like reading a cartoon. It is so evasive at times and it is so off the question. Again, that is just the process. That is allowed. Some ministers, quite frankly, are very, very good at it. It is hard in itself - and one in particular, that I will not look at and will not mention, of course, which would not be appropriate, does an excellent job of not answering a question. I guess they have just learned how to do that along the way.

That is just one of the pieces that I have noticed in terms of Question Period, and as this private member’s motion calls for reform, it calls for it at a time when there is, I believe, a broader concern about the decline in public opinion of the House of Assembly, in the decline of how people feel about us as members and what we do in the House and the real productivity that is here and so on. The most obvious place or gauge that we have to understand how the public feels about the whole process is at election time. We know that the numbers at election time, the percentages are way down. There was a time when 70 per cent or 80 per cent would get out and vote, and it drops to 60 per cent. As we look at the by-elections that we have had throughout this year, we know that voter response is very, very low. Sometimes that is a reflection of just the attitude of voters towards the process of the House of Assembly and so on. So, Mr. Speaker, these are just a couple of things.

One last thing I would like to mention is on number 4, "Establishing guidelines for the advance release of Ministerial Statements and the full text of Bills…" My hon. Member for Burgeo & La Poile mentioned the bills in his presentation and the fact that the scheduling of second readings, committee stage and third readings and so on and the minimum time frame does not always allow for the proper type of research for us as MHAs to be able to just debate the bills and to understand the bills, to listen to what is said in the second reading and to be able to take it into committee stage. When it comes kind of bang, bang, one behind the other, it does not allow necessarily for the type of consultation and debate that we would like to do.

Also, something as simple as a ministerial statement; again, I get them everyday and I am sure I will get another ministerial statement tomorrow. I am looking forward to it. We are trying to set a record here in the House of Assembly for the number of ministerial statements. Well, most of them are fluff, we know that, but sometimes there is good stuff said in ministerial statements though. There are significant announcements made there, if you will, and things that are important to the running of the Province and the programs that government offers and so on. We do not get that ministerial statement until thirty minutes before we come to the House of Assembly for our session to begin. Like clockwork, at 1:00 o’clock the door opens in the Opposition room and in walks the gentleman with our ministerial statements. Very dependable, I might say, never late, but yet never early.

Thirty minutes to read that statement and to understand the different pieces that are being covered in that statement, and then to be able to respond in a practical and sensible fashion – it is not about coming in and discrediting the statements that have been made by the minister, but it is an opportunity to speak to that statement. It is an opportunity to encourage what is in the statement, but it is also an opportunity to really challenge when challenge is necessary as at oftentimes there is. Again, that is our job to do that. To be given it thirty minutes before, really speaks to – it is not a big issue, but it is one that is on our Order Paper every day. We know that one, two or three ministers will stand and they will give a statement about things that are going on in their departments. I would encourage that if the statement is important enough to give, then it should be important enough to give in an advance time that allows me, allows another MHA, whoever is responding to that statement, it gives them time to have it, to read it, to digest it, to prepare a proper response, and to come in and really share in that statement, because that statement is meant to be a good news story, and typically, that is the way it is presented. So we would like to be able to come and respond and share our thoughts as well about that good news piece.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are the things that I would refer to in this private member’s motion. It is great to be able to present it in the House of Assembly this afternoon, and I thank you this afternoon, and I thank you for this time to be able to present my own thoughts, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, I have been in this House for ten years now. I celebrated my tenth anniversary in April.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: And during that period, I have seen a lot of interesting things happen in this House, and a lot of good debate, a lot of good, intelligent discussion, but I have seen a lot of politics being played as well in the last ten years, and I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this tops the bill. This tops it all. What we are hearing today is members opposite I think trying to, at the end of a session, trying to pretend that this is the most significant thing to all of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador today, is reform of the House of Assembly and how we function. They have been a bit cute about it too, Mr. Speaker, because if you watch the House of Assembly, and for those of us who sit here day after day, would recognize that the Opposition has been somewhat flat in the last week or two. They have not gotten much press coverage, they have been criticized for their lack of leadership, not being able to present an appropriate alternative to government, which is what opposition parties do, Mr. Speaker, what opposition parties do.

So they want this session to end, and when they wake up tomorrow morning, they want the tail end of The Telegram or the evening news to record that the Opposition is trying to reform the House of Assembly. That is how they want the headlines to read, Mr. Speaker, not that they had a terrible session, not that this government has brought in some very progressive legislation that was debated in this House and will benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not the headline they are looking for. They want to be seen here as actually trying to lead political reform in the House of Assembly, and they are being a bit cute about it, Mr. Speaker. That is the interesting thing, and that is how politics gets played by the Opposition in this House day after day. We just listened to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North get up in his innocence and talk about decorum and a poor victim of what happens in this House, but members opposite have forgotten; four or five short weeks ago that same member, because he was challenging the Speaker, because he criticized a member of this House by saying he was dishonest and would not withdraw the comment - because the rules of order say very clearly, Mr. Speaker, the rules of order are clear about this, you cannot be defaming an individual in the House of Assembly. He accused a member of this House of being dishonest, then refused to apologize and left the Speaker with no choice but to actually expel him from the House. He stands here today all mighty and says decorum in here is terrible and how we are victims of that terrible government over there who exercise the sense of numbers to overpower us, we are mere victims over here, innocent people and would not ever say anything or do anything against the Speaker’s ruling, Mr. Speaker. That is the hypocrite in the member opposite coming out.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the second speaker that stood and spoke made a reference to the Member for Port de Grave. He stood in this House today, held up this motion and said I will bring your attention to number four for establishing guidelines for the advanced release of Ministerial Statements. The same member stood today in the House of Assembly and said I thank the member opposite for giving me an advance copy of the statement, Mr. Speaker.

If you look at the statements made by members opposite this is pretty hypocritical. I say, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the motion itself and ask yourself what is the motivation behind this, is there much substance to this. If the members opposite want to have better answers to questions maybe they should send the questions over before they come to the House. That is an idea. If you want good answers – you heard the Leader of the Opposition stand today and ask the Minister of Health a finite question about the expenditures on action two years ago, in a $2.6 billion budget what about a company that billed someone for action back in 2008. Do you know the answer to the question? What a ludicrous question to ask the Minister of Health about a $2.8 million budget about what might be a $500 or $600 invoice sent to Eastern Health three years ago, or two years ago.

If you want quality questions, or quality answers, have some quality questions. One of the ways might be to, in fact, advance the questions to us in an advance of Question Period. Mr. Speaker, I am not standing here today as a member of government, government does not own this House of Assembly. We are all members of the House of Assembly and the House of Assembly is governed by committee structure. You have a Management Committee and ironically, Mr. Speaker, we have a Committee of Standing Orders. It is interesting because the Opposition House Leader, who introduced this motion today, is a member of that Committee. He sits on that Committee, Mr. Speaker, together with I think it is four other people.

He made reference today to the last meeting being back in 2008 and as I understand it, it was the first part of June of 2008. During that meeting the members present and those that were not present as I understand it were given a binder documentation, a jurisdictional scan of how other legislatures work and how other legislatures function and members in that committee were asked to take this document, read it, digest it, understand how jurisdictions work and have a look at what other changes might be made in this Legislature here. How might we do things different in this Legislature. So there is a process already in place, Mr. Speaker, and the member opposite who made this motion participates in it. My question to him is rather than come into the House today and ask us to vote on a motion that says we call upon the committee for Standing Orders to do such and such and do this and this, I say to him why don’t he do his job? He is a member of that committee. As members of this Legislature and I am one of them, have charged five of my colleagues in this House to be members of a committee. We all have that. All of us in this House are represented by five members who we appoint to a committee and say, you do the research, have a look at how legislatures function. Find out what is the best practice. Examine what we do here, is there something we can do differently. How might we improve how the Legislature works and bring back to this body here, this whole Legislature a series of recommendations. The member opposite has not done that, as a sitting member of that committee he is not said, listen people we should get together and have a look at this. He has not reported to this House that I have examined the material that I was given and here is my commentary, here is my understanding of it and here are the suggestions that I am making. He did not do that through the committee process, which is the Standing Orders lay out how this Assembly functions. So if members opposite want amendments to how the Standing Orders actually direct the activities and govern how we function here my comment is clear, follow the existing Standing Orders before you start talking about changing them to improve them. Members opposite are not even living up to the Standing Orders that exist. One of them is, lays out a mechanism to bring about change in this Legislature and how the Legislature functions. So you cannot be hypocritical.

The Standing Orders that we are now currently working with were established in 1951. They were amended, I understand, in 1999. If you look at the document it notes when amendments were made and 1999 appears here and the last one was 2005. So in March of 2005 this same standing committee made a series of recommendations and brought them forward to this House and this House endorsed them.

What is interesting, Mr. Speaker: today the Opposition House Leader is anxious and wants to present himself as interested in reforming the Legislature, but back in 2005 when the Standing Committee brought forward a series of recommendations, the Government House Leader of the day stood and spoke to the suggestions, spoke to the proposed changes and endorsed them and made comment on them. The Leader of the NDP at that time, Mr. Harris, stood and he commented on them.

Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing was: every single member of the Liberal Party who sat in the House at that time in 2005 had an opportunity to stand and provide commentary on the proposed amendments at that time. They did not have enough interest to do so. Not one of them stood to speak. They were not interested in what was going on in the House of Assembly at that time; they were not interested in bringing about legislative change in the Orders of the Day, making changes in the rules of order of this Assembly, Mr. Speaker – not at all.

The members opposite stood this week and talked about decorum and who has responsibility for decorum. So if you look at the Standing Orders now, it talks about the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order. In my ten years, it has only been the second time that I saw a point of privilege raised in this Assembly and it happened in this session. We saw the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House and defiantly – defiantly – challenge the role of the Speaker, challenge the ruling of the Speaker. It was that person, Mr. Speaker, who exhibited a behaviour that challenged the integrity of the Speaker, undermined the decorum that takes place in this House.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, in this session we have had one member of the Liberal Party expelled because of his behaviour, we had the Leader of the Opposition party stand and apologize for taking – basically taking the House on her back, trying to challenge the Speaker who is responsible for decorum. Then they have the audacity to stand in this House today and try to suggest that they are innocent, they are angels, and there is a problem in this House and they have been victimized by that.

Mr. Speaker, I am not naïve enough to try – and no one on this side of the House, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, will stand in this House and defend some of the things that may go on in here. We all have an interest as legislators in this House – we all have an interest in improving the decorum that is here, but there is a process in place, Mr. Speaker. We have a committee process in place. Let that committee do their job. Let that committee do their job, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member who made this motion, who introduced this motion, let him live up to his responsibility to all forty-eight of us in here because he is on a committee that has the role and responsibility to bring forward recommendations to improve how this House functions. He has not done his job, and he is trying to stand here today on the closing days of this legislature trying to look like he is going to deliver us from evil, and he is going to actually introduce some decorum in this House, and without his intervention, without his intervention, this House would continue to be an unruly place and they would be victims of that unrule, Mr. Speaker.

So I say, there is a lot of opportunity for change. There is a lot of opportunity to improve what takes place in this House, and I think when we look at all these suggested changes, and many more that we could all add. Every single one of us in this House could come up with a list of a half a dozen things that we think, if changed, would improve how this House functions. So no one is saying that the status quo should stay. No one is defending what we do. All we are saying is let a standing committee of this House do its work, and if you are a member of that committee – if you are one of those five, live up to your responsibility to be a member of that committee, a functioning member of that committee. If you do not think the committee is actually functioning well, you, as a member of that committee, have a responsibility to call upon the Chair, who happens to be the Speaker of the House, to call upon the Chair to convene a meeting of that committee, and let’s get on with the task at hand. Let’s bring about the necessary reform in this House that will improve how we do our work, improve the work that we do on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but let’s do it in the context of the already established rules of order. If you are going to preach the need for change, and preach the notion of having rules of order, then be prepared to live within them, be prepared to live by them, and we will not witness the spectacle that we have seen this session by having members opposite being expelled for their behaviour, having leaders of a political party having to stand in this House and apologize for their insulting behaviour and their direction and insults to the Speaker, and to challenge and undermine the integrity of this House.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, as a member of this legislature, not as a member of a political party or a government, but as a member of this legislature, having the opportunity to make those comments about the need for change in this House, yes, but let’s comply with and use the already established mechanism to it. Do not stand for the closing days of a session and try to make cheap political gain by suggesting that government has somehow or other, has now made this House dysfunctional, and you are about to save it, and you are the only one who can do it, Mr. Speaker. Do not be that hypocritical, let us live within the already established rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard a lot of tripe in the fifteen years I have been in this House of Assembly, but I have rarely heard it, Mr. Speaker, as clearly as I have today. You want to talk about cheap politics; we will talk about cheap politics, Mr. Speaker. It comes from a government who tells people what they want to hear when they are knocking on doors and do something completely different after. That is what the Williams’ government did in 2003, Mr. Speaker, when they went out and told people in this Province, on Web sites and in Blue Books, how they were going to reform the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador to do the very things that we present in a private member’s motion here today and what happens, Mr. Speaker? You get the spokesperson for Trust Magazine on the other side of the House of Assembly stand up in here giving up a litany and a speech, Mr. Speaker, on politics, the very member, Mr. Speaker, who sat in caucus and plotted to join another caucus. There is openness and transparency for you I say to the hon. members. That is the spokesperson for the government today, Mr. Speaker, on trust us in how we do our jobs. Mr. Speaker, I for one will not forget that this is a government that is not poised on openness and transparency. In fact, it is very opposite, Mr. Speaker.

They are a government who tell people what they want to hear. They are a government who will convince them that they are going to do something when that is what people want them to do, but they do the very opposite, Mr. Speaker.

You want to talk about hypocrisy, we will talk about hypocrisy because I have never seen it more blatant, more evident, Mr. Speaker, on any government in my life than I do every day when I sit in this House and look across the floor, Mr. Speaker, I see hypocrisy, I say to the Member for Trinity North and I listen to it, listen to it every day.

In 2003, Mr. Speaker, this government opposite went out and told the people of the Province that our aim is to create a system of government in which power is shared with the Legislature and the people instead of being concentrated in the office of the Premier and the Cabinet. Now, isn’t that something, Mr. Speaker. Here today, you cannot get a private member’s motion through the House of Assembly unless they shred the guts of out it and change the whereases and there fore’s and come in because, Mr. Speaker, they do not have the guts to stand on their own two feet and debate the motion that Opposition brings forward. They do not have the guts to do that. They come in and they shred it. They take it apart and they put in a wishy-washy clause that asks the government to do absolutely nothing only reach behind my head and pat myself on the pat for a great job that I am doing. That is what we have seen, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have seen.

The Williams’ government, Mr. Speaker, in 2003, in the PC Party Blue Book says, "Setting up legislative committees in key policy areas with the power to initiate legislation, propose amendments to government legislation, and investigate and report on the progress of government programs in their policy areas."

The Leader of the NDP got up today and asked questions on it, and nearly got her head lobbed off in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, for dare suggesting such a thing as openness and public consultation and review. My, my, my but in 2003 that was their commitment to the people of the Province. That was where they were going to govern. That was how they were going to do the business of the people of this House.

Mr. Speaker, in the other sections they talked about in their Blue Book, 2003 PC Party Blue Book. We are going to: "Ask the legislature to adopt family friendly election timetables and work schedules…" Well 2:00 o’clock the other morning, Mr. Speaker, when I was standing in my place in this House debating a very important piece of legislation that I was briefed on only that morning, Mr. Speaker, I tell you I felt like I was in the family friendly situation, oh yes. But, Mr. Speaker, whose family is up until 2:00 a.m. in the morning waiting for the Legislature to close. That is the kind of commitments they made. We are going to make it family friendly. Then they keep you here debating bills 12:00, 1:00, 2:00, 3:00 o’clock in the morning, if you want to have your say, Mr. Speaker. If you do not stay and have your say you do not get to have your say. You do not get to have your say. That is how it works.

They want to do this family friendly session, Mr. Speaker, the Blue Book says: "…so that Members can combine their work more easily with family and childcare responsibilities." Yes I can tell you doing homework at 3:00 o’clock in the morning with your five-year-old, Mr. Speaker, has to be tough, has to be tough.

Mr. Speaker, under a Progressive Conservative government, the House of Assembly will play a key role in enabling public dialogue. We talked about consultation today, having an opportunity to have bills to consult with people, to get their feedback. We just passed three pieces of legislation in this House of Assembly last week in which the Opposition were given the bills, Mr. Speaker, only hours or days I should say before it was debated. We had the briefings hours before it was debated on the floor of the House and now we have people out there in the Province today who did not realize these bills were going through. Did not realize what was in them and now they want to see amendments, all three bills right now that people are asking for amendments in because the time did not permit for anyone to have a dialogue with the public but yet, Mr. Speaker, the PC government Blue Book in 2003 said that they will play a key role in engaging and enabling public dialogue that will have a genuine influence on these policies. They said the Progressive Conservative government "will adopt an open legislative process to allow maximum consultation with groups and individuals in open forums, particularly through legislative committees."

Now, Mr. Speaker, what a joke that is. You have a Public Accounts Committee in this Province and you cannot get the government members on the Public Accounts Committee to even get enough backbone to vote to get one bureaucrat from a department to come in and sit before the committee to ask a few questions. Mr. Speaker, how weak is that? How weak is a government that is afraid – their own members are afraid to call in the very bureaucrats who work for them in the departments and ask them a few questions? I have never seen it so weak in my life, Mr. Speaker – never.

The government goes on in their Blue Book – the Williams government from 2003 – saying legislative committees will be able to call government ministers, senior civil servants and experts outside of government to provide" public "information and analysis in public sessions so that committee members and the public can benefit from informed opinion and specific issues." Well, no one told the members of the PC caucus on the Public Accounts Committee that this was the new belief of the PC government. The committee will not call a minister, they will not call a bureaucrat, they will not hold a public session – it is the Public Accounts Committee.

You are dealing with the expenditure of the people of this Province and they do not have enough backbone, they do not have enough guts, Mr. Speaker, to actually hold a public session. That is how weak the caucus members on that Public Accounts Committee are. They cannot go in there and sit there and hold their head up high and say: We have a job to do; we have signed on to do this job, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier, as the Opposition Leader was speaking, she used the words, ‘has not got the guts" - and used it again. I just want to draw your attention to section 489 of Beauchesne, where –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: – it certainly indicates that the expression, ‘has not got the guts" is considered unparliamentary. Mr. Speaker, we would like to have that withdrawn, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, given that the Speaker certainly not been in this position before and my short tenure as a Speaker, I will just have a talk with the Table Officers and get some direction, please.

Order, please!

On consultation with the Table Officers and referring to Beauchesne, section 489, the phrase "does not have the guts" has been ruled unparliamentary in the past, and as such I would ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if she would withdraw the comment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the comment "guts". I think the correct parliamentary language is "intestinal fortitude" and I will use that in substitution. What we have not seen is the intestinal fortitude, Mr. Speaker, of the members on the other side of the House to do the jobs that they are entrusted with. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. That is the entire problem here.

They sit on the Public Accounts Committee dealing with the taxpayers’ money of this Province and they are afraid to hold a hearing, they are afraid to hold a public session, and they are afraid to call anybody in. Mr. Speaker, that was the commitment that they made to the people of this Province when they were getting elected in 2003 – told people what they wanted them to hear, pledged to them what they wanted people to believe and did the exact opposite, Mr. Speaker. That is what they have done: the exact opposite.

Today we are in this House of Assembly and we are asking for the opportunity to look at the rules, Mr. Speaker, so that we can strengthen the operations of our Standing and Special Legislative Committees. We want those committees to be able to do hearings, to be able to analyze bills, to be able to take information to the public. That is the role of Parliaments; that is the role of Parliaments all across Canada, Mr. Speaker. We should not be restricted in our ability to do our jobs as MHAs.

The House of Assembly is not about the government. The House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, is a place in which the government plays a role. Mr. Speaker, we do not operate in the presidential system; we have a Premier who leads the government of a party who gets a majority in this Province. That is how it works. Individual MHAs control the House of Assembly and under our Standing Orders those MHAs do not have the ability today to bring forward private member’s bills to this House, something that is done in the House of Commons, bills that we could put forward.

We just saw the MP, Scott Andrews; bring forward a bill in the federal parliament on the Bagby bill. We saw Siobhan Coady, another member here in St. John’s; bring forward a bill last year, Mr. Speaker, representing an issue from this Province, bills that are going through the House of Commons. As individual MHAs in this House you either be in Opposition or a cheerleader of the government, Mr. Speaker. You have no power to bring forward your own bills, your own ideas, your own way of thinking in terms of encouraging, Mr. Speaker, changes within the House.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we think that there should be more guidelines established around private member’s motions. Right now, in this House of Assembly, the Opposition brings forward private member’s motions because we believe in them. We are prepared, defend them and to represent that issue, but, Mr. Speaker, the government opposite are not prepared to stand on either side of it and what do they do? They bring forward amendments that shred the entire private member’s motion, that actually ask that they do nothing other than compliment themselves.

I have a whole list of private member’s bills here that we have brought forward in this House of Assembly that were legitimate issues that we believed in, that we supported, and that we as individual MHAs should have the prerogative in our own Legislature to bring forward, and every other MHA should have the prerogative to have their own views and opinions instead of just being a cheerleader on the other side, Mr. Speaker, for the government when they have those motions to ensure that it is something that they can vote against without becoming unscathed, Mr. Speaker. That is what they do, they bring in amendments so that it asks them to do nothing or it compliments themselves as opposed to standing up and having the intestinal fortitude, I say to the Government House Leader, to express your own opinion and tell us exactly how you feel about it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a definite need for change in this House of Assembly, a change in a way that we do business here, a change that allows every individual MHA to be able to stand on their own feet, propose their own bills and make substantial change in this House of Assembly, not merely be a player and be dictated to in how we do our jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am quite pleased to stand today and speak to this motion which has been brought to the House on this Private Members’ Day by the Opposition House Leader.

I am happy to do so because there are many things in this motion that I have been talking about, both in this House and publicly with regard to things that I think need to be done in this House to have it run as democratically as possible. I would like to say to the minister who has stood in this House and who has spoken about what we are doing here today and calling it politics and I think he is calling it out to me now on the floor as well, he can say what he wants, Mr. Speaker, and I maybe be naïve when I say when I have this hope that we all believe in democracy and I do not think that what we do in this House sometimes is truly democratic and I am going to stand and say it and he can say what he wants about it. He can say that it is being political. You know I am realistic to know that I am not going to be the next Premier of this Province, so there is not much politics in my standing here and calling for a democratic process so I put that out to the minister who is no longer sitting in his seat but he will know that I said it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: He maybe in the House, I just said he was not in his seat. I just said he was not in his seat, I am allowed to say that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will go on, Mr. Speaker, sorry for making reference to the minister not being in his seat. I have just taken it back, I just took it back.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak specifically, there are two things I want to speak to, the main one I want to speak to is the issue that I brought up today in Question Period because it is something that I feel so strongly about. I have been talking about it publicly; I have talked about it to the media. I have raised it in debates here in this House and I brought questions today in the House. I have not brought questions on the issue before about our structure in the House. I have not brought questions before with regard to the committee structure and the main reason being because there are so many important issues that we have to bring and I only get four minutes in Question Period a day so I am very careful about the questions I ask. I want them to be questions that are very important to the people of this Province. Since the motion for today was a motion about how the House is structured and how we do our work here in the House and because of the reaction that we have had in the past week or so and it has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, with people in the public not being happy about some legislation that we have passed here in the House and they do not feel that they have had adequate consultation I thought it was legitimate for me today to bring my questions to the minister, to the Premier, with regard to the committee structure in this House.

Now, I have heard the Member for Trinity North say earlier that the Standing Orders were reviewed in 2005, and indeed they were, and we know that on the cover of our Standing Orders it says that they were reviewed in 2005. I have also heard the member say that the then Leader of the NDP, and the then Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi stood and spoke to this, and he did not have problems. Well you know what, Mr. Speaker, if I had been here in 2005 and I had seen these Standing Orders, I would not have either, because these Standing Orders have a tremendous section in it on the whole thing of how this House should deal with public bills. It has a whole section on it, sections 78-89 of our Standing Orders are about public bills, section 78-89 connects committees that deal with public bills to the committees that get set up in section 65, which are the committees that get set up at the time of Estimates, for us to meet with departments and question the budget of departments.

So the spirit of our Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, is that those committees that get set up at Estimates time – that get set up, actually at the beginning of a session, that the committees that get set up at the beginning of a session, which are legislative committees which have all three parties on them, that those committees then get referred to in Standing Orders 78-89 as the committees to which the Government House Leader may direct the Law Clerk to refer to one of the standing committees when we have draft public bills. That these are the committees that legislation, proposed legislation can be directed, and can be directed to, not just for the committees themselves to have a discussion, but the committees have the power to bring in witnesses. The committees have the power to bring in people from outside of government to come in and to bring evidence, to bring information to the committee, so that the discussion that is going on is a discussion that has different points of view brought in for the committee to discuss. Then, I would suggest, for the committee then to make recommendations to the House and to the government about how the piece of legislation should go.

This is the spirit of our Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, and if the former Leader of the NDP, and the former Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, stood here and approved these Standing Orders, it is because there were things in it that he thought were going to happen. I remember when I first came into the House in 2006 after my by-election, the by-election that I won. When I first came into the House and I started getting oriented, one of the first things I did was sit down and read the Standing Orders. When I did that, Mr. Speaker, I highlighted parts of the Standing Orders that really stood out to me. Anybody who wants to look at my copy can see.

What have I highlighted? I have highlighted all kinds of sections under the committee structure because it struck me – is this not wonderful? Then I found out that we do not have an operative committee structure when it comes to legislation, Mr. Speaker – when it comes to legislation – that the process of how we deal with legislation through the public bills that come to us is weak and it is flawed. Everything is in the control of the government, everything is in the control of the departments of government, and the consultation that takes place – when consultation takes place – is prior to the legislation being drafted, and when the legislation is drafted it comes here to this House sometimes the day before we even discuss it.

So, Mr. Speaker, having operating committees like they have in every other provincial legislation in the country, like they have in Ottawa, that is the way to go. We really want a fully democratic process. If we want a process where there is full consultation, where everybody who is an elected member, not just those who are ministers or not just those who are Parliamentary Secretaries, but everybody in all parties, and that includes the back benchers of government in the House, that everybody gets an opportunity to be involved in meaningful discussion and in recommending who should come into the House or into the committees to bring information to help with the decision making.

This is not a strange thing to expect. It is how the process works and why does it not work here? It has never worked here. It should be working here. It is about time we grow up in this Province and start running this Legislature like a democracy, like the other democratic legislatures in the country.

You go online to Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, go into their Web site, you will see all of their committees. You will see the pieces of legislation the committees are dealing with – the legislative committees are dealing with. You will see how many public hearings they have had, what witnesses they have brought in, the recommendations that they are making to their assembly, the recommendations that the parliamentary committee is making to their assembly.

You go to P.E.I. in May, all of their committees gave reports on their activities to date. You read their activities, they tell you again who they have had in, what the meetings were, what they are dealing, and recommendations to their assembly. They even have their parliamentary committees make nominations, make the recommended nominations to statutory bodies. Well, imagine if we had that here. Here what happens is a name pops in on the floor, there is no consultation ahead of time, and we are asked to approve whoever the government recommends. Imagine putting the power in the hands of a legislative committee? That is democracy, Mr. Speaker, and that is what is happening in the other legislatures.

So I do not know why this government is afraid to allow that to happen here – and we have never had it. I mean, that is what really upsets me, we have never had it. I do not think that we have ever had democracy in this Province. I am not sure we understand what true democracy is. That is why I am really glad we are having this discussion today, so that people who are watching and who do not know that every other legislature in the Province has these parliamentary committees, that they will learn about what is going on in other legislatures.

Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I do not know, a year ago, I remember last summer, actually, it was when the members’ committee, the committee that was looking at members’ compensation was in place. I had a conversation with a couple of MHAs from the government side of the House, and I spoke to them about the parliamentary committee structure. Mr. Speaker, they did not know that other provincial legislatures had parliamentary committee structures. They knew Ottawa had them, but they had no idea that other provincial legislatures had them. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that every other provincial legislature has them. So why did not this government, and why is not this government paying attention to this issue, which is a major issue? Why cannot we have committees where all parties together on those committees deal with the issues that are so important in this Province?

No, this government has got to control everything. They have to control every consultation that happens, they have to be in control. Well, that is not the way it is supposed to be, Mr. Speaker. We are supposed to be here working together. Imagine if we all were working together. Imagine if we all could be on committees together – and not just sit. I mean, during Estimates it is pretty sad. During Estimates it is sort of understood the only ones who are going to ask questions of the departments are the Opposition members of the Estimates committees, of the committees that are set up. I think once, I have heard a member of the governing party ask a question of the department. Once, in all the Estimates meetings that I have sat through. That is not the way the committees should be. Our committee structure is together, working together. I know the Estimates meetings are different in terms of it is us with departments, but nevertheless, it is not seen as a joint effort of everybody together trying to get information and working together. So, Mr. Speaker, I could on and on about this. I think I have made the main points with regard to the committees.

The other thing I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, because it came up in Question Period today, was the fact that the House Leader made reference to the sitting of the House. We could have gotten into an argument about what are we talking about, are we talking about a session, or are we talking about a sitting or whatever. So, Mr. Speaker, I decided to get some figures, and I am going to compare apples and apples. The apples and apples are how many sitting days government has done in a calendar year for the last ten years. Mr. Speaker, what we find, and these figures are kept, Mr. Speaker, not by us, these are kept by the legislative library. We can get them, they are found very easily from the Government – actually the Government of Canada, and the figures are kept and they are available to everybody. What we find, Mr. Speaker, is that this current government, since it came – and I will go back to 2003, in a calendar year, in a calendar year, the lowest number of days they have sat is twenty-five, and the highest number is fifty-nine. When I go back from 2002 back to 1987, and what we find is that the lowest number of days a government sat in the calendar year was thirty-four, which is nine higher than the lowest this government has sat, and the highest number that a government has sat in this House in a calendar from 1987 up to 2002, was ninety-three days. The also ninety-one days, and they sat eighty-four days, and several years they sat seventy-something days. I could go through the whole list, but I will not.

My point being, that in any calendar year, in any calendar year, there was no government, before this government, ever sat as low as twenty-five, and the lowest they ever sat was thirty-four, and they sat an awful lot more than that. So, Mr. Speaker, let’s compare apples and apples. If we go session by session, not sitting by sitting but session by session, the same thing pans out. So I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to talk things, let’s talk apples and apples, which I have just done.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today, by the way, to have time to say a few words with regard to this motion, but before I get into the gist of my presentation, which I trust you will all find very enthralling and riveting, there are a couple of points I want to make, especially in response to the NDP Leader.

As I sat here and listened to her, I just could not believe my ears when I – and I have been accused of not hearing well, and I thought maybe that was the problem I was having, but I do not think it was. She questioned the democracy of this government, and that we did not understand what democracy was all about. Mr. Speaker, here is an individual, a one person party on the other side of this House, a party consisting of one, who can ask questions in Question Period every day. Every day, can participate in Question Period; guaranteed time every day. Can address or respond to every issue raised in this House, every bill, every question, every issue raised in this House, has response time guaranteed, and she questioned democracy. She questioned democracy.

Mr. Speaker, she also raised the issue of members on this side not asking questions of ministers. No problem for us, we can ask all the questions we want, if they want to take it out of their time to do it. I do not think they want to do that. I do not think they want to take it out of the half an hour they have for us to ask questions of the ministers. Even in Estimates, the same thing – Estimates, the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the figures that she just threw across the House on sitting times, over the last ten years, the average of Opposition government’s sitting time over ten years, forty-nine days. The average of the PC government over those ten years was fifty-five days. Fifty-five, let’s get the record straight. So I had to address these things before I get into my presentation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled today, very puzzled, but maybe somewhat amused by the intent of the Opposition with respect to this motion. At first blush, Mr. Speaker, there would look to be an attempt to have the House direct the Standing Orders Committee to go to the top of the mountain and consider an agenda which they are going to give it. Now, go have a special meeting, a series of special meetings, do the review, but here is your agenda that we are going to give you.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and it is nice to see that the Liberals are using the Blue Book a lot. It is a very progressive document and a very proactive one, and I am not surprised that they are spending a lot of time delving through it. It is a great piece of work. Undoubtedly, they are trying to steal some ideas from it, but that is fine, we have lots of them to give.

One of them, Mr. Speaker, they suggest we are not following through on our Blue Book commitment with respect to openness and transparency. I am going to try to go back to my education days now, and put the class through a quiz here. Same answer – I will give you a little heads-up, same answer for each question.

Which government brought in the appointment of the Privacy Commissioner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We did.

MR. F. COLLINS: We did.

Which government brought in the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We did.

MR. F. COLLINS: We did.

Which government brought in the Lobbyist Registration Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We did.

MR. F. COLLINS: And which government brought in the Transparency and Accountability Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We did.

MR. F. COLLINS: You all passed, have a good summer.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Blue Book commitment that we would establish a committee to look at the rules of the House, we have done exactly that. We did not establish the Standing Orders Committee, but we have used the Standing Orders Committee to do just that. As a matter of fact, in 2008, it was given another direction to do a review, which is ongoing. It brought back a report in 2005, which this House accepted. It will now undergo another review, and in time, when it is finished, we will bring back the report of that review to the House. So that is following up on the pledge, the commitment we made in our Blue Book.

With respect to creating a family and friendly atmosphere by staying late at night, 2:00 o’clock in the morning, to handle legislation in this House, well there might be a little side effect of that. It gives rural members time, perhaps, to get an extra day with their families. I think most people would appreciate that at the end of the day.

So, this review process occurs periodically. It occurs periodically. It was reported in 2005, and there will be another report, eventually, from the one started in 2008. So there is a committee, Mr. Speaker, there is a committee in place. It is doing the review, the exact same thing that the Opposition House Leader’s motion is attempting to do today.

Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by my colleague, the Minister of Business, the Opposition House Leader is a member of that committee. He is a member of that committee. If he is not satisfied or the committee is not doing its job, it is only a matter of contacting the Chairperson, who happens to be the Speaker in this case. So what has happened to our review? In 2008, we were told to get with it. Where are we? I am sure the Chairperson would co-operate and call a meeting of that committee, if it is necessary, if he sees that there is something needed to be done.

The Opposition House Leader can certainly make suggestions to the agenda. He can do that. Any committee member can do that with any committee. So I am having a real problem, Mr. Speaker, I am having a real problem with the intent of this motion, why it is coming forth today, and second, it is so late in this session of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not a suspicious person by character, and I would not say I would suspect what the motive would be, but I question, I wonder if this is not an attempt by the Opposition, not an attempt by the Opposition to deflect attention away from the deplorable behaviour record they have had during this session of the House. I am not saying I suspect that is the motive, I am wondering if that is the motive, from the embarrassing behaviour they have had in this session of the House.

The Liberal Leader had to apologize to the House. It is never a nice thing to have to do. I am sure it was a demeaning time for the Opposition Leader. The Opposition House Leader, I believe, got evicted from one session of the House - kicked out, turfed, gone one afternoon. I believe the same thing happened to the Member for The Straits one afternoon, gave him the boot, out with him. So, who has not been abiding by the rules of the House? Who is responsible for the decorum in this House, or the lack of it? Who are the perpetrators?

I have big concerns, Mr. Speaker, as to why this motion is coming today. I have my suspicions, have my suspicions. I am concerned that the intent is to give to the public, give to the media today, that here we are, all of us in this House – and I think this is what the Opposition is trying to do with this motion. They are saying to the public out there, to the media, here we are, all of us, the members of this House, Liberals included, we have not been very good boys and girls this session. We have not been very good boys and girls. We have not been acting respectfully in this House. As a matter of fact, I just heard the hon. Member for The Straits a few minutes ago say that it is time we started to respect each other – a bit late for that, this session.

We are acting like children. It is a mea culpa situation is what they are saying. We need to clean up our act. We need to clean up our act, and we, the Opposition, are going to take it on ourselves to spearhead this. We are going to be responsible. That crowd over there, they are not going to do it. They are not going to do it. They are the violators. They will not listen. They are in control. They do not listen to anything we would say in a private member’s motion, but we the Opposition are going to do it. We are going to take this on our shoulders. We are going to take the ball and we are going to run with it to clean up this House. We are going to clean up this House. We, the political representatives of the people of this Province, representing our districts in this hon. House, we are going to clean it up. We Liberals, the Opposition, we are going to take the ball; we are going to be responsible for it, because they are not going to do it over there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one has to question that. One has to seriously question that. Is this a camouflage of some kind? Certainly, that is what it appears to be, to deflect attention away from the performance of the Opposition parties in the House in this session. That is all it is, and that is what the public will recognize it to be. They are embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, they are embarrassed by their performance this session, and they should be. They should be.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the seven items that they raised in their motion, I am not going to get into these individually but suffice it to say that number 1, perhaps, sets the context for all of them. Number 1 sets the context for all of them. They want the committee to consider methods of elevating the decorum of all members to strengthen the dignity and authority of the House.

That is a mouthful. I need a drink of water after that one. Mr. Speaker, I interpret that as another example of their continuing questioning of the Speaker’s competency and the Speaker’s impartiality; because we all know that the Speaker is responsible for the level of decorum in this House, but it is a shared responsibility, Mr. Speaker. It is shared with each one of us. Each one of us has the responsibility for the actions of this House – on both sides of the House. The Speaker is the leader, the facilitator, and he is responsible for trying to maintain decorum, but we all have a responsibility. We all have a responsibility. We do not need to change the rules to do that.

Mr. Speaker, considering the record of the Opposition this session, to bring this to the floor at this stage of the game defies credibility. Mr. Speaker, number 1 sets the context for all the other parts of that resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to mention one other one here, just to give some reference to the particular points of their motion, and I want to point to the one of the Premier making sure – if I can remember the wording here - dedicating one Question Period per week exclusively for questions to the Premier.

Now, undoubtedly you will find jurisdictions to support any one of those seven items. If you look for jurisdictions, you will find them. As a matter of fact, I think the parliamentary system in England gives such a session for the Prime Minister. So you will find a jurisdiction as a precedent, but precedents are not binding in this case, Mr. Speaker; it is what works for that particular Parliament.

The Premier is always available to answer questions, as I think he should be, and I think he realizes himself he should be, when he can be here. It seems to make a lot more sense to have him available at all times than to only have him here on Mondays, for example, or have him here on Thursdays.

Now, the Premier appoints ministers to head departments, and he expects ministers to represent those departments and understand what is going on. We cannot expect the Premier to be able to know everything that is going on in every department. He is good; there is no doubt about that. He is good. We all marvel at his vision and his intelligence and his understand and his knowledge, but he is not Superman. I think he expects ministers to be responsible for their own departments, but he is always here to answer question, when he can be; and to delegate a day, one particular session, for him, I do not think it makes any sense.

Mr. Speaker, I will cut to the conclusion here without getting into any of the other items. I just want to reiterate that this review is ongoing. We have a Standing Orders Committee that is currently at work pursuing a review. If the Opposition House Leader is not satisfied with its progress then go to his committee, of which he is a member, and get the committee on track.

I am not saying there are no merits in some of these things that he is suggesting, but it is to be done and considered at the Standing Orders Committee which is currently conducting this review. That is the proper process. There is no purpose in bringing this here today. There is only one purpose in bringing this here today, and that is for the purpose I just outlined, as did my colleague the Minister of Business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a privilege for me to stand this afternoon and speak for a few minutes on the motion brought forward by the Member for Burgeo & La Poile. I will say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I always count it a privilege whenever I am given the opportunity in this House to be able to speak and have a few words on any piece of legislation. I think it is an honour that we all hold dear. I certainly feel that every time I get up, and I am thankful for the privilege to be able to stand here and represent the people of the Lewisporte District and to speak to important pieces of legislation.

I am going to go through a few portions of the member’s motion, and I will say at the outset that there are certainly pieces of this motion that I agree with and there are some pieces that I question.

When we begin the motion, it says, "WHEREAS the House of Assembly is the cornerstone of responsible government…." I think that is true. I think this House of Assembly is the cornerstone of responsible government; I agree with that.

It says, "WHEREAS the smooth and proper function of the House of Assembly is essential to good government.…" I have no problem with that; I think it is important that the House of Assembly operate in a smooth and a proper way.

The third WHEREAS is, ‘WHEREAS there is a clear, present and pressing need for reform in the Standing Orders…." Now, I think that language is strong: where there is a clear, present and pressing need. With that language, Mr. Speaker, I do have some questions.

First of all, I guess, for the benefit of people who might be listening out in different areas of the Province today, and who might not be familiar with the phrase "Standing Orders" - I do not know if any of the other members actually did an explanation of what Standing Orders are. If they did, I missed it.

Standing Orders are the permanent written rules under which the House regulates its proceedings. The continuing or the standing nature of rules means that they do not lapse at the end of a session, but rather they remain in effect until the House itself decides to suspend, to change, or to repeal them. So our Standing Orders are in a little book that we were all given a copy of when we became members of the House. We have these orders which basically rule the way in which we operate in the House of Assembly.

We also have a Standing Orders Committee, which was put in place as required in section 65 of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly. We have a Standing Orders Committee, and I heard the Member for Burgeo & La Poile say that he was a member of that committee, but the committee has not sat in a while. That begs a question that I will get to in a minute, but the Standing Order Committee is a standing committee. It did a thorough review and brought in revisions in 2004-2005. At that time the Government House Leader of the day, Mr. Byrne, spoke to the issue, as did the Leader of the NDP at the time who was Jack Harris. It is noteworthy that no member of the Official Opposition spoke to the review that was made in 2004-2005.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Private Members’ Day, I think, is an opportunity that is afforded members who have real issues that are of importance to the people of this Province, and it is a time for these issues to be brought to the floor of the House of Assembly and to be debated. While this motion, like I said at the outset I agree with decorum being good in the House and I agree with the proper functioning of the House of Assembly and I do agree that there are times when, as members in the House, we do not show the proper respect to each other when someone is speaking. I agree with that. However, to bring this motion to the House of Assembly today, this private member’s motion, to take - we are nearing the end of the spring session of this sitting, within a while we will be recessing the spring session, and I would have to ask the members opposite is this the most important and the most pressing issue on your minds today? Is this really what you want to end this session with, us debating today decorum in the House of Assembly?

Sure we have a Standing Orders Committee. We have a procedure for these things to be dealt with. If you sit on the committee and you are not happy with it, have you gone, have you spoken to the Speaker and said, Mr. Speaker, we would like to call this committee together? Have you asked for an update as to what the staff is doing in reviewing the Standing Orders?

To me, this is putting the cart before the horse, Mr. Speaker. I do not understand this at all. Bringing this here today and actually asking the House of Assembly, the Members of the House of Assembly, to direct the members of the Standing Orders Committee to bring recommendations to the House of Assembly. Now that is a bit convoluted. That is not even logical I do not think. It certainly shows absolutely no respect for a committee that is in place.

Why not, as a member of the committee, ask for the committee to meet, ask to have a discussion and then from that discussion the Standing Orders Committee bring some recommendations forward. There will be a debate at that level and the members of the committee may agree that this and this and this, these are issues that we need to bring forward at this point in time. Well, that is the proper way to do it. You do not need to take Private Members’ Day to do that. I would think if I was a member of the Opposition, that I would see much more important things to be bringing to the floor of the Legislature today.

In one of the resolutions that they have proposed here, Mr. Speaker, it says, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly instruct…" and it deals with the "Methods of elevating the decorum of all members to strengthen the dignity and the authority of the House…."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I was elected for the first time in October of 2007 and coming in and taking my seat in this Legislature was a real honour. Getting used to the way business is conducted in the House was a little bit of a learning curve. It took a while for me to get used to the way things were done, and I have looked at parliaments in other jurisdictions and it is not uncommon for there to be some heckling, especially in Question Period, from Oppositions from one side to the other. I am sure it has happened in this House of Assembly for many, many years. As a matter of fact, I have talked to members who have sat in this House for years. The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South has been here for some twelve or fourteen years. I chatted to him and he has told me that the decorum in the House is actually much better now than he has seen it in years past. He has seen it a lot nastier and a lot worse.

What have I witnessed? I have witnessed some heckling from this side when the members of the Opposition have been on their feet, I have. I have witnessed some heckling from the opposite side over here, but one thing that I have not witnessed, I have not witnessed either member of our government being asked to leave the Legislature. I saw the Speaker at one point in time name a member by his district and, with that, the member on this side brought himself to order. I witnessed that on a couple of occasions with two different members, and the members brought themselves to order and the Speaker did not have to take any further action.

I did witness though, in the short time that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North has been here, he used some unparliamentarily language, the Speaker brought him to task on it. I remember the day when the Speaker stood in the House and the Speaker advised the member that this language was not acceptable in the House of Assembly. The Speaker even said, and I remember specifically, the Speaker said: I know the member is a new member here and I would ask the member to please withdraw the comments. The member refused and the Speaker had to name the member, not only by district but by name and ask him to leave the House. The Opposition House Leader, just a while ago, used unparliamentarily language and refused to withdraw the comments. The Speaker had to ask him to leave the House. The Leader of the Opposition was brought up on a point of privilege and was forced to apologize.

What I see, and I say this in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, what I see is that the members on the opposite side are the ones who have really pushed the limits. I know there has been noise from this side. There are forty-four people here and there is four there. There has been noise from this side, there has been heckling, but the difference is that when somebody from this side has been brought to task, when the Speaker has asked for order, order has been given, and I think that is the important distinction, Mr. Speaker.

Another one of the points that this motion calls for, it says it wants to examine "…the convention that the Minister questioned need not respond". Now, I know you can interpret that differently, Mr. Speaker, but there are times when a member on the opposite side asks a question of a minister on our side, supposing they may be asking the question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when in actual fact the file falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment and Conservation. I have seen that happen several times, when they might say I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for example, if you could respond to, and another minister gets up. Now if you take this, I guess, verbatim, what they are really saying here is that when the minister is asked a question the minister has to get up and answer it, regardless if that file is in their portfolio or in their jurisdiction or not. Now, I think that is a bit ludicrous. Do we want now to force ministers to get up and answer questions which do not fall in their department just because the members of the Opposition do not know which department handles that particular file? I have some problem with that, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing that the motion asks for, it asks to dedicate - and the Minister of Justice alluded to this. It asks if we would dedicate one day per week exclusively for the Premier to answer questions. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have read the Standing Orders. I have gone through them. I do not see, I say to the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, I do not see anywhere anything that prevents you from asking all the questions to the Premier if you want, on every day. You can do that, and since you can do it the only thing that makes sense to me is you are asking that there be only one day when the Premier could be questioned. Does that mean that you do not want the Premier up on his feet because the answers that he gives you do not like?

Another one is asking to establish "…guidelines for the advance release of Ministerial Statements and the full text of Bills…" Now without exception, almost without exception I will say, whenever I have heard a ministerial statement given here in this House, I have heard the people on the opposite side get up and the first thing they say is –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being 4:45 on the clock on Wednesday, Private Members’ Day –

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the proponent of the motion, the hon. the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

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

I appreciate the comments of my colleagues this afternoon on this bill and the comments of the Leader of the NDP. I actually started out with some interest in listening to the comments from the Member for Lewisporte. However I think he got a bit wayward there. He started off being pretty good and maybe showed at least that he studied the issue and put some thought into it. Then again, it is like his boss says, his opinion is what it is worth.

Mr. Speaker, this motion was made exactly to make a point. It was to make a point. It is not only about the private member’s motion that was put forward today, it was to make a point and to show the public of this Province exactly how the members on the government side would react. That is one of the points, because in your actions today, in their actions today, Mr. Speaker, they showed exactly what they think of the House of Assembly, they show exactly what they think of the traditions of the House of Assembly, and they show exactly what respect they have for various committees of the House of Assembly. By the way, the House of Assembly ultimately, this is the home of the people. If you respect that home, it says something about what these members think of these people, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition used the words intestinal fortitude. Now I think anybody out there knows what that means. She said the members of the government did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and speak for themselves, at one point. I think she is absolutely right. By the way, the attitude and the condescending behaviour of the government members today are not lost on the public, it is not lost at all. Their very defensive attitude and their comments never once dealt with the motion itself. I believe the Member for Trinity North even used the word hypocritical. He accused the Opposition members of being hypocritical in what we were saying. Now of all people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to suggest that word, hypocritical – of all people to suggest that. I am confounded.

The other thing was some of the frivolous comments that we have heard today from the members opposite. Thank God for Hansard, thank God for the media, because they will record exactly what transpired here today. A division, of course, will show the vote, will show the record in posterity of what the various members had to say here and where they voted in the future. That is all part of the history of the thing, Mr. Speaker.

Now, some people made comments that had nothing to do with the motion, got to talk about the Opposition members over here getting up every day ranting and raving at the government, saying this and saying that. Absolutely true! That is the role of the Opposition I do believe. If I may say so myself, I think for four members over in the Opposition we have kept the feet to the fire of this government pretty good. We have kept the feet pretty good to the fire of this government. I never saw such a majority government have such a reactionary, defensive posture to the posse of four over here. I will tell you, I have never seen such defensive behaviour, Mr. Speaker.

There are lots of comments about us as an Opposition getting up and speaking, we speak too often, sometimes we are too harsh and everything else. Far be it for me to say that there are members in the government who have not left their seat since their maiden speech. They have not left their seat, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly since they made their maiden speech, even to present a petition on behalf of the people from their districts. So, do not talk to us in Opposition about who is fulfilling their responsibilities in this House, Mr. Speaker, one need only look around.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I must go back to a comment that was made here. Several of the government members alluded to me, as Opposition House Leader, being expelled from this House. Just to be factual, because they only used the word expulsion, and that is absolutely true. I was kicked out of this House, Mr. Speaker, sometime ago. The reason I was kicked out is because I called the Member for Lake Melville, the Minister of Labrador Affairs a fool. When I was told by the Chair that was unparliamentarily I had a choice, knowing the rules of this House. The Chair gave me the rules, gave me the option. He said you either withdraw the remark or apologize, or you leave. I chose the option of not apologizing for that remark.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I say to the hon. member that he cannot do through the back door what he cannot do through the front door.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask him to immediately withdraw the remark that he referenced, and to the person that he referenced it to, and I ask him to withdraw it now.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for using and I withdraw using the word fool when I addressed the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member, he will either withdraw the term unequivocally and without explanation or the Chair will take further action.

I ask the hon. member to withdraw the term and withdraw it immediately.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It is absolutely immediate, Mr. Speaker, and it is absolutely unequivocal. I withdraw the word fool when I reference the Member for Labrador-Lake Melville.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member for the last time to withdraw the term or the hon. member will not be recognized any more by the Speaker. The Speaker has already said he will remain invisible to the Chair and he will be asked to take his seat immediately until he withdraws the comment and apologizes to the House.

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

I withdraw the comment unequivocally and I apologize for the remark made.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Now, let me get back to the importance of the day here, Mr. Speaker, and that is the private member’s motion about making some changes here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is the thought of this member that if this government had their way and it was not a constitutional obligation, they would not even be here in the House of Assembly. That is this member’s view of how the government respects this institution. Of course, Mr. Speaker, a lot of things start at the top and it feeds down. We all recall, of course, the Premier’s comments to Maclean’s magazine some years ago which right from the top showed what the leader of the government thought of the House of Assembly. Now that is factual; that is absolute fact. That was recorded in a national magazine when they asked what he thought of our House of Assembly, so we need not wonder sometimes why certain behaviours happen in this House when it comes to the government members.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the word hypocritical was used by the Member for Trinity North today and as we all know that word is sometimes unparliamentary here and sometimes it is parliamentary, depending on how it is used. Now, Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would say is hypocritical is what we see in the 2003 Progressive Conservative Party Blue Book and what we see being done by the party who espoused it. Virtually, every one of the references made in the private member’s motion today took pieces from, if not the whole parts of the Progressive Conservative Party Blue Book as to what they would do to amend the procedures and the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly. What have we seen since 2003 when those pronouncements were made, we have not seen one single iota of movement from this government. It was not an Opposition party who put that on the Web sites and on the Blue Books and put it in every household in this Province. Mr. Speaker, in anybody’s language, that is hypocritical when you say one thing and do something else. Now, that is the only thing we are seeing here today that is hypocritical, Mr. Speaker.

The other comment made here by the Member for Trinity North, and I do not mean to detract from what is so important here but the absolute condescending behaviour that he used in his comments today. I actually timed him. He had fifteen minutes to speak. He was nine minutes and never once uttered a word with regard to the content of this private member’s motion.

Now there is a person who has something substantive to say and he, in the same breath, turns around and says that the Opposition members did not present a motion in good faith, did not properly think it out, and there was no need of it. Now, that is coming from a person who wasted nine minutes of his speech here. Whether you disagree with it or you agree with it, you ought to have the gumption – now, maybe that is unparliamentary – the intestinal fortitude to at least lay out why it is you disagree with something. I have not heard, Mr. Speaker, one single logical explanation here today from a government member as to why what was proposed there is not factual, is not needed, would not improve upon, or at least start a process to improve upon the workings of the House of Assembly. Not a single utterance did I hear from any of these speakers today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my time is just about up. I think the points that we wanted to make have been made here today. There is no question that the House of Assembly, we feel, is in dire need of review – the rules, the procedures. Anybody who does not even want to look at something – that says something about it. Anybody who is so content to sit back and say: We do not need to look at that. We think that is okay. We do not think there is any need to do that. What is the harm in looking at the procedures and the protocols that you operate under? Nothing may ever come of it. You may sit down and start the process and at the end of the day you decide that we can tinker with this a bit, we can tinker with that a bit, but at the end of the day we are satisfied with the process.

That is all this resolution was about, Mr. Speaker, was to have an in-depth, detailed look at the workings of this institution that we have here. We can get into the muckraking we want about who said what and who was disorderly and who called out some insult across the House and whatever else. Sometimes we have had a very tumultuous atmosphere here and the Speaker has had his hands full from both sides trying to keep order. Nobody would suggest that you do not have a tough job as a Speaker of this institution, but that is only one facet of this.

This motion is directed to more than the decorum in this House; it is directed to the procedures. How the government members spoke to this resolution today is how they speak to a lot of incidents in society today. They preach that they are open and accountable and then they do everything they can to keep people, to keep procedures in the dark and not to have any change that might in any way reflect upon their behaviours.

The Member for Port de Grave pointed out about the Public Accounts Committee. Can you imagine a Public Accounts Committee that does not want to have a public meeting? Now, is that an oxymoron or what? We have a Public Accounts Committee that does not want to have a public meeting. We will dictate everything we do. What we will do is we will write a letter to the Minister of Finance, for example, we will ask him some stuff that we are concerned about and if he gives us back a response that is fine. We will not question him, and nobody is going to come and sit down and talk to you from his office and let us ask about this. We do it in Estimates. The same procedure, even if you adopt it in Estimates, would at least get you somewhere where you can ask questions, but our Public Accounts Committee dare not do that because that might peel back a few layers on the onion. There might be something that you find that is not exactly kosher. Anything that this government - they have a pervasive fear that by being open and accountable they are going to be found to be wanting. That is the whole purpose. Any institution that I am ever aware of that kept itself open that kept itself transparent and accountable, they improved themselves. It is a double-edged sword when you say you do want to be open and accountable and then do not be. How do you ever learn, how do you ever know if what you are doing is proper?

That is exactly the position, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in. That is just how the government treats this institution. Then there is the issue of how we, as parliamentarians, treat this institution. There is a whole pile of stuff in this private member’s motion that ought to be dealt with and that is the sole purpose of bringing it forward, was to see if the government members had the gumption to get it dealt with. Instead of sitting here and talking about it, what is good or what is bad, why wouldn’t we address it and have everybody address it upfront and let the public know we are going to address it? Instead of that, Mr. Speaker, all we get is a bunch of rhetoric. We get a condescending attitude. We get smugness and we get arrogance from the government members who spoke on this issue. That is no way to treat this institution, Mr. Speaker.

The motion was well-intentioned. It was well spirited. Nobody here cast any aspersions on anyone today in this motion and nobody cast any aspersions when it come to any of the seven items enumerated in this private member’s motion - none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

So anyway, we did not come here, by the way, with any expectation that the government members would vote for it. I am just surprised we did not get an amendment some how gutting it like we have seen the process be, which is one of the things we called to have changed anyway.

Mr. Speaker, there is no disillusionment on our part in knowing what was going to happen to this motion, but for the record we know now where the government members stand, and posterity and Hansard will show exactly where this went.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the resolution as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & La Poile carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are the Whips ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the motion as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & La Poile, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Dean.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & La Poile, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Johnson, Ms Pottle, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Denine, Mr. Dinn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Davis, Mr. Baker, Ms Perry, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Peach, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Verge, Mr. Young, Mr. Harding, Mr. Kent, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Loder, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Sandy Collins.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair deems the resolution as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & La Poile defeated.

On motion, resolution defeated.