Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the Minister ask the department that question specifically, because I'd hate to see other employees have to go through the same thing that these two constituents of mine had to recently go through. I wanted to ask the Minister as well, is it common practice for pay and benefit officers to go to meetings with predated and pre-signed forms for employees to fill out? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'll have to check into that as well. If there was agreement on certain timelines between the employee and the department they were resigning from or retiring from, that would all be case by case I would believe, but I will check into that to see if that is normal practice. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we know that these individuals are owed severance money, they're owed pension money and, Mr. Speaker, I believe they are owed an apology. I'd like the Minister to let me know when they will be given an apology for the appalling treatment that they have been given at the hands of FMBS. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'll do that right now. I'll apologize for the department in dealing with employees. We have timelines, we set our goals high to try to meet those timelines and, unfortunately, because of the work we've done around the corporate human resource service centres and pulling the staff together, some of the files have had to sit a little bit until we've had the staff in their new positions to deal with that. As well, as I was saying, because of this and pulling everybody in under one roof, it's become much clearer now that there have been many files that have been sitting in places that they shouldn't have been and actually should have been done. So at this point I'll apologize to our employees that we haven't been able to meet our timelines, and that in fact we are aiming to improve on that and make sure that they are treated in a manner that is responsive and reflective of the environment we work in. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Item 7, oral questions. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Health and Social Services in follow up to the questions that I posed to the Minister of Transportation and MACA yesterday with regard to the ambulance service that is provided by the volunteer fire department located in Hay River. As I stated yesterday, the volunteer fire department provides an ambulance service, which takes some vehicles -- as I stated yesterday, one is 10 years old, I think one is 19 years old -- out on the highway and services quite a wide radius of the road system in the South Slave area. So I would like to follow up on the response that I heard regarding how some ambulance services are funded by fee-for-service, some are funded by contract. I think the communities identified were Rae, Fort Simpson, Inuvik and Hay River. So I'd like to ask the Minister, the $25,000 that Hay River gets for the ambulance service that they provide -- which I said yesterday doesn't even cover the

cost of maintaining the ambulances -- how does that compare to the amount of money whether by contract or fee-for-service that is paid to other communities? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's $25,000 more than the community of Fort Smith gets, but less than other communities. But the Member's point is a good one, that this is an area where there is policy clarification that's required. Transportation, Municipal and Community Affairs and Health and Social Services identified this some time ago now, and we intend to be able to bring forward a document in the next few weeks that's going to lay out some options in terms of rationalizing and bringing some clarity to the whole issue of services both for ambulance services response on highways, and the more routine issue of the medical transportation in communities. It is a complicated issue, and it's one where there's been no clear home or ownership, and we've recognized that and we've taken the steps to try to rectify that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Chair will recognize the time for oral questions has expired. However, I will allow Mrs. Groenewegen to continue her supplementary questions. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister as well, the volunteers who provide this service out of Hay River take their training and their job of going and responding to motor vehicle accidents on the highway and providing ambulance services very, very seriously. It's all volunteer; they train and they get some funding for training, but what the Town is concerned about and what I'm concerned about is they do this in good faith on a volunteer basis, but what about the liability aspect of it? If we don't know whose responsibility it is, then how do we know who is liable if half way to a serious accident the ambulance breaks down? I mean this is a day and age of litigation and issues around liability. Who is liable? By the Town volunteering to do this, is the municipality putting themselves in a position of being liable, or who is liable? Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as we take this issue out of the murky shadows where it's been lurking all these years unaddressed, those are some of the issues that are clearly on the table to be addressed; the issue of liability, of training, of standards, of access to adequate resources, the relationship between municipalities, Municipal and Community Affairs, Health and Social Services, and we intend, as I indicated, to be able to bring forward a document that we will be able to make sense out of that. Out of chaos will come order, as it were, and that's the plan in the next few weeks, as I've indicated. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for that. I don't think it can happen too soon. In the list of people that he recited who are going to be consulted on this, obviously absent were the people who are involved in providing the service themselves, even the volunteers or the paid contracted ambulance services. I would like to know, will they be included in the consultation in setting up this new and organized system? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in part of the work that has already been done, there has been consultation with communities and service providers, I understand, to get their feedback on the service and how it could best be delivered. But as we proceed towards finalizing any recommendations, we'll ensure that we have proper consultation both with Members of this House, communities and service providers. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen. Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. I would like to commend the Members on both sides of the House for cooperating and observing the rules around question period today.

---Applause

Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 13, tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. Item 17, first reading of bills. Item 18, second reading of bills. Before I go on to the next item on the orders of the day, I would like to ask the Deputy Speaker to take over the chair to give a ruling on a point of order. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Members, I will now provide my ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. Roland on Thursday, June 2, 2005.

During Members' statements, the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland, rose on a point of order claiming that the Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay, in his Member's statement earlier that day had, and I quote from page 411 of unedited Hansard: "made allegations against me saying I circumvented the rules. Under 23(h) of our rules, I believe that is an infraction."

In reviewing Mr. Ramsay's statement as contained in the unedited Hansard, I note that the Member for Kam Lake made the following assertions, and I quote from page 407: "The Minister of Finance is taking a very literal interpretation of the Financial Administration Act and the relevant Financial Administration Manual directives in relation to the government's duty to consult with the affected committee and the MLAs. I strongly believe, Madam Speaker, that while the Minister and his officials may have upheld the letter of the law by consulting with Members in committee, through the introduction of a supplementary appropriation, they have nonetheless violated the spirit or intent of their requirement to consult in a timely manner."

The Member for Kam Lake closed his statement with the following remark, and I quote from page 408 of the unedited Hansard: "I object to this government using supplementary appropriations to circumvent the review and oversight function that the committees provide..."

In allowing debate on the point, the Chair heard from both Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Roland. In essence, Mr. Ramsay stood by his comments, and I quote from page 411 of the unedited Hansard: "In saying "circumvent," in my opinion the government did circumvent the rules that were in place in FAM directive 302. I stand by my comments that they did circumvent those rules."

The honourable Member for Boot Lake, Mr. Roland, in speaking to the Point of Order said, and I again quote from unedited Hansard, page 412: "...again he has clearly stated not just now about the Finance Minister but Cabinet has circumvented the rules."

Colleagues, what is now before the Chair is not whether the rules respecting the Financial Administration Manual and requirements to consult with Members were circumvented, but whether or not in charging that the Minister and the government had done so, the Member for Kam Lake has contravened the rules and practices of this House.

Firstly, I would like to note that in reviewing the foregoing passages from unedited Hansard, I find that Mr. Ramsay initially alleged that the government circumvented the committee's review and oversight function and nothing more specific than that. Additionally, the brief debate the Chair allowed on the point served to cloud the issue rather than clarify it in that a specific reference to Financial Administration Manual directive 302 was made by the honourable Member for Kam Lake in further alleging that further rules were circumvented.

However, your Chair's concern is whether the rules and practices of the House were infringed upon, and I will enlist services of our parliamentary authorities to assist in this determination. Firstly, it might seem to the casual observer that on the service and within a strict interpretation of our Rule 23(h) that no Member shall make allegations against another, but Mr. Ramsay's comments might constitute an allegation in contravention to the rule. However, as your Chair attempts to balance daily the right of Members to open an unfettered debate and exchanges that promote good government and accountability, strict interpretations are often recognized as impractical.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, tells us in citation 486 on page 143 that: "It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order. Much depends on the tone, manner and intention of the person to whom the words are addressed or whether the words are meant to be applied to public conduct or private character and sometimes upon the degree of provocation which the Member speaking had received from the person alluded to. All these considerations must be attended to at the moment as they are infinitely various and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them."

Using this passage as a guideline, the Chair finds it difficult to conclude that Mr. Ramsay's original comments constitute a contravention of our rules. While the Member for Kam Lake and the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake clearly disagree, your Chair can find nothing offensive in Mr. Ramsay's remarks that would go beyond a criticism of government and constitute a Point of Order.

To further illustrate, I refer to Marleau and Montpetit on page 526 where the authors tell us that the Speaker takes into account a number of factors, but "most importantly whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber."

Clearly, at the time, disorder did not result from Mr. Ramsay's comment; and for this reason and others iterated above, I must rule that there is no Point of Order. However, I will take this opportunity to remind all Members that in the House there is often a very fine line between what does or does not offend our rules and practices. I would caution you all of being mindful of your duty to treat each other with dignity and respect, especially when issues are emotionally charged and opinions differ. Knowing these two Members as well as I do, I have no doubt that they will continue to set a very positive example for all of us in this regard. Thank you, Members, for your attention.

Item 19, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Bill 6, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2005; Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act; and, Minister's Statement 24-15(4), Sessional Statement, with Mr. Ramsay in the chair.