HON. KAREN CASEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I rise today on a Point of Privilege. During Question Period, in some preliminary comments that were made by the Minister of Education about me, I found to be personal, found them to be uncalled for and I found them to have no bearing on the question that was asked or the response that should have been given. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, as Speaker, to review those comments in the context in which they were given and to rule on the appropriateness of those comments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I start the daily routine, on Wednesday, May 4th, immediately following Question Period, the member for Colchester North rose on a point of privilege. Her complaint was that during Question Period a preliminary comment that was made by the Minister of Education in answering a question was about the honourable member and that she found the comment to be personal, uncalled for, and of no bearing on the question that was asked.

SPEAKER'S RULING: Gov't Curtailment of debate at Law Amendments Committee. (Point of privilege by Hon. Manning MacDonald [Hansard p. 4616, 11/30/11]) Situation underpinning the point of privilege did not come to pass; no prima facie case of breach of privilege.

Yesterday the honourable House Leader of the Official Opposition rose on a point of privilege arising from what he described as the government's move to curtail debate at the Law Amendments Committee. This was based on the same situation that had been raised earlier yesterday as a point of order.

HON. MANNING MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. The discussion that has taken place regarding the Law Amendments Committee, there seems to be some confusion in government's responses to the questions asked today. It is still unclear how many the government has relented on that will be heard from tomorrow. I put this in written form, so you can rule on it at your leisure and there will be a form for the Clerk.

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. The member opposite knows full well that it was our government and this minister that got
Bayside started. If he wants to finish it, that is fine. If this minister wants to finish it, that is fine. But this minister, when I was a minister (Interruptions) Because he's lying to people.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable member, that language is not acceptable here in this House. You know that, I know that, all the members of this House know that.

HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a point of privilege. Do you wish me to go to that now or do you wish me to wait to do it later?

MR. SPEAKER: You might as well do it at this time.

SPEAKER'S RULING: LIEB Fiscal Policy Formulation (Pt. of Privilege by Hon. M. Samson [Hansard p. 29, 03/26/10]) not a matter of privilege

Secondly, I have a Speaker's Ruling I want to read from an issue that was raised here in the House the other day. The honourable member for Richmond rose on a matter of privilege on Friday, March 26, 2010. The Chair reserved dealing with the matter and indicated a decision would be provided at a later date.

HON. MURRAY SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege. I want to table here, in a moment, a memorandum that was faxed to our caucus office at 9:52 this morning, and I'll read it in the interests of the House being aware of what it says. It says:

"Please be advised that Premier Darrell Dexter will be absent from the Legislative Assembly on Friday, April 23rd, 2010."

HON. MURRAY SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose in my place regarding a point of personal privilege. As you'll recall, I brought the issue before the House that we had been informed an hour before the House opened that the Premier would not be available for estimates today, that he would not be here, and I brought that forward as a point of privilege.

SPEAKER'S RULING: A minister ought not to absent himself or herself from CWH on Supply if that minister's estimates are on the floor of the committee (Pt. of Privilege by Hon. M. Scott [Hansard p. 1247, 04/23/10]) Members have not been subject to an actual loss of time, but if the situation were otherwise that a member could be obstructed in his or her rights as a member, in effect that would amount to a matter of privilege.