The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of order. Normally a point of order is customary that you rise immediately when it happens. It occurred yesterday, in the Premier's response to the Leader of the Opposition's Speech from the Throne but I did not think it was appropriate, to be honest, to rise on a point of order with invited guests on the floor, et cetera.

The Premier said yesterday, and it is Hansard, that, "The inference was given by the Leader of the Opposition that it was customary to have a copy of the Speech from the Throne in advance so you could prepare your remarks. That is not the custom anywhere in the British Commonwealth. It has never been done. No member of the House of Assembly anywhere, in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Canada or elsewhere, gets these particular copies... It is not a tradition or custom that has ever been used; just so the record is clear." He went on to say other things but basically said that never happens, never has happened, is not a custom and does not occur.

For the Premier's information in terms of the alleged historian yesterday talking about it never happens in the British Commonwealth or anywhere else in Canada. Let me just brief the Premier. His predecessor, on every Speech from the Throne, provided me, as a former Leader of the Opposition, an hour-and-a-half in advance a copy. He also provided the Member for Ferryland a copy, and former Premier Clyde Wells provided the then Leader of the Opposition with a copy. I want also, Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, that when staff in his office where asked if a copy could be provided, they said no, we will not be doing that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.

I think substantially what the Premier said is correct, that it is not a practice throughout the British Commonwealth to give the Throne Speech - which is quite different from the Budget - to people in advance. Now, I am very proud if our government did it. I can assure the hon. member, it was the only one that did it. If former Premier Wells did it and Mr. Tobin did it they established something new in the House because it was never done before. That does not make a tradition. I just say, that is not a tradition. It might have happened in this House. Had the Leader of the Opposition made it known at the time, or the Government House Leader, that was being done, I am sure there would have been no problem in doing it, but that was what the Premier and his office firmly thought was the tradition and we were doing what we thought was tradition. But, we are glad if in our efforts that parliament reformed. Mr. Wells and Mr. Tobin provided the Opposition with that information we are glad, Mr. Speaker, because we are reformers on this side of the House, this government, and we will carry through with that tradition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair would say it is not a point of order because whether documents are given to members of the Opposition by government members, by ministerial statements, it is a practice in some cases. It may not be a practice but there is nothing in our Standing Orders which would indicate that the Throne Speech or a ministerial statement or any other document would have to be given to the hon. members of the Opposition by government prior to meeting here in the House. It is really outside the preview of the Chair because there is nothing in our Standing Orders, so there is really not a point of order.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to the late Joe Mullins. As we all were, I was shocked to hear of his passing on December 21 past.

I was very proud to know Joe and always considered him to be first and foremost a family person. When he spoke of his wife, Marie, and son, Peter, his pride and his love for them was overwhelming. People will remember Joe as a community servant, a broadcaster, a sports icon in both hockey and baseball, and a champion for the needy of our Province. I hope they primarily remember him as a family person.

The people of Corner Brook and, indeed, the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, were left in a state of shock by his sudden passing. Everybody knew Joe and respected him for his tireless contributions to public service and charitable organizations. He was involved in all aspects of life in Corner Brook. In fact, many people, including myself, often referred to Joe as Mr. Corner Brook because he was truly one of our community's greatest ambassadors. The high regard in which he was held by the people of Corner Brook was best demonstrated by the fact that he was elected to city council with a strong level of support, and he was serving his second year as deputy mayor.

My first dealings with Joe occurred through our mutual love of sports, but I also had the pleasure of working with him through the Janeway Children's Hospital Foundation in which Joe played a pivotal role in the annual telethon. It is not at all surprising to hear that Joe's last actions on earth were associated with helping a charitable organization and recognizing individuals from the community while volunteering his time as a broadcaster for a hockey game. That is certainly how he spent the majority of his life - helping others.

Our caucus was proud to have Joe as a member of our team, and he will be sadly missed. Joe Mullins was loved by all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Grace Sparkes, a woman who made her mark on the political and social fabric of our Province. While Ms Sparkes was not a member of the political party I serve under, she was a woman who had strong opinions on many issues in this Province, and she was respected by all she met.

She was born Grace Margaret Patten in Grand Bank on February 19, 1908, and she was later honoured for her contributions with the naming of the Grace Sparkes House in my district, the District of Burin-Placentia West. This house provides safe accommodations, support and services to the women and children who are victims of family violence on the Burin Peninsula, a vital service that we all wish we did not need, but unfortunately we do.

Ms Sparkes, in her life, also received numerous other accolades, including honourary degrees from Mount Allison and Memorial University, membership in the Curling Hall of Fame, Alumna of the Year at Memorial University as a founding member there and, most recently, as a Woman of Exceptional Achievement at the Fifteenth Annual Cabot Club Dinner. A teacher, journalist, and actress, she also was a tireless volunteer with contributions to the YMCA, Canadian Red Cross, Kiwanis Music Festival, Memorial University's Board of Regents, the United Church of Canada and the National Council on Aging.

One thing I admired most about Grace Sparkes was her pioneering dedication to the political process in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether by her ardent support of the return of responsible government in 1945, or her running in the Province's first provincial and federal elections. Her pioneering achievements are a shining example for all women who want to get involved in the political process. Her contributions to individuals, communities and the Province are to be commended. Her energy and perspectives will most surely be missed, and I ask all members to join with me in paying tribute to this remarkable woman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I concur with my colleague from Burin-Placentia West. I would like to be associated with her remarks and also add my tribute as well.

The passing of Gracie Sparkes is a sad moment in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also a time to celebrate a remarkable life and the colossal contribution that one person with vision and conviction can make to her community.

Gracie Sparkes earned a place of honour in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador by taking a firm and vocal stand in the debates fifty-five years ago on the future of our country. The challenging circumstances and the bitter arguments at the time called for people of unwavering conviction, tremendous challenge, and great strength of character - and Gracie Sparkes had all of those qualities in bountiful supply. Never the defeatist, she continued to cultivate the fierce pride and independence of character that burns deeply in the Newfoundland and Labrador psyche today.

Her contribution extended far beyond the political arena. It went into our classrooms, our university, our curling arenas, our newspapers, and into our homes through the medium of television as she brought to life Ted Russell's feisty and jovial character, Grandma Walcott. She played the role with the same gusto she brought to all her endeavors, and her character was embraced with the same affection and admiration with which she herself has been embraced.

In so many ways, for so many years, Gracie has served as a role model and a trailblazer for women in our Province and in our party. We were proud last year to inaugurate, in Gracie's honour, a special award celebrating the outstanding contribution of Newfoundland and Labrador women to our Province. Even at the remarkable age of ninety-five, she was a character full of vigour and enthusiasm, challenging us through her words and her example to take on the difficult tasks and to persevere on the strength of our convictions.

Throughout her life, Gracie Sparkes embodied the true spirit of Newfoundland and Labrador. She went where no one before her had gone and laid the foundation on which so many of us have been able to build.

Her legacy is alive in the hearts and lives of all who were privileged to know her. She will never be forgotten.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Michael Meade of Curling, Corner Brook, on his recent win of the gold medal in the aerials event, at the Junior National Freestyle Ski Championships held in Le Relais, Quebec.

Michael, known as Mogul Mike, is a member of the Marble Mountain Freestyle Ski Team and is best known as a moguls skier.

Currently a sixteen-year-old student at Regina High School in Corner Brook, Michael has been competing in competitions since he was ten. He recently finished competing for Team Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2003 Canada Winter Games in Campbellton, New Brunswick, where he finished eighteenth in the men's aerials. This was Michael's second time representing this Province, as he competed in the 1999 Canada Games in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Michael on his tremendous effort and accomplishments, as he has spent the last year recovering from surgeries on his knees, but still competed with bandages on both legs. I applaud him on his well-deserved win and determination.

I would also like to acknowledge and commend all individuals of this Province who participated, assisted and/or sponsored the national championships and/or the Canada Games, on the dedication and efforts to their sport and their Province. On behalf of myself and all Members of the House of Assembly, I would like to thank them for their efforts and for proudly representing Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few weeks ago I had the honour to participate, along with more than 280 individuals, in the Run for the Janeway 2003 fundraiser in Conception Bay North.

This event, thought to be one of the largest one-day fundraising events in the history of the Janeway, raised more than $41,000, which will be presented later this year during the annual Janeway Children's Hospital Foundation Telethon.

I would specifically like to recognize Bradley Hussey of Clarke's Beach for raising in excess of $7,200, and David Dwyer of Shearstown for collecting in excess of $5,300. A special thanks is also extended to the major sponsors for their tremendous effort and contribution in this event.

Run for the Janeway, which began last year under the chairmanship of Mr. Alex Dawe of Clarke's Beach, and other volunteers, was developed to show appreciation and support for the Janeway Hospital. Mr. Dawe experienced first-hand the resourcefulness and helpfulness of the hospital as his grandson spent the first of his only seven-month life there.

It is with great pride, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to congratulate all participants and the organizing committee on their efforts of making this event a success, as well as all those who supported such a worthy cause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate two residents of Bonavista North who participated in the special sports category in the recent Canada Winter Games in New Brunswick.

Twenty-two-year-old Bradley Rideout of Newtown was a participant in Wheelchair Basketball and did exceptionally well. This was Bradley's second appearance at the Canada Games in the sport that he started playing in, in 1993, at the Newfoundland and Labrador School for the Deaf in St. John's. Bradley is now looking forward to his participation with our provincial team in the upcoming National Senior Championships in April of this year. Bradley has completed his high school education and is now trying to get into the College of the North Atlantic.

Second participant, Mr. Speaker, twelve-year-old Courtney Hunt of Centreville joined figure skating seven years ago and now is competing as a Special Olympian in Canada's version of the Olympic Games. Courtney performed at the Winter Games and did really well. I heard one radio reporter who said that she "stole the show" when she appeared on ice and did her program. I spoke with her and her mother after they returned home last week. Courtney made a lot of new friends and gained a great deal of confidence which she hopes will help her in her future competitions.

For both of these participants, their participation in the Canada Winter Games has been an experience they will never forget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, two years ago this government put in place a home heating fuel rebate program to assist low income households.

I am pleased to announce today that we are implementing a similar program this year to provide some relief for low income families -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - as well as for seniors and other individuals who have been particularly hard hit by price increases for home heating fuel.

As before, this program will provide a $100 rebate to those who are eligible. It will apply to households that use furnace oil, stove oil or propane gas as the primary source of heat in the six months up to the end of March this year. To be eligible, an individual must have received, since July 2002, any amount of the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit, the Newfoundland and Labrador HST credit, the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors Benefit, or received social assistance in January to May of this year.

Mr. Speaker, price regulation has helped stabilize petroleum prices in this Province but government has no ability to control the world price of crude oil. As much as we would like to do otherwise, we cannot afford to provide a rebate to families of all income levels. We are, therefore, implementing this rebate program to provide some relief to low income earners who are most vulnerable to price increases.

Application forms will be published in the Province's daily and weekly newspapers in the coming weeks. Those forms will also be available from the Department of Finance, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, Government Services Centres and the Seniors Resource Centre in St. John's, as well it can be downloaded from the government Web site.

Mr. Speaker, this is an estimated cost of $2 million and we believe that this will go a long ways to show people of the Province, and to assist low income earners, that we are appreciative of what is happening with respect to the world crude oil prices.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, on this side of the House, want to say that this is a good initiative. We approved of this initiative two years ago. We wonder why it has taken so long, in view of the harsh winter we have had, in view of the cold weather and in view of the requests that have come to the government by seniors, by low income earners for some assistance. The $100 is relatively low in comparison to the amount of money that has been expended, the extra money expended this year to heat homes.

Also, we want to note that while we acknowledge that the rate for electricity has not increased, yet the consumption that many people have, and low income earners have, has also gone up considerably. There is no recognition here of any help for people whose source of heat is by way of electricity. We say again, this is a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - good initiative, however, we do note that it has been a little late in coming; but, again, I say probably next year we could do it a little earlier.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do not oppose this measure, although $100 will not go very far with heating costs, in some cases, of almost double. We have just seen another nine cent a litre increase for cost of fuel oil. I want to remind the government that three years ago when they had an income tax rebate or tax cut program for mostly benefitting wealthy people in the Province, we put forth a program that would provide a 15 per cent rebate for all heating costs, whether it be by electricity or by home heating fuel, which would have gone a long way to reduce the impact of heating costs on people in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Newfoundland and Labrador All-Party Committee on 2J3KL and 3Pn4RS Cod Fisheries presented its report to Robert Thibault, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa on March 17, 2003. We presented a united Newfoundland and Labrador position on the critical issues of the future of the Northern and Gulf cod stocks.

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador All-Party Committee on the cod fishery. I want to congratulate all Members of the House of Assembly that participated in this process for their vision and their dedication toward stability and solid management of these important resources.

In an unprecedented action, we passed a unanimous resolution in this House of Assembly to form an all-party committee to prepare our position. Represented on this committee are the leaders and representatives of all political parties in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly. Also represented are Newfoundland and Labrador's Members of Parliament and the Senate, and I would like to thank all of them for their contribution and thank Mr. John Efford for his ability and his time to chair the committee. The Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party are in solidarity on its recommendations to rebuild, to protect, and to manage these important cod fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, any closure will have a devastating impact on the economic and social well-being of not only those directly affected, but our entire population. The fishery brings wealth to our economy and some 4,400 people will be significantly impacted. Many will lose their jobs, many will have lower incomes, and many will be forced to move.

Mr. Speaker, we have been, and continue to be, guided by the science in the resource management decision making process. However, it is critical that we be confident of the science before any decision is made which will affect so many lives. Our work has shown that there are alternatives to closing fisheries.

We recognize that tough decisions will have to be made to rebuild these stocks. We are prepared to make these tough decisions. However, we firmly believe that simply closing fisheries without addressing the most serious and controllable reasons for the decline in cod stocks, is not the right decision. Our holistic plan identifies several actions that will contribute to rebuilding our stocks and our fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, we agree that the impact of fishing on stock rebuilding must be reduced; however, we feel it can be done without closing these fisheries. We have recommended other measures that include restricting harvesting gear to hook and line only, reducing seasons, increasing enforcement, closing fishing grounds, and by closing other fisheries such as the caplin fishery and also the recreational cod fishery in areas where stocks are experiencing a downward trend.

In an effort to save the fish and the fishery, there has to be an increase in the level of scientific research on fish stock, on seals, and the marine ecosystem. We must work to rebuild the stocks through enhancement measures. We must take action to reduce the over-populated seal resource, and take strong, decisive and immediate action to end the threat of foreign overfishing.

Mr. Speaker, our position was prepared as a result of many decisions, collectively and individually, with representatives of fish harvesters, processors, plant workers, community leaders, and scientists. We firmly believe it represents the vision and pragmatic approach needed to move the fishery forward and bring stability and sustainability to people, to companies, and to communities in our Province.

Should the scientific advice recommend no other option but to close these fisheries, we stand united in our position that the Government of Canada has the responsibility to help mitigate the impacts on people and communities. Mr. Speaker, we need to focus on the growth and renewal in Newfoundland and Labrador's fishery, not on its demise.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this time to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for an advance copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, as she said throughout her statement, this was an unprecedented move. It was an unprecedented move when we unanimously agreed to strike the all-party committee, and I think it is safe to say that it was an unprecedented move that we managed to stay together for four months and come out with a report that we all could manage to agree on, that we achieved consensus on quite a variety of topics and issues, quite controversial topics and issues, with twenty-two recommendations to put forward to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, which we did, as the minister said, a couple of days ago, on Monday past.

Mr. Speaker, we knew when we went into this that we had two tasks in mind. One was to try and keep the fishery open. The second, and probably more important, was to try to find a way to ensure some stock rebuilding in the Northern cod and Northern Gulf cod areas.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that we put together a plan, and put it forward to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that, when taken in its totality, when taken as a package - not taken singularly, not cherry-picked - when taken and implemented as a package, will go some ways towards ensuring some rebuilding and will make sure that we can have a limited commercial fishery in the West Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and Southern Labrador, and also an index in the sentinel fishery on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, certainly since, unfortunately, some of this was leaked in advance of our presentation to the minister, there has been, as we expected, I guess, quite a bit of controversy surrounding it. I think it is fair to point out that what we have to understand here from the numbers that were put together for us by some of the bureaucrats here in the Confederation Building, we had some numbers that showed the millions of dollars that will be lost if we lose these fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the west side of the Northern Peninsula, and the Southwest Coast of the Province, and Southern Labrador - the area that the minister represents - and other areas throughout the Province, not just (inaudible)-

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: We know, Mr. Speaker, that those areas, in an area like Southern Labrador, where we do have hard and fast numbers on it, where $4.5 million was estimated by the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company to be the net economic impact, or the gross economic impact of this fishery on that area, those areas of the Province cannot afford this hit. We have been through a closure in this fishery before, and the reason we are saying we cannot afford the hit of a closure but we can take these other actions is because we know that just simply closing it and not dealing with the other issues will not solve the problem. If it would, then we would be supporting it; but it will not, it has not, and it will not in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say thank you to all the people who participated in the all-party committee. There were probably about twenty of us, as politicians and support staff. While it was a difficult task and a controversial issue, I would like to say thanks for sticking together for once in Newfoundland and Labrador on a controversial issue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This report represents a very great amount of work by politicians of all stripes, both federal and provincial, representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to compliment the process and also to compliment the minister's staff on working, in very trying circumstances, to put together a very fine document that was presented on Monday in Ottawa.

As has been said, the very key recommendations here are that we should keep in place an information fishery in 2J+3KL. The sentinel and index fishery must remain in place to keep the fishermen and fish harvesters in the equation and to make sure that every person in this Province has a short term and a long term stake in the rebuilding of those stocks, that a hook and line fishery in the Gulf is also, we believe, sustainable based on the information before us.

The key, as well, is that we have, in addition to that, specific measures to rebuild those stocks, ones that have not been put in place since the 1992 moratorium, things like we have recommended here, eliminating shrimp trawling in specific areas where juvenile cod are rebuilding such as the (inaudible) channel. The key -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, for a minute to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Key recommendations are going to call for some sacrifice on the part of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, such as the elimination of shrimp trawling in certain areas, such as the recreational fishery, such as the caplin, cutting out the caplin, directed fishery of the caplin. The key now is what is going to happen next. We have already on record the support of the NDP fisheries critic, Peter Stoffer, a member of the House of Commons Fisheries Committee, and we have asked for the support of the House of Commons Fisheries Committee and the Senate Fisheries Committee, which we hope will be forthcoming very soon. We really need a positive decision by the Minister of Fisheries for all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to update the House on the Cabinet Committee on Air Policy, Aerospace and the Military.

The Committee was established in December 2001, shortly after 9-11 and the concerns it created re security and also right on the heels of the withdrawal of Air Canada's services in certain regions of the Province. The Committee was directed to provide advice on commercial air presence into and out of various parts of the Province with particular emphasis on transportation issues Gander and west, and to develop a coordinated response to decreased seat availability in and out of our Province. The Committee was also mandated to review issues surrounding the aerospace industry and military presence and to recommend policy initiatives to address these areas of concern.

Mr. Speaker, to fulfill its mandate the Committee met with the principal stakeholders involved with these issues including Air Canada Jazz, Air Labrador, Provincial Airlines, CFB Goose Bay Allied Commanders and Wing Commander Glynne Hines, as well as various municipal officials.

An example of our activities, as recently as last week, my colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and I met with the Mayor of Labrador City and his officials to discuss their concerns with the high cost of charter services for residents of Labrador.

While air access and the military are within federal jurisdiction, I have continued efforts to ensure that the Province's concerns on air access and the military have been addressed with the Government of Canada in the preparation of the report and since. I have met with federal ministers and the Province's representatives in the House of Commons and other MPs as well and senators. I have also discussed military participation in the low level training program at CFB Goose Bay with the German, Italian, British and Dutch Ambassadors to Canada.

As a result of all of this activity, and the information gathered from all sources, as Chair, I am pleased to make available in the House today a copy of the report and its recommendations of this committee on Air Policy, Aerospace, and the Military. The government has already acted on several of the recommendations and work will continue on the remaining items.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working closely with my colleagues as we continue our efforts to enhance our air access to and within Newfoundland and Labrador, and to assist in the growth of the aerospace industry and of the military presence in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Gander, and St. John's.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for a copy of his ministerial statement on Air Policy, Aerospace, and the Military. I would like to compliment the minister and his committee on the work they have done to date, and I would also like to advise them that, we, on this side of the House, are prepared to assist them at any time in these very important issues. Issues, Mr. Speaker, that not only affect the convenience of the travelling public in this Province, but also have a major impact on the economic well-being of our Province.

Since I only received a copy of the statement about half an hour ago, I would like to tell the minister that we will respond more formally with each specific item after we have a chance to review it more thoroughly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of the committee's report on air transportation in the Province. I would like to say to the minister that this committee may have been set up to deal with problems in the airline industry from Gander and west, but since this committee has been set up things have gotten progressively worse when it comes to airline transportation in the Northern parts of this Province.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that deregulation has played a lot in the role of the decline in a good service to the airline industry in this country. I can understand the impacts it has on tourism and the impacts it has on business in this Province, but it has a more serious impact - something that I deal with on a daily basis in my district - and that is the availability of flights in and out of Labrador when it comes to people having to travel for medical reasons, to attend deaths in their families, or people who are seriously ill, and things of that nature when a flight is practically impossible to get.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These is also another problem with the airline transportation in this Province and that is a decision by Air Canada not to offer charters out of this Province. To get a charter flight now by Air Canada, the major carrier in this country, you have to charter out of Halifax, which is quite more expensive. For many years people in Labrador, sporting groups and others, have chartered flights in and out, back and forth to the Province, mainly to St. John's.

Today, this year, Mr. Speaker, the cost of these charter flights have tripled forcing people in Labrador, in particular, to build allegiances with other parts of this country, particularly Halifax and New Brunswick, so that now the sporting meets and the cultural events that take place is not within this Province at all, like they should be, but are more aligned with people in other provinces which adds to the feeling of alienation from people in Labrador to the rest of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that we have to do is continue to pressure Ottawa to bring in regulations to the airline industry and restore a service that meets the needs of the people in this Province. As an example, Christmas, the last day that this House sat, I spent most of the day at the airport, and that had to do more with the attitude of the airline. The attitude left a lot to be desired on that day, when people who were suppose to travel on December 18 were told to re-book to December 24. Mr. Speaker, nowhere else in this country would that have been allowed to happen and Air Canada would not have had the nerve to tell people that in any other area of the country.

While I commend the committee on producing this report, one that I have not had the opportunity to go through yet, Mr. Speaker, I say to the committee and I say to the chairperson, who has heard from me quite often over the last number of months, that there is still much more work to be done to grant access to air transportation to all areas of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On February 15, the Town of Badger declared a State of Emergency, after water and ice quickly engulfed about one third of the town. Representatives of the Emergency Measures Organization and the Fire Commissioner's Office immediately responded, and are continuing to work through each stage of the emergency.

Within hours, as minister responsible for both of these divisions, I travelled to Badger, along with the Director of the Emergency Measures Organization, to join MHA Anna Thistle in assisting with the response efforts.

The commitment of government was immediately apparent, and was enhanced when the Premier joined us in Badger and attended the Emergency Operations Centre meetings, and genuine concern expressed during visits with displaced residents, was a clear indication of this government's support for the people of Badger.

Representatives from many provincial departments, along with Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Human Resources and Employment, Environment, Government Services and Lands, Works Services and Transportation, Health and Community Services, and many other supporting agencies and organizations, also quickly joined the town council and were diligent in both dealing with the danger at hand and the safety and comfort of the displaced residents.

The response effort of Badger's firefighters and their Chief, Harry Noel, was outstanding. How fortunate we are that on February 15 there was no loss of life. This team of vigilant volunteers, and others who were quick to come to the assistance of their community, neglected their own property so they could ensure the life safety of others.

In the weeks following, many firefighters from Badger and other nearby fire departments held a vigil at night as they watched for signs of danger in the river. An incredible example of community commitment and value of one's neighbour.

Volunteer firefighters have a key role throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in protecting the lives and property of others. Their invaluable services should not be underestimated.

The support of volunteers was also evident in the temporary accommodations at the two Pentecostal Churches in Grand Falls-Windsor, and the Carmelite House which was operated by the Salvation Army, and also the support of the Canadian Red Cross. In true Newfoundland and Labrador style, food, friendship and comfort was provided by many people, who were eager to help their neighbors in need. Indeed, there was a community, provincial and national response to this tragedy.

Under the leadership of Mayor Gerald Hurley and the town council, the community of Badger is beginning to put their lives and homes back together. But the town will not be picking up the pieces alone.

The Province immediately recognized the importance of dealing with compensation for damage in an urgent manner, and committed to providing financial compensation to residents who had experienced property loss and the significant infrastructure damage. It is expected that official notification of federal participation will be received very soon.

The Province committed in the early stages of the disaster, that once it was safe for residents to return to the town, the damage assessment teams, including adjustors, would be on the ground to begin assessments.

Indeed, they began the very day that part of the evacuation order was lifted. Also, the assessments office of the Emergency Measures Organization was also set up and functioning in Grand Falls-Windsor at that time. As claims are received they will be processed as expeditiously as possible so that residents can begin to return their homes to normal.

Most residents whose homes received extensive or irreparable damage have been placed in longer-term rental units with others to be situated as soon as accommodations can be secured.

As many decisions must now be made, government is committed to working with the residents of Badger through the mayor and the council to do what they feel is in their best interest.

While things are getting much better in Badger each day, there is a long road ahead. This government will be with them every step of the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to members present that we, on this side of the House, like every other Newfoundlander and Labradorian on March 15 when we realized and saw the events as they unfolded in the Town of Badger, were saddened, we were shocked, we were concerned. I guess we were surprised that such an event like this could happen here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there was one thing that we were not surprised about, was to see the response from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who stepped forward and stepped up in order to respond to the state of emergency as has happened in Badger. We cannot even imagine as we sit and look and see the pictures of what happened in this community. We cannot even imagine what those people must be going through when we see seniors and people lose their worldly belongings, something that they have worked for all their life, having to rush away from that in an hour's notice and to vacate their properties and get out of town.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand when I see volunteers in my own community. Just this past Sunday I attended a church service in Bonavista, an ecumenical service that was brought about by having a collection and having a special prayer service for the people in Badger as they try to get on with their lives. I know members on this side of the House, my colleague here from Waterford-Kenmount took part in of a collection to respond to some of the needs. I know our leader went out to Badger and surveyed the damage there. The Member for Baie Verte and the Member for Windsor-Springdale was out in the area there as well trying to offer assistance to reach out and to bring some comfort and hope.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, through you, that the people in Badger have been looked after in the meantime. There is no doubt about that, but I can assure you that those people should be - and we will make sure the promises that were made by this government to provide compensation for their full loss will be adhered to. I can assure you that this member and this caucus over here will continue to look at what is happening, to question what is happening, and to respond to the needs of the people from Badger as they are brought forward and brought to our attention.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, would like to be associated with the comments of the minister, particularly as he talks about the volunteer efforts that took place in Badger following this disaster. It is not unexpected that people would rally around the Town of Badger because that is the type of people we are in this Province. It was great, too, Mr. Speaker, to see the outpouring of support from across the country, from people formerly from this Province, doing their things in the areas where they live right now.

I can identify a bit with this because, in 1982, we had a state of emergency in Labrador West where we had power lost and we had wind chills in excess of -130, and we had thousands of people relocated to churches, schools, and people were out - the Member for Baie Verte is saying he was there at the time. That was a disaster, with the Armed Forces on alert, and it was very trying times for people who were out of their homes for lengthy periods of time.

I would just like to say to the minister, having gone through that experience in Labrador West, I truly hope that the people of Badger do not have some of the problems to deal with after, when it comes to being compensated properly, and all the arguments and guidelines that are in place, that happened to us -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Just by leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I hope that the guidelines and things that are put in place for people of Badger are not so stringent that they cannot get back what they lost.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Yesterday, we all listened with great interest as the government announced a number of proposals concerning electoral reform; proposals, Mr. Speaker, that bore a striking resemblance to policies announced by our party in early February.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Premier stood in this House and promised to implement all the policies brought forward by our party. It was a commitment he made and it was a commitment he kept.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech reduced the size of Cabinet to no more than one-third of the number of electoral districts, which would allow for sixteen Cabinet ministers including the Premier; yet, a brief glance at members opposite shows eighteen Cabinet ministers plus the Premier. In fact, almost every member opposite who plans to run again, currently has a Cabinet portfolio.

My question for the Premier is: If he is sincere about reducing the size of his Cabinet, why didn't he take the opportunity to lead by example and implement that principle when he recently shuffled his Cabinet? Shouldn't the Premier practice what he preaches?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Cabinet was shuffled some time ago, just over three weeks ago. Those questions were asked publicly in the Province by the media. The answers are on the pages of The Telegram and The Express and other papers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot wait to see what he is going to stand for next week, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first promises that the Premier made was to have a smaller Cabinet. Yet, he did not deliver on that promise, despite having the opportunity to do so on several occasions. His Cabinet has actually grown to the point that it is now the largest Cabinet in Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier acknowledge to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that he did not take the opportunity to lead by example because he is more concerned about shoring up his chance of re-election than he is about conducting the business of this Province in an efficient and a proper manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have stated quite clearly what we stand for. I did answer publicly that, at this point in time, because there is an election some time within the next several months, and it does take considerable cost, in case he is not aware of it, to rearrange all the mechanisms and bureaucracies associated with departments in the government - that is the answer I gave fully and completely to the people of the Province.

The people of the Province know what we will do after an election. They have no idea what the Opposition will do, because I have not heard, and no one in the Province has heard, any statement from the Leader of the Opposition as to what size of a Cabinet he thinks is appropriate for Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe he might stand up now. Everybody knows what we feel is right and proper, and what will happen after the election. The Cabinet will be no greater than one-third of the size of the total Legislature as long as we are the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it will be in a piece of legislation. Maybe now he might stand up and tell the people of the Province what he would do and what he thinks is the right size for a Cabinet of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other point is this, Mr. Speaker: Because he gave some vague references yesterday to how changes to the Public Tender Act or other things might save enough money to fix all the ills of Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe he might also suggest how reducing the Cabinet by two or three people, which might save a few hundred thousand dollars -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - is going to save this problem and change all the financial circumstances. It is a help, Mr. Speaker. It is a step in the right direction. It is one that we will do. People know what we stand for.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: They have no idea whatsoever what he stands for on this issue or any other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By reducing a few of the Cabinet ministers we could save several hundred thousand dollars on air travel alone, I would think.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, we also heard government promise to hold elections on a set date every four years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Premier that this government is now in its fifth year of office. Given that four years have now passed, doesn't the Premier feel that it would be appropriate to implement this policy and set a fixed date for the election today, and then he can find out what our policies are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will have an opportunity to debate the legislation right here in this House of Assembly, where it should occur, when we introduce it.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad he mentioned the travel because I do have information, which I am sure the media will have shortly, when we did a comparison, because there was a story in the paper a day or so ago with respect to travel, in ministers doing their business, and entertainment. The cost of travel for the current Cabinet, which is smaller by four than the last Cabinet that the Conservatives had in place when they were the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - smaller by four - the cost of travel and entertainment, Mr. Speaker, some fourteen years later, is $200,000 less for this group, despite the increased cost for airfares, travel, gasoline and other things, $200,000 less in this year than it was for the last year that the group opposite had a Cabinet -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - in which they had a bigger Cabinet than we have ever seen or imagined in this government, and spent more money fourteen years ago than we have ever spent in the period of time today, even with inflation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: I am glad he raised the point. It shows, I guess, we are about, in their minds, to try to go back to some glorified version of the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Throne Speech also talked about another one of our policy which was campaign financing; however, the Premier's proposal omitted several key issues, most noticeably financing of leadership campaigns.

Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate the Premier's commitment to transparency and openness in campaign financing, will the Premier today release the names of the companies and individuals who contributed to his leadership campaign, as well as the amount? Will he also go a step further and make such disclosure a legislative requirement not only for future leadership campaigns but retroactively to include his own leadership campaign? Doesn't he feel that leadership should be by example?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would guess the Leader of the Opposition would suggest as well that the Government of Canada borrowed from them, because they just did complete electoral reform. The government in New Brunswick must have borrowed from them, because they just did complete electoral reform. The government in Saskatchewan must have been looking in their Blue Book, because they just did a significant electoral reform. I guess everybody, Mr. Speaker, must be sitting around with bated breath, wondering what the Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador are doing.

These happen to be matters of public interest, Mr. Speaker. We have stated our position. Our position talks about expenditures of public funds during the electoral process in provincial elections. That is what we will bring to the House, nothing else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is back to his old position of refusing to answer the questions again.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has made a lot of promises about what he will do if he gets re-elected in the future; however, he steadfastly refuses to act upon these promises today despite having the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain why he will not implement these basic and necessary electoral reform policies immediately? Why must he wait until after an election if he truly, truly, believes in them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have said is that we plan to bring a bill before this Legislature this spring, which is before the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Effective after the election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech yesterday, this government stated its proposal to the federal government for a new model for economic development programming in Newfoundland and Labrador, which would bring together most of ACOA's provincial office and most of the business lines of industry, trade and rural development.

Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why this government represented that a proposal was made to the federal government when the Minister for ACOA, Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet, Gerry Byrne, within hours of that announcement, flatly rejected the concept, quote: out of hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we did say is that we will put a proposal before the Government of Canada, and we fully intend to do that. We were disappointed to hear the federal minister for Newfoundland and Labrador with his response today. My understanding is that he responded not knowing the details of what we were discussing and, Mr. Speaker, when he is informed of the details I am sure he will come a supporter of the concept.

The bigger question, Mr. Speaker, is this. The bigger question, and what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would like to know, is whether or not the Leader of the Opposition thinks that is a good concept. It works very well, by the way, under the labour market development initiatives, and it works very well whereby we put the HRDC offices for the Government of Canada and the HRE offices for Newfoundland and Labrador together so that we do not duplicate services; we do things jointly and together.

It is a concept that we have said we want to put before the Government of Canada, and I believe, in fairness to Minister Byrne, that he was not understanding the concept. He thought we were just asking for a continuation of cost-shared agreements, which we do understand.

Again, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would like to know where the Leader of the Opposition stands on that matter, whether he will support us in suggesting that the Government of Canada should continue on in cost-shared agreements and also work jointly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - together in a Canada-Newfoundland board rather than go our own separate ways and duplicate our efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the same minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Byrne, who was not even advised of the Lower Churchill deal when it was in place the last time. He was not even informed. Why do you think we have a problem with the federal government, Premier?

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier please advise the people of this Province if there are any other proposals in the Throne Speech which are also based on incorrect information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you will have to ask a different question because I do not know exactly what he is talking about, with a broad-based general inference.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that Minister Byrne, we try to work with regularly and effectively on behalf of the people of the Province, and I am sure the people of the Province would want us to be working with the federal minister and the federal government to try to get some things accomplished for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Like anybody else Mr. Speaker, he could not be informed of the deal with respect to the Lower Churchill because there wasn't one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In yesterday's Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, government continues to boast about one of the greatest fallacies within our education system. The speech made the following reference, "My Government is also committed to maintaining the best pupil- teacher ratio in Canada, currently at one teacher for every 13.5 students."

I ask the Minister of Education, how can this minister support such a statement when he knows full well that this does not accurately reflect what is taking place in many of our classrooms throughout Newfoundland and Labrador? And, what explanation does he offer those students and teachers who sit daily in classrooms with students numbering between thirty and forty?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to my critic's question is simple. I support it because it is true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just prior to the House sitting this afternoon, I spoke with an educator in Central Newfoundland who told me of a situation in a school in Central Newfoundland where in a Grade 5 classroom, for example, there are some thirty-six students on a daily basis.

I ask the minister: What does he say to the students in his own district, at J. M. Olds Collegiate in Twillingate, where, in an academic math class, the ratio is one teacher to thirty-six students, and in a Grade 7 social studies class there is one teacher to forty-two students? What does he say to those people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I stand by what was in the Throne Speech yesterday. We do indeed, by any measurement. If the hon. member wants to check with the officials in the Department of Education, they do not lie. By any measurement, you will see that we have the lowest student-teacher ratio in this country.

With regard to the number of students in an individual classroom, that is up to the school board to assign to each school the number of teachers each have.

I also say to the hon. member opposite, if there is a class in my district, if there is class in J. M. Olds Collegiate this afternoon with forty students in it, there is another classroom in that school with five or six.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This problem lies directly at the hands of the Department of Education and this minister who is now charged with the responsibility to ensure that education is done properly in this Province.

I ask the minister: Why is it that he is giving this false impression to the public that the minister, for example, is taking into account school administrators, special education teachers, education psychologists, guidance counsellors, and school board supervisors, as examples? Therefore, why doesn't he offer the true picture of what is really taking place?

I ask the minister: Will he confirm that these particular positions that I have just given as examples are factored into his formula and therefore does not necessarily have anything to do whatsoever with the day-to-day instruction in the classroom, the instruction that takes place on a daily basis in our classrooms between our teachers and their students?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. REID: If the hon. member would take the time, rather than criticize, to check out the facts, he would understand that, yes, the administrators, yes, the special ed teacher, yes, the librarians and every other group of teachers is included in the ratio, but they are also included in the ratios of the schools right straight across this country and we still have the lowest student-teacher ratio in this country. I continue to stand by that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the new Minister of Environment.

Minister, your department stated on the record just last summer that there were no transformer casings from Makinsons disposed of at the New Harbour dump site. That was wrong. The former Minister of Environment then stated in this House, just a few months ago, that all transformer casings were properly cleaned of all PCBs before disposal. That, too, was wrong.

The official report on the Makinsons cleanup, done and presented to the Department of Environment in 1994, says that the transformer casings were disposed of still containing PCBs.

Why would the government allow those transformer casings to be disposed of, while still containing PCBs, at a public dump site, and then deny it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from my honourable the critic.

The situation in the New Harbour barrens, the dump site, has been one that has been ongoing for quite some time. I think we need to take a look a little bit at the history of the site. It has been there for some thirty-odd years. It is a privately operated site. It has been accepting and disposing of refuse there for quite a long time. It is very much a contaminated site. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.

The issue of the cleanup on Hodgewater Line, where the PCBs, the transformers, it is instructive as well to understand why the transformers were in the gentleman's scrap metal yard to begin with. They were there because there was copper within the transformer which needed to be - or in his opinion, he felt had value and could be recycled. What he did, Mr. Speaker, was to take the heads out of those transformers, incorrectly dispose of PCBs on the Hodgewater Line, and remove the copper.

It is my understanding from the officials of the department that those transformers were cleaned. They had been on the site for some time, dripping the PCBs, unfortunately, and that is another issue which was dealt with. The transformers were appropriately cleaned. After a couple of dippings there was no further substantial amount of PCBs emanating from that. They were approved for disposal, and one of the sites which they were disposed at was on the New Harbour barrens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have the report here and it says quite clearly in the report that those containers still contained the PCBs under the government controlled cleanup, and they were then dumped at New Harbour. Why would government allow the workers at the dump site, the heavy equipment operators, the general public, to come into contact with those transformers without any warning that they still contained PCBs, or even provide them with advice on how to take precautions to protect themselves? There was no public notice, no signs, no notice at all. In fact, government continued to deny that they contained PCBs. Why did your department put people's public health at risk?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, the member opposite is not hearing what I am saying or else he chooses not to hear what is being said.

What is being said very clearly by officials within the Department of the Environment, the transformers were cleaned, they were cleaned, they were cleaned, and there were very minute traces of PCBs left. In the opinion of the officials, they no longer constituted a health hazard and they were approved for disposal on the New Harbour barrens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I would advise the minister to read the report himself.

The permit issued by your department clearly states that those transformers were supposed to go to an approved site to accept PCBs. New Harbour is not. Will you call an inquiry into how these contaminated transformers ended up in an unapproved, unsecured, dump site, and a cleanup that was commissioned by your department, under the control of your department, and then the coverup that continues to follow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, the member opposite is demonstrating his lack of knowledge of the information. The information is very clear, that the PCBs that were contained in the transformers and transported to the New Harbour site were very minute. They presented no appreciable damage. I should not say no appreciable; they constituted no threat to human health in that area, none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

For the member's own knowledge, we have been working with a committee out there for quite some time. We have been working with them for the last several months. We have actually had a consultant on site who has done phase one of a study, who has done a determination of the type of leachates coming from that dump site. He had made his report and he is now in the process of doing a phase two to determine the extent and distribution of both the leachate and any or all PCBs which may or may not be coming from the site.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Economic Development Board announced in your Speech from the Throne yesterday was shot down this morning by ACOA Minister, Gerry Byrne. Also this morning, Environment Minister David Anderson killed any hope of changing the decision to end weather forecasting at the Gander Weather Station three days after meeting with the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, my question is: What credibility does his government have with the Government of Canada when they failed to reverse that decision on the Gander Weather Office, which was accomplished by Manitoba in the case of Winnipeg, and, in fact, there was no hope from the Government of Canada on the Canada-Newfoundland Economic Development Board? What credibility does this government have in dealing with the Government of Canada on these important issues for Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not a matter of what credibility a government has. We are convinced that in both cases we have represented and presented to the Government of Canada what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want. What we have seen in short order is, as I have said in the case of Minister Byrne - I believe he answered a media question, not understanding exactly what the concept of the Canada-Newfoundland board is, and we will deal with that. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I believe that everybody in the Province is disappointed to hear the initial response from Minister Anderson, through the Open Line today, and in a letter he also sent that was received in the government offices late yesterday, and we are still determined to present to them alternatives with respect to Gander, because we believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want those alternatives.

It is not a matter of credibility of the government, Mr. Speaker. It is an issue that has been raised many times, through the Royal Commission and elsewhere, about how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians generally feel about whether or not our voice is respected and valued in the Government of Canada. We want to deal with Minister Anderson, we want to deal with Minister Byrne, we want to deal with the Government of Canada, but we are not in the position, none of us are in a position, to tell them what to do. That is not how it works. All we can understand is that we believe we have the full support of this Legislature -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - the full support of this Legislature in making the representation that we did to Minister Anderson.

It is not a matter of the government being disappointed; it is a matter of everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador being disappointed and upset and, in fact, not at all pleased with the responses we have received to date, but it does not mean we are going to give up, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Further in relations with Ottawa, when the all-party committee presented its recommendations to Minister Thibault on Monday, absent from that meeting was Minister Byrne. Can the Premier assure us that we have the full support of our representative in the federal Cabinet for our proposals, and that influence is going to be used in the Government of Ottawa to try and make a decision that is in keeping with these recommendations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the all-party committee I did approach Minister Byrne directly about his representation on behalf of all of us inside the Government of Canada for the recommendations that are there with respect to the fishery and he assures me that he will do what he can inside the government. It is only Minister Byrne, or anyone else, who can speak for themselves to the people of the Province. I can relate the conversation I had with him, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we have better success than we have in the last little while.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, again, is for the Minister of Environment. Page 64 of the report, Mr. Speaker, efforts to clean the weathered transformer casings by solvent rinsing proved to be ineffective. The CCME recommended method of double rinsing also proved to be inadequate to clean the casings. I ask the minister this - the numbers are here. There was no substantial decrease in the amount of PCBs in those containers. Have you read this report and are you going to call an inquiry into the disposal of those transformers at that dump site?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the member could tell me precisely the report that he is quoting from because there are several such reports in the department. He might wish to give me the actual one, the date and the year because we have many of them over there and I have read many of them as well.

But, Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to the point that I made initially. The transformers on the Hodgewater Line were there because the salvager wanted to get the copper. The copper was in the case. It was covered in PCBs. He broke open the case. The cases were sitting on the ground for a number of years. How much PCBs would have been contained in them in liquid form or any other after several years sitting on the ground and draining out? I would suggest minimal at the very best.

The information which I have, Mr. Speaker, is that those transformers have been appropriately cleaned. They were cleaned to very residual trace of PCBs before being authorized for transfer to any disposal site. That is the information that I have. If the hon. member opposite has any information to the contrary, I would love to see it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Time for one quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. The Immigration Investment Fund that was launched by the federal government, and with each province participating, proved in this Province to be a national disgrace. Members, in terms of the - absolutely. The Minister of Finance puts a long face on her. I refer to the Auditor General's report where it says exactly that. Recently there have been proposals made -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently, there have been proposals made by different industry groups or different groups respecting different industries in the Province of how to improve and take advantage of such programs, the Immigration Investment Fund, to the advantage of the provincial economy. The minister, I believe, knows what I am talking about and I will ask her today: Why is your department dragging their feet on such exciting and forward-looking proposals?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me start by correcting the false statement that the department is dragging its feet. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are doing is working very closely with those interested parties to find a way to make this a reality, to again capitalize on the opportunities that are there, and we will do just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try not to put my long face on for this now if I can.

Pursuant to section 55.(3) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to report that there have been no guaranteed loans paid out by the Province since the last annual report to the House. In addition, and pursuant to section 55.1.(2), I wish to report that there have been no guaranteed debt of any Crown corporation or agency assumed by the Province since the last annual report to the House of Assembly.

Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 49.(2) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the attached list of temporary loans raised under section 48 of the Financial Administration Act since the last report to the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 39 of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992, I hereby table the annual report of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commission for the period April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from the Bishop's Falls area, Point Leamington, Grand Falls-Windsor and other communities in Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the petition deals with the question of - and I will read the whereases:

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides medication coverage for seniors under the Senior's Drug Subsidy Program and for people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs are quite expensive; and

WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with high cost MS drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale program, not limited to social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people with MS.

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to implement a co-payment or a sliding scale program for these drugs so that people who do not qualify for assistance under the existing programs can get financial assistance with these drugs, as is the case in every other Canadian jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I have been raising this issue for quite some time in this House of Assembly and I have been doing it because I know there are large numbers of people in this Province who desperately need assistance with the purchase of these drugs.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, people are forced to financially ruin themselves and their families in order to get a drug to treat their illness. So, in other words, people are having to make a choice between providing food in some cases, providing a roof over the heads of their families, sacrificing their children's education and their own retirement simply to be able to take a drug that they need to treat the illness that they did not bring on themselves; not an illness that they asked for but one that they inherited.

Mr. Speaker, I also know that the Minister of Finance, in her travels around the Province recently on the pre-Budget meetings that she was conducting, heard this time and time again, that there is a need for government to get in line with the rest of the provinces in this country and introduce a system that will assist people with the purchase of these drugs.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province should not be placed in the position of taking a drug that they require to treat their illness or for the other things that they need in life as well. Many people, Mr. Speaker, do not have the luxury of having a prescription drug plan from their employment that will allow them to have these drugs covered. There are other plans, Mr. Speaker, quite good plans actually, that only provide partial coverage.

Mr. Speaker, it is the hard working people of this Province, the people who are paying taxes on a daily basis, the people who are contributing to all the other things that we enjoy in this Province, who are negatively impacted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Just by lease to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it is the working people, the working men and women of this Province, who are suffering when it comes to having their lives turned upside down financially, simply because they have an illness that they didn't ask for and they have drugs that they require, and in order to get the drugs that they need to treat their illness they have to spend basically all of their income in order to purchase these drugs and neglect the other needs that their families have.

I encourage this government, Mr. Speaker, to introduce such a policy, such a co-payment system and get in line with the times, catch up to the rest of Canada and provide the same type of program in this Province as every other resident of this country enjoys.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition, as well, and the petition reads:

To the Honourable House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative Session convened,

The Petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHERAS Route 235 from Plate Cove East to the Open Hall intersection has not been upgraded since its was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and

WHERAS this section of route 235 is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult.

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Plate Cove East to the Open Hall intersection.

And, as in duty bound you petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, people in this Legislature have heard me talking before, many times, about the condition of Route 235. This section of roadway to which I refer here today, this three kilometres of roadway, has now seen a sign posted on it. Now, this is one of the main arteries leading through the District of Bonavista South, one of the main roads leading to the Trans-Canada Highway. Today on that section of roadway there is a sign posted: Caution, speed limit thirty kilometres an hour. Mr. Speaker, that is twenty miles per hour on one of the main artery roads on the Bonavista Peninsula; twenty miles per hour.

It was only a week and a half, two weeks ago, that I had a call from a lady in the area there who had made a trip home from Bonavista back in that area and indicated to me that she had hit one of the potholes on that section of road, beat a hole in the base pan of her car and lost the engine. She went then and proceeded to get a new engine put in her car, after the engine was put in she found out that the transmission was gone. With the oil gone from the engine, there was heat buildup there and caused the problem in the transmission. So not only did she lose the engine in her car, but lost the transmission as well. You are talking about probably a $5,000 or $6,000 bill for travelling over one of the main roads on the Bonavista Peninsula that has been neglected for the past fifteen years. This is a section of road that school buses travel over on a regular basis. This is a section of road that seniors have to use, and everybody else, in order to access government services and in order to have access either to other communities in the area or the Trans-Canada Highway. That is not acceptable. When you see what people in that particular area are paying for the cost of licenses, the cost of taxes on gasoline, the cost of registering their vehicles -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: This is certainly not acceptable in the twenty-first Century to have to drive over one of the main roads through a district leading to the Trans-Canada Highway that exists in such a condition; whereby, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation has to reduce the speed limit to twenty miles an hour - totally unacceptable.

I ask the minister if he would take this petition, and others that I have raised here, very seriously when he puts forward his appropriations for the Budget and include some of this road work to be attended to in this fiscal year on the Bonavista Peninsula.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board - To Move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to Consider Certain Resolutions for the Granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 2).

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. the Minister of Finance:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2004. By way of Interim Supply and in accordance with the provisions of section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:

Edward Roberts, Lieutenant-Governor.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am very pleased today to introduce an Interim Supply bill for the year 2003-2004 which will be presented to this House of Assembly and makes provision for three month's supply as per usual, as with any Interim Supply. This, of course, represents approximately 30 per cent of the 2003-2004 budgeted gross current and capital account expenditures.

Interim Supply is basically intended to provide for the continuation of ongoing expenses of government programs and projects. It is a routine bill, although the numbers are far from routine because they represent a portion of a $4 billion Budget that we will bring down in just a short few days.

This particular Interim Supply bill that we are talking about today will cover six pay periods and it will also allow for the ongoing program and project funding requirements which is applicable in this coming fiscal year 2003-2004. This will provide departments with sufficient cash flows so that they are able to manage both their current and their capital expenditures for this year, for the period of April 1, 2003 conclusive, to June 30, 2003 at which point, of course, the main supply bill will then come into effect to sustain the Budget for the rest of the remaining fiscal year. It is normally intended to fund new services. However, an Interim Supply bill does have the ability to provide for new expenditures; of course, provided that is outlined in the House of Assembly, which is what I would like to do this afternoon.

The 2003-2004 Interim Supply bill includes, this year, funding for two new expenditure initiatives of which, I think, Members of the House of Assembly are familiar with. One, of course, was mentioned yesterday in the Throne Speech as it related to the broadband initiative, a $5 million allocation that would be done in collaboration, of course, with both the federal government and a private sector partner. This agreement has not been reached in terms of securing all components but there is a component to the Interim Supply bill that would allow government, in the event that both the federal government and the private sector partner come on stream, that we would be able to begin to fund and flow the monies for this very important initiative which, I am sure, my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, would be only too happy to speak about in some more detail. This, of course, is an allocation that we believe is a very important one and one that is important not only for urban areas but perhaps more importantly for rural areas of the Province, a very significant component of business allowing people to achieve new businesses or grow existing businesses in any community of rural or urban Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other particular component that would be seen as new would be under an agriculture policy framework which is a new agreement which is slated to start April 1 of this year. It is a new agreement that will come in effect after what was previously called the Safety Nets Program for the Department of Agriculture. Again, I am sure that my colleague from Forest Resources and Agrifoods would only be too happy to delve into any new information and discussion about this new program. Again, it is slated to come into place April 1. We know how short our season is in this Province and oftentimes the ability to move very quickly to implement new programs is important, not only for the Province and for the fiscal health of the Province, but also for the overall health and safety and security of farmers and those availing of these kinds of funds to grow their own local industry. Again, I would say that both of my colleagues would be happy to speak about these particular initiatives in some more detail.

Again, I think it is important to note that as with any Interim Supply bill it is interim in as much as it is designed for a three month period to allow government programs and services to bridge the gaps for payroll, for capital, and to start their programs and services. Generally, it does not include new items but in this particular case we have put forward the provision to allow two new expenditure items, as I pointed out. One with relation to broadband and one, of course, in relation to the agricultural framework policy.

It is important that the Interim Supply bill receive royal assent by March 26 of this year. Again, it is important, as it has been in previous years, based on pay periods and based on the allocation of funds that are provided for recipients of social assistance so that in fact, particularly that those in Labrador will be able to receive their social assistance cheques in time to meet their commitments, this bill has to receive royal assent by March 26. Of course, particularly for the purposes of Labrador and those receiving their payment, as of April 1, 2003.

I would like to take a moment, if I could, just to go through the bill in a little bit more detail as it refers to the actual allocations of funding and why it is so important. I would expect many of my colleagues to have an opportunity to speak about the expenditures in their departments and to answer any questions about the related information associated with it. Of course, this does not include any questions directly related to the Budget because the Budget will be brought down next week, but it will certainly explain the importance and necessity for carrying on all expenditures. The list concludes all of government's programs and services. There is also a line item here for allowing the Legislature to continue to work during this period of time, allowing members to have access to their district funds, allowing members to avail of the House of Assembly and the televising of the House of Assembly; as well as the Auditor General's department, the Child Advocate and also the Citizens' Representative. Those figures are also included in the overall allocation amount of $1.3 billion for Interim Supply.

If we were to look at each of the heads of expenditures or the various departments you can see that there is an allocation for each of these departments. We have Health and Community Services - and I could speak briefly to each of these and why they are necessary, but I think most people will recognize that by providing an Interim Supply bill you are merely allowing the departments to continue on with the programs and services they are currently providing. I am sure my colleague from Health and Community Services could speak about the various programs and services that are available to people, ranging from the running of our hospitals, our community services programs, our nursing homes, home support, and the list goes on.

Also, other departments - like Industry, Trade and Rural Development, I heard my colleague earlier speak about the importance of continuing to grow the business sector and continuing on with the very important growth of our rural and urban areas, and that allocation there is set aside for that.

Our Housing Corporation has an allocation, for example, of $2.8 million, and this allows for, for example, the maintenance and repair program to continue for our social housing programs in the Province, and also to allow for that kind of maintenance and to make sure people are able to fill houses as they become available.

Justice, as well, has an allocation of $35 million, and this is the proportionate amount required for policing services in our Province, both from RCMP and RNC, as well as all of the other responsibilities associated with legal aid, in providing the services that people have come to expect through a Department of Justice.

Environment also has an allocation of $1.9 million, and this allocation is provided to allow government and the environment to continue with its work, for example, to move forward with environmental impact studies and to do all the necessary work that allows normal business and growth and development to occur, and these things have to happen.

Each of the departments, including Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, a very important department in our government for a number of reasons, perhaps never more important than now, in light of some of the decisions that are being brought forward in terms of the life and outlook for our fishery. Again, Works, Services and Transportation. Included in this amount, there is an allocation of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, which we will look at moving forward on Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, again, which is a very important piece of work for the people of Labrador and for all the people of the Province, because what is good for Labrador is good for Newfoundland. What is good for urban Newfoundland and Labrador is good for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So these are good projects and a significant allocation.

Forest Resources and Agrifoods, as I have pointed out, contains an allocation for a cost-shared agreement with the federal government, which will look at a number of new initiatives, and it looks at a new agreement to replace the old cost-sharing agreement that was in place.

Also, I think it is important to note that Education, which is very important, has an allocation of $184 million and this speaks to, again, payment of teachers' salaries and being able to provide the types of programs and services through that department.

So, Madam Chair, today I am happen to introduce the bill on Interim Supply. The bill is for $1.3 billion - $134,772,200 - and this is introduced today in the House with the intent of it receiving Royal Assent by March 26 in order to allow delivery of the cheques, particularly to Labrador. The amount is in the bill for breakdown, for people to look at, and again I think it is important to have the opportunity to say that this is a - I would not call it routine but it is certainly a piece of legislation that is introduced at the beginning of each fiscal year to allow government's programs and services to continue on so that people are not disadvantaged. Then, of course, this is followed by a main supply bill which maintains the other nine months of the fiscal year and then allows for the full program services and any new programs that may be announced in the Budget. Any new services, any new incentives, all of those components will be maintained and announced within the Budget and will be provided for under the main supply bill.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to say a few words on this Interim Supply Bill that the Minister of Finance just introduced, and she referred to it as a routine bill. I suppose it is routine in the light that it is introduced each year, but other than that it is not really routine. You are talking about $1.349 billion worth of money that is to be spent by this Administration within the next few months. They want this House of Assembly to approve it by March 26.

Madam Chair, we are into March 20, I believe, and they want this approved by March 26. Tomorrow is Friday, the House does not sit; on Saturday and Sunday, the House does not sit. So, on Monday or Tuesday of this week they want this $1.349 billion approved.

The House could have easily been opened up a week ago, two weeks ago, a month ago. That is a decision for government. Again, a typical situation: come in here, bring in legislation and try and get it forced through the House of Assembly in a short period of time, when it is required we give it proper and due consideration.

Madam Chair, the minister went through the bill, the different departments. She went through most of the departments, I believe, with respect to the amounts of money that would be needed or allocated for each department. I do not need to go through that; we have it here. Each department, of course, depending on the size of the department, is looking for different amounts of money. Again, it is money that we have to look at very - I was going to say conservatively, but we have to give a lot of consideration to before approved through this House of Assembly.

With respect to this bill, Bill 2, referred to as the Interim Supply Act, it is basically the start, in my mind, of the government spending money on the next election. We saw yesterday in the House of Assembly, the Throne Speech, presented by the Lieutenant-Governor, which gives the plans of this Administration over the next year or two, five years, or whatever the case may be.

Madam Chair, I have to say, when I was listening to that Speech yesterday, I had some concerns about it. The editorial in today's paper, in The Telegram, pretty well got it right. Right now, after fourteen years in power, basically fourteen years, they are going to promise the world. In an election year they are going to promise the world. I just want to read something here that is in The Telegram today, the editorial.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We will handle that.

It says, "With government now deliberately accentuating the positive, we may be unable to accurately gauge where we are. Because of that, we should take every promise made, every budget claim set, with a grain of salt. And befitting the weather on the day of the throne speech, we should take it with one of those big, fat, flat-sided grains of dirty brown road salt."

Madam Chair, that is what was said and I have to agree with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to say it? I am sorry, I missed it. Do you want to repeat it for me?

MR. J. BYRNE: You want me to repeat it? You definitely want me to repeat it. One of my colleagues here wants me to repeat this.

It says, "With government now deliberately accentuating the positive, we may be unable to accurately gauge where we are. Because of that, we should take every promise made, every budget claim set, with a grain of salt. And befitting the weather on the day of the throne speech, we should take it with one of those big, fat, flat-sided grains of dirty brown road salt." That is what is out there in public, Madam Chair.

Yesterday, I was quite amused, actually, because what I saw again was this campaign of fear that has been started by the Administration, by the government, with respect to this election year concerning us. We saw it started yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition stood on his feet and responded to the Throne Speech, and was quite frank and forward, and the Premier got up and twisted the facts, as he usually does. Madam Chair, he twisted the facts and said that, you know, the people do not know where we stand on the issues. Completely untrue. Every issue that is out there, we have been quite forward and upfront about it. He talked about the cuts that are going to come in the future from us. Now, that is completely untrue. What the Leader of the Opposition said was this. He said that he would not be held accountable for campaign promises made by this Administration during an election. That was what he said. He never said anything about past collective agreements that were signed by this Administration. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, we should put the people at east out there. They should not be listening to this fear campaign. The Leader of the Opposition has publicly stated at the biennial convention at NAPE, and the leader there who has been recently in the media, the leader of NAPE who was sitting next to him, and our leader got a standing ovation

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I know it is hard for members on the opposite side of the House of Assembly - they are getting quite rambunctious over there - to hear the truth. I know that, but so be it.

He spoke at the biennial convention in NAPE and said that he would honour the collective agreements. Now, how much forward and frank can you be? As a matter of fact, the leader of NAPE was there at his side, and he had a standing ovation from NAPE, and we have this Administration now trying to set the fear of the people in us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, that was what was said, Madam Chair. We have this group trying to push that we are going to cutting and cutting. It is not the case at all. We will be quite honest and up front with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as we have been in the past.

Basically, Madam Chair, all they are trying to, I suppose, with this Speech yesterday and the Budget coming down - and people should be well aware, to expect it. I mean, this Administration has been in power for fourteen years; they should be well aware of what is coming in the Budget next week. There is going to be all kinds of promises made. They are going to be there. But why now, after fourteen years, are they promising these things in education, in transportation, all the issues that we have been bringing forward on this side of the House of Assembly. As a matter of fact, their plan - I have to refer to it here. This is what they said. In their plan, the Speech from the Throne, he said: A Government with a Plan.

Well, Madam Chair, I remember in this House of Assembly, that the Premier stood in his place and said: What we will do, we will implement all the Tory PC policies by the next election and you will have none. So their plan, of course, is to implement our policies. There they are. Policy that works. He said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can get a copy of Hansard and show you. I quote where it was listed there, right away.

Now we have the new Minister of Labour, who just got demoted, the Minister of Labour over there on the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Labour is not the important (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is very important in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but what I am saying to the minister, the number of people, personnel in your department versus the number of personnel in Works, Services and Transportation is quite different so the amount of dollars that is being spent in your department versus that one is quite different. Therefore, your responsibilities are reduced from that perspective.

Madam Chair, it says, a focused and realistic plan, in the Throne Speech yesterday. It talks about a true and equal partnership in the Canadian union. We have seen, Madam Chair, a good history and record of this Administration and their - what is the right word? - their friendships or their negotiation powers between here and Ottawa. I would have to remind them recently of Port Harmon being privatized out there. I would remind them of what is going on in Gander, no communications. I would remind them of Air Canada, what is going on with the cutbacks in this Province, and I would remind them of the transportation issues.

The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Madam Chair, publicly stated in this House of Assembly that they basically had no clout with Ottawa. I remember an issue was brought forward, I asked him questions on it, and he stood in this House of Assembly and said: Well, we brought it forward up in Ottawa but we did not get anywhere with it; we did not have any clout in Ottawa. They looked at us, we are only seven seats, Madam Chair. A poor attitude, poor attitude.

When we look at this Throne Speech, and the bill that was brought in today by the Minister of Finance, I think we need to have a very serious look at that and be quite concerned about where we are going here.

Now the Premier, and in this Throne Speech also - and this money that is being looked at here in this Bill 2 will go towards the financing, of course, of some of the promises that were made yesterday in the Throne Speech, and will be further highlighted in the Budget next week. It talked about electoral reform. Now, Madam Chair, it was only a few weeks ago that we talked about electoral reform, and talked about the lobbying. That is another one of our policies adopted by this Administration. We cannot knock them for that. Good. If it is a good idea, we will support it. It is one of ours. What I have to say, Madam Chair, I have to talk about the hypocrisy of it, the hypocrisy of that statement.

Now we have a government saying they are going to look at fixed terms, four years, set a date, and everybody will know when the election is. Now we have a Premier in this Province who is now well into his fifth year, elected as Premier in a convention, making deals all over the Province. One was - he tried to do the Lower Churchill - Voisey's Bay. He did not have, from my perspective, the mandate to do it. He won the Premiership by what? Six votes, or something like that. Now he is here talking about electoral reform.

We had the Leader of the Opposition ask questions today and he really would not answer him; he kind of skirted the issue. It talked about four-year terms, fixed terms, and we are into his fifth now. Not elected as Premier by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, only indirectly from a campaign for leadership of the party. By the way, in our electoral reform we are looking at the lobbying and restrictions on amounts of money that can be spent by leadership contenders for any party in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The new Minister of Education over there, Madam Chair, is trying to interject here and make comments - something that is so irrelevant it is hardly worth commenting on it, so I will not comment on it.

As I said, Madam Chair, they are trying to run a campaign of fear in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; trying to run a campaign of fear.

Madam Chair, I do not like bringing up the names of private individuals in the House of Assembly, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Probably I shouldn't, and maybe I won't, but when we have people out there misrepresenting the facts in the media - it is something that is hard not to. When we know what we say here, and the people know, but we have again fallen right in line with the ideas and the things that are trying to be put forward by the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Admit it.

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, right, admit to it.

In the meantime, maybe certain people are trying to consider running for the Opposition. Maybe that is going to be a factor. It could very well be. I do not know, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, they are trying out figures about the potentials if we get elected. How many people are going to be affected and these types of things. It is from people on that side of the House, people working within departments that are there now - ministers there now. That is where the figures are coming from. It is not coming from here. We never stated anything of such nature at all; not at all. Again, they will get up on their feet over there and they will misrepresent it, twist it, or whatever the case may be. I suppose they are looking to bring themselves up in the polls and they really do not have much else going for them at this point in time, I don't think.

With respect to the Budget and looking for $1.349 billion - I believe it was. In the Throne Speech, they talked about annual reports from the departments. Again, that is good stuff, and so it should be. We talked about it in the past, and our leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Again, it is another take from us, I say to the new Minister of Labour, the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It is just another takeoff on what we have been promoting. That is all it is. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday said in his response to the Speech from the Throne that we would want to put a plan in place for each department and it would be accountable at the end of each year. It would be accountable to the plan and how it was put in place, acted upon, and to see if the conditions were met, and whatever the case may be.

They also talked about transportation. Now, Madam Chair, we, on this side of the House of Assembly, for years have talked about transportation here. I have asked questions many times to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I think the current Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, was expecting a question today, but everything in due course I say to the new Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Again, I find it more than passing strange, being there for fourteen years -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: There are many, many more points to be made.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will take the opportunity because I know that we are discussing Interim Supply, but since the Member for Cape St. Francis went off to the Throne Speech and editorials in the paper, I think it is only right that we enter into that kind of a debate and discussion. I am only too happy to do it. I did the introduction trying to stick very closely, sticking with the issue of relevance, but I realize at times that is very difficult to do that in this House of Assembly. So it begs a response, and I know many of my colleagues are anxious to respond.

I know the Member of Cape St. Francis started off talking in some riddles about something not warranting a response. I think it was the new Minister of Education who said that $40 million is a lot of money when jobs leave this Province. He was talking about the newly inked contract, which was sold and jobs were moved out of the Province by the now Leader of the Opposition, who was in private business at the time; $60 million. So, $60 million might not mean much on that side of the House, but I guarantee you, it does mean a lot on this side of the House and to the people of the Province. That is a fact. Everybody in the Province knows that.

The Member for Cape St. Francis was talking about an editorial. Now, I do not know if he was talking about the editorial from the West Coast, where it talked about what the Tories would do if they got in. It said, and I quote, Ottenheimer said: That can be achieved if government trims the fat from the bureaucracy, from the bureaucratic bodies it operates.

I was not at the presentation, but I know the Leader of the Opposition was there to hear what was being said and to trial test this new balloon on the cuts and how they are going to actually run the government. They say they do not know what the current state of the books are, but like everybody else in the Province, they have access to the public accounts. They certainly have an opinion on everything, whether or not they believe it or not, but it is there for all to see. I think what our record has shown is that we, the Liberals, support the people of the Province, the programs, the services, and we have grown them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is our mandate. That has been our philosophy. I think the people of the Province, hopefully, will never get to see the other side of a real Tory administration, because this very editorial compared what is in the works over there to Mike Harris' government, a government which was called a commonsense revolution, and put people on the streets. People who were in social housing on the streets. Anybody going to Toronto can see people living on the air vents from the underground. That is what the commonsense revolution did and that is what that presentation was compared to. I never heard it, I am just reading what was in the media. I have as much respect for the media as members opposite have, I am sure, because I think, clearly, that the fear out there is not fear generated by people here, it is fear of the unknown. People do not know what to expect. I know the advisers are saying: Say nothing. Saw wood; because then there is nothing to measure it against. I think people of the Province are getting very interested and very concerned about what would actually happen.

What do they stand for? We know what we stand for. You might not agree with it but at least you know. You may not like the fact that we decided not to cut health care, not to cut programs and services, but that is what we stand for. We believe in growing our economy. What happens if you balance the books? What happens if you eliminate programs? Who do you lose? You lose the very people, Madam Chair, that you are trying to recruit to this Province. You lose your young people. We all know the way the system works. Senior people stay in the service. Junior people leave. We all know from our pre-budget consultations that it is the young people who will leave if they do not get work. We work very hard to grow our workforce, to try to match our skill sets with skill requirements. We have a booming industry. We know what is happening right now on Voisey's Bay. It is exciting. It is exciting to our industry. It is exciting to the potential for our young people.

It was interesting in the Throne Speech yesterday - the Throne Speech by the Lieutenant-Governor, not the Throne Speech by the Leader of the Opposition, as he called it. We talked about the people who came back to our Province. We talked about the people, the skill sets that have come back because they have seen the potential. They talk about the people who have left. People have left, but people have come back too. You have to build on what you have.

It is easy, it is very easy today. You could say: yes, we do not need Interim Supply for $1.3 billion. No, Madam Chair, it is not routine. That kind of money is not routine; not routine to us over here. We do not have that kind of money, but we do have the money that we are responsible for on behalf of the people of the Province and we take it very seriously. We also stand by, not our view, but on the very fact that Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest student tuition in the country; not in Atlantic Canada, in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, what have you done in fourteen years? That is a part of what we have done. We are quite proud of the fact that we have reduced it by 25 per cent, and that is a commitment that anyone is proud of. I am not talking today about people leaving. I know there are young people who are currently in St. Mary's in Halifax, who are out in Alberta going to university, who are coming home because our tuition is cheaper, and that is a fact.

I also know that they talked about negotiations and what is happening with Ottawa. We all heard this morning that Minister Anderson came on Open Line and said that the Gander decision would not be reversed, and it is disappointing. He has yet to have the kind of proposal that the Member for Gander, the Premier and others talked to him about. He does not even have it to factor it into his decision-making, but we are counting on our federal Minister, Gerry Byrne, to intervene on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and to urge the minister to reconsider based on the facts and the information on behalf of us, as our representative in Ottawa, and we believe that is a very important part.

I say to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, we are not going behind his back. This is based, as you just said - what we are doing today is, we are doing our job. We are representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are representing the people of Gander. We represent those people because they have a legitimate concern. Do we have a say in if the Gander office is going to be opened or closed as a provincial government? Do we have a say? Well, perhaps we should, but unfortunately we do not. Do we have a say in the equalization program? No, unfortunately we do not. It is an unilateral program. It is part of the Constitution of Canada, and the federal government can add to it, delete from it, change it, whatever they want to do, by the mere stroke of a pen. It is unilateral. Can we make our case? Yes, we can. It was very reassuring, during our pre-budget consultations, to hear the kind of support we have in this Province for changes to the equalization program. People are very well versed on the issues and very supportive of it.

I think there are things out there, clearly through the Throne Speech and through our record, that we stand for. What about our social programs? Always a fear when you look at what Mike Harris did, and a bigger fear for the people of the Province when this Tory administration is being compared to Mike Harris. No wonder people are fearful. They are fearful of the unknown because we all know what happened.

Let's talk about our social agenda. Let's talk about our Strategic Social Plan. The most progressive in the country. The only Province in the country with a social audit. That is a fact. We are the only one. What about our adoption act? A template for the rest of the country in progressive adoption legislation. Maybe that is not important when you are talking about a commonsense revolution in putting people on social assistance out on the streets. Maybe that is not important, but it is important to people who are Liberals. It is important to people who have a social agenda. It is important to people who try to find a balance.

Now, it is easy to be all things to all people when you are responsible to nobody. I can say, from our perspective, our policies are clear. People know what we stand for. You do not have to try and figure out: Does he mean this or does he mean that? Like he said yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, that he wouldn't be bound by any of these principles or policies out in the Throne Speech. That is a message. Whether people want to hear it or not, that is a message.

I say to anybody listening, our own provincial negotiations are strong. The proof is there. We have collective agreements with all of our public sector employees and we pay for it, we acknowledge we pay or it. One of the reasons we have a deficit is clear for all to see, Madam Chair. We have recognized, we value our public sector employees, we recognize they are pivotal in delivering the programs and services of any government, because a government is the people. That is what we are all about. Much of the money we spend in this Interim Supply Bill is about services for people provided by people, people who we value, people who we support and people who we respect.

I say, Madam Chair, I would be only too happy to speak again. I think this Interim Supply is far from routine. Whenever you ask for $1.3 billion it is never routine, it is not routine over here, but it is important. It is important to allow the programs and services for the people of the Province to continue until the main supply bill is brought down.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to take some time to deal with the Interim Supply measure. This is a bill that comes before the House this time every year, and every year the government is asking Opposition, making sure that you are not going to hold up the bill. We will tell you today that we are not, that this bill will be dealt with expeditiously, it will be dealt with the way it should be, forthrightly, and it will be passed in due course so the prosecution of public services will continue.

Now, one time in my ten years in the House I was angered in this House by statements made by another member, when they called us hypocritical. Today I am equally as angry, when I see the Minister of Finance get on her high horse and talk about how we, on this side of the House, intend - fearmongering and leaving the impression, wrongly, that we intend to slash and cut government. Nothing is further from the truth. Nothing is further from the truth!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: What angers me even further is that the Minister of Finance and members opposite, it is now part of their plan to try to paint this official Opposition as some right-wing thinking organization that cares nothing for people in this Province. Absolutely not true! And we are not going to stand here and listen to that type of argument.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Eighteen months ago, the Leader of the Opposition stood at a NAPE biennial convention and answered the question about existing collective agreements. Do you know what he said? Do members in this House know what he said? Let me tell people in this House, and publicly, what he said. He made a commitment that if he and the PC Party were to form a government they would respect all existing collective agreements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Here is what else he said. Let's see what the members opposite think of this. He also said at that convention, he would never use the force of the Legislature to legislate collective agreements.

Now, is this not the same party and the same people who stood in this House and we watched them legislate nurses back to work? Exactly! Do not try to paint yourselves as the only caring, compassionate crowd in this Assembly, because your record speaks far differently to that issue.

Madam Chair, the only right wing conservative person in this Province in fifty years of Confederation that occupied the Premier's chair was one Clyde K. Wells.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Who was it? People opposite? Yes. Were they the same crowd that privatized provincial parks? Yes. Were they the same crowd that tried to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro but the Opposition and the people stopped them? Were they the same crowd that, on December 4, in a speech by a former member for Humber West, announced layoffs to people just before Christmas?

Do not try to put yourself in the cloak of caring and compassionate, and that we would cut. Who is it? You have fourteen years of history, fourteen years of history. Is it any wonder that people in this House - and we talk about cutting the fat out of government. You had better believe it. We would not be purchasing ships like Hull 100 and spending millions of dollars on it.

I listened to the deputy minister, and read his comments yesterday or earlier this week in the paper, saying that we have spent $7 million. We do not know how much more we are going to spend; we hope and pray that it will not be too much more. Is that the way to run a government, hoping and praying?

The way to run a government is on facts, on getting the best bang for your dollar so services can be delivered to people. That is what we are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Is this the same government that stands on its high horse today, in attempting to say to all of us in this House that they are the best managers? Is this not the same government that wasted in excess of $40 million to $50 million, broke the Public Tender Act, so that they could give contracts to build hospitals to their friends? Is this the same crowd? I ask you, Madam Chair, is this the same crowd that have laid off hundreds of people in the public service and yet years later, when it ended up in the court, were compelled and ordered to pay damages to those people because they were wrongfully dealt with? This is the type of crowd that wants to paint us as being neo-conservatives and are going to slash and cut our way through government? Not likely. Not that member right there, not the member over there, not the member there or there or there, and not this member; we will not be doing it! No, Sir!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to say how inconsistent - the Minister of Finance just stood up and said, well, I was not there for that but I am only reporting what I heard.

She did not hear anything. We were so confident in the speech that the Member for St. John's East made last week about what was actually said, actually said in Deer Lake, we released it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The only tax we talked about was the payroll tax. This is a tax that they put on jobs, and every small business person in this Province will tell you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - that they are taxing jobs, and every small business person in this Province knows it is wrong and so do they. That is why they have committed overtime to eliminating it.

Well, I am not going to stand here and listen to members opposite, ministers opposite or the Premier opposite, try to paint us as some uncaring crowd when we have made commitments to the public servants of this Province, when we have told them clearly, every existing collective agreement that you have negotiated, if the people of the Province were to put their faith in us, we would honor them. Unlike you, and unlike you and members opposite, Madam Chair, we would never use the force of this Legislature to legislate people back to work. That is the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the difference. That is the difference! That was a commitment. That was a public commitment and a public policy on collective bargaining outlined by the leader of our party on behalf of all of us to the NAPE biennial convention eighteen months ago. If you cannot stand up and speak the truth, sit down and do not speak at all. That is what I say, Madam Chair, because it is unbelievable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, you know, in the last ten years it is interesting to sit in this House and see people try to recreate and re-invent themselves as if what they have done in the previous fourteen actually means nothing today, that what is important is the future. The future is important, but so is your past record. So is all of our past records in this place.

What is important is not where we sit in this Legislature but where we stand, and I challenge anybody in this Assembly, when it comes to this side of the House, to predict or to show in Hansard or anywhere else, where our first and only consideration has been to provide public services, to enhance public services, so that people of the Province can benefit. I challenge anyone in this House, on that side or anywhere else, to demonstrate where we have not done our duty and where we have not publicly articulated policy on a wide range of issues.

I challenge members opposite, when they stand, to also include in their commentary the millions of dollars that they have wasted, where they have broken the law, where the civil courts in this Province have found them wrongfully dealing with people, where they have protected their friends, given contracts to their friends, and then stand up and point the finger at us, saying that we are going to be somehow slash and cut. Not on your life! And we are not going to stand up and listen to it. Not on your life!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: You talk about skill shortages. The Premier of the Province announced yesterday his new initiatives in education. We are leading the country, the lowest tuition rates in all the country. It has been reduced by 25 per cent.

Let me remind people, Madam Chair, that in the last ten years this is the same government that increased tuition by 300 per cent; by 300 per cent in the last ten years. Now they roll it back 25 per cent and they are the best thing since sliced bread.

Let me ask them this question: Why was it during the last election when we said that, if we were going to be a government - every economic indicator in the world today will tell you and anyone else that in order to get on a meaningful career path you need a minimum of two years post-secondary education - a minimum of two years post-secondary education. Why was it that all of you, including the Member for Gander, including the Member for Terra Nova, including the Minister of Industry, and everyone else who sat here, flatly rejected our proposal for the first two years of post-secondary education to be offered free, to give our students a meaningful start? Why is it now that you are trying to reinvent yourselves?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I can say this in all honesty: Interim Supply is an important piece of legislation. Nobody on this side of the House would ever disagree with that. It is our opportunity as a Legislature, and in particular our opportunity as an Official Opposition, to show our good faith, to demonstrate to government, and through government the people of the Province, that before we debate the $3.5 billion or so of the Budget which will be announced next week, that we have enough faith in the process that we will advance - because we could hold it up indefinitely. People need to understand that. We could hold it up until the middle of May, if we wanted to, through legitimate parliamentary tools. We will not, and as long as I have been here this Opposition never has, but it is our demonstration of faith to government so that the prosecution and delivery of public services can, and must, continue. In doing so, we also put government on notice, that, yes, you have the right to govern and, yes, you must deliver public services, but everyday in this Legislature, I can guarantee you, as sure as there is - as the saying goes - holes in donuts, we will hold your feet to the fire on what we believe you should be accountable for and what you have not been. We will not stand up here everyday and listen to the thrash and rubbish about how right-winged we are going to be when our public statements say something else and your past record clearly demonstrates something else.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had not intended to rise to speak at this early stage in the proceedings today, but I have been somewhat brought to my feet by the impassioned speech by the hon. the Opposition House Leader. To paraphrase Shakespeare: Me thinks he doth protest just a wee bit too much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Anyway, Madam Chair, I just want to say a few words about the Speech from the Throne read yesterday by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because that is about all it could be characterized as, as his version of the Speech from the Throne.

Madam Chair, it does not really surprise me, because since I have known the hon. gentleman opposite from the by-election in Humber West, what we do one day, he does the next. Copycat, copycat, copycat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: That is a very common practice of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I think people yesterday saw it for what it was. They saw it very clearly because the gentleman came with a very well prepared speech. He had no intention of commenting on the Speech from the Throne per se, but deliver a political speech and to outline, quote, his future. I am still not clear what his future is, Madam Chair.

Whenever we ask the members opposite to outline a policy, we hear the same catcall we have been hearing for the last couple of years: Call an election and you will know what our policies will be. Do these people only think about elections? Do they think about governance and forming a government and trying to do the best for the people of this Province? Or are they so fixated on the one little issue of an election? An election will come. It is will come this year, obviously. The Premier has said that many, many times. It may come next week. It may come next month. It may come the month afterwards. It may come in the fall; but it will come, and it will come this year. The people of the Province will have an opportunity to cast their ballots in favour of the candidates of their choice.

Madam Chair, Oppositions are supposed to be governments-in-waiting. They are supposed to have policies. They are supposed to have issues placed before the public so that the public, as an informed group, can make a decision. Do we want that crowd over there, or do we want that crowd over there? The crowd over there, Madam Chair, refuses to tell us what their policies are, or tell us what they are going to stand for. As the Premier said yesterday, if you do not stand for anything, you will fall for anything.

I just want to say that I really have some difficulty with the line of logic by the members opposite. If you want to know what our policies are, call an election. I am sorry, guys, when the election is called the time for debate - yes, it is time for debating your policies but people need to know what you stand for before the election.

The other thing that I have heard all the time, Madam Chair: Well, yes, I think you need a long-term health care centre in Corner Brook. Yes, it might be important to the thirty or forty people who have no place to go, who are taking up acute care beds in the hospital. Yes, we think it might be important but we cannot make a commitment to you until we have seen the books. Well, the answer is: once we have seen the books then we may be able to figure out where the long-term health care centre for Corner Brook fits into our other priorities. That is the statement which has been made repeatedly by members opposite and by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The people in Corner Brook are getting tired of the comment being made: Well, I cannot do this. I cannot do that because I do not know what the books are saying. Well, it seems just passingly strange to me, Madam Chair, that with the nomination yesterday of a former Auditor General for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, whose only job is to count and add up the numbers and subtract and divide and do her sums, it would seem to me that the person in this Province who knows most about the books of this Province is the candidate who will be running in the District of Topsail for the PC Party, Madam Elizabeth Marshall. She knows the numbers. So, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know what the books look like; if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would like to know whether or not he can afford to build a long-term health care centre in Corner Brook, no big deal. All he needs to do is talk to his candidate in Topsail, in the next election, and she should be able to give him all the answers that he needs.

Madam Chair, I suspect the problem goes deeper than that. He knows the numbers. She knows the numbers, but I think members opposite are so fixated on bringing in a balanced budget that they may not be able to do certain things. They may not be able to finance a long-term health care centre in Corner Brook. Not saying that they would not, but they may not be able to find the money in a balanced budget approach, because that is what the former Auditor General has been saying time in, time out, report year after year, year over year, you need to add up your sums. You have to make sure that your pluses equals your minuses and that you have a balanced budget.

Madam Chair, if running a government was as simple as adding up your sums it would be a very simple job indeed. Anyone can add up their sums and add up their pluses and their minuses and get a balanced budget, but governance is a lot more than that. Governance is caring about people. It is talking about the delivery of services even when their finances do not necessarily allow them to do that. You tell the thirty people who are in acute care beds in Western Memorial Hospital today, you go out there and you tell them that we cannot build a long-term health care centre for you because we do not have the money. Tell them that maybe in ten years, fifteen years, we may be able to do it. You look into the face of an eighty-year-old and tell her that in ten or fifteen years you may be able to build a facility, because today your budget does not allow you to do it because your sums do not add up properly.

Madam Chair, governance is a lot more about balancing budgets, getting your pluses and your minuses in order. It is about caring for people, doing the things that need to be done, and doing them in a timely fashion, not waiting for some mystical day down the road when everything can be done.

Madam Chair, I just want to make a few other points relating to a couple of comments made yesterday. The members opposite, particularly the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his speech, made a great statement to say: Oh, well, they have taken another one of our policies. They are going to have fixed four-year elections. They have taken another policy out of our book.

Madam Chair, I recall not so very long ago, I think it was a day or two after the fiasco that was brewing down in St. George's-Stephenville, about a certain candidate for the other side, and there was a rush to the microphones. There were three members. I do not recall all three, although I remember the Member for Waterford Valley. I thought he was a little bit strange that day, at that particular press conference, but perhaps someone was around needing to fill a seat that day. Anyway, a grand announcement and a very typical type of action from the other side, you are in hot water so let's try to divert the public's attention to another issue.

The great press conference for that day was to have fixed term elections, which, at the time, the leader of our party, the Premier of the Province, had discussed several days before, publicly. This was a policy that he had said he had intended to bring in. That was policy number one.

Policy number two was to bring in reforms around election spending, which, if memory recalls, was a topic in Ottawa, which is what Jean Chrétien was talking about bringing in. That was a topic in the National Post for some several days. That did not really ring terribly true to me, or new or revolutionary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) slow learner.

MR. MERCER: No, I am not a slow learner. It is just that I do remember things. I do remember, when people parrot what other people have said and then claim to make them their statements, there is something fundamentally wrong.

The third point was that we were going to bring in lobbyists. We need some lobbyist legislation to protect government, protect civil servants, from being lobbied by lobbyists.

Madam Chair, again, I do believe we need lobbyist legislation. I really do believe that, because we have been lobbied for - I think my hon. colleague just mentioned about telephone contracts. Certain people were spending a lot of time in the Premier's residence of the day lobbying for that particular contract, and, as I understand as well, there were also lobbyists involved looking -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I shall come again another day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is certainly an opportunity today to make a few comments on Bill 2. As the House Leader has put forward a short time ago, we certainly are not, in any way, shape or form, going to stop this piece of legislation from going through the House to ensure that the operations of the government continue and that the Province continues on its regular path of duty each and every day, Madam Chair.

I think it is important and it is an opportunity for me, as I sit here today in the House and listen to members opposite talk about the plans that they say we are making on this side of the House, to talk about the ideas that they say we are coming forward with on this side of the House. Certainly, they know all about our ideas on that side of the House. They know all about our plans, because for the last number of years they have taken every one of the policies of our Blue Book and implemented them time and time again.

We stood here in the House and watched the Ombudsman come forward. We stood in the House and watched the Child Advocate come forward. We stood in the House, Madam Chair, time and time again and watched and waited for another piece of good PC Party policy to be implemented by this government. We do not have any problem with that. We agree with anything that is good for the people of this Province. We agree with anything that is beneficial to the people of this Province.

Madam Chair, I sat today and listened as the Minister of Finance was on her feet and talked about the fact that they are responsible for the finances on behalf of the people of this Province, and we certainly take that job very seriously. This is what the Minister of Finance said today. Her words may be a little bit different from that, but that was the gist of her comments - they are responsible for the finances on behalf of the people of this Province.

I think it is very important that we take a history lesson here and say, yes, you are responsible for the people's money. That is why we are here. Then we ask ourselves, if they take it so seriously, when we look back over the past ten or twelve years of this government and what it has cost the coffers of this Province in legal costs, we have to ask ourselves time and time again: Are they being responsible?

Were the government responsible when the cottage hospital contracts cost the people of this Province $5 million? Were they responsible on June 15, 1998, when the Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the Newfoundland government's appeal and awarded $4.2 million to Atlantic Leasing Limited? Were they responsible with the people's money then? That is what I ask.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Were they responsible in December of 1999 when the Newfoundland Supreme Court ruled in favour of seven former employees of the Cabot 500 Corporation, who sued the Newfoundland government for wrongful dismissal, and gave them $1 million in compensation? Were they responsible then with the people's money?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The Premier stood up and fired them. He fired them because - former employees that received lost wages covering the periods from 1995 to 1997.

Were they responsible when they dealt with the Mayor of St. John's, Andy Wells, and the Public Utilities Board on September 15, 1999, when the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed once again a Newfoundland government appeal and upheld a 1997 Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal awarding Andy Wells somewhere in the range of $550,000 and courts costs almost $600,000? Were the crowd across the floor responsible with the people's money then, I ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today?

Were they responsible with the people's money when Tors Cove Excavating were awarded $1 million from the courts of this Province? Were the people across the floor responsible with the people's money at that time?

The list goes on and on and on. We talk about the Public Tender Act time and time again. Members before me have spoken about the Hull 100, $7 million, and we still do have a ship that we can put in the water that meets the Canadian standards for shipping in this country - after $7 million - because it is a buddy system that we are dealing with here in this Province. If you are my buddy, you will be taken care of, but if you are not, you will not be. Time and time again we have watched millions and millions of dollars go out the door because of the people on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: For the Minister of Finance to stand here in the House today and say: We are responsible and we take our job very seriously with the people's money. It is a joke. Time and time again, it is a joke. I say to the people, that is why we are still here today. We listened to a Throne Speech yesterday, and that is why we are still here today. The people on the opposite side - the Premier has not had the guts to take it to the people of this Province for an election. That is the problem that we have in this House. It is a government that was formed in the Glacier in Mount Pearl last February, that does not have the right to sit here and operate this Province and spend it into the hole that they are spending it into time and time again; millions of dollars

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The Premier was asked a short time ago about the deficit of the Province. Somewhere between $100 and $600 million. What an answer for the Premier of the Province to give: We are somewhere between $100 and $600 million on the deficit. My God! If someone said to you, what do you run your household on a month, do you run it on $1,000 a month or do you run it on $6,000, someone would say: Well, you are not too sure what you are doing. Well, Mr. Chair, we are talking about being responsible with the people's money here.

I only have a few minutes. Mr. Chair, education was a major thrust of the Throne Speech yesterday. It talked about education. We heard the members ask questions today in relation to the teacher-student radio and the importance of staying in school. I found one of the comments yesterday very interesting. They talked about: Over the next little while government plans to put computers in every classroom in this Province. We have heard that time and time again. The former Premier, Brian Tobin, Mr. Chair, stood in this House and every school and every classroom and every student in this Province was going to be hooked up. Mr. Chair, over the years, time and time again, we heard these promises. They are falling on deaf ears and people are starting to realize.

I found interesting yesterday, Mr. Chair, on page 11 of the Throne Speech, "Our next commitment is to link every classroom to the Internet"; our next commitment. We certainly agree with anything that involves our students getting into the new technology of the world and learning. Whatever is beneficial we support on this side of the House. What we cannot support, Mr. Chair, is fallacies, and this is what we have heard from this government time and time again.

"Our next commitment is to link every class room to the Internet." Well, there is a classroom in my district, as a matter of fact it is in Laval High School in Placentia, Mr. Chair, where they will not be able to link up computers. I will tell you why. Because for the past two years that classroom has been closed down because the students cannot breath in that classroom. They have to shut the door. They are after spending money on it, Mr. Chair, trying to replace it and trying to repair it. Do you know, Mr. Chair, there is a major problem there and they cannot put computers in there. They might be able to put computers in there, yes, because the computers don't breath, but they won't be able to put students in there because that classroom is off limits. So, I think they should clean up the air in those schools, Mr. Chair, before they start talking about putting computers in classrooms where you cannot even put them in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chair, we also talked yesterday, and we heard in the Throne Speech, about the relationship with Ottawa. That is another joke. They talked about the Liberal cousins in Ottawa. Well, let's look for a moment, if we could, at - we will just leave Loyola Hearn, Norm Doyle and Rex Barnes alone. We will say, well, they are not the same color as the crowd opposite, so we won't bother them.

Let's talk about Lawrence O'Brien. My desk is full here, Mr. Chair, of comments from Lawrence O'Brien about the crowd opposite. We will go back to the Labrador Transportation Initiative last year and we listened to that.

Then we talked about Bill Matthews. Well, we will leave him alone also, Mr. Chair. He was going to be the fellow who was going to go up there and deal on behalf of the people on this side of the House.

Now, we talked about John Efford. Mr. Chair, we all know what the opposite side did to John Efford. Time and time again we have heard that. In order to start anew you will have to bury the hatchet. The people opposite would have to bury the hatchet with John Efford in order to have a relationship with Mr. Efford in Ottawa. In order to bury the hatchet they would have to take it out of his back first, because that is where the people opposite put it when they had the chance to put it there, last February at the Glacier.

Now, you are left to deal with Gerry Byrne, the minister who sits at the Table on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador. These people here go to Ottawa time and time again and they talk to everybody up there except the minister for Newfoundland. They talk to everybody up there except the minister for Newfoundland and Labrador. Then they wonder why he gets upset when they go in the back doors and around the corners and do not deal with the minister that is responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is time that you woke up on the other side and realize that Jerry Byrne is the minister for this Province and if you are going to make any headway up there dealing with the Liberals in Ottawa that you should talk to the minister before you go up there.

We talked about the Gander weather station -

CHAIR (Mr. Butler): I would like to advise the member that his time is up.

MR. MANNING: The Gander weather station. Where, in the name of God, have the people on the opposite side of the House been for the past six, seven or eight months since this issue became a priority? Now they are talking about putting a proposal into Ottawa but I say, Mr. Chair, it is too late now because the horse has left the barn.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have been listening to a number of people across the floor today making speeches on Interim Supply. I have been very quiet and, in a sense, I have to learn to listen and not interject a lot and that is what I have been able to do over the last number of minutes, even though I would like to do it.

The boys on the other side have a real problem. Last year -

MR. H. HODDER: What about the ladies?

MR. LANGDON: Ladies, I should say. I do not mean to be derogatory. That is not my nature to do that. It was just a Freudian slip. The team on the other side, if you want to use that particular phrase, have a real problem.

A year ago when the members came in they looked at this side - they were so cocky that they looked and said: I am having your seat. I am having your seat. I will be your minister. Well, you know what? Over the last year things have changed. Things have changed and you are no guarantee anymore that you are going to be sitting in my seat. The thing is, that was the attitude. Do not tell me because I have been around here long enough to know. Call the election; we will replace you; time has come. Do you know what? The people of this Province are not so sure anymore about the team that is across there. It is for one thing. One of the major things that you talk about is democracy.

I remember when the Leader of the Opposition got elected. He said: I will have throngs of people in every district coming for nominations. It will be the numbers; throngs. But, are there throngs? In some instances one or two or three, not anymore. The whole idea is: I want this one, or I want this one, or somebody else is not allowed to run. Well, in this situation here our leader has said: If you want to run, then you can run. It is a process that is open and transparent to everybody, and that is the way it should be. It is a democratic process. It is the way it should be. If the people in the area decide not to elect them, that is their case.

In a way of speaking, I feel for Mr. Dawe in a way because I tell you this - and not having anything to do with politics. I guess that is what he is looking for. He says: I am not allowed to run for the nomination but nobody has told me. What is wrong with me? I think everybody, in that sense, has a right to because the credibility problems - you know, people are out there saying: What did he do? What is wrong with the guy? At least he should know, but he doesn't know. That is the thing that is there and people are beginning to wonder and beginning to think.

They talk about legitimacy. The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's talked about legitimacy as government. Do you know what? The Premier of Ontario, Ernie Eves, isn't he in the same process? Landry? No matter what the situation is or whatever party across the country, when you have leadership then that particular person assumes the leadership until the next election. There is nothing about that that is not legitimate. That is the way the democratic process works. That is the way it works and it will always work that way.

To tell you the other thing, there is one thing that this government did not do that Premier Eves did. He will not go into some hotel and present a budget and not do it in the House where his own Speaker from his own side is saying: It is unbelievable that you are doing it. We are not doing that. The Budget is coming here.

I remember the people on the opposite side saying this Premier, this government, would bring no budget to this House. You are afraid to bring in a budget. You do not want to be accountable to the people. Guess what? There is a budget coming here next Thursday and we are going to pass that Budget in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That is what credibility is and that is what it is all about, being transparent and letting people see.

We talk about waste. You know, the thing is you live in the past and these types of things, I understand that. Do you know what? You talk about waste and people say: I was not here when that happened; but you have connections with it, when bills were charged to the offices for cigars and wine by the caseloads. The other thing I can remember is, selling furniture that was belonging to the people that was valued at $225,000 and selling it for $22,000. I remember that. I was in the House when all of these figures were gotten. Anybody can go back in Hansard and find all these things. So in these things we look at it that way. We can keep back and going back and looking back and doing all those things, but why go back here?

We talk about education. This is what the Throne Speech talked about yesterday. One of the parts of the Interim Supply was education. I have to go back to the situation where as a young person growing up in an isolated community on the South Coast coming from parents who had very little, if anything, as far as financial assistance was concerned. Do you know what? Because of a person like Joey Smallwood - and people, for whatever reason, can love or hate the man but he did some good things. One of the good things he did was bring in free tuition at Memorial University. In addition to the free tuition, I was lucky enough for a year or two to get $100 a month as a living allowance to help pay my board so that I could come to university. Do you know what? That reason is probably why I am here today, that somebody gave me a break. That is why this government, under this Premier, has decided to say that education is going to be the budget for us. We recognize that. An education is a costly factor and, as a government, we have recognized - we have reduced the tuition by 25 per cent, or will by September. In addition, the only government in the country that has said we will pay 100 per cent of your federal contribution to your student debt. Imagine that. We are the only province in the country that will do that for people who leave university with a debt load of - say if they left with $40,000, they can get $20,000 written off. That is a tremendous bonus for the people we represent, people who come in from the district that I represent, in many of the rural parts. It is very expensive to have an education system. That is why we recognize that.

My philosophy is simply this: Regardless of what your economic status is in life, whether you come from social services or whether you come from the working poor, or whether you come from the middle class or whether you come from the top echelon in society, everybody should have the right to an education. There is no two ways about that. I am telling you, if we allow our young people from whatever walk of life, socio-economic, to have an opportunity for a free education, it will improve the society in which we live. There is no two ways about that. It is one of the best things outside of health that we can have, because everybody, regardless of what you would have as far as material things are concerned in life, if you do not have good health it means nothing.

In fact, I have witnessed over the last couple of weeks some of my friends who have not been so fortunate as I have with good health and it has caused problems for them and for their families. I am thankful for that but, outside of having good health, I recognize the ability for me as an individual to be able to provide for my family and my children.

When I was teaching in school back in Point Leamington, there were a number of opportunities where children probably would have been able to do better in life had they been able to have more support from economics to be able to go to post-secondary and so on. It is very important that we are able to do that. Because if we are not able to do that, then obviously we are in trouble as a society.

We talk about some other things, Mr. Chairman. I think of where I live, in the district that I represent, I have six communities that are isolated. I think about the situations in some instances, like the ferry service in Ramea or the ferry service in Rencontre East or the ferry service in Gaultois. There are situations when those particular boats get mechanical difficulties and they shut down and there is no service. There are times when we have to go out and we have to repair these and we do not have the time to go through the public tender system to make it happen.

Guess what? The member -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to advise the hon. minister that his time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. LANGDON: The candidate in Conception Bay South said: You should never do that. You have to make sure that you follow the Public Tender Act to the T all the time - no emergencies.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. LANGDON: What would happen to the people in Ramea? What would happen to the people in Rencontre if they could not do that, and be able to go out and do it? You cannot run government that way. You have to have compassion. You have to be able to be with people, and this is what this government is: Compassion for people they represent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to stand and make a few comments relative to the particular bill that is called the Interim Supply Bill. I did note that the minister, in her presentation, did not really outline many of the details for which this expenditure is being requested. We have the total figure. We do not have any of the details. We have the breakdown per department, but none of the details as to why this money is needed. Why, for example, would the Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education need $86 million in the next short while?

Mr. Chairman, I want to also comment on some of the things that have been said here in the last few minutes. I want to comment on this government's legacy.

I was here when people who worked for the Cabot Corporation were summarily laid off. I was here as well when these same people, after going to court, were told by the courts that you should be compensated. This is this government's legacy.

I was here when, just before Christmas, the Premier of the Province called in various civil servants, and right before Christmas he said: I have a bonus for you. You are fired. Nearly 300 people were told they were gone. Two hundred and seventy-five people were told: You are gone.

Let me tell you what one assistant deputy minister told me was the process. He said, I was called to the Premier's office and I was told by an assistant that you have one minute to speak and the Premier has two minutes. After twenty-eight years, that civil servant was given a total of three minutes: one minute for that civil servant and two minutes for the Premier.

That is what this government's legacy is all about. That is how caring they are for the civil servants. That is how they show their respect to civil servants. Three minutes, after twenty-eight years. You are told, three minutes. A whole lifetime of work was summarized in three minutes, and 275 members of the civil service got a Christmas bonus; namely that you have been fired, or you have been laid off or dismissed. That is the legacy of this particular Administration.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to comment on something my colleague for Humber East mentioned, when he mentioned about democracy. We on this side have been promoting reforms in democracy for a long time. It is at least five years ago since I published articles on this particular topic. We on this side are real democratic reformers.

Mr. Chairman, we see the Premier jumping on the bandwagon and saying: I believe in fixed elections. That is not new. That is not very new at all. In fact, the Chief Electoral Officer for Canada wrote on that topic three years ago. Read the report put out by the Chief Electoral Officer for Canada in the year 1999. Read that report. It is entitled: Modernizing the Democratic Process. That is the title of it. It is about 200 pages long. I have read substantially every single bit of it.

Mr. Chairman, I say to you in this House, when we talk about reforming the democratic process, we give it meaning. We believe in a four year term. We have announced that. I want to say as well that, when we talk about doing reforms, we put a lot of meat to the bone, as you would say. For example, we believe in legislating maximum donations to candidates in party leadership contests. I did not hear that yesterday. I did not hear the Premier say he was going to do anything about party leadership. He did not say he was going to limit how much you can spend in a party leadership campaign, because that would narrow in on something that bothers, and should bother, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, namely how much leaders are allowed to spend in leadership candidacy races, and also some deal of transparency in how much this particular Premier spent on his election campaign to be a leader and where the money came from. Part of our reform will also make it mandatory that all candidates in a party leadership race, not only do they have limits on what they can spend but they have to publicly show, immediately, where the money is coming from; not a year later. They have to show it within three months.

Mr. Chair, when we talk about reform we talk about getting into some of the details. While it is nice to say, yes, we believe in a four-year term, the current Premier says: But it doesn't apply to me, I can go on for five years. Therefore, as we said here, if the Premier really believed in that he would have done something about it. The same way, when he talked about the size of the Cabinet, if he really believed in what he was doing, he would not have taken the steps he took a few weeks ago.

Mr. Chair, when we talk about public disclosure, we are saying that all donations in these races will have to be audited and be audited by independent auditors. We are saying, we are going to put some real strength into our reforms. We are not just going to give it one or two little parts and say, we are going to have an election every four years. We are talking about the leadership of the political process in this Province.

A few weeks ago I was party to a press conference where the Leader of our Party, the House Leader, and I were making presentations on real reform. I have some interest in this particular matter, as does all of our caucus, and we are demanding absolute transparency, not selective transparency. If you are involved in the process you will have to tell the whole story. We can't any longer have circumstances where people can go out, accept donations, there is no reconciliation - and the other side of it is, we are not only going to go there, we are going to say: If you accept money and you don't spend all of the money, we are going to tell you what you are going to do with that money that is left over. We can't have people going out raising $2 million or some fraction of that and then spending less than that. What did you do with the money that was left over? There is nothing in our process now that says that you have to disclose that whatsoever, or nothing that says what you can do with that extra money. We will make sure we will have rules on that and they will be absolute and they will be there to make sure that when we talk about transparency it really is transparency.

Mr. Chair, yesterday there was no mention at all about regulating lobbyists, none at all. There was no mention of that. We have announced a policy. We are going to be demanding that all lobbyists that lobby this government, or a government in Newfoundland and Labrador, will have to register. People deserve to know who is lobbying their government and what they are lobbying for. We are saying that we will develop appropriate and strict legislation for the registration of all lobbyists who are operating in this Province. A registry will be established so the public can see by whom and for what reason their government and the members of the Legislature are being lobbied.

We certainly believe there is a need for reform but we believe in having real reform, not just saying one or two little things about it. When I see this Premier coming forward with his package on reform I hope it contains more than he mentioned yesterday, because that was only just a little tidbit -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - as to what is coming forward when we form the next government. We will bring forward real reform in democracy in this Province. Not only that, we are going to welcome in the legislation that will make sure that the Members of the House of Assembly -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am sure I will get a chance to elaborate a little further in the future.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon to say a few words on the motion before the floor.

Unlike the members opposite who think if they stand and yell and scream and bawl they can fool the people into believing that what they are saying all of the time is true, I do not practice that. I believe in sitting here and listening and debating back and forth in this House of Assembly. I also believe that you sit and you listen and you attack the argument, not the person, which seems to be the case on the opposite side of the floor.

I would like to make a few comments, having listened to all of the speakers here this afternoon. I will start with the Member for Cape St. Francis when he got up waving around an editorial in the House of Assembly this afternoon. Well, an editorial is an opinion of the individual -

AN HON. MEMBER: Based on facts.

MR. REID: Okay, based on facts. Keep that in mind. Based on facts, the member opposite just told me. The Opposition members told me, based on facts.

An editorial is an opinion of the writer in that particular article in a newspaper. That is the reason it is called editorials. It is usually not necessarily the views of the paper or the individuals who work at the paper. I listened to him, and he waved it around when he was condemning us and saying, oh, yes, here is what the editorial says, and this, that and the other thing.

Let us talk about another editorial, one that appeared in The Western Star a week ago, when they were talking about the Member from St. John's Centre - Is St. John's Centre his district?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. REID: The member from St. John's Centre went out and addressed one of the local groups out in Deer Lake, and he talked about how they were going to cut taxes. That does not surprise me. They are going to cut taxes because the Tory philosophy has always been that you cut taxes for the rich. It is Tory policy everywhere in the world. The Republicans in the United States today are talking about giving tax breaks to the rich. The federal Tories under Mr. Mulroney talked about giving tax breaks to the rich. So it is not surprising when I hear the Member from St. John's Centre out in Deer Lake talking about cutting taxes to give tax breaks to the rich, especially in light of the fact that they stood in this House this year and basically begged, bawled and screamed looking for tax breaks for Archean Resources, two individuals who discovered Voisey's Bay. They wanted a tax break on these two individuals because they did not think that they should have to pay tax on the $400 million that they were going to receive in royalties for discovering Voisey's Bay.

I applaud these two individuals for discovering Voisey's Bay because it is going to be of great benefit to the Province, but the fact of the matter is, these individuals, as far as I know, do not employee people in this Province. If they do, there are a very limited number of people in this Province. Yet the Tories opposite want to give a tax break to the rich. Now if you give a tax break to the rich and you are going to make that one of the planks in your platform, where do you get the money to pay for everything else? Where do you get the money to pay the salaries of the civil servants? I am proud to stand up here and say that we gave the civil servants in this Province a 15 per cent increase over the last three years. I cannot remember the last time the civil servants in this Province got an increase so big. We are proud of it. I would like to be able to give them more, but, if you are going to cut taxes to the rich, where are you going to get the money to honour these commitments?

At that time, Mr. Hanlon, the head of the NAPE union here in the Province, stood up and talked about, if they are going to give tax breaks to the rich then what is going to happen? Are they going to honour the commitments that the Liberal government made to them with the increase in pay? Are they going to lay off civil servants? Because you cannot have it both ways. You cannot take fewer dollars in - if you reduce taxes, you are going to take fewer dollars in - and then still expand the civil servants and do all the things that we are talking about doing. You cannot do that.

What I was saying about the editorial a little while ago, they were saying that an editorial is based on fact. That is not what the Member for St. John's Centre said last week. That is not what the Leader of the Opposition said. What they said was: It is a total lie, what Mr. Hanlon was saying. Not only that, they demanded an apology from Mr. Hanlon for having the audacity - just think about it - to comment on an editorial, just like the Member for Cape St. Francis did this afternoon.

I am not up here screaming to him this afternoon that he should apologize because he was quoting something in an editorial. I think that the Member for St. John's Centre and the Opposition Leader should apologize to Mr. Hanlon and attack the editorial writer for the Western Star, not Mr. Hanlon. He was quoting what was in the Western Star. No one, I cannot remember any of them other there coming out and attacking the individual who said he sat in the audience, who wrote the editorial. Let's get the facts straight here in the House of Assembly.

After the hon. member sat down, the Member for Placentia stood up a little while ago and criticized us for putting computers in all the schools in the Province. He said they have a computer room in one of the schools that he has but the students cannot go in there because of the air quality. Mr. Chairman, if there is a problem with the air quality in a particular classroom in the school in his district, then he should notify his school board and he should notify the Department of Education about that, because we made it a policy back some three or four years ago that the kids in our schools were going to have decent air to breathe. We have done that, Mr. Chairman. We have done that. In fact, we have had 260 out of 317 schools in this Province have their air quality tested by professionals. These are the entire number of schools that asked to have their air quality tested. If he has a problem with air quality in one of the classrooms in one of the schools in the district that he represents, he should make that known, because I do not want to have any kid in this Province breathing air that is not fit, and I am sure no one on this side of the House. What I am saying to the member, if there is a problem with the air quality in the school, why doesn't he talk to the local school board in the area? Because I am sure they would also like to hear about it and we will have it remedied.

Besides testing all the air quality in the Province, Mr. Chairman, we went to forty-nine schools in this Province and did renovations to help with air quality and leaky roofs. We redeveloped a number of schools in this Province at a tune of $175 million since 1977. We have built twenty-three brand new schools. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity, with the Premier here, to go to the Northern Peninsula. We do not discriminate based on how you vote in an election, because we went to the Northern Peninsula and we opened two schools, one in St. Barbe and one in The Straits, one in Roddickton and one down in Plum Point, two brand new schools, beautiful facilities. Having been a teacher I would be honoured and glad to be able to teach in one of those schools. We went up the road and redeveloped a whole brand new school up there. Torrent River, I think it is going to be called, the name of the school, a beautiful facility, an elementary school. We have built twenty-three new schools, we have renovated - overhauled them completely in most cases - forty-nine new schools in this Province; but no, all they can talk about is there may be one particular class in one particular school in this Province with an air quality problem. If there is, I would like to know about it. I would like to know about it and we will have that air quality problem fixed. I would like to hear about that.

The member, my critic, my new critic, the Member for St. John's East, stood this afternoon and basically told me that I was lying. He basically left the impression in this Province that I was lying when it came to the student-teacher ratios in this country and in this Province. I can tell the people of this Province right now that we have the lowest student-teacher ratio in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: They can talk about: Oh, you are not calculating this and you are not calculating that. We calculate everything exactly the same way as they do right straight across this country. We do the same calculations they do in every single province in this country, and since 1996-1997 we have had the lowest student-teacher ratio in the country, bar none. They can say all they want. They can say yes, there is a class out there with twenty-nine in it. I am not denying it. There is also a class out there with forty-four in it.

Let me tell the Member for Whitbourne, I taught school as well. In fact, I thought you did a half decent job as the Education critic. I don't know why they took you out of it. I taught at Coaker Academy on New World Island. I had three classes of Grade 9 English, with twenty-nine in each of them. I think there were thirty-one in one, and twenty-nine and twenty-nine. That is true, so the ratio in that class was not -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. minister that his time is up.

MR. REID: By leave?

I also taught a class with seven students.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MR. REID: No leave?

Thank you very much.

You do not want to hear the truth; you want to scream and yell.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to take part in the debate that is going on in the House. I want to reference something that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs talked about earlier when he talked about education and the affordability and the moves that have been made in terms of education in the Province during the past couple of years.

The direction that the Province has taken in terms of the affordability is certainly the right direction to be going in and it does buck the tide in the rest of Canada when other provinces are moving in the opposite direction, making education more expensive.

However, Mr. Chairman, that does not say that the things that are in place now are the answers, because there is still much work that needs to be done. The cost of education is still extremely high for most students. If you look at students from outside the St. John's area, who have to travel in to St. John's for the most part in order to further their education, if you look at students who travel from Labrador, for example, or from other parts of Province, the Northern Peninsula, who travel in to St. John's, you have the additional costs, Mr. Chairman: the cost of travel, which is quite expensive, you have room and board, which again is quite expensive, so you have these added expenditures, added cost, for students who reside outside of St. John's or the immediate area.

There is no break for students on this issue, Mr. Chairman, and I firmly believe that there should be. There should also be a break for parents who are footing the bill for their children's education. That does not necessarily mean, Mr. Chairman, that these parents are rich, wealthy people. It means that they are at an income level where they are able to do that with careful planning but, by doing that, they are also sacrificing in a lot of other areas of their lives. I know people who have sacrificed their retirement and delayed their retirement by eight or ten years because of the cost they incurred in putting their kids through university so that they could get out and not have a debt, but there is no big gain for them in terms of what they can claim when they are filing their tax return to receive a break on that.

I think that is an area that needs to be looked at and needs to be addressed. Simply because some parents may have the money, may have enough income, to finance their children's education, it does not mean that they can do without that money. It does not mean that they have enough that they do not miss it, because the personal sacrifice that most of these families make in terms of themselves and their other children, in some cases, is pretty high and is something that should be recognized, and parents who are in that position should be able to claim back some of that money when they are filing their tax return. So, there are a lot of things in the area of education that the minister addressed that need to go much further than they do today.

We talked earlier today, Mr. Chairman, about the airline industry in this country and in this Province in particular. I want to say that nowhere else in this Province is impacted more negatively than people who live in Labrador where the only means of transportation is by air travel. The airline industries in this Province have not served these regions well in the past number of years. Something needs to be addressed through the federal government.

I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talking today, and I was interested in reading his report on the activities of the Cabinet Committee of Air Transportation in the Province, and I agree. I have spoken with the minister many times over the past few months and they have been actively pursuing changes to be made in the airline industries in this Province, but the federal government bears the brunt of the responsibility, Madam Chair, on introducing these changes, regulating the airline industry so that it meets the needs of the people they are serving, so that they cannot exploit certain areas of this Province and just operate on the lucrative routes where they can make the most money.

At one point in our history, Madam Chair, going in from the Island portion of the Province into Labrador West, we had two 737 jets a day. We had the same number of jets operating from Wabush to Montreal. At that time, I admit, we had a lot more people travelling in and out, but these were the types of aircrafts that were being used on that route and they could accommodate people's needs for the most part.

We went from there to a combination of a 737 that was partitioned off in the middle with the front half taking passengers and the rear half of the aircraft being used for freight. Then we went from that, downhill again, to the Dash 8 which can accommodate, I think, thirty-seven people; a twin-engine aircraft. To travel on that aircraft to Labrador certainly was not equivalent to getting on a jet to travel. It takes a long time. You are looking at five hours to travel from St. John's to Labrador, with stops on the way. So the airline industry has neglected Labrador over the past number of years. We do not have anywhere near the airline service now that we had many years ago, during the 1960s and 1970s up through and including most of the 1980s.

I think deregulation by the federal government, the deregulating of the airline industry - and I remember at that time all of the campaigns that were being launched, particularly through the labour movement and the New Democratic Party federally, all of the campaigns that were being launched at that time telling the government that this, what we are seeing today, was exactly what was going to happen to the outlining regions and the northern regions of this country. Nobody took it seriously, but, unfortunately, Madam Chair, the things that we were saying when this was happening have come to past and today we are struck with an inferior service compared to what we did have during the days prior to deregulation.

Local airlines, Madam Chair, in this Province, I have to say, we deal a lot - and I use Provincial Airlines, a local carrier, and I have to say that the people who work with Provincial Airlines from the counter people, to their PR people, to their sales people, to the flight attendants on the aircraft, and the captains and co-pilots, are tremendous people. They are probably, as individuals, the best I have dealt with during the thirty years that I have been travelling back and forth into Labrador. The problem is not with the people who work in the airline industry today, with the airline that services Labrador; it is with the type of aircraft. I understand that a company

probably cannot go out and just buy a couple of jets but I can tell you that what we have today servicing Labrador certainly falls short of what the need is. I have been at the airport many times and most people in Labrador West well know that they have tried to get reservations to fly out and it is not possible. If you have a death in your family, you get a call, you phone the airlines, the first thing you want to do is for you and your family to be able to get out and be with your family, most times here on the Island. That is practically impossible to do on short notice.

The other thing, Madam Chair, that people find a big problem with these days is when they have medical appointments and they have to fly to St. John's for the most part. When you have to make to a medical appointment on short notice it is virtually impossible to get a reservation and that complicates things considerably when your only mode of transportation is an aircraft. You cannot jump in your car and drive and be there in twelve hours. If you could do that, the problem would not be so compounded as it is but the reality of the situation, the only way we can travel is by aircraft and we do not have the benefit or the luxury of being able to do that when we want.

Now, Madam Chair, the provincial government has talked about the meetings that they had. I know that they have travelled through Labrador and they met with the different stakeholders throughout all regions of Labrador but I want to say that this committee of Cabinet has to keep the pressure on the federal government. They have to make this a priority. They have to make it a priority because a lot of people in this Province depend on air transportation. We can sit here and talk about the negative impact of the airline industry today and the frequency of flights to this Province has on business, what it has on tourism and all of the other nice things but the bottom line, the most important of all is for airline services to meet the needs of the people when they have to do it in order to live their lives as they should be able to, the same way that people who do not have to depend on the airline service are able to access services that they need. When you have to depend on an airline or an aircraft to do that, that changes the picture totally and it no longer becomes an option. It is the only form of transportation that you have to rely on.

Our road systems; again, we hear this government talking about the strides they have made in transportation when it comes to our highway system. I agree with them. There has been great strides made, Madam Chair, if you look around the immediate St. John's area, with the Outer Ring Road, the Crosstown Arterial and downtown, all of these things have been great strides. Outside of that, many areas of this Province, including the area that I represent, have been grossly neglected over the past number of years by this government. We still do not, in the Twenty-First Century, have a road that we can drive from one end of Labrador to the other end. The sad thing about that, Madam Chair, is that even in ten years' time, maybe, when that road is connected up, we are still going to have a dirt highway unless this government commits immediately to start a paving program.

MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, just to clue up, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Leave to clue up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The important thing, Madam Chair, for this government to recognize and realize is, it is time for them now to begin a paving program in Labrador for longer should we have to drive over roads that inflict considerable damage to your vehicle, that you risk your life almost each time you drive over them, and not have an end to that road. I say to the government: While you have committed to connect up by Phase III, Cartwright to Goose Bay, it is also important that on the sections that are now complete, that a paving program begin immediately to start bringing the road up to anywhere close to a national standard.

I say to the government, when we are talking about money, when we are talking about supplies of money, there are needs for different regions of this Province that have to be met. It is incumbent upon this government to do more than what has been done in the past to meet the needs of the people of this Province in the different areas.

With that, Madam Chair, I thank you for allowing me leave and I will clue up my remarks. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity in the days to come to add further to them.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Burin- Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.