MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit members of the press.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: a statement, with leave, by the Member for the District of Lewisporte; a statement by the Member for the District of Twillingate & Fogo; a statement by the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West; a statement by the Member for the District of Bellevue; a statement by the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale; and a statement by the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Does the Member for the District of Lewisporte have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to the Member for the District of Lewisporte?

Hearing no objections, the hon. the member.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, before we commence with the routine proceedings, I would ask leave of the House to move a substantive motion. I would like to read the motion, if I could, and then present it to yourself, the Chair, and ask if there is leave for it.

I move, seconded by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the following motion: Notwithstanding the statement made by the Speaker on yesterday, April 26, 2005, regarding closure of the public gallery of this House, be it resolved that the public gallery of the House of Assembly remain open to the public and that Standing Orders 22 and 23 continue to be used to govern the conduct of strangers.

I would like to present that to Your Honour and ask for leave to have a discussion of the motion and see if it is the will of all of the members of the House to concur with the motion or with the statement made by the Speaker yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition have leave to present his motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not be providing leave, and I want to explain why.

The motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition, in essence, questions the authority and role of the Speaker in this House as the sole independent arbiter of matters in the House. In saying so, there is a process by which motions can be presented. Notice is properly given and the notice, once properly given and the time elapsed, we can properly debate it. I suggest that we follow those rules.

Mr. Speaker, in questioning the authority, and your authority directly, I do want to remind hon. members, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, of some comments that he made when he was a minister of the Crown, and some comments, when he was Premier, that his Government House Leader made. Let me say for the record, because this is really the pith and substance of what this is about, that the Leader of the Opposition said on April 1, 1999 - and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it was no April Fool's joke, by the way, when he said, "...we always welcome visitors to our gallery, because we would like for them to hear all sides of the debate, understanding that they are welcome as long as they abide by the rules, the same as we do in the Legislature. I understand that after several incidents yesterday - and we have had incidents in the past several days ... Your Honour cleared this Legislature after several events, and you, who are the lone arbitrator of what happens in this House ... a ruling from the Chair that we always abide by."

On March 11, 2002, his own Government House Leader, at the time when he was Premier, said this, "I just want to remind hon. members that the Speaker represents the power, the authority, and dignity of this House, and any attack on the Speaker attacks all members of the House. All of our rights and privileges had been eroded." - when that happens. "Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of all members to ensure that the confidence of the Chair is maintained because it is the confidence of the Chair which keeps Parliament going. Without that confidence, Parliament would be on the brink."

It is on that basis, Mr. Speaker, that we will not support giving leave for that, because we believe the motion actually questions your authority.

MR. SPEAKER: A brief comment by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know about how brief it will be. I trust, since the Government House Leader is allowed to enter into a debate on whether or not he is going to grant leave, that you should at least allow us to respond to his commentary.

Mr. Speaker, this motion by the Leader of the Opposition is not in any way questioning the Chair. It is quite clear. It was stated by the mover, the Member for Exploits, that this is a substantive motion which is debatable, if allowed to proceed, and it is amendable if anybody wants to propose amendments to it. This is an accepted procedure under the rules of any parliamentary democracy in the western world.

Whether or not the notice is given, that is why we are seeking leave. We are not asking, at this point, whether the government agrees or disagrees with the motion. The Member for Exploits, the mover of this motion, has asked whether the government would allow us to even get to the point where we can debate the merits of the motion, and whether they do or do not support it.

The Government House Leader decided to give his reasons now why he does not support it. He feels there is another place and time to do it, and so on, and we are challenging the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, you made a statement yesterday. You were quite clear in your statement. I read a copy of it from Hansard. You did not say you were making an order, you did not say you were making a ruling; you made a statement. I think it is acknowledged by every member of this House, certainly the Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader, and the Leader of the NDP, that statement was made without any consultation. It is certainly an urgent, emergent and important issue that ought to be debated. An integral part of the functioning of the House of Assembly is not taking place as a result of Your Honour's statement. There was no Standing Order referenced as to why you were making that particular statement and we, as forty-eight members of this Legislature, have an obligation, I would suggest, to find out why the rules of our House, Standing Order 23, is being substituted by a statement. My understanding is, we always live by the rules.

The Chair, with all due respect, did not make these rules. The Chair is voted upon and elected here by all of us to see that these rules that this House has decided upon are fairly and equitably applied. That is the role of the Speaker. In certain instances there are discretionary powers vested in yourself whenever there is anything that requires discretion, but it is not a discretionary matter we are dealing with here. We are dealing with a Standing Order that is quite clear and quite emphatic as to how we deal with strangers in the galleries. That is all we are dealing with here. The reason for this motion is, we are questioning not what Your Honour said yesterday, and the validity or non-validity of your statement, or the merits of what you said. We are questioning here, through this motion, why do we need a new rule and how could a new rule be imposed upon this House when we already have a rule; we have Standing Order 23.

The nature of this motion is not to question what you said yesterday but to say that we, as members, believe the existing rule we have, rule 23, Standing Order 23, is and ought to continue to be the rule until there is consultation and until such time as the forty-eight members who live and work in here decide that there is going to be another rule for the Chair to impose.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will allow the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to make brief comments. However, we know that leave has been requested and leave has been denied, and in the sense of fairness - the Government House Leader made a brief comment, as we did to the Opposition House Leader - I also would extend the same courtesy for a couple of minutes to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader did, in denying leave, made a speech and made quotations from Hansard. I would like to say a few words about the question of whether or not this is an appropriate motion before this House as this time, whether or not it is seeking to challenge the Chair or a non-confidence motion in the Speaker. In fact, it is not that. It is in response to a statement, and it was a statement made by the Speaker yesterday saying he is advising that the galleries will remain closed.

The motion that is put forth, or leave is sought with my seconding and with consultation obviously between the two Opposition Leaders was merely in the same way that the rules of this House could be amended today by a motion that could come from the Government House Leader after Question Period, we could move to amend the rules of the House. The motion itself seeks to affirm existing rules of the House and is in the way of potentially an amendment to those, or an interpretation of those, that the House is entitled to place on those rules without directly challenging the Chair's ruling, or in that nature, and as such, is not a direct challenge to the Chair but is rather an interpretation that this House wishes to place on the rules, at least if the House supports it. We do not think that it is anything other than that and there is no reason to deny leave on the basis that it is a challenge to the ruling of the Speaker, that in fact this House is the master of its own rules and is the master of its own proceedings and can make, as is often said, by unanimous consent the House can suspend rules, impose new rules or change the rules. We are simply seeking to do that, because we believe it is of significant importance that the public galleries remain open and we believe that Standing Orders 22 and 23 are perfectly adequate to look after the issues that have arisen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will know that when leave has been denied there is lack of consent, therefore the request for the motion fails.

Moving to Member's Statements.

MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will just use the point of order by way of notification again to yourself, as the Chair, that with the refusal and denial of, not yourself, Mr. Speaker, but the government to decide whether or not forty-seven members of this House believe the gallery should be open or closed. Our interpretation, clearly, that the absolute refusal to even debate the issue means that the government itself, through the Government House Leader, has indicated that they support the notion and concept of closing the galleries to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, the caucus that I lead will not be participating further in this session today. We will take our leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The Opposition have a right to do what they wish in terms of exercising their right within Parliament but I do want to give notice that, as a government, we exercise our right to proceed with government's agenda and we will do so each and everyday, whether or not the Opposition wishes to show up or whether they do not wish to show up.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, I also wish to advise the Chair and the House that, given the refusal of government to even debate this substantive motion as to the opening of the public galleries, we will not be participating in the business of this House until that matter is resolved.

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the same point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Government has not refused to debate the motion. We have refused to give leave to debate it today. If members opposite were serious they would stay in this House, and under the appropriate provisions, provide notice of the motion. We have never seen it before. We have not had the opportunity to even look at it or discuss it. If members were serious about their parliamentary duty and putting aside the political interest of whatever they may be pursuing, under Notices of Motion they would rise, provide notice and we would then provide -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: We cannot stop that from happening, but what we can do is to ensure that it is done in the appropriate manner according to the rules. You cannot on one hand say the rules have been breached and then get up and make a joke or make a point about how we are denying something when we are not. Members opposite know they have the absolute right to provide a notice of motion and once it is provided, it will debate it in due course. We cannot deny that right.

What we have denied today, Mr. Speaker, is the opportunity, in our view, to question your authority, by leave. I will not participate, by consent, when your authority is challenged. I will participate in any debate that questions your authority but I can assure you, sir, that our vote, and government's vote, will be with the authority of the Chair, but we are not going to provide consent for that authority to be questioned outside of the rules of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final speaker to the point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a comment here, I guess righteous indignation of the Government House Leader, as he will not stand for this or for that.

The whole point here, Mr. Speaker, of this motion was because this is a very, very important issue. I cannot think of any government business that is more important, at this moment, than deciding whether the galleries of this House should be open so that the public should be a part of all the proceedings - not only the forty-eight of us here, but the public. Now the Government House Leader talks about not having any notice. I am sure a lot of the other people in the public heard him on the open airwaves of this Province this morning when he talked about: Oh, I fully expect there is going to be a motion today. He knew all about this motion in advance - talk about not getting notice. He had notice of this on the open air lines. I heard him on the Open Line show this morning saying he knew about it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: In terms of notice and proper notice and following the rules, the government House Leader also knows that we have had lots of instances in this House here where something comes up and we all agree that it is important, that it is urgent, and notwithstanding what may be written in our little book of rules, we agree that it is important enough that we all debate it right then and right now. Any formalities of when you should do it or not do it are put aside. The parties agree that it is important enough to discuss and we get on with it. That is all that has been submitted here, that this is important enough - we know there is a technical rule we have to ask. That is why the Leader of the Opposition asked could we have leave because that is the technical rule, you have to ask. The leave was sought, but government cannot on the one hand say: Yes, there are rules to be followed, but we are not going to give you leave to get ahead with it because we think we are questioning the Chair. We have already explained why we are not questioning the authority of the Chair and what the intent and the motivation of this motion is.

Mr. Speaker, with regards to notice, I do not believe it says anywhere in our rules again, other than doing it under notices of motion, how we would treat a substantive motion. I have read the rules, I cannot see anything in here that deals with a motion of this nature, and we stand up later on today in the routine business proceedings section, under Notices of Motion, and say, we would like to give notice of this notion, that there is anywhere in the rules then that tells us when we are going to debate it, unless it falls under the Private Members' Motion category. That being the case, we are looking at two weeks hence when we get to debate this.

What is the point of ever having an emergent or an important issue to be discussed if somebody is going to say: Follow the technical rules, put it under the notices section here, and we will get around to it sometime. We will get around to it two weeks hence when we think it is important enough to talk about. That is exactly the point we are making here, that people are telling people to do things. They make a rule, and everybody is afraid to budge after they make a rule and statement to have a fair, open hearing about it.

That is all that is being asked here. We are not trying to jam anything down anybody's throat. Give everybody a fair say. If you think this is a fair ruling and statement that the Speaker made yesterday, say that in debate. If you think our Standing Orders are sufficient to deal with the issues of gallery security, say that in debate. It is quite obvious, that by not even wanting to get to the point where you are going to speak about it, you don't want to take a side, you want to sit on the fence about it. That is hiding behind the Chair, I would suggest.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, there is no point of order.

Moving, then, to Members' Statements.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte has asked for leave. Has leave been granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me, first of all, thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for leave to present the following statement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House this afternoon to pay tribute to a person who was one of the driving forces behind the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway across the Island portion of our Province. I am speaking, of course, about Mr. Gordon MacDonald.

A long time provincial civil servant, Mr. MacDonald passed away at his home in St. John's last Tuesday, April 19, after a brief illness. He was eighty-two years of age.

Educated at Acadia University and Nova Scotia Technical College, Mr. MacDonald came to work for the provincial Department of Highways in 1954, after coming to Newfoundland from his native Nova Scotia. For the next twenty-five years, he was employed with the department, retiring in 1979 from his position as deputy minister. He was then appointed Chairman of the Public Utilities Board serving there until his retirement in 1992.

Mr. Speaker, while his name is synonymous with the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway across the Island, Mr. MacDonald's roots in this Province went well beyond the highway he helped to build. His wife of over fifty years, Christine, taught at both Bishop's College and Prince of Wales Collegiate in St. John's.

Mr. MacDonald's wife remembers that as the Trans-Canada was being built the family would move with the construction crews from one site to another. They began on the West Coast and ended in St. John's when the highway was completed in 1965.

While we acknowledge his tremendous contribution to our provincial infrastructure, he was also known as a devoted family man. He raised three children: Gordon, Sandy and Marjorie, and also had three grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the department and the government, I send my sincere condolences to the MacDonald family. He will be remembered both for his dedication to his family and to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I attended an evening with the Arts at Marystown Central High School. Three groups of students presented their works in music, drama and art, with wonderful performances for their audiences. As school principal Mr. Ed Walsh alluded to in his welcome, we often see schools from the perspective of school subjects and study. Activities such as those we saw in these three presentations show the potential that exists in the talents of our youth and extend beyond the pure study subjects.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the comments of a parent following the presentation tell it all. The gentleman stated: It is so good to see these things going on in our schools again, and it is so good to see so many talented students.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Mr. Ed Walsh, principal, and Ms Dorothy Anderson-Mayo, vice-principal, for their support of the teachers and students in this endeavour, and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members of this House to join me in passing along congratulations to teachers Mr. Rod Foote, Ms Karen Channing, Ms Cecilia Bungay, and the other organizers and participants for a wonderful afternoon at the Arts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate Y2C in Grand Falls-Windsor on their second anniversary.

For the past two years this centre has addressed the social and economic development of the youth in our community. The centre focuses on learning and skill development, community service projects and recreation that normally would not be attainable for many of the youth who live in this area. There have been many hours of hard work and dedication on the part of staff and many local people who have seen this dream become a reality.

It is with great honour that I ask the House to join with me today to congratulate them on a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure this morning of attending the grand opening of the Landmark Graphics Visualization Laboratory at Memorial University. Landmark Graphics Corporation, based in Houston, Texas, has provided nearly $14 million in specialized software to Memorial University. The software will be used for teaching and research in oil and gas exploration, development and production, and will assist Memorial in its ongoing initiative to become a world leader in oil and gas research and teaching.

Mr. Speaker, with the creation of this Oil and Gas Development Partnership, the university continues to provide the technology that is helping to transform Newfoundland and Labrador into an international centre of oil and gas expertise. In 2000, Memorial University began its relationship with Landmark when it received its first software grant from this corporation. This grant not only enhanced Memorial's ability to deliver programs and conduct oil and gas research, but also enabled the university to successfully leverage funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation to begin building the Decisionarium, a three-dimensional visualization centre, and the first centre of its kind in a Canadian university. This Decisionarium, equipped with software provided by Landmark, will prove to be an invaluable tool for researchers, students and industry.

As the minister responsible for post-secondary education, I am encouraged to see such an important contribution being made by Landmark Graphics Corporation to Memorial University. My department provides financial support to Memorial University to ensure it provides quality post-secondary education, undertakes diverse research activities, and serves our students and the community. Memorial University is a valuable resource to social and economic development as it serves the Province's needs in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Landmark Graphics Corporation for its generous and continued support for Memorial University's oil and gas research initiatives and providing yet another valuable learning tool for students and staff of the university. I also want to thank Memorial for its efforts in pursuing this important advancement for the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36.(3), with regard to a matter of urgent public importance. I would ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, which matter deals with the issue of the restrictive rules that have been imposed regarding public access to the House of Assembly.

We feel that this is, number one, important. We feel that it is urgent, and we feel that the fact that the public have been barred from this House of Assembly is a great interference with the public rights and will, no doubt, in and of itself, possibly lead to disruptions. We feel that this is a very urgent matter and I move:

BE IT RESOLVED that the public gallery of the House of Assembly remain open to the public and that Standing Orders 22 and 23 continue to be used to govern the conduct of strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess the House for a few moments to consider the motion, or the matter raised under Standing Order 36.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

After consultation with the Table Officers, the Speaker wishes to make a statement as follows: This afternoon, earlier in the sitting day, the House had already reached a determination not to give leave to debate the proposed motion which is now before the House. In addition, Section 36(7)(c)of the Standing Orders reads: "The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session." Section (7)(f) states: "The discussion under the motion must not raise any question which, according to the Standing Orders of the House, can only be debated on a distinct motion under notice."

Based on that, the Speaker rules that the proposed motion is not in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Just a point of clarification, I guess, Mr. Speaker.

You have made reference to Standing Order 36(7)(c) and the wording of which says, "The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session." I take it you are referring to today's session and the comments that were made earlier regarding the substantive motion. Just clarification, but we, on this side, fail to understand how we could have had discussion earlier in this session about a motion for which leave was not given.

MR. HARRIS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi speaking to the point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Your ruling also made reference to Standing Order 36(7)(f) which says, "The discussion under the motion must not raise any question which, according to the Standing Orders of the House, can only be debated on a distinct motion under notice." I would note however, Standing Order 56, which, in fact, indicates that notice is not required on a matter that, "...may in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover..." - which we have had here - "...be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 55."

Your Honour has indicated that section 37(f) would preclude debate on this because it must be debated under notice, whereas, in fact, Standing Order 56 specifically permits a debate on a motion without notice by unanimous consent as provided under section 56. I wonder if Your Honour is able to clarify these two points?

MR. SPEAKER: It is my understanding that section 56 calls for unanimous consent of the House. Earlier in the afternoon the House had not given unanimous consent. Therefore, on the advice of our Table Officers, we cannot revive a discussion which had already been determined. In this particular case, this particular motion, the consent had been not given. Based on that, and the fact that the House had already, as I said, made a determination that the motion, as proposed by the Opposition Leader, would be out of order today.

Orders of the Day.

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

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

It is my understanding we are debating a private member's resolution as put forward by the Member for Port de Grave. That is my understanding of what the Orders of the Day are, that we proceed to Private Members' Day.

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

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave District is not standing in his place and the Chair then will draw from that conclusion that there is now no willingness on the part of the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave to present his private member's resolution in this sitting day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I guess we call the motion and vote upon it. I guess that is where we are to in the point of day. The member is not debating the resolution he put forward with respect to rural Newfoundland.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly recognizes the seriousness of the situation facing rural areas of this Province and calls on the government to finally take action against the crisis facing the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I guess I am looking for some guidance, either from yourself or members opposite. Are we proceeding to vote on this motion? If we are not, then I will ask leave to do government business.

MR. SPEAKER: After a motion is put before the House and notice is put before the House, it is deemed then to be in the possession of the House. It is the House's resolution, the House's motion, therefore speakers, if the Member for the District of Port de Grave does not wish to participate in the debate, other members who wish to participate in debate certainly can. So, I would ask if there are any members who wish to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. Member for the District of Port de Grave?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: There being none, Mr. Speaker, wishing to speak. There are a couple of hours left in the day, I would ask leave to proceed to Motion 1, government business, a motion to debate the Budgetary Policy of the government, commonly known as the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: There being no speakers to the motion, then the Chair will not put the question because nobody has debated it and therefore the motion will be held in abeyance.

The Government House Leader asked leave to proceed with government business. Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the business of the House is concluded for the day. We have no leave to proceed with government business, that is fair enough. That is members' rights and I support the rights of members to make that decision.

There being no further business, on Wednesdays it is up to the Chair to adjourn the House and not up to the government.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, this House will now stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.