The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise with Question Period yesterday and questions raised by the Member for Kilbride with respect to a policy on political activity by staff, and I quote from page 113 of Hansard. He referred to a policy issued by government on November 16, 2000. Mr. Speaker, he says: I will quote from it. I take it when Members of the House of Assembly make that kind of a statement they will then quote verbatim from the policy. His statement that he says he will quote from it, his quote then that he suggests he is reading from the policy is: "individuals occupying management positions, individuals occupying positions that have been excluded from bargaining units, which includes all agencies, all boards and all departments of government."

That is his statement, Mr. Speaker, and the political activity policy which he does indicate has been around since 1988, is completely different than that. It says that by definition it applies to all employees of the government. A definition of an employee - which he would know because he read the policy - says employees definition: individuals employed in government departments. No reference to agencies. No reference to commissions. No reference to boards. Direct government departments, Mr. Speaker. So, I would suggest that he either added words that he did not intend to add or he must be reading from a different document than the one he suggested that he was reading from yesterday.

Secondly, also right next to that it talks about politically restricted employees, who are those individuals employed in government departments. No reference to what he said that he was quoting from, which includes all agencies, all boards, all departments of government. This policy has been around 1988, brought in by the Progressive Conservative government. Never, ever referenced agencies, boards, departments of governments. It only referenced: employed in government departments. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I think he has acknowledged this publicly since, that those people who are politically non-restricted - which means they are free to talk to whomever they like about whatever they like at any point in time - are contractual employees of the government. It is understood that Mr. Saunders is a contractual employee.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you rule on a point of order, that we have a member who added words that he says he quoted from a document which did not exist. Then in knowing the difference about the person whom he referred to, who is doing an important job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that he understood that person was excluded from the policy. I guess, Mr. Speaker, what it refers to, what we read into it, at least we understand, is that if they were ever to be the government you would not be allowed to talk about politics, whether you were a restricted employee or not. All this person is guilty of, as you acknowledged, is that he had a conversation with someone about politics. He is not a restricted employee and he is not covered by the policy, and never was. So I would like for you, at some point, Mr. Speaker, to rule on that point of order.

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

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

First of all, the very nature of the Premier's point of order is that he has imputed motives to me that I knowingly stood up here yesterday and made an assertion or asked a question related to government policy directly related to government agencies, et cetera. That, unto itself, is unparliamentary and not true.

The fact of the matter is that we quoted directly from political activity. Now what is interesting is that the Premier, after doing his research and getting around with his spin doctors, have come up with an appropriate response. How he did not know yesterday that this was excluded is beyond me. We asked the question and the question deserved to be answered.

I can also conclude from the Premier's statement, and I will get a chance to deal with this in Question Period, that all the thirty-six Crown entities and agencies for which government is responsible for - is the Premier now saying that all of those agencies and Crown entities are excluded from the policy with respect to management and executive positions? Is that what the Premier is saying, that all Crown entities and agencies are excluded? If that is the case, he certainly was not in possession of that information yesterday, and neither was I.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. the Premier under advisement and report back.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my I have leave to present a private member's motion?

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

MS JONES: Private member's statement, I apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: For a private member's statement? She is asking leave for -

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we certainly, from time to time, have provided ministers, even though they are excluded, by the Standing Orders of our House, the opportunity to do a private members' statement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if members opposite would like to hang on to their coattails for a moment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave to present a private member's statement?

MR. E. BYRNE: Can I speak to that for a second, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just saying that from time to time we have provided leave -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: From time to time we have provided leave to ministers of the Crown to make a private member's statement. It is against the Standing Orders, but in this case we certainly do not mind. Normally we have three speakers on our side that would do so, today we have two, so we have no hesitation in providing the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture with the opportunity to make a private member's statement.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Millicent Loder, who passed away on March 7, at the age of eighty-eight.

Mrs. Loder, originally from Rigolet, Labrador, touched the lives of many as her work as a nurse found her helping those in many areas of our Province such as Cartwright, Mary's Harbour, Hopedale, St. Anthony, and St. John's.

Throughout her career, Mrs. Loder achieved many outstanding accomplishments. In 1968 she developed a pediatrics department where she was given a position as director of nursing and organized the building of an infants home for needy children in North West River.

Mrs. Loder's contributions to our Province did not go unnoticed. In 1980 she received an honourary doctorate from Memorial University as well as honourary membership from the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland.

Two years later she was awarded the prestigious Order of Canada award in recognition of her grave contribution to the people of Labrador.

In 1989, Mrs. Loder released her autobiography, entitled, Daughter of Labrador, entailing her life and love for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, and I am sure all members of the House, I would like to send my condolences to Mrs. Loder's family and friends. Her dedication to Newfoundland and Labrador and her passion for nursing will never be forgotten. She will be missed by many and will be remembered forever in our hearts.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to ask members of this hon. House to join with me in extending hearty congratulations to Ron and Effie Taylor of Makinsons who celebrated their 65^th wedding anniversary on March 1, 2003. This couple have lived their entire lives in the community of Makinsons, playing integral parts in both church and community.

The family, Mr. Speaker, marked the occasion with an open house attended by numerous friends and relatives, all of whom were treated to a good old-fashioned kitchen party, highlighted by good food, good entertainment and, of course, good company. Effie at age eighty-two, and Ron at age eighty-seven, continue to enjoy good health and, as always, were the centre and life of the party.

I and others were treated to many stories of their experiences through the sixty-five years of their lives together. Ron had worked a lifetime as a heavy equipment operator with Babb Construction Company, and in that capacity certainly travelled all around this Province, especially in the days following Confederation as the road system we know today was in its developing stages. Effie stayed at home and certainly took responsibility for raising eleven children, six boys and five girls, a task she certainly completed despite some very trying times.

Ron and Effie placed high value on family and church and have not wavered in their devotion to either throughout their entire lives. They continue to play a vital role in their church, their community and their family.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I speak for all members present in congratulating Ron and Effie Taylor of Makinsons on the occasion of their sixty-fifth wedding anniversary, and wish them many more years of wedded bliss.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the five athletes of the Gander Wings Special Olympics Club on their recent success at the Provincial Special Olympic Winter Games held in Goose Bay, Labrador.

In total, this small team captured fourteen medals: ten gold, three silver and one bronze, in the sport of snowshoeing.

Sarah Brown of Gander won gold in the 200-, 400-, and 800-metre events and silver in the 100-metre race.

Francene Scott, also of Gander, got gold in the 200- and 400-metre race and silver in the 100-metre event.

Receiving gold in the 200- and 40-metre competition and placing fourth in the 100-metre event was Darryl Power, also of Gander.

The fourth Gander member was Serena Brown, who won silver in the 200- and 800-metre events, placed third in the 400-metre race and came in fourth in the 100-metre competition.

From Lewisporte, Mike Austin, who is a part of the Gander Wings Team, captured three gold medals for the 200-, 400-, and 800-metre races. Mike also placed fourth in the 100-metre event and was named the games top male athlete.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend a special congratulations to these five athletes on their efforts and determination, and applaud them on their well-deserved wins.

I would also like to thank all the participants, sponsors and individuals who assisted in the success of these games. I am told that the organizing committee in Goose Bay did an outstanding job in the preparation of these games and made it an enjoyable event for all involved.

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.

On March 6, 7, and 8, the residents of St. Anthony and surrounding area were treated to a great display of hockey talent as the Provincial High School Triple A Hockey Championships were held at the St. Anthony Olympia. The tournament featured teams from Mobile High in Mobile, Lester B. Pearson in Wesleyville, Elwood High in Deer Lake, and Roncalli High in Port Saunders, King Academy in Harbour Breton, and Harriot Curtis Collegiate in St. Anthony.(All names are correct)

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to attend a number of the games, and the quality of the hockey was superb. The tournament was a testament to the hard work and dedication of the teachers, coaches and parents who give so much to minor hockey in this Province. The championship game was well attended, as was all the tournament, with well over 900 attending the championship game.

Mr. Speaker, the championship game was played between Harriot Curtis Collegiate of St. Anthony and King Academy of Harbour Breton. While King Academy put up an admirable fight, I have to say that Harriot Curtis Collegiate won the day with a 4-3 win in overtime.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend congratulations to the Harriot Curtis Collegiate Huskies for winning this year's Provincial Triple A Championship and to commend coaches Alonzo Pilgrim and Roy Coffin who have dedicated seventeen years to coaching the Harriot Curtis Collegiate hockey team, and in that time have helped their team to three provincial championships and two second place finishes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Bay Roberts Heritage Society finished their submission to the Virtual Museum of Canada.

The Heritage Society was chosen to participate in this pilot project and wisely decided to use the Cable Building Story. The Heritage Society sent 146 photos to the Canadian Heritage Information Network to be place on their Web site in March. The pictures began with a photo of officials from Western Union Cable looking at the site in 1910. The pictures traced the Cable Building's Story to the present.

This is not the first time that the Bay Roberts Heritage Society have been honoured for their dedication and hard work. The Heritage Society has received a Merit Award from the Museum Association of Newfoundland and Labrador in recognition of excellence in preserving heritage in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that members of this House join with me in congratulating the Bay Roberts Heritage Society on being chosen and on completing the Cable Building Story that will now be featured on the Virtual Museum of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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, Mr. Speaker, we identified clearly who really carries the hatchet in this Province, and Premier Grimes, by his own admission, has done so for fourteen years in Liberal government. He admitted yesterday he was in Cabinet when 2,500 jobs were cut in one budget. He was part of the over 4,000 direct jobs and 12,000 indirect jobs that have been cut by Liberal governments since he has been in public office. He cut over 1,000 teaching positions as Minister of Education and he continued to cut jobs in his budgets of the last two years.

His recent actions confirm a continued pattern which will no doubt, Mr. Speaker, change now that he will soon finally be legally required to call an election. Obviously, he is trying to distance himself from his past.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has recently laid off a number of permanent employees and, in fact, began laying off workers on the Northern Peninsula immediately after this government lost two by-elections over two years ago.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier agree that the termination of these significant positions by a government corporation is having a negative effect on the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and is forcing more of our people to leave our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I can report to the House of Assembly, to all members and the people of the Province, is that since I have become the leader the prospects have changed so dramatically and positively in the Province because of a deal like Voisey's Bay, because of White Rose -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - that, in fact, there was a record set in Newfoundland and Labrador last year for the most people working in the Province in any one year since Stats Canada has been reporting the numbers, Mr. Speaker. That is the reality of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, who supports the privatization of Hydro, unless he has changed his mind from a few years ago - he is a firm public record supporter of privatization of Hydro - is now suggesting -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, who is a publicly confirmed supporter of the privatization of Hydro, and we wonder how many other agencies and organizations, is now suggesting - maybe he is suggesting - that the government should be giving political direction, as elected politicians, to the board of Hydro. The Hydro Corporation, Mr. Speaker, with respect to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - any changes they have made in staff, the details would be given by the minister through whom they answer to the government. But I can tell you, there was no direction given to Hydro by anybody in this government as to how to run their affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Other than that the law suggests that they run a good business and they try and keep the rates as low as possible for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: What a short memory the Premier has. He forgets that he brought Mr. Wells and Mr. MacDonald up to his office and brought them in on the carpet and gave political direction to them about the Lower Churchill deal. What a short memory you have, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Give the people the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him now to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro yesterday was the absolute gem of public corporations. What an acknowledgment by a member of a former Cabinet who wanted to sell this gem while the members of the opposition parties opposed it and stopped it, just as we opposed and stopped the Lower Churchill deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier described Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the Premier described Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and I quote: as very profitable - his exact words - would the Premier explain how he can justify laying off hundreds of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where unemployment is at its highest, from a government corporation that he admits is very profitable?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the issues raised in the question, I can report proudly to the Leader of the Opposition that the meeting that he refers to in my office with Mr. Wells and with Mr. MacDonald, as the Chair and Chief Operating Officer, Chief Executive Officer, of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, was held so that I could tell them exactly this: that they must follow proper process and make their own decisions, which they did, which they absolutely did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, he can check with Mr. Wells and he can check with Mr. MacDonald, who will have to verify that was exactly the nature of the meeting and that was exactly my comment.

Maybe what he is suggesting is the kind of meeting that would have happened up there if he were the Premier, and he would be up there giving political direction and trying to tell them what to do.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, he talked about the Opposition, about the government wanting to privatize Hydro and the Opposition stopping it. Well, I tell you what, the Opposition to the privatization did not include the Leader of the Opposition. He was in the private sector supporting privatization and telling the Premier of the day that it was the right thing to do, on a daily basis, so he cannot add himself to the particular group.

I can tell you this: if they want to know details of the running of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the minister responsible will gladly answer the questions that have been reported to him by Mr. Wells, as the Chief Executive Officer, and the board, who are making these decisions with no direction from the government, because the law precludes it and prevents it because they are an arm's-length Crown agency whose mandate is to run itself in an efficient fashion to be profitable so that they do not go into debt and they remain a great asset for the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and to make sure that the rates are as low as possible for the consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

I can tell the Premier that meeting would not have taken place in my office if I was Premier because that deal that you were prepared to sign would never have been on the table in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about government interference with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

At the Public Utilities Board hearings in 2001, it was acknowledged that the dividend payout as a percentage of net regulated operating income ranged from 10 per cent to 730 per cent, as opposed to the policy which was up to 75 per cent. Mr. Speaker, would the Premier acknowledge that the Grant Thornton Report, written on behalf of the board, states that the primary reason for the deterioration of the debt-to-equity ratio of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was the increase in the forecasted payout of dividends to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: I am sure the members opposite will have confidence that Hydro will be treated properly by the new Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: Will continue to be treated that way by this member of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the debt to equity fluctuations; ratios fluctuate from time to time but the reality is that Hydro is directed and required by law to function as a commercial corporation that is not to be interfered with by this government, and we do not interfere with it. They are regulated by the Public Utilities Board. They are not in the process of laying off hundreds of people, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests in his further fearmongering. I cannot understand why he thinks fearmongering is such good politics, but he indulges in it every opportunity he gets.

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is creating hundreds and thousands of jobs in this Province. We are creating an extra five or six this year as a result of the Voisey's -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hundreds or thousands?

MR. NOEL: Hundreds and thousands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: As a result of the Voisey's Bay development, Mr. Speaker, we will be creating an extra 500 or 600 jobs in this Province this year. That development -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has told the people of the Province that if he had been Premier the Voisey's Bay development would not have gone ahead and this Province would have been deprived of those 500 or 600 jobs this year.

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.

My questions will continue to be for the Premier, if he wishes to answer them. Mr. Speaker, in just two years this government has taken some $120 million in dividends from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and an undisclosed amount last year. However, the transcript from the Public Utilities Board indicates that a request was made from government for $104 million in 2002. In addition, the Lower Churchill fiasco has taken some ten of millions of dollars from Hydro's bottom line. In fact, I think even some of the Premier's travel was paid for by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell the people how many jobs could be retained or created if government did not continue to bleed Hydro dry to compensate for its own mismanagement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I can tell the Leader of the Opposition and the people of the Province is that anything to do with funding negotiations with respect to the Lower Churchill, which have been going on, by the way, with cost attributed to Hydro ever since the days of Premier Frank Moores and Premier Brian Peckford. Every single premier, to his credit, has tried to find some right and proper way to develop the Lower Churchill for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; everyone of them.

I give credit to Premier Moores for that, who spent millions of dollars from Hydro trying to create more benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I give credit to Premier Peckford, who spent millions and millions of dollars trying to find a way to do something for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They did not succeed. We did not succeed the last time, but what I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is this: nothing related to that has anything to do with the operational decisions on a day-to-day basis that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro makes to make sure that they are delivering electricity in the best manner, at the lowest rates possible, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. While some of the ratios may have changed, the fact of the matter is, they are still very profitable. They are still a tremendous asset to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They own an asset and run it on our behalf.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: It is right and proper, from time to time, for that asset to generate monies, not only to keep electricity rates low, but also to provide to the people of the Province, to provide other services, Mr. Speaker.

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.

I am at a loss to understand, Mr. Speaker, how that answer had anything to do with how many jobs would be retained or created in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we will talk about the effect that it is having. I would suggest that the unplanned removal of millions of dollars from any company's operating base will, in fact, impact its day to day operation. The impact of past job cuts that are having on Hydro's ability to meet customers needs is finally beginning to show, particularly on the Northern Peninsula where jobs were cut last year.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier please confirm that a live power line was on the ground for a full two weeks on the Northern Peninsula because Hydro did not have enough workers in the area to make the necessary repairs? Is that safety?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that that was the case. I will check into it and provide the information for the Leader of the Opposition as soon as the information is made available to me.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that what is happening at Hydro is not a result of its requirement to pay dividends to the Province. Hydro is regulated by the Public Utilities Board. It is regulated as a commercial corporation and it is required to operate in the least costly fashion so that it provides the lowest possible electricity rates to ratepayers of the Province. Hydro is trying to operate more efficiently. It has been instructed by the Public Utilities Board to reduce its expenses by $2.5 million this year, and it has to do that. The reductions that it plans to make - and it does not plan to make a lot of reductions. It has removed a half a dozen positions in the past few months, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister, now, to conclude his answer, quickly.

MR. NOEL: It won't hire as many as it normally does in temporary positions this year, but that is because it is getting more efficient in its operations, Mr. Speaker.

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.

Mr. Speaker, is this brand new polished minister now telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that taking hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars out of a corporation is having no effect whatsoever on the operations of a company? Surely you can't be saying that, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to questions, the Premier made reference to the fact that Hydro should have staff in certain circumstances that use technology instead of people.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier assure the people of this Province that the elimination or reduction in hours of some 180 maintenance workers will have absolutely no negative effect on safety and will not impact service to our residents resulting in power outages?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, Hydro is regulated on an operating basis. It is required to operate as efficiently as possible by the Public Utilities Board and by the Electrical Powers Control Act of the Province. It has no alternative but to operate efficiently. It won't be laying off 180 people this year, Mr. Speaker. It won't be avoiding hiring 180 people this year. It will reduce the number of people that it normally hires for the summer maintenance period because it has become more efficient.

It is not a function of Hydro to be a job creation arm of government. Government does that in other ways. Hydro is required to operate efficiently and not to spend any more money than it has to, to artificially inflate the rates paid by ratepayers throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't have the luxury of creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs.

To honour its responsibilities to the people of the Province, it has to operate efficiently and that is what it is doing now, that is what it is contemplating doing, and it is not contemplating having to make any significant reductions in its normal workforce in order to achieve that.

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.

Minister, you did not acknowledge a responsibility to the ratepayers of the Province when you gave Inco a subsidized rate. You were pretty quick to hand that one out.

Mr. Speaker, the hundreds of millions of dollars that I referred to previously, which have been taken by government from Hydro to pay for their fiscal mismanagement, ultimately have to be replaced by the people of our Province. Would the Premier agree, and if the Premier decides to answer this question, that the present applications by Hydro to the Public Utilities Board will result in an increase in the electrical rate charged to the people of the Province, and, in fact, the people will be paying, once again, for this government's mismanagement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say again to the Leader of the Opposition, who likes to play with words, he understands and, I believe, he would acknowledge, if he will rise again, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, is not and does not and will not and have not committed to provide any subsidized electricity rate to Inco. I think he will acknowledge that if he stands again. I wish he would stand up. He knows. He is acknowledging now in his seat, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he will do it publicly. He is acknowledging, in his seat, right now that there is a different rate in this Province for commercial activities like the paper mills and the refineries than there is for householders and that Inco will get the same commercial rate as anybody else in the Province. That is not a subsidy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He just acknowledged it. I am sure he is going to stand up now and admit that he did not mean to say that we are subsidizing Inco, because it is not happening.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there is no decision. The decisions with respect to electricity rates are not determined by the government. As the Minister of Mines and Energy has pointed out, and the Leader of the Opposition would acknowledge if he wants to have the full facts on the table, that when you take dividends from a company that has been profitable, because it comes from their profit, and when their rate is determined on their operational base, which generates a profit, that they can either keep or they can give to the government to use for other purposes. We have decided to take some of their profit, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: They are allowed to set rates that make sure they cover their costs. The Public Utilities Board makes sure that the costs are as low as possible. They will decide whether or not any rate increase is justified.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It started off, the proceedings of the House today, the Premier stood on a point of order that his comments were not only unparliamentary but untrue. He read from a Minute in Council, which is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, on the policy on political activities for employees. Correctly, he read section B: politically restricted employees means individuals occupying management positions and individuals occupying positions that have been excluded from a bargaining unit. He was correct, but what he failed to mention, Mr. Speaker, was this, that order, according to that Cabinet document, that the President of Treasury Board was directed under the document to communicate this policy to all Crown corporations, boards, commissions and agencies to assure that they were aware of the limitations.

Now, my question for the Premier is this: Based upon your opening statement and point of order today, I would assume that Crown agencies and entities, based on your statement, have been excluded from this policy, and if they are, when did that change?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that the Member for Kilbride has raised the issue again so we can explore it further. We are reading from two different documents and, I guess, it is his lack of experience in the government that he does not understand what I am reading from is actually what flowed from his document.

He is referring to a Minute in Cabinet in 1988 that said there should be a policy established. It gave direction to establish a policy and then it said that the Crowns, corporations, and agencies should be informed of this. What I am reading from is the policy that was then subsequently established. The Minute in Council - now he would never know that having never been through the process. So I am willing to mark it down to inexperience.

But, Mr. Speaker, the MC said: Set up a policy. The policy has been set up. It has been in place since 1988. So it is time to get beyond reading a Minute in Cabinet that said: Let's set up a policy - which a PC government said was a good idea in 1988 - and start reading from what the policy actually is. He did say that the policy was reviewed again in May; it happened to be November. He said November, it happened to be May of the year 2000 - and the policy clearly states that political activity - which is what he is talking about. He referenced a conversation between two individuals as being something that should be politically banned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: The political activity that was referred to - and I will read this because I think it is important for the record. The policy says: The requirement for an impartial and effective public service makes it necessary for government, first initiated by a PC government, to restrict some public servants -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - not from talking, but from running for public office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is a great soliloquy by the Premier, but he avoided the question directly. Are the thirty-six Crown agencies and entities to which government and Cabinet are responsible for - for running effective public services in this Province - are they excluded from that policy, and, if they are, why are they?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the whole intent of the policy - and it is refreshing to find out the thought processes for the Opposition. They are against having individuals decide if they want to run for the party. Now they are against freedom of speech. The restriction is this: a restriction that prevents and restricts some public servants from running for political office while in receipt of wages from the government. Now that is the MC, that is the document, that is the issue we are talking about.

As a matter of fact, it goes on to say that these same people are permitted to attend public, political functions, to actually run for political executives in parties, but not to run for office. Now he used that document yesterday to suggest that a person who is heading up the fuel price commission for the Province should be fired because he had a private conversation with someone about their political leanings. Mr. Speaker, that is not what the policy is about and it does not, and has never applied to agencies, commissions, and boards -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - because it was never written there by a PC government and it has never been written there by any government since, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will not answer the question directly. When were Crown agencies, entities and boards of governments excluded from the policy? Secondly, since when are people who are appointed by government to these thirty-six Crown agencies or entities, since when are they not in receipt of the Crown's shilling?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me explain it again. If you are in receipt of wages from the government, the restriction is that you cannot stay in the employ, receive the wages, and also be a candidate for political office in a provincial election. That is the only restriction. That is what all this fuss was about yesterday. It was represented and presented very differently by the Member for Kilbride who suggested, because someone spoke to someone about their political intention, they should be fired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is what they suggest, Mr. Speaker. Let me read it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, for clarity, let me read it again: This policy applies to all employees - all employees.

Then, under the definition of employee, it says: Employees are individuals employed in direct government departments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: That has always been the policy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

A year-and-a-half ago, in August, 2001, the Premier, along with the New England Governors and Atlantic Eastern Canadian Premiers, signed on to a document called Climate Change Action Plan. This plan called for each government to have a plan -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This plan, signed on to by the government, called for the Premier and this Province to introduce a plan for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and conserving energy, shifting to less polluting energy, and to lead by example with annual progress reports.

Mr. Speaker, how can this Premier be taken seriously on this issue when we find out that there is no plan in place after a year-and-a-half, no concrete proposals? The Premier opposed Kyoto and even threatened to defy the federal government, and now expects a feeble request to Ottawa on the Lower Churchill to replace a real policy on climate change that would conserve energy and create jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Our Province cannot have a provincial plan until we know what the federal plan is, and the federal government has not yet finalized its plan. As a matter of fact, it is only in the initial stages of developing one. Federal public officials are in the process of consulting with officials in the provinces across the country right now to help determine what that national plan is going to be. Our officials are working in the various departments and consulting about what we think is appropriate for a plan for our Province. We are in consultations with the other Atlantic Provinces and the American States in regard to the New England Governors' initiatives.

These things are all being done as we speak, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, a plan for the Province will be developed before long, but we will not be able to finalize our plan until we know what the federal plan is going to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In its last annual report, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro disclosed that it spent over $50 million burning fuel to produce electricity, in producing 1.6 million tonnes of CO₂; 20,000 tonnes of sulfur dioxide, and 3,500 tonnes of nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government ignoring opportunities for savings, opportunities for reductions in greenhouse gases, and opportunities for jobs and economic development in new technology in alternate energy development and housing renovation, programs which would save cost for consumers and provide jobs for people in this Province? Why are they ignoring these opportunities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We are not ignoring any opportunities. We are pursuing all opportunities. One opportunity that we pursued was the development of the Lower Churchill, and we are in the process of continuing to pursue that, Mr. Speaker. We are talking to potential suppliers of wind power for the Province. We are pursuing that and hopefully we will make some progress there.

The reality is that we are spending a lot of money on fuel for our hydro system but we have no choice about that. We cannot control the world price of fuel, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to do all we can to diversify our generating systems but we cannot do that overnight. We are in the process of doing what we can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier would not knowingly provide any information to the House that was not factually correct. I just want to be clear that he referred to a Minute-in-Council in 1988 and he talked about that it was a Minute-in-Council, which is coming from the Cabinet, that it was a directive to put together a policy governing political activity. That is not the case. It clearly says, and I have a copy of it here, that the following policy relating to political activity shall apply.

It was not that they would do it. It was, they made a policy in 1988, they applied it in 1988. As a matter of fact, the amendment to the policy clearly states that the President of Treasury Board was to show or to communicate that to all of government's Crown agencies and entities. That is a Cabinet document, I say to the Minister of Education.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if that policy has changed, or the Premier unknowingly was not aware of it, let him stand now and explain to the people of the Province why there was a policy in 1988 that allowed Crown entities and agencies to be applied under the political activities policy; and, if it changed, when did it change?

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to the point of order, to point out again, as I did, because we are just rehashing the ground from Question Period, and I believe you will rule that it is not a point of order, that in fact I did not refer to a Minute-in-Council. The Member for Kilbride has been quoting from an MC that is fifteen years old. The MC, which I pointed out in Question Period, the Minute-in-Council gives instruction to develop a policy and contain these particular types of features. Since then - and what he should do in the future when he is doing his research is get the policy - the actual policy that arose from that direction from Cabinet, which he does not have and refuses to acknowledge, contains nothing of what he says, and never has, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, obviously there is a difference of opinion about a document, about a policy, between two hon. members, and that certainly does not constitute a point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 28(4)(d) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two special warrants relating to the 2002-2003 fiscal year, and pursuant to section 28(4)(e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling three special warrants relating to the 2002-2003 fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the Speech of His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, I am pleased to present the report of the Select Committee on behalf of the Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for Gander, myself, and members of the House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Home Heating Fuel Rebate announced by the Minister of Finance on March 20, 2003 provides a $100 rebate for low income households that use furnace oil, stove oil or propane as their primary source of heat; and

WHEREAS households that use electric heat have had extraordinary increases in their heating costs because of the unusually cold weather; and face additional deferred cost when Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro raises electricity rates to offset the costs of Bunker C fuel used to produce electricity at Holyrood;

BE IT RESOLVED that the government amend the Newfoundland and Labrador Home Heating Fuel Rebate to include low income households that use electricity as their primary source of heat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Heat, heat!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the motion that the House approve, in general, the budgetary policy of the government, the Budget Speech, and I further give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of supply to Her Majesty, Bill 3.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 2.

Motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House. Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

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

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just again to make a few comments today with respect to Interim Supply, I am always particularly interested in the comments made by the Finance critic, the Member for Ferryland, who I understand now is receiving daily briefings from Ms Marshall as to what he should or should not be saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, I can tell you, the Finance critic is very open to input from anybody. It is too bad the government of the day, for ten years, did not listen to what the former Auditor General had to say. It is too bad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Our economy would be in a lot better position today if they had to take that advice. We are delighted to take anything that is positive and that is going to help our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the intervention because I guess it does acknowledge that Ms Marshall, the former Auditor General, who has a certain view of how government should be run, has the ear of the Finance critic. I understand she has also acknowledged publicly in a CBC radio and television interview that she has the ear of the leader of the party. In her own words: Do you think you have Mr. Williams' ear? Yes, I think I do. I am sure I do. The things that I have been trying to get implemented for the last ten years will be done. He has committed to that.

Madam Chair, what we want to look at is the Marshall plan with respect to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and keeping commitments, because it is a current topic today about keeping commitments. We are debating Interim Supply in which yesterday - and I will say it again, because the Member for Ferryland did not like it yesterday. He tried to suggest that it is tough to have a debate in a limited time, and we should have been here weeks ago, when in fact he did not come and ask for the Legislature to be opened. He did not and no one else did. The Opposition - and he should go to the caucus meeting and check - through the Opposition House Leader, agreed to open the Legislature on the day that we did. He is checking now to see if it is true. You should have gone to the caucus meeting and you could have sorted it out there, but I guess you don't go because someone else has the ear of the leader and the caucus at this point in time.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not like to sit here and have people make statements that are not true, so I am going to stand when I know statements to be false, when made by the Premier or anybody in this House. Our House Leader and caucus have never agreed. That was set unilaterally and dictatorially by government in contravention of the Standing Orders of this House, the delayed opening this House. We were not a party to it. The Government House Leader and the Premier, that is who ordered when this House was open. I would like him to tell the truth and not get on with this nonsense when we are debating $1.35 billion - and he getting on with a pile of garbage here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, the real point being that if there was any objection - if wants to split hairs and talk about no agreement - the Opposition House Leader, because he does all the speaking - the leader does not speak outside the Legislature - the Opposition House Leader raised no objection whatsoever to the opening date, did not protest to the media, did not protest to the people or the public, did not pound on the doors of the Legislature and demand that it be opened, so there was agreement, Madam Chair, with respect to the date that we opened and would have a full debate.

Currently there is a debate in the Province about whether or not commitments will be met. Because in the Throne Speech just a week or so ago, the Leader of the Opposition, being quite forceful, being quite strong, because he wanted to give that image, the language that was used was this - the Leader of the Opposition used this language - I want to put the people of this Province on notice.

Now, it was said in that fashion because he wanted people to pay attention to what he was going to say next. He wanted people to stand up and sit up and take notice of what he was saying, and what followed was this - what he put the people of the Province on notice for was that - I, and this caucus - because they are all in it together -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I was just in our caucus room just outside the Legislature, and I watched the Premier on the televised channel for the second day in a row, when I was not here, say there was agreement when the House would be opened, and that it is not true. The Government House Leader informed me when the House was going to be opened. It was not a question of debate. I was informed that the House would open on March 18, because some new ministers needed a week or so to get briefed on their Cabinet portfolios. That is the reason.

There was no agreement. The Government House Leader informed me. I can say to the Premier, it is not our job of when the House opens. That is your role and you made that decision. Do not try to split that hair, but I can tell you that we play a large part on when it will close.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to state on the record, too, Madam Chairperson, I found out unofficially about four days before government announced it, when someone was coming to my office and they were on an elevator with the Government House Leader and another person, who they did not recognize, who stated in that elevator that the House will open on March 18. That person came to a meeting in our office and that was when I heard it. There was an official announcement four days later. So, they are talking to the public and people on the House opening here and do not have the courtesy to tell people of this House when the House is going to open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The House rules no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I look forward to participating in the debate on several occasions this afternoon.

Madam Chair, you can see the sensitivity of the Opposition when things are not going well for them. They raise objections over even the most minor points.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me make the point, again, Madam Chair, if they want to suggest that there was no agreement, now I suppose they will stand up and suggest that they objected, because I am telling you one thing: there was no objection by the Opposition as to the opening date of the Legislature. Not one objection was raised by one single soul with respect to the opening of the Legislature.

The point, Madam Chair, I was getting to was this: we were put on notice a week ago, because the Leader of the Opposition wanted everybody in the Province to pay attention to what he was about to say next, which was that I, and the caucus that I lead, will not be bound by commitments made by this government.

He was proud to say it. Ever since, he has been all over the public airwaves of Newfoundland and Labrador suggesting that he really did not mean it; that he did not mean it.

He was on the airwaves again this morning talking about - because the President of NAPE, I understand, was on. I did not hear any of it. It was reported to me. The President of NAPE was on the radio saying that I spoke to NAPE and I promised to honour their contracts. Well, maybe they are going to honour the contracts because I guess they will turn the place upside down - which is the phrase he used when he was so brave and invigorated in his inaugural speech the day he was acclaimed at the rock concert in the stadium.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He was so brave that day, and he quoted the Auditor General. He quoted Ms Marshall and said: if my auditor said the things she was saying I would go in and turn the place upside down. That is what I would do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Last week he was saying: I will not be bound by any commitments made by this government. Ever since he is now saying: Oh, maybe I will not turn it upside down after all. Oh, those commitments are okay, I did not mean you. I did not mean you, Mr. Hanlon. I did not mean NAPE. I did not mean your workers. I must have meant somebody else. So, I guess the whole notion is this, what he did say today - and maybe he will clarify it. He did say on the public airwaves that he will honour the terms of the contract. In other words, the raise is safe and secure; because he is committed to that now. Just like he committed to the doctors, when asked. He did not volunteer it though, he had to be asked. He had to be asked. He did not know the answer for three days. They could not find him. When they finally found him and he figured out the answer, he said: Oh, the doctors have nothing to fear from us. Whatever goes on in the arbitration, we will live with that. We will honour that; three days later.

It took him three days to meet with his caucus, I guess, because they always meet and discuss all of these things, as to whether or not Ron Dawe is allowed to run; as to whether or not Gary Gale is a suitable candidate; as to whether or not Jim Hodder is allowed to run. Guess what? They all voted that Jim Hodder is okay, because they vote on all of them. Jim Hodder, who was a Liberal back in the 1980s, then ran for the Tories; going to be revived again as a fresh new face. They had a vote and a group of them said Jim Hodder is okay with us. We vote for Jim Hodder to be a candidate. Then when Ron Dawe - who used to be in the Cabinet with them - said: I would like to run. They had a vote and everyone of them, it was unanimous - the Member for Waterford Valley said: I will not sit in this caucus if Ron Dawe becomes a candidate for us. Now, you go out Mr. Leader and say that to the public because I want the public to know that this full caucus finds Mr. Dawe, for some unknown reason, to be unacceptable; to be absolutely unacceptable and cannot run under any set of circumstances.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

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

Something happened in Question Period, on a point of order. Before I do, I also recall the Premier talking about a member of his own crowd, that he could not sleep one night if he was part his government.

Notwithstanding that, Madam Chair, it is a clear precedent in this House that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a clear precedent in this House - and the Premier before he leaves, because it deals with him, that he used documents in this House today to influence debate. Under a section of Beauchesne, documents cited: a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate. The admission of that document must be tabled in this House. So, I am asking the Premier, before he leaves this Legislature, to table the document in this House that he was referring to.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: To the point of order, Madam Chair.

I do not know why the hon. the Opposition House Leader waited until now. The Premier was here all during the debate.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) get up when he raised the point of order.

MR. LUSH: The Premier has been here ever since. So, if the hon. member had raised the debate at the time - the Premier is now gone. I do not know what the Premier will do, but the hon. member had plenty of time to raise this. I do not know whether he was out walking in the corridors and got an inspiration and came in to do it but the hon. gentleman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: I am not finished. The hon. gentleman is trying to take this place on its ear. If he does it, Madam Chair, everything is okay but the minute anybody on this side does something, then it is all against the rules. The hon. member should cool down and let the debate proceed in a mature and responsible fashion.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I do apologize for not raising it immediately. I had to deal with a personal matter. That is why I had to go to the caucus room. Now that you are in possession of that information, let's be in possession of some other facts. When I rose on a point of order, Madam Chair, the Premier was sitting in his seat and he got up and left when I asked him to table the documents. The fact of the matter is that the Premier of the Province, as the leader of the government - and this applies to every other minister, every minister of the Crown. As the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board found out a little while ago in the last sitting of the House. He referenced documents, clearly said that they were May 16. He even mentioned the date. In view of the fact that he mentioned those documents, I am asking the Chair to instruct the Premier that he has used documents to influence debate and the Standing Orders of our House and the precedence of parliament are clear. He must table those documents. We want the Premier to table those documents, and we want a ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: At this point we will recess for a few moments until we get the information and report back.Recess

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I have reviewed the tape. Apparently the Opposition House Leader is referring to a document in Question Period and I remind the House that points of order pertaining to Question Period should be raised immediately after. I refer to §321 in Beauchesne, so on that, I rule out of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: In view of what has just transpired, Madam Chair, we have a right in this House to appeal the Chairman of Committee's rulings. On page 776, Appeals to the Chairman's Rulings, "Members may appeal a ruling of the Chairman of Committees of the Whole to the Speaker. After the Chairman has made a ruling, a Member may rise on a point of order - which I have done - and appeal the ruling to the Speaker. Such an appeal is not subject to debate."

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: I will take the matter under further advisement and report back to the House.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) verification. The rule on page 776 is very clear. As a member in this House I have a right to appeal the Chair's ruling, that it is not subject for debate, and the Chair must immediately leave the Chair and appeal directly to the Speaker of the House. These are the rules under our parliamentary tradition and precedent in this House.

MADAM CHAIR: Once again I will recess the House and report back.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

At this point, the Chair will rise and report to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my decision on a point of order pertaining to the tabling of documents has been raised by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that a decision by her on a point of order has been appealed to the House. The Chair will now put the appropriate question.

Is it the pleasure of the House to uphold the decision of the Chair?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare it carried.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual occurrence, what occurred here, but an important one. I am looking for clarification on exactly what has transpired. My understanding - and obviously that could be wrong - is that when a ruling is made by the Chairperson, as reported to the Speaker, which has been done, the Chair actually makes the ruling and not the House. I could be wrong and if I am, fair enough.

The second point I would like to raise is that, what transpired -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) challenging the Chair.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not challenging the Chair, I say to the Member for Bellevue. I am seeking clarification, which is allowed at any time.

The second point I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, if I could, and again seeking your clarification at a point when you are ready, there have been many times in this House when points of order or exceptions have been made when they were not made right away. When I rose on a point of order, it was arising out of Question Period. I did not interrupt Question Period with a point of order. I left the House immediately to deal with a matter, on a personal level, which I had to deal with. I came back in to deal with the statement that the Premier made, and I had to run out again. I came back and raised it at the earliest possible time.

I am just seeking for clarification that, with respect to points of order, if that ruling is now the precedent for this Assembly and for this Parliament, if a point of order is to be raised it must be raised immediately; because if that is the case then a new precedent has been set for the House of Assembly.

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

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

Honourable members, all of us, would know that it is certainly more apropos, cause for less acrimony, cause for less confusion, when points of order are raised during the incident that would cause rise to the point of order.

I think Your Honour has made a ruling on that. Your Honour made a ruling on that in this session where a couple of points of order were raised, and I am guilty myself. I raised a point of order sometime after the fact and then, I believe, as a result of that, or subsequently or shortly thereafter Your Honour made a ruling that it was Your Honour's preference that points of order - it might have been stronger than that, and I think it may have been - that points of order should be raised during the time that is necessary for a point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems to me that this whole debate is misconceived. It does not seem to me that a point of order arises, in fact, until the person who has been reading from a document actually refuses to table a document. It seems to me that a request to table a document can be made at any time.

If I am rising in my place and speaking and I say, look, I understand the Premier read from a document when he was reading and I ask the member if he would table that document, the rules say that if a member reads from a document he is required to table it. So, if someone puts forth a request and if he then refuses, then it becomes a point of order. It seems to me that until a request has been made and then refused, no point of order arises at all. It still can be raised if the member, or if the Premier in this case, refuses to table documents upon a request to do so. I do not even know if that has happened yet.

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, to the point the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has raised, I am just wondering if he could quote to me the Standing Order on which he would stand in the House and ask that the document be tabled. I know of no Standing Order for that.

Secondly, the point of order that the hon. Opposition House Leader raised regarding timing of points of order, the Chair has ruled on many occasions, after hearing points of order and taking them under advisement, that the point of order was, I guess, out of order because it was not raised in a timely fashion. That is something that we have ruled on, on a number of occasions in the past, that points of order must be raised - and I refer hon. members to section 321 of Beauchesne, which states that they must be raised in a timely fashion and when it is appropriate to do so.

To the process that the hon. member has talked to, I am not familiar with it and I want to go back and do some research on our own precedents here where the Chair's ruling in Committee has been challenged. I am not aware of that.

The process that we followed in this House, to date, is that whenever there is a challenge to the Chair there is a motion put to the floor requesting that the House uphold the decision of the Chair. That is the process we have followed in the past. The Chair will certainly look at the process. The Chair, himself, has been challenged on a number of occasions and that has been the process that we have followed. The Chair will see if there is a precedent in this House for the Chair of the Committee of the Whole being challenged, and if the process that we followed today is the one that was followed in the past. I am not sure if there is a precedent for that.

Having consulted just briefly on this, this is the decision that the Chair has made at this time.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is a very critical issue, in my view, from a parliamentary point of view.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon member now to get to his point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker, if members opposite would allow me the opportunity to get to it.

The point I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is that - I can just refer you, in your consideration, I guess, of this matter, to page 776 of the House of Commons practice. It is our understanding that when the Chair of Committees makes a ruling and it is appealed - and it is spelled out here in 776 on Committees of the Whole, Appeals of the Chairman's Rulings, that it goes directly to the Speaker and Your Honour rules and doesn't put the question before the House. That is the procedure as is outlined. If our custom is lacking, which it is, in terms of our Standing Orders, then we go automatically to it. Again, I wonder if the Speaker could recess to look at this matter before we move on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair follows -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to explain the situation here as it relates to our Standing Orders.

Our Standing Orders indicate that if there is something in our Standing Orders that is not covered, if there is a point of order raised that is not covered, then we go to precedent and then to the House of Commons. The Chair believes that this is the precedent. I have asked the Table Officers to do that and then, when I get a report, I will bring it back to the House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we will go back to the ordinary business of the day. We will go back, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to Motion 1.

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the Granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

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

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

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to rise today, Madam Chair, and speak for a few minutes with respect to the subject matter before us, namely Bill 2, An Act For Grant To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004, And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

This bill, of course, is essentially the subject of debate that has taken place in this Legislature over the last couple of days. Specifically I am interested, Madam Chair, in what Bill 2 has to say about the education expenditure which, according to the schedule which is attached to the bill, totals some $184,810,900, a significant amount of money, and money, of course, that obviously the people of this Province hope and pray will be spent wisely for the benefit of the young children of our Province.

In the Speech from the Throne that we heard a few days ago, Madam Chair, we heard relatively ambitious indication by members opposite, by the members of government opposite, in their attempt to really showcase education, which I support. When members of a government, and when a government agenda certainly makes it clear that it wants to give emphasis and place a sense of importance on the education of our young children, that is something that all the people of our Province can support, and it is encouraging to see that government hopes to do that, but I think the critical word is the word hope. It is an expectation, it is an ambition, and it is certainly our job, as an Official Opposition, to ensure that this expectation and this ambition is met; and, of course, it is our job as the Official Opposition to ensure that what ministers opposite say, and what the leader of the government says, or what members opposite say, with respect to this important issue will be challenged and tested on a regular basis.

Madam Chair, perhaps one of the most realistic features affecting our education system in our Province today is the reality of a reduced student enrolment. I can remember when I graduated from high school in 1970. I believe the entire pupil population in Newfoundland and Labrador just over thirty years ago was something like 160,000 or 162,000 pupils in our Province. At that time, we were only talking about Kindergarten to Grade 11. Now, of course, and for the last number of years, we have the inception of Grade 12, an extra grade. Today, our total student enrolment, I understand, is less than 90,000. So we have lost, in the last thirty years, well in excess of 70,000 students in our primary, elementary and in our secondary school system. These are phenomenal numbers, I say, Madam Chair. Of course, it is that kind of challenge that any government has to face to ensure that it can deal with the reality of a reduced student enrolment.

Madam Chair, a number of years ago we saw in this Province education reform, and that brought with it its difficulties, its challenges. Many people supported it, and there were many who opposed it. Perhaps one of the strongest features of education reform that I can consider, and I would like to reflect upon for a few moments, is what we find in sections 25 and 26 of the Schools Act, when, as a part of reform, it brought in the concept of school councils. Most schools, in fact I would say all schools, are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that councils are put in place that are made up of a school administrator, the principal in most cases, teachers, parents, volunteers, and those individuals in the community who want to participate in the educational process; but the idea and the concept of a school council, in my view, and I am sure this is a view supported by my colleagues on this side and I am sure by all members present, is a very positive innovation in the educational system.

It is interesting when we look at that particular section, Madam Chair, we can see exactly what the functions of a school council are. They include: to represent the educational interests of the school; to advise on the quality of teaching and learning in the school; to facilitate parent and community involvement in teaching and learning in the school; and to advise the board on matters of concern to the school and the community.

It is a serious role, I say, Madam Chair. It is a role that ought to be taken with a degree of intensity and attention simply because, Madam Chair, these individuals include school administrators, the instructors in the school, the parents in the particular community, and volunteer individuals. This is the makeup of the educational community at large. This school council is charged with the responsibility to advise and to make comment on those features within the educational system which are first and foremost.

Section 26, Madam Chair, continues to state that a school council shall approve for the recommendation to the board a plan for improving teaching and learning in the school. It states as well that a school council shall, so this is not something which is an elective act in any way. This is a compulsory act. The school council shall support and promote the plan approved by the board for improving teaching and learning in the school.

It continues to state, Madam Chair, that a school council shall approve and monitor activities for the raising of funds for the school, to consider information respecting performance standards in the school.

Madam Chair, the role of a school council is an important one and, as I see it, perhaps one of the more critical areas and perhaps one of the most important aspects of school reform that we witnessed here in our Province several years ago.

Madam Chair, as important as the role of a school council is, it is equally important that the minister, the government of the day, pay particular attention to what school councils say in the carrying out of their role to ensure that the students of a particular jurisdiction and under a particular school district or board district, to ensure that their interests are protected at all times.

Madam Chair, I am in possession of - and I am sure the minister is in possession as well - a number of letters that have been sent to the minister, many of his colleagues and many of my own colleagues on this side of the House. Letters that are written by the chairs of these school councils who have voiced their concerns, who have voiced their experiences with respect to what weaknesses they have been able to see and what their views are in terms of an attempt to improve the educational climate in their own particular school district.

For example, I have a letter here from the chair of Milcrest Academy in Grand Falls-Windsor. I have another letter here - again, many of these letters have been circulated amongst colleagues in this House - from the chair of Indian River High School in Springdale; a letter here from the chair of a school council from Grenfell Intermediate school council in Grand Falls-Windsor once again; another from Woodland Primary in Grand Falls-Windsor; and another, I should add, from the South Coast of the Province from the school chair of St. Joseph's School in Harbour Breton. These are just a few examples of where interested parents, educators, administrators and educationally-minded volunteers in given communities have come together and have put together their thoughts, their concerns and their recommendations as to how government should respond to the concerns that have been recognized and identified by these school councils.

Madam Chair, it is interesting to note that a lot of them are based on the fiscal reality we are dealing with. I would just like to refer to a couple of the headings because much of the wording and much of the points that are raised in the selection of these letters are similar. It speaks to the fact that government has not kept promises made to the people during the restructuring process; that government requires schools to meet certain criteria, yet provides absolutely no support in terms of personnel or funding to meet the demands; that this particular school district has been discriminated against in the area of capital funding and that is reflected in some of their schools and what they have been able to observe. They state, as well, that the decision-making capacity of duly elected school boards have been hamstrung with respect to the use and dispensation of funds resulting from operating savings as a result of these (inaudible).

CHAIR (Butler): Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, if I may?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Again, what we have seen here, Mr. Chairman, are examples of what many of our citizens in this Province, representing a variety of communities and a representation of schools and school districts in the Province, are saying with respect to education. The minister has a copy of these and I would certainly encourage the minister to listen to what has been said by these individuals, and I would be interested in hearing from the minister. The minister has indicated that he has responded to some of them. I would be interested in knowing exactly what his response is, so that the people of this Province can clearly understand what the view of this government is in response to what seriously minded people are saying with respect to this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Premier, at this time I would like to inform this hon. House of the ruling on a point of order raised yesterday by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

The Chair has reviewed the transcript of the comments of the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment to which the hon. the Opposition House Leader referred in raising his point of order. It appears to the Chair there is a difference of opinion between two honourable gentlemen and there is therefore no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to make the few comments I was going to make earlier today before we got sidetracked in some parliamentary haranguing.

The point I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman, was this, that Interim Supply is important because it allows us to keep some commitments through the next period of time while we take the seventy-five hours between now and May 24 weekend to have the full Budget debate. I am glad to see the way the debate is going with respect to the intervention just made by the education critic talking about education issues and seeking further clarification. That is a useful intervention.

With respect to commitments, which is a burning public issue today, Mr. Chair, everybody knows what our position is. Everybody knows the commitments we have laid out in the last two years; in the Throne Speech last week. We will hear more of it in a couple of days in the Budget on Thursday. But, what people are concerned about is the Leader of the Opposition, who has said inside this House and outside the House, that he will not - and he repeated it again this morning on an Open Line show - be bound by commitments made by this government. The phrase that he is using is that it will have to go through due diligence. Due diligence. Nice highfalutin words for the witch hunt. Nobody is safe. Nothing sacred. Nothing guaranteed. Everything up for full examination. That is what due diligence really means, and there is nobody fooled by it. It means no commitment to anything. It means zero-based budgeting. Start over. Nothing that is there today is guaranteed to be there tomorrow.

Now, that is what it means, Mr. Chair, but the commitments that he has given are as important and instructive as those that he says he will not give. I was mentioning earlier that when challenged by NAPE and CUPE, does it mean the raises that we got are okay? Oh, yes, the raises will be guaranteed. But, if you ask the next question: Will there be any of us working here to collect the raise? No commitment on that. There is no guarantee that anybody who is working and providing any service on behalf of the government for the people of the Province today will be here if you follow through a due diligence process. So, they are not saying what they stand for, what they believe is important, or what must exist.

Let me give you an example. Back in November, speaking to the students at Memorial University, where we have instituted a 20 per cent tuition cut - we have said in the Throne Speech there is going to be another 5 per cent tuition cut in September. A political promise from this government. It will be read again in the Budget on Thursday, another 5 per cent tuition cut coming in September. In November, before that 5 per cent tuition cut is ever instituted, the Leader of the Opposition, at Memorial visiting the students, said: However, Williams could not promise anymore fee reductions, saying he is very concerned about the financial situation he might find the Province in if elected Premier.

So, is there a commitment? Because I am sure the students, just like NAPE and CUPE did, will say: Is our 5 per cent tuition reduction going to be honoured? I am sure they are going to ask that question. Every time he gets asked a question, he says: Oh, yes, that one is okay. I didn't mean that one. Every time he is asked, he says: I didn't mean that one. So we will get to the bottom of this, Mr. Chair, and it is important to do so. It is important in Interim Supply. It is important in the Budget. It is important in the Province.

There had been some commitments made to Ms Marshall, the former Auditor General. In a public interview in February, 2003, on CBC Radio and I quote: I have had preliminary discussions with members of the Progressive Conservative Party just to get the general feel for the policies they might implement, because I would only go in and become a candidate for them if I thought the things that were important to me had a really good chance of getting implemented. The interviewer said: So, you think you have that commitment from Mr. Williams? Yes, I think I do, said Ms Marshall.

So there is a commitment to Ms Marshall to run the government the way she has been describing it in the Auditor General's reports for the last ten years, which says that if there is a flood in Badger, and if there is no money voted for it in the budget - remember now, they are against special warrants. People remember them arguing against special warrants; how bad they are; how terrible it is. Well, if there is no money in the budget, and Badger floods, Ms Marshall says you cannot do anything about it until the next budget. So, we should have told the people in January month in Badger: Sorry about the flood, folks. Sorry about the fact that you have nowhere to live but we cannot give any money to open up the Carmelite House in Grand Falls because it is not in the budget. We have to wait until we get another budget on April 1 and then we will come back and talk to you. That is how an auditor would run it, you see. No political judgement. No commitment. No compassion for people. No concern. Run it by the book. Check the numbers if it is not there. That is what she has written consistently for ten years. What is important is: So, you think you have a commitment from Mr. Williams to do things that are important to you and to run the government the way that you think it would be? Yes, I think I do. That is why I would like to be a candidate. So, there is a commitment to the Marshall plan.

I wonder about a couple of other things. I wonder if there are any commitments to Inco and Voisey's Bay. This will be very telling, Mr. Chairman, because publicly the Leader of the Opposition has said this would never happen on my watch. It would never happen. Now, there are going to be some questions asked of the Leader of the Opposition about commitments. His commitment to the people of the Province is to say that I am going to go into the government and turn it upside down. With respect to Voisey's Bay, he said, I am going to go through every one of those legally binding agreements and commitments again because I am not going to honour those commitments. I am going to go through due diligence. I am going to check them out all over again. That is his public presentation.

However, I wonder what he said to Mr. Hand and Inco when he met with them privately. Now, he has not talked to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador about the fact that he met with Mr. - maybe he has not even talked to his caucus. I can see the look on their faces. They are hearing it for the first time, Mr. Chairman. They are hearing it for the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Oh, so the Member for Kilbride knows about it. The Member for Bonavista South never heard tell of it before. The Member for Trinity North never heard tell of it before. The Member for St. John's South is nodding that he never heard tell of it before. So, maybe his little henchman from Kilbride, who was caught out today dead wrong - usually pretty good, today dead wrong - he heard about it. I guess Ms Marshall must have heard about it because the Marshall plan is going to be implemented, so the rest of the caucus did not hear tell of it, but I can tell you that he will have to explain to the people of the Province what he said to Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel privately, because it is a very different scenario. They just announced they are going ahead. They just announced they have gone through the bankable feasibility study. They just announced they are proud to proceed, and I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition is going to say about what he said to Inco privately about that. Did he tell them that you better be careful about spending your money because I am going to examine all your contracts again; I am going to turn the place upside down? I don't think so. I think there are at least two of them.

There is the one that says these great, brave things publicly and there is probably another one who, in the private, quiet confines with someone like Mr. Hand, says, you know, I had to say that kind of stuff - wink, wink, nod, nod - politically, but don't worry, we are with you. You are doing the right thing here. You have nothing to fear from us, if I ever become the Premier. You will find me a great fellow to get along with. I understand business. You have nothing to fear from me, I am a wonderful man. I bet you there are at least two of them. There are at least two of them, Mr. Chairman, no doubt about it.

Then the caucus, the whole caucus - and tax breaks for the rich, which they did not want to talk about before Christmas. The Member for Ferryland, who is not a left-winger but a right-winger and proud of it, he is not left-of-centre, he is right-of-centre and proud of it, and has been every since he got into politics. He believes in it and I respect him for it. The Member for Kilbride is now saying: Wait until we drop this policy book.

What are they going to do? Get a book like this, pick it up and oh, my goodness, they are going to drop it. They are going to drop this policy book and it is going to be left-of-centre. It is going to be left-of-centre, so the left-of-centre book - but I will tell you one thing that is in the left-of-centre book because it was in The Telegram on Saturday. In the left-of-centre book, Mr. Chairman, there is a commitment to Archean Resources, one of the richest companies in the Province, to get further tax breaks, to keep more of the money. A debate that they started to have before Christmas, most of them changed their mind because they did not like it. The Member for Ferryland still supports it, but I guess the left-wing, the left-of-centre Blue Book, cannot be going to meet that, but there is a commitment. The representatives of Archean Resources, right in The Telegram, said -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Premier's time has expired.

PREMIER GRIMES: - we have a commitment from the PC caucus.

I will come back to it later, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I am proud to participate in the debate on Interim Supply. After the performance that I just watched by the Premier, if he wants to get up and take the next hour to go on and wax eloquently, like he just did, I will gladly give him the opportunity.

In the last few minutes I just heard that, if we were the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I just heard the Premier say that if we were the government, and Ms Marshall, who is our candidate in Topsail, was part of the government, we would have said to the people of Badger: I am sorry, you have to wait until the next budget before we can help you. This is really, really unbelievable.

Some of the things that we have talked about in the last ten years in this Legislature, certainly the last election, I can tell you the things that we would implement, that Ms Marshall talked about, and it was the notion of accountability. It was a notion where we do not award political contracts to friends and break the Public Tender Act, which this government did, and members of it did. Those are the things that we have talked about in terms of accountability.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier goes on to say - and I appreciate his latest description of myself. In the last two years since the Member for Humber West, the Leader of the Opposition, has become leader of the party, I have been called by him: a puppet leader, the real leader, babysitter, and today he calls me a henchman. Mr. Chairman, I think that says more about the Premier of the Province than it does about anybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Earlier this week, his Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, on Thursday, got up and said - guess what she said? I say to the members of my caucus, and members of the House, and the public who may be watching, just remind them, she indicated that if we were to become the government there would be very little affordable homes for people, and that more people would be sleeping on the streets and under vents, and I think that speaks more to the fearmongering of the government and the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, than it does anything else.

In the last ten years, in my time in the House of Assembly here, certainly the last session and in particular this session, I have seen and witnessed a lot, but the personal attacks that are coming forward are absolutely unbelievable.

The Premier has indicated today that we are going to be a zero-based budgeting sort of crowd. I challenge him and members of the government today to table where that is coming from. They cannot, because it does not exist. Trying to leave an impression with people that due diligence means that nobody is safe, that nobody in the public service is safe, that nobody in government is safe, that the delivery of public services is not safe.

If anybody in this House truly wants to know what is not safe, let's look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that this government has wasted, and let's ask some questions. Would that money have been better off in shortening heart surgery lists, if it was not wasted by protecting friends and giving them contracts? Who has jeopardized the health and safety of people in this Province? Could that money have been better well used to improve hospital facilities, providing more front-line services, more nurses where nurses were needed, and better salaries for physicians if that money was not wasted by this government?

Let me ask the Premier this: When he was Minister of Tourism and made a decision to unilaterally fire people, that cost the Treasury of the Province a million dollars, doesn't he think for a moment that million dollars could have been better used somewhere else?

When Works, Services and Transportation purchased a ship called the Hull 100 and they spent over $7 million trying to get it up to standard, and a person in the minister's department says, we are praying it won't cost too much more, is that the type of government people want? That they are praying that it will not cost too much more and it is still not in the water going to float.

Nobody on this side is going to sit down and listen to the type of fearmongering that the Premier has gotten on with. Not only that, I do not believe for a second that the people of the Province want to see in a Premier what we just saw a few moments ago. That is what I believe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, since 1996, I recall being asked by former Premier Brian Tobin to go to a Lower Churchill announcement - $1 million press conference. I called him Hollywood Brian; he lost his cool on it. He and his Cabinet spent $1 million to announce a deal that did not even happen.

In the next round of renegotiations - because we spent two-and-a-half years of people living in hope for that - in the last round of negotiations, in which the current Premier tried to get an arrangement that was acceptable to the people of the Province, all of those studies, how much money has been spent on engineering and feasibility studies and everything else associated with Lower Churchill? We can only assume, based on information that came out, it is in the vicinity of $90 million to $120 million. Do you know why we really do not know? Because Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and this most accountable, open and transparent government will not put them in so that we can get at that information. The type of waste that has occurred.

This is the same Premier who, during a nurses' strike in this Legislature, did exactly what he is doing now. He believes he has a little point, a little issue. He is going to rise up every ten minutes on it. That is fair enough. I congratulate him, tell him to get up and do it, because if he wants to continue as he did we will give him all the time he needs.

That is the same Premier who now sits on the high horse, that he and his government are the ones that have the best labour relations and labour collective bargaining strategy, while he stood in his place in this Legislature and, in a draconian measure, legislated nurses back to work and almost incited a riot by what he said to the nurses filling the galleries. And he wants to think that now that he has reinvented himself! I remember that, nurses in the Province remember that, and everybody in this Legislature remembers that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, has he made a commitment, as our Leader has made, to the people of NAPE and members of the Public Service and CUPE, that under his government he would never legislate them back to work, that the differences that government may have from time to time with any of its public employees, above all else, above everything else, that he would not, and his government would not, legislate them back to work. I haven't heard that. I have heard it, not from him but from the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Humber West, and he should be commended for it.

Mr. Chairman, I recall leading up to the last election, there were no rants from the Premier or any of his members or ministers, leading up to the 1999 election, for our Blue Book. Do you know why? I will tell you why. Because they, in their own minds, felt that there was no possibility that they could lose the government, that we weren't a threat to them. As a matter of fact, I remember walking out of this Legislature before the House closed and the Premier and others saying: There will be four of you back here. They weren't shouting and screaming then for our policy book. They didn't need it, they felt. Do you know why they are shouting and screaming now? Because they know that they are threatened, their positions in government are threatened, their jobs are threatened and the cushy cushions under their backsides are threatened, because the people of the Province want real change. That is what is going on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I tell you something else, that after the last general election there weren't four of us here but fourteen of us. After our policy book was tabled they didn't rant and roar for it then, they just went ahead and hijacked it. Do you know something? I compliment them for it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: There were good ideas in that. Let me tell you, any time that we have a good idea you are welcome to it, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just make one other short intervention today, because I know there are others who would like to speak in this debate. I would welcome the Leader of the Opposition rising from his seat and joining the debate, instead of having the babysitter do it for him, as he just did again, Mr. Chairman.

It is pretty clear that the Member for Kilbride is one of those who does get to talk to the Leader of the Opposition from time to time. Most of the others don't, even though they would pretend that they all voted that Ron Dawe would not be acceptable as a candidate. The Member for Windsor-Springdale, I am sure he is proud to go around and tell the people of Windsor-Springdale that he sat in judgement on another individual and said, I sat in a caucus and spoke out against Ron Dawe and why he should not be allowed to run for the Conservative Party and voted for a motion that said: Under no circumstances should he be allowed to do it. I am sure he is very proud of that, and I am sure he would have liked it and would have really appreciated it if it was three or four years ago and it was him. The others who sat in the caucus said: No, no, we do not want that fellow Hunter. You know, he is no good. He cannot sit with us. We do not want him. He is not allowed to run. I do not care if he wants to run or not. But, we have to sit here now and we have to decide who in Newfoundland and Labrador is worthy to run for public office.

I am sure he will be proud to go around Windsor-Springdale and say that, as well as the Member for Bonavista North. I do not think anyone made any judgements about him; no other saddened judgement about him. I am sure he would not want to, but all of a sudden he gets elected, and takes it upon himself to say: Now, I used the democratic process. I went through it but I feel now that I can absolutely turn around and tell somebody else that you cannot go through a democratic process. Not in this party, you cannot. Not in this party. He voted for it in the caucus, Mr. Chairman. Everyone of them voted for it.

The Member for Conception Bay South, I wonder what speech he made. He just got elected a little while ago. I wonder what speech he made, all of sudden in being a member for a few months to say: I am a member but I have enough experience now to know that Ron Dawe, who was a member for ten years for their party, is not fit. Is not fit to even run for the party and let the people in the district decide whether or not he should come into this Legislature. Now, that is what we are about. That is what we are about, Mr. Chairman.

Again, getting back to the former Auditor General, Ms Marshall. Let me give you another example that was criticized in Auditor General reports and that she now has the ear of the government, the ear of the Leader of the Opposition, if they ever formed a government, to enact. Air quality in the schools. There are references in Auditor General reports to air quality in the schools. If the air quality goes astray because there is some bacteria, there is some mould, maybe a bit of water gets in, the roof or the windows leak, and there is something wrong with the air quality, if it is not in the Budget for the Education Investment Committee, the Auditor General says: Too bad. Wait until the next budget. The former Auditor General, that is what she said. She has the ear of the Leader of the Opposition and the caucus to say that is the way we should run the government. So, never mind those students. What are you going to do with them? Let them sit there and get sick or cancel school for a year until the next budget comes in and you can do something. That is what we are talking about, Mr. Chairman.

Today, the Leader of the Opposition, again, jumped at an opportunity to go on the Open Line program after Mr. Hanlon to say I gave a speech at the NAPE convention when I said I would honour their contracts. I would not use the Legislature to roll back any wages like the Liberals did ten years ago. Eleven years ago now. Actually, twelve years ago. But they have two years of experience with me in the government that I lead and they know two things - because we have had strikes. Strikes, by the way, are legal and proper when they go through a procedure. There is nothing illegal or improper about a strike if you cannot resolve the differences beforehand.

We had members of the Opposition with a school strike last year that lasted for nine weeks, not in St. John's but elsewhere, out meeting with school council reps calling upon the government to legislate them back to work. Don't you remember the speech? Do you remember the speeches, any of you? Do you remember the speeches you made? Do you remember the representations you made on behalf of the school councils and the parents, that this has gone on long enough and the government should legislate you back to work? All of a sudden they forget. All of a sudden the Member for Kilbride is up saying: Oh, we have given a commitment that we would not use the Legislature. Well, the easiest commitment in the world to give, you have never been here. You people have never been here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it?

PREMIER GRIMES: Oh, they know who said it, Mr. Chairman. It is not for me. Each one of them knows the speeches that they made. I did not attribute anything to any individual member. They can stand up and say themselves whether they talked to parents about legislating back to work during the strike last year.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

Just so the Premier does not feel compelled, if anybody over here made a speech that he can point to and say that someone said: legislate them back to work, stand up and say it. Don't say I am not going to do it. You just want to leave the impression out there. Why don't you just tell who it was, what was said, where it was said, when it was said, and in what context it was said? By all means, let's hear it.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The people sitting around you are all hon. members just like me and you and they can speak for themselves. I will tell you this, they were brave enough to meet with the parent groups a year ago and lobby the government to legislate them back to work. Why don't they jump up today and make the same speech, Mr. Chairman? Because it is different now, the lights are on and they do not want to say the same things.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you this, the unions do have that commitment from me because when I was lobbied by parent groups and MHAs on the other side of the House to legislate them back to work, I said absolutely not. I have too much respect for the collective bargaining process. If these people broke the law, if they were out there illegally, if they had not gone through the right processes then I would not hesitate to legislate them back to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: I am talking about leadership that I am providing. You are talking about the past as usual, because you are frightened to death of what has happened the last two years because you know it is the best leadership that has been provided in this Province in years and you cannot stand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: You absolutely cannot stand it, and you know the difference.

Mr. Chairman, the speech to the NAPE convention, what the Leader of the Opposition left out today on Open Line and elsewhere were the weasel words. He is going to honour the contract all right. He is going to honour the contract. That is what he is saying now. He will not use the Legislature to roll it back but there is a negotiation coming up in the fall. Maybe the negotiation is going to be a 5 per cent reduction. Maybe the negotiation is going to be no raise but lots of layoffs. It will be negotiated, I guess.

The weasel words were these, here is the rest of the speech that he was so proud to make as Leader of the Opposition to the NAPE convention. This was after the commitments were given. "If some unexpected, unanticipated circumstances arise that make it impossible for the government to honour all the terms of a collective agreement...". He is suggesting that it is not outside the realm of possibility. If something should arise, I will - here it is, here is another commitment. Not that I will make sure your contract is in place and that you have a job, "...I will come back to you and ask for your help and cooperation in finding a resolution...". There is no commitment that the contract stays in place. He is just going to talk to them about how he changes it before he - his own words, Mr. Chairman. That is what he did not say today, that he was so proud to say a year-and-a-half ago. That is why there is no commitment. That is why he is really telling the truth as the Leader of the Opposition.

I would like for him to stand up. I would like for him to rise from his place and enter into the debate. We are all equal in this Legislature. He can rise right after I sit down, instead of having the Member for Kilbride babysit for him, explaining things for him, go out and be his little watchdog, his little henchman, and other things. Instead of doing that he can stand up himself and tell the people of the Province right now what he believes in, and what he will or will not do. I bet you any money, Mr. Chairman, that when I sit down - I bet you whatever money I have in my pocket today, which is not as much as some people have - the Leader of the Opposition will not be the next one to rise and enter into this debate, Mr. Chairman. I can pretty well guarantee it. There is not much doubt about that.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

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

The Premier knows, because he is here - while he will not say it because he is performing for the cameras - that the Leader of the Opposition is not even in the House of Assembly. It is a standing order, standing rule - let me say to members opposite, the Premier is not here all the time either but he knows that he cannot refer to members who are not here directly or indirectly. Mr. Chair, I ask you to rule on that because he is leaving the impression clearly that the Leader of the Opposition will not rise. It is impossible for him to rise when he is not here, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I am quite familiar, Mr. Chair, as all hon. members are, with the rule which requests us or demands that we not refer to the absence of a member. I never heard the Premier talk about the absence of a member. I never heard the word mentioned. Many times a member is not here in the House, not in the physical location of the House but they could be in the caucus room. I am assuming that is where the Leader of the Opposition was today and I am assuming that is what the leader thought. Nobody on this side of the House had any desire to refer to the Leader of the Opposition being absent, Mr. Chair. I have been around too long for that and I am sure the hon the Premier has. All the hon. the Premier was doing was challenging the Leader of the Opposition to speak. It was the Opposition House Leader that brought reference to the absence because as I said, as far as - we are not omnipotent. We do not know if a member is in the precinct of the House, which is what we would have thought. I am quite certain that is what the Premier thought, that the Leader of the Opposition was in the precinct of the House, as he normally is, and no reference to his absence.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has heard both sides and I challenge all hon. members - we know that we are not suppose to reference members by not being in the House but on this particular point I would rule that there is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: No, there was a few seconds or maybe one minute left on the clock when I got interrupted with a point of order. I will honour that one minute.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: I am sorry, the hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do appreciate the thirty seconds or so to clue up. I was cluing up my remarks, in any event, and inviting the Leader of the Opposition to participate in the debate. I believe that his record would show, with respect to bills that are before the Legislature, I do not believe he has spoken on any of them. He participates in Question Period.

Here is Interim Supply, which the other speakers suggest is critically important to the people of the Province, and all I am doing again is inviting the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and speak in the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I was sitting here this past couple of days listening to the Premier, and I have to say that the Premier is a master of manipulation with words. I will refer to Hansard here, and how he tries to twist the facts. A prime example, of course, is when he was on his feet just a minute ago when he talked about the schools being on strike last year and how we wanted to legislate them back to work when actually that is not the case at all.

For example, when the nurses were on strike a few years ago, who led the charge in this House of Assembly to legislate them back to work? The current Premier. I believe he may have been the Minister of Education at the time, but he was the henchman at that point in time for Brian Tobin. He was the one who led the charge. He can get up and twist it, trying to say that we are the ones who want to do these types of things.

Another example, and I will refer to Hansard, again directly from the Premier's own words. These were his comments when he was talking about the situation with respect to the commitments made by government and the response to the Throne Speech by the Leader of the Opposition. He said here - and he is trying to quote our leader - I, for one, and my caucus, will not be bound by commitments made by government. He goes on again to say, in another section: I will not be bound by commitments made by government.

Those are his words, trying to say what our leader was saying.

Mr. Chair, I have to read into the record so the people out there will see the twisting that is going on by this Premier in this House of Assembly, and the manipulation of words. It is one paragraph, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to read it all so the people can be clear. These are the words of the Leader of the Opposition in his response to the Throne Speech, "But, let's be clear, regardless of when the election is called, it is quite obvious that all parties are now in full election mode. Promises are being made by government that require a significant financial commitment without a parallel plan to ensure that our sparse financial resources will be able to honour these obligations. I, for one, and my caucus, won't be bound by the political commitments..." - now the Premier obviously left that word out, political; he said commitments - "...made by a government in the last days of their electoral term without first evaluating them through a comprehensive due diligence process."

Mr. Chair, that is what the Leader of the Opposition said, and what he is saying is that political commitments made during an election by a government who is desperate to try to get re-elected, we will not have to live up to them, but we will be putting a plan forward ourselves that the people can decide upon.

It is strange when we get talking, and I want to talk about the bill itself, with respect to the bill and the subheads. In the subheads, there are all of the different departments quoted, and the amounts. With respect to Works, Services and Transportation, of which I am the critic, and we have a new minister, there is allocated $171,615,700 for the next few months, to make sure that the department is run and the government's commitments and payrolls, whatever the case may be, are honoured. We have said in this House of Assembly that we will make sure that the Interim Supply bill is approved. We had members on the other side of the House get up and basically give the indication that we would not do that. We have done it in the past and we will continue to do it, but it is strange when we have members on that side of the House talking about cuts, cuts, and more cuts.

MR. REID: What time is it?

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Education, he should look at the clock a bit closer.

The current Minister of Labour, the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, was quoted on the Open Line show some time ago talking about cuts in his department. He denied them here in the House of Assembly when he was asked, and last fall, but when he had a meeting with the leader of NAPE, Mr. Hanlon, who has been in the media a fair bit lately, and something I will address in due course, he had a meeting with the minister one day and the minister said - and I will refer to the quote directly here -

MR. REID: Come on, Jack, get it over with.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Education is quite anxious to hear what is going on, so he will know what is going on within his departments.

What is really happening here - this is Mr. Hanlon's quote - after meeting with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - the former minister - what has really happened here has been unfortunate and I guess we are all caught up in the criticism of government having a substantial deficit this year, and that translated into bureaucracy, the management of Works, Services and Transportation being directed by the department to cut measures, to cut overtime, to cut in terms of seasonal employees, to cut the numbers of them, and to cut maintenance and equipment. You know it is obviously now, in retrospect, the wrong decision.

Now, Mr. Chair, the leader of NAPE had a meeting with the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation a couple of months ago, in the middle of winter, when we were trying to make the case that the cutbacks were affecting the safety of the people driving on the roads of this Province, and the minister said to the leader of NAPE - again, this is an example of saying something convenient at the time to appease people. The next day the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation went on the Open Line show and completed denied that he had said it. He completely denied that this was what had been said to the leader of NAPE.

I find it more than passing strange when the leader of NAPE came on speaking for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. I heard him trying to built up the then Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. They have the gall then to talk about us - cuts over here - and we are not even here yet, and we had fourteen years of those individuals cutting.

Talk about misleading the public, Mr. Chair. That minister sitting in that chair there now, the former Minister of Works, Service and Transportation, said - and I heard it. I had to response to it. He talked about twenty pieces of equipment that they had purchased this year and there was more money being spent on the roads and what have you, but the equipment was not in the system. The roads have not been plowed this year to the standard that they have been in the past and it is because of the cuts in labour, maintenance, overtime, those types of things.

The minister admitted to it. He admitted to it in private. He will admit to it in private, in a private meeting, but he will not admit to it publicly. That is a sad situation in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair.

Members on the other side, the Opposition, talk about again - fearmongering is what they are trying to do. There is not doubt about that, Mr. Chair. Let's look at the reality of the situation. I have never seen a person outside this House of Assembly, since I have been here, named so often as the former Auditor General, who is a private individual now, who, yes, has gotten the nomination for us and we are proud of it, but they have said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, they have used her name often in this House of Assembly. They talked about the Marshall plan. Well, Mr. Chair, I have been in this House of Assembly for ten years. I have heard the comments that have been made over the years, and the new Auditor General is backing up every word that has been said by the former Auditor General, every word.

What they are not saying is that this lady, the former Auditor General, in her reports she spoke often about the law being broken with respect to the Financial Administration Act, how they were abusing the Financial Administration Act every year for their own image in the bottom line of the Budget. She talked about the Public Tender Act being broken every year. Every time she reported, she talked about the Public Tender Act.

Let's just talk about the Public Tender Act, Mr. Chair, and the money that has been wasted by this Administration over the past number of years. They have the gall then to say that we, on this side of the House, because we have been asking questions to them to try and get them to put their financial house in order, to try and have the taxpayers of this Province, their dollars to be spent in a proper fashion, in an efficient fashion, they have this fearmongering going on, very subtle, Mr. Chair, but it is there.

Now, can you imagine what we could be doing in this Province in education, in health, in roads? We know - and I am sure the present Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will confirm that we need a lot more money than is allocated in the Budget for the roads in this Province - what we could do with upwards of $100 million that has been wasted by this Administration.

We talk about -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will be back, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise today to say a few words. I have been sitting here again attentively this afternoon listening to the members opposite. It is very difficult to sit here and not say anything, and constantly, across the floor, you are being accused of being a master of manipulation, a master of deception, and you are being intellectually dishonest. Those are just three or four of the words that we have been called in the last two days by the members opposite.

If you want to talk about people being intellectually dishonest, and masters of deception, Mr. Chairman, let me give you a couple of examples. The Member for The Straits & White Bay North last year stood in this hon. House and basically accused me of misappropriating funds. I presented the documents here, I presented them to the media, and the member opposite continued day after day after that to say that I misappropriated funds, which was completely false, but he continues to stick by that. Because the crowd opposite like to throw out these accusations and these lies and hope that they will stick. They spin the big web and the big deception hoping that eventually, if they say it long enough, the people out there who they are trying to get to vote for them will believe what they are saying. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the people of the Province are that naive. Once they see the facts, they believe them.

The hon. member, the critic, for example, for education said yesterday or the day before, he asked me questions about pupil-teacher ratios here in the Province. I gave him the facts. We have the lowest student-teacher ratio in the country. There is no other province in the country that has a lower student-teacher ratio. Yet, he gets up and says that it is not true.

In fact, you talk about deception. I explained that to him here in the House of Assembly. I told him what he was saying was not true. I told him where he could get the information. Look what they go and do, Mr. Chairman, and I will table this. They get a copy of Hansard, send it out over the wire, a news release: Government gives false impression about pupil-teacher ratios.

Just imagine! They know that it is not true. They know they are misguiding people. They know that they are being intellectually dishonest. We know that they are masters of deception. That is exactly what they are trying to do.

I notice that the hon. member who accused me of giving false impressions is not even listening to me now because he does not want to hear the truth. He is afraid that if he does then he will know that he is lying when he goes out there spreading this false information. He is misleading the population. It is completely false what he is saying.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, not only do we have the lowest student-teacher ratio in the country, we have the lowest student-teacher ratio this Province has every seen. If the hon. member opposite, my critic, the Member for St. John's East, does not know how to calculate a student-teacher ratio, or a pupil-teacher ratio, let him come over to my office, and I will bring in my officials and let them explain it to him. It is not too difficult. It is not too difficult to calculate the student-teacher ratio in the Province. All you have to do is take the student population and divide it by the number of teachers you have. It is very simple, very straightforward.

In our calculation of the pupil-teacher ratio, we do the same thing that they do in every other province. There are some educators that are out there employed by the Department of Education, who are being paid by the Department of Education, who are not included in the student-teacher ratio. For example, the director with the school boards. The directors with the school boards here in the Province are not included. There are a few more at the board offices who are not included, but neither are they included elsewhere in the Province. Neither are they included elsewhere in the country.

On a level playing field, if we compare the number of teachers that we have per student in this Province we always come out to be the lowest in Canada. That is not a lie. I am not a master of deception and I am not trying to give a false impression to the people of this Province. I never have, Mr. Chairman, and I never would.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: All I would like is for the hon. member opposite to get up and apologize for making misleading statements, not only here in the House but to the people of the Province, when they send out something as frivolous, misguided and misleading as a press release like they did yesterday. That is not unusual.

Like I said, the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North said the same thing last year, that I was misappropriating funds. He knew it was not true, but yet he continued to say it. Those are the kinds of people we are dealing with opposite, Mr. Chairman.

He talked as well today about capital construction, and he talked about the promises that were made after consolidation and education reform back there a few short years ago. What we said at that time was that we would reinvest the money that was saved through education reform and the consolidation of schools, and we would reinvest it back into the education system here in our Province. Mr. Chairman, we have done that. We have done it for one reason, because this government, unlike many governments in the past, except for the one that was led by Joseph R. Smallwood, we know the value of an education. We know what is needed to be done, and we have done it and we will continue to do it.

He talks about capital construction, and that certain areas of the Province did not get their share of capital construction. That is another misconception that the Member for St. John's East would like to spread around the Province. What we have done, Mr. Chairman, is that in any area where there are two or three or four schools that were consolidated into one - I have it going on in my own district. This fall we will open one school. We will close four on New World Island, and the commitment that the government made back a few short years ago was, if that were to happen, the operating capital, the operating funds that would have gone to those four schools, the board can keep. We will pay for the upkeep of the new school they are constructing as we speak on New World Island. We will pay for the heat and the lights and the clearing of the driveways and the busing and everything else, but as a result of the closing of the other three schools - or the four schools and we are going to open one - we will allow the school board to keep the operating funds for three years, we said originally, the operating funds for all of those schools for three years, so that they can reinvest it into the students of that particular board. The board I am talking about is the Lewisporte-Gander board and it is only an example of what we have done, Mr. Chairman, for all of the schools and all of the boards in this Province.

What we have done is, we have said to the Lewisporte-Gander board, you are closing four schools and you are opening one, you can keep the operating funds. Originally, we said three years. We said that four years ago, but guess what we have done? We have extended that to allow them to keep the funds for the last couple of years as well. The three years is up and we are still reinvesting that money into the schools, into the students of this Province. In fact, some people get a little confused. They think that the money that we have saved from closing these schools we put into the construction of others. We did not. We did not do that. We let the boards keep that money to do with as they saw fit, and we reinvested an additional $175 million into school construction and school repairs and school renovations in the last four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, $175 million in schools and new school construction and doing repairs that are necessary to provide a learning environment for the children of our Province.

To sit here day after day listening attentively to the tripe that comes out of the members opposite in the hope that if they spread the lie long enough and they say it loud enough and they scream and bawl, like they are so apt to do day after day, that people will eventually believe what they are saying.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Minister of Education knows he cannot say that members opposite are spreading lies. That is what he just said, that we spread the lie. I ask him to just withdraw that comment if he could, please, because under our rules and what is appropriate language in the Legislature it is clearly unparliamentary.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, if I offended their sensibilities, I retract the statement and I will remove the word lies from it. I will take the word lies back. They were not spreading the lies but, Mr. Chairman, maybe -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not a matter of offending anyone's sensibilities; it is a matter of what is parliamentary and what is not. So, you either retract it unequivocally - it is not about offending anyone's sensibilities.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I retract the word, I retract the statement. Instead of the word lie or lies, maybe what I will use is what the hon. member opposite said to me yesterday. He accused me of being intellectually dishonest, or that the members opposite are masters of deception, masters of deceit, masters of manipulation. All of those words are words the members opposite have called us on this side of the floor today. If I used the word lie, I retract it. I do not mean to offend your sensibilities. I will tell you instead, I will call you what you called me yesterday. You have been intellectually dishonest and I ask that you stand and not only apologize to me for saying that I misled the people of the Province but apologize to anyone who may have read that tripe that you put out as a news release.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make a few comments as we discuss Bill 2, but before I do I just want to address some of the points that the Minister of Education just made. I will not say that he has lied to the House, I will not say that he has misled the House, but when I read the Speech from the Throne and listen to him comment about it, and I see here that there is a 13.5 student to teacher ratio in Newfoundland, that is the propaganda that has been circulated in this Province today, because that is not the real world. In Vista district, out where I live, there is one school, Mr. Chair, one school alone that has eighteen physical classrooms with more than thirty students sitting in the classroom with one teacher up front. Now, that is the real world.

The other part of that real world -

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Trinity North accused me of spreading propaganda. Mr. Chairman, what I said in the speech that I just gave was not propaganda, and what is in the Throne Speech was not propaganda. The student-teacher ratio in this Province is 13.5 to 1. That is the student-teacher ratio. The allotment of teachers is assigned to boards in this Province based on 13.5 to 1. What the boards wish to do with these teachers is entirely up to the boards.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, I have a number of classrooms in my district where there are students -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I have a number of classrooms in my district where there are more than thirteen or fourteen students to one teacher, but I also have a number of classrooms in my district -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - where the ratio is far less than that. Let me tell you one, for example. On Change Islands we have less than fifty students and we have eight teachers. Do the math on that one, I tell the members opposite.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was merely trying to point out to the minister and to the people of this Province that when the government stands and says we have 13.5 students for every teacher, the assumption is, they can walk into the classrooms around this Province and see thirteen or fourteen students and a teacher, but the real world is very different. In fact, I point to the government's own study conducted by Sparkes and Williams, and here is what it said. Here is what this report said: At that particular time, there were 190 classrooms in this Province that had between thirty-one and thirty-five students in the classroom, with one teacher. That is their own study, Mr. Chair.

The other interesting statistic: there were sixteen classrooms in this Province at the time of this study, a government commissioned study, that had thirty-six to forty students in them. Now, where do you get thirteen-and-a-half? I ask the minister, how do you reconcile 13.5 and thirty-six, thirty-four, thirty-five? That is more than double. How do you reconcile that? The real world, I say to the minister, has nothing to do with how many phys. ed. teachers you add in, how many music teachers you add in, how many special education teachers, how many consultants are in the department, how many consultants are in the board offices, how many directors you have and how many assistant directors you have. The students and the parents are interested in one thing if they walk into a classroom, how many students are in the room and how many teachers are up in front.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Now, that is the real world. So you can spread, as I said, all the propaganda you want, you can write all the Speeches from the Throne you want, because that is the real world and that is what people are talking about; how many students are in the classrooms. So, you can spin it how you want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is the real world.

Having spent five or six years as a chair of a school board and some twelve as a member of a school board, I resent, I take offence, to when the minister says, we give the money, we give the teachers to the boards and they allocate it how they want, shifting the blame to a group of community volunteers who are dedicated to the education of the students in these communities. They are working hard, diligently volunteering their time. For the minister to stand in this House today and say, we have given it to the boards, they are making the decisions, blame it on them, that is irresponsible and government should be apologizing to the school trustees of this Province for downloading those decisions and criticizing them for what they are doing.

Mr. Chairman, I hadn't planned to make those comments when I stood but the minister infuriated me so much that I had to take such a strong exception to the points he made because they were, in fact, very misleading.

I just want to comment on a couple of things, though, in Bill 2, as we talk about Interim Supply.

I have been listening the last couple of days, as I have been hearing various speakers on the opposite side of the House comment about this particular bill. I heard the Minister of Finance say that they are a government about people, they are a government that cares about people, it is a government of people. I heard the Premier, today, talk about having compassion for people, accusing us over here of not being compassionate.

Let me ask the Premier and let me ask the minister: When they talk about people and caring for people, what are they telling the people at Hoyles-Escasoni today where they made staff cuts a couple of weeks ago? What are they telling the families of mothers and fathers who are in that home about why, at two o'clock in the afternoon, they have not yet been bathed, they have not been up out of bed, they have not been dressed? What are they telling those people, because they made cuts?

I have a letter here from one gentleman who talks about not having received his breakfast until ten-thirty in the morning. Historically, this person was getting up eight o'clock in the morning having breakfast. Ten-thirty in the morning he is now getting his breakfast.

My colleague, the Member for Ferryland, mentioned yesterday a friend of his who he went in to visit, who is 102 years-of-age, who normally was getting up five or six o'clock in the morning, because that has been his traditional lifestyle. He finds himself now, eleven o'clock in the morning, with someone coming in and saying: Sir, it is time to get up. Would you like me to help you. All because of the staff reductions in our long term care facilities in the city. Those are the kinds of things we are doing on one hand and standing in this House the next day and saying: We are a caring, compassionate group of people.

There are almost 500 people today on a waiting list to get into nursing homes in this Province. Is that a sign of a caring, compassionate government? Is that the sign of a caring, compassionate organization that cares about people? Is that the sign of compassion? When we see some 350 people waiting to get home support in this Province, is that about people? Is that about compassion? Is that about caring?

I challenge the minister to stand in this House today and talk about the state of health services today to our seniors, and ask him whether or not that reflects a caring, compassionate government, when you have people in their homes at risk because they do not have home-support services.

There is gentleman at the Health Sciences today, who is in his mid-eighties, who has been medically discharged since the end of November, and is on a wait list for a nursing home, a priority wait line albeit, since the end of November. Today, he is still in an acute care bed in an orthopaedic ward at the Health Care Corporation, because we do not have enough long-term care services. Is that the sign of a caring, compassionate government? Is that the sign of a government who is telling us that: We care about people, we are the only ones, we have a monopoly, we are so great that we have a monopoly on caring for people and we are the only ones who do care. Are these the signs of a government who actually and genuinely care?

The other thing that I have listened to with some interest is, government talking about its record, the kind of government that it is, a kind of open, transparent government providing sound fiscal management, being prudent, being open and honest with people.

In the last couple of months I have had occasion to write twice for information under the Freedom of Information. Once was a simple request, to share with us the terms of reference for a consultant that you disappointed. The answer: No. Because the consultant's eventual report made form the basis of some policy decision of government. That is the idea.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I trust I am not going to get leave, Mr. Chair, so I will sit down and thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am so proud, Mr. Chair, to be part of a government that has achieved the best student-teacher ratio in the whole country. I am so proud to be a part of that government. I am so proud to be serving with that Leader who has that vision, who has that concern, about education.

Now, I say to the hon. gentleman, we can argue about the way the statistic is arrived at. There are people who can argue about the statistics, the unemployment statistics. That is the way the unemployment statistics are taken. That is the way student-teacher ratios are arrived at, taking the total student population and dividing that by the total teaching population. Now, how else would you do it? The people of the Province understand what that teacher ratio is. Teachers understand what that teacher ratio is. How else can you do it? We are going to say we are going to subtract this group of teachers, subtract another group of teachers. As long as everybody understands that is the formula. As long as everybody understands that is how you arrived at it.

There is no misinformation. There is no trying to delude anybody. Everybody knows how the formula is arrived at. By that formula, we have the best student-teacher ratio in the country. It is the best that this Province has ever had. Is that not success? Are we afraid to grant that kind of success? Are we afraid to grant that kind of achievement? Or do the Opposition want to keep on saying that the student-teacher ratio is not improving, is staying the same? What a lot of twaddle that is. What a lot of unmitigated twaddle! You have to accept the facts, Madam Chair. I am so proud to be a part of a government that has made that kind of advance, that has made that kind of achievement.

Madam Chair, talking about education - the great reform that has been made in student aid, the fantastic reform that has been made in student aid. Again, the best in the country. We have the best student loan program in the country, the very best. If the federal government were to have a loan remission program the same as we have provincially, if they were to do that, a student could go through University debt free. If the federal government would only reciprocate and do what this Province is doing, our students would go through University debt free. As it is, on the provincial part of the loan, they can go through debt free.

Madam Chair, again I am so proud to be working with a leader who has that vision, working with a leader who has that understanding, for education and for students, and a leader and a government who want to make education accessible and affordable to everybody in this Province.

Madam Chair, the Member for Trinity North talked about a caring and a compassionate government and pointed out specific examples in health care and asked the question: Is this an example of a caring and a compassionate government? Let me say this: I do not think anybody has a monopoly on caring and sympathy and understanding, but there are governments and parties that, through their policies, demonstrate that they care, that demonstrate that they want the best health care available to their people. I do not think anybody can fault this government with its objective, with its philosophy, with its goal, to provide the best health care for every citizen of this Province. That is the goal. Madam Chair, sometimes there are gaps between achieving that goal and what they are able to do. But, hon. members, if they would only stop for a moment and reflect on what has happened to health care in this Province; in terms of the federal government's contribution to health care in this Province.

I think I heard the Premier say on the weekend that the total contribution of the federal government to all of the services in this Province has dropped from 50 per cent to 40 per cent. When I sat in this House - I can see former Premier Smallwood, when he sat on the same side of the House that I was on. We were then in the Opposition and he was telling members opposite - and you know how well he could praise the federal government and the accolades that he laid on them in talking about the services that Newfoundland had received as a result of Confederation: roads, hospitals, post-secondary institutions, and the list went on. In his dramatic way he sort of punched the air with his finger and said: the federal government contributes 50 per cent to all of the services in Newfoundland and Labrador. What a great service that was; 50 per cent. Fifty percent to our education, 50 per cent to our health care. He went on down the list and said: 50 per cent of your salary, all members in the House, 50 per cent of your salary comes from the federal government. Well, today it is 40 per cent. Forty percent, think of what a great reduction that is to Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Think of what a great reduction that is. Think of the tremendous contribution that we had to make to offset these reductions in transfers and equalization payments by the federal government. Forty percent of a $3 billion budget.

Results, Madam Chair, in hundreds of millions of dollars and this Province makes the greatest effort. This Province makes the greatest effort - put another way, this Province makes greater effort than any other Province in Canada in terms of its spending for health care. On a per capita basis, measured by our income, this Province makes the greatest effort in giving its people the greatest health care. Madam Chair, nobody can look at this side and say that we lack in compassion. Nobody can look at this side and say that we lack in care. What we give our people in health care is the very best that we can afford.

Madam Chair, we might be going through some growing pains in terms of restructuring and reorganization that members opposite are so fast to jump on the bandwagon and criticize us for. But, when all of that restructuring is done, when all of that reorganization is done, then our people will have the best health care that we can afford to give our people. We always must say that, that we can afford, and remembering also that we are making the greatest effort on a per capita basis right throughout the country in terms of expenditures on our health care.

Madam Chair, we are not going to stop. We are not going to stop in pursuit of our goal and objective that we want every person in Newfoundland and Labrador to have the best health care that we can afford. We are not going to stop. We are not going to stop now. There is going to be a long time yet and I will be able to - when I am in a senior citizens' home with the hon. gentleman from Trinity North, when I am there he and I will be able then - regardless if his government is in power or whether this one stays in, which is the most likely, but whatever the circumstances he and I will be able to talk about the isolated cases that he talked about today. We will be able to talk about these. We will be able to talk about these examples all the time.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: The hon. gentleman does not want me to carry on.

MADAM CHAIR: I remind the hon. member his time is up.

MR. LUSH: I just want to finish up, Madam Chair, by saying there is nobody who can fault this government, or our leader, on the lack of care and the lack of compassion in terms of delivering to our people the very best health care that this Province can afford. We intend to pursue that road unrelentingly. We intend to pursue that road until we have the best health care in Canada.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to rise today too and take part in the debate that is taking place in the House of Assembly. I would like to talk about a few issues in general, Madam Chair. One of the things I would like to talk about first is the need for this government to introduce an amendment to the provincial drug prescription plan that will provide, as every other province and every other jurisdiction in this country provides, Madam Chair, coverage for drugs that are needed to treat illness such as Alzheimer's, such as MS, hormone replacement deficiencies, all of these things, Madam Chair, that people in this Province have a need to have covered that are presently not.

I have stated many times in this House of Assembly, Madam Chair, that it is very unfortunate and unfair that hard-working people of this Province have to set their sights on the possibility of moving to another province simply to obtain the medications that they need so they can live with a bit of dignity, raise their family, and do all of the other things that working people are able to do in their lives, but these people are forced to make a choice, Madam Chair, a choice between doing the things that regular families do or paying for a medication that they need.

The Minister of Finance, in her travels around the Province in pre-Budget hearings, has heard this loud and clear from a large number of people. It is high time, Madam Chair, that this Province came on line and caught up with the rest of this country and provided such coverage to residents of our Province.

Madam Chair, there was some talk by the previous speakers about the necessity of home care. That is one of the rising cost areas of our health care system. Madam Chair, I would like to point out that home care will also be applicable and needed by some of the people that I talked about earlier, people who need the coverage under the Prescription Drug Program.

An article I came across recently, Madam Chair, from the Alzheimer's Society talks about the cost of nursing home care in this Province, and the cost of providing drugs to people who have Alzheimer's, that by getting these drugs, Madam Chair, may not ever or could be lengthy delays in their being admitted to a home care facility because with the drugs, if they were able to afford them, they could certainly delay and prolong and maybe never need the services of a home care institution. In the long run, as pointed out by this doctor, that I agree with, Madam Chair, by providing drugs to people with these illness can actually save the health care system money over the long run.

One of the other things that I would like to talk about today, Madam Chair, concerns transportation and communications. Last year, in July, I began a campaign to have cellphone coverage provided along the Trans-Labrador Highway. I raised that on a number of occasions in a number of different ways, by press release and by questioning the minister here in the House of Assembly, and bringing to his attention the number of accidents and incidents that could have had much more severe consequences than they did by pure luck. The need for communications along that desolate stretch of road was severely needed, it was desperately needed. From the issues being raised by myself, that generated a lot of discussion within government and within Labrador in general, Labrador West in particular.

From these discussions, Madam Chair, came out of a Rotary Club meeting in Labrador West a suggestion by Frank Manstan, a Rotary member and a long-term resident of Labrador West, that this government purchase satellite phones to be provided to people who are travelling that stretch of road. My understanding, from talking to the minister today and in recent days, is that the tender has gone out for these phones to be purchased and hopefully some time during the month of April these phones will be available for the travelling public.

I would like to say, Madam Chair, that these phones will provide a useful service. They will provide a service for people who are leaving Labrador West to travel to Churchill Falls or to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. If they run into any difficulties, they will have the means to be able to call for help. That is ideal for that purpose, Madam Chair, but I have to say in all honesty to the minister and to anyone who wants to listen, that is not the answer for communications in Labrador. It is far from the ideal answer.

We are continuing to press upon the minister the need for cellphone coverage throughout Labrador. While these satellite phones will be used by people who are travelling that road in many cases, in other cases people who have occasion to use the highway will not be using satellite phone - people who are going to their cabins, for example. There is no enough satellite phones going to be available to cover the needs for all users of that highway. So people who are traveling to their cabins will not, in most likelihood, pick up a satellite phone; however, they can get into the same type of difficulty as someone who is proceeding on to Happy Valley-Goose Bay from Labrador West. So it is critical and it is important, Madam Chair, that we be brought into the modern age and have services like cellphone coverage available to us in Labrador the same as most people in a lot of parts of this world take for granted.

Again, I say to the minister that while these satellite phones in our view are a temporary measure, an interim measure, the need for cellphone coverage has to be impressed upon this minister as something that is needed for everyone who uses that particular highway.

The other issue in Labrador, Madam Chair, that I want to address is the whole question of tourism development. In Labrador West, and in Labrador in general, winter is the time of the year, the season of the year, that makes the most sense for tourism. I know things happen in the summer, a lot of good things happen with the tourism industry in terms of traffic throughout the region, in terms of the fishing camps that attract people from far and near, but winter is really what Labrador is about. It is unfortunate that to date we have not developed the tourism industry around winter activities in a way they should be. We have some great winter organizations in Labrador West in terms of the snowmobile clubs that currently exist. I know in my area, in Labrador West, we have the White Wolf Snowmobile Club. They do a tremendous job in grooming the trails, the hundreds of kilometres of trails that we have, but we fall short in many areas in which they need our help. Some types of that help, Madam Chair, is more assistance to hire more people to maintain the trails. We need more money to maintain the equipment. We need a good advertising campaign that the club will be able to use to promote themselves to make people aware of what is happening in Labrador and to have people interested and attracted to come to the area.

Madam Chair, I am looking at the time and, if it is your pleasure, I can adjourn debate until tomorrow if that is the wish of the House.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do what they have to do and pass the resolution.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2004, the sum of $1,349,772,200."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that Interim Supply, Bill 2, be now read a first, second and third time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be on the Order Paper. (Bill 2)

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

MR. LUSH: I report to hon. members that His Honour was unable to come to give official passage of the bill so we will instruct His Honour, the Speaker, to take the bill henceforth to the Lieutenant-Governor so that we can do what has to be done so the people will get their cheques next week.

I thank hon. members for their participation in the debate and for the passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I move that this House on its rising adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.