March 27, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 6


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

On Tuesday, March 26, the hon. Government House Leader rose on a point of order. The point of order was that Oral Questions in the House should not require an answer involving a legal opinion. He stated that there had been two or three questions of this nature asked, and the Chair took the matter under advisement.

In reviewing Hansard, the Chair saw three questions involving, I guess, asking about legal opinions. The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North asked the Minister of Fisheries if he had asked for legal advice on a certain matter. The other two questions were from the hon. the Member for Labrador West, asking the Premier to quote a section of the statutes and to table a legal opinion, and asked what these legal opinions were.

Beauchesne is quite clear on these issues; §410.(13) states, "Questions should not seek a legal opinion or inquire as to what legal advice a Minister has received." Beauchesne §411 states, "A question may not: (1) ask a solution of a legal question, such as the interpretation of a statute."

It is clear that while it is not out of order to ask a minister if he has sought legal advice, it is inappropriate and out of order to ask the minister to disclose the opinion.

The Chair has, on many occasions, asked all members for their co-operation in formulating questions so that they are in compliance with our Standing Orders and Oral Questions and other parliamentary authorities that we use in this Chamber.

I want to draw members attention briefly to Beauchesne §410 and §411 again, which clearly define how questions should be structured. It says, §410. "...(5) The primary purpose of the Question Period is the seeking of information and calling the Government to account. (6) The greatest possible freedom should be given to Members consistent with the other rules and practices. (7) Brevity both in questions and answers is of great importance. (8) Preambles to questions should be brief and supplementary questions require no preambles. Supplementary questions should flow from the answers of Ministers. (9) Questions should not repeat questions already asked although this does not mean that other questions on the same point are out of order. ...(12) Questions should not be hypothetical. (13) Questions should not seek a legal opinion or inquire as to what legal advice a Minister has received." §411. "A question may not: (1) ask a solution of a legal question, such as the interpretation of a statute. (2) seek information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as decisions or proceedings of Cabinet or advice given to the Crown by the Law Officers."

I draw hon. members attention to these rules because, as I have said in the past, I have asked hon. members to keep these in mind. I am asking them again to follow these guidelines when they are putting Oral Questions.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in debate in this House, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stood - I quote from Hansard - and said, "The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - I went to Ottawa looking for $100 million to do the Trans-Labrador Highway, and while I was there I also talked to Paul Martin to see if he could come up with $100 million for the research for Placentia & St. Mary's so we could start negotiations with Inco." He was referring to his meeting of March 14, I believe, in interviews I have looked at.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention from sources that the minister did not speak to Mr. Martin. I am rising on a point of order to give the minister an opportunity to say if he did, in fact, speak with Mr. Martin about the $100 million that Inco has been looking for, for research and development for the hydromet. When did he speak with Mr. Martin? Where did he speak with him? And, what were the details of his conversation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the Chair can only take what hon. members say in the House as being accurate at the time. Really, the hon. member ought to have raised this yesterday, immediately after the member had said that. In any case, in this House, there has always existed a difference of opinion and different interpretations of matters between two hon. members. In this case, it certainly appears that one member has a different opinion than the other.

There is really no point of order.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today and recognize the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited who are holding their Biennial Convention in L'Anse au Clair today.

This company, which is owned and operated by Labrador fishers, has played a huge role in the economy of many communities in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. They currently have viable fish plants operating in L'Anse-au-Loup, Mary's Harbour, Charlottetown, Pinsent Arm and Cartwright, and employ hundreds of people across the district.

The Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited is certainly a leader within the fishing industry in this Province and in the country. They are to be commended for their innovation and prudence which has led them to their tremendous success.

On behalf of the constituents in my district, I would like to thank and acknowledge the General Manager, Mr. Gilbert Linstead; President, Mr. Frank Flynn, and their Board of Directors for their contribution that this company has made to rejuvenating communities that were so adversely affected by the cod moratorium.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, March 26, mention was made in the House of the recipients of the Futures of Newfoundland and Labrador Youth awards.

I would like to draw special attention today to one of those recipients, Zach Goudie of Grand Falls-Windsor, who has been honoured in the category of linkages for fostering community partnership.

What Zach has accomplished in our area is truly impressive, and he has won a great deal of admiration for showing such leadership skills at a relatively young age.

Even though he is still a high school student, he has demonstrated a talent for inspiring those around him, teens and adults alike. Through his own initiative, he has brought together young people, private citizens, community leaders and officials of government in order to strike a special committee.

The aim of the committee is to create a strong network that links young people throughout the area and gives them a strong voice and an avenue to participate in their community. This committee has created new avenues of communications and action by uniting individuals and groups across the generational divide.

Zach puts what he has done in perspective by saying: When you work with others, you realize that networking can help get things done and that building partnerships is vital for anything to succeed.

Now that, Mr. Speaker, is what I call a winning attitude.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: I ask leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, to read a Members' Statement.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, it is both an honour and a privilege for me to rise in this hon. House today to offer congratulations and extend best wishes to my wife's parents, my in-laws, Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin and Dorothy Loveless of Seal Cove, Fortune Bay, who will celebrate their 62nd wedding anniversary on Good Friday, March 29.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. and Mrs. Loveless were married at the Salvation Army Church in Seal Cove, in 1940. Together they had ten children, twenty grandchildren and eleven great-grandchildren. Mrs. Loveless has spent her life caring for others as she raised her own family as well as caring for her husband's parents at home until their passing at the ages of ninety-seven and ninety-nine year.

Mr. Loveless worked as a logger and later as a provincial public servant with the department now known as Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. and Mrs. Loveless continue to live at Seal Cove, where they are held in high esteem by members of their family and the community.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will join with me in congratulating Benjamin and Dorothy Loveless on their special day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to congratulate a young lady from my district, Jenine Browne.

Jenine Browne of Memorial University Women's Sea Hawks Basketball team is a graduate of Fatima High School in St. Bride's, now in her second year at Memorial University where she is studying Kinesiology.

During her first year as a Sea Hawk, Jenine was her team's point leader with an average of 14.5 points per game. Jenine was selected to the 2nd Team Atlantic University Sport All Stars and named to the Canadian Interuniversity All Rookie Team. Jenine was also named Atlantic University Sport Rookie of the Year.

Jenine was also selected St. John's Athlete of the Month for November 2000. During her rookie year she was also named Newfoundland and Labrador Athletic of the Year. Jenine is also enrolled full-time and carries an academic average of As and Bs.

In her second year as a Sea Hawk, Jenine led her team to their second Atlantic University championship in three years. She scored 22 points in the championship game. She led her Sea Hawk team in scoring, as well as the Atlantic Conference and the entire nation, in scoring averaging 21.2 points per game.

Jenine has been selected as a member to the Canadian Interuniversity Sport 1st All Star Team. She is the only person selected for this team East of Ontario. Jenine has been named the Atlantic University Sport Conference Most Valuable Player and the Atlantic University Sport Tournament Most Valuable Player. She led the tournament with 24.5 points per game.

She has been selected Molson Athlete of the Month for the months of November, December, January and March. She has been selected The Telegram Athlete of the Week many times. Jenine is the top scorer in Canada as of this year at the university level. She has led her team to a 17-3 season record. She has been invited to attend Canada's National Team training camp in May.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: This is camp is for players to play for Canada this coming summer in France. I have known Jenine Browne all her life. She is a fine young lady, a superb athlete, and a positive role model for our young people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the tremendous achievements of Roger Jamieson, the former President of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador (H.N.L.). Mr. Jamieson has served on the HNL executive for the past four years; two years as treasurer and the past two years as president. In that time, he has overseen the hospitality industry in this Province grow to an astounding $700 million a year. HNL is the largest industry association in the Province and has over 720 members representing all sectors of the tourism and hospitality industry.

During Mr. Jamieson's term, HNL has achieved a new found sense of legitimacy. The strength of the association has grown to a point where both the provincial, as well as the federal government, consult Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador on any tourism-related legislative changes and how they might affect the industry.

The working relationship between HNL, the Province, and ACOA is excellent. Mr. Jamieson has prided himself over the last two years on the continuation and building of those relationships. Hospitality Newfoundland has worked very hard at selling Newfoundland and Labrador to the world as a unique place to visit. The work is beginning to pay off. Last year we saw a 40 per cent increase in non-resident tourists to this Province and thanks to the exposure of the recent movies, we intend to see that many more. Most people in businesses will visit this Province thanks to the new Convention Centre here in St. John's.

The tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to grow. The work of organizations such as HNL and its former president, Roger Jamieson, cannot be overlooked as they are facilitating much more growth. Mr. Jamieson will continue now in the position of past president with the executive.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Roger Jamieson on his successful term, for two years, as President of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say how happy we were on Sunday, around noon, to learn that Wayne Smith, his twelve-year-old son, Terry, and his thirteen-year-old nephew, Stephen Wheeler had amazingly survived this past weekend while lost in Labrador. The story could have had a much different ending, Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Smith had panicked rather than do what he did, erect a shelter, light a fire, and wait to be found.

Mr. Speaker, the weather conditions at the time were less than ideal. Temperatures were in the minus twenties with wind chills dipping below minus fifty, creating blizzard conditions. Even though the weather conditions were terrible, a tremendous search effort was organized and conducted.

Mr. Speaker, as MHA for Labrador West, I would like to thank, on behalf of all residents of Labrador West, especially the families of those who were lost, the following people and organizations: the Volunteer Ground Search and Rescue Team in Labrador West, whose training and knowledge of the local area and conditions make them indispensable in any search; cabin owners in Esker who happened to be at their cabins for the weekend; Emergency Measures Organizations who responded quickly to the search; the Labrador West and Churchill Falls detachments of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary; CF(L)Co, who provided a helicopter; Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, wholly owned and operated by the Iron Ore Company of Canada, who made available two helicopters, a portable power plant for the search and rescue command post, and a train to transport supplies and rescuers; the Steelworkers Union, Local 5795, President George Kean; Lawrence O'Brien, MP for Labrador, and his Labrador West office. Search and Rescue out of Halifax had a Labrador helicopter dispatched -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Search and Rescue out of Halifax also had a Labrador helicopter dispatched and a Hercules aircraft ready to leave Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, I was in contact with many of these groups over the weekend as the search was being conducted and, believe me, everybody gave 100 per cent.

I spoke with Wayne since his rescue and, I can tell you, he truly feels a lot of gratitude to everyone who assisted in ensuring this story had a happy ending. Wayne will be personally thanking everyone who took part in the search because, as he said to me, people put their lives in danger to find them and choppers flew in conditions in which they probably would not normally have flown.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the pilot of the chopper who found him was a friend Wayne went to school with many years ago.

Mr. Speaker, Wayne is very proud of his son and nephew for their help and the manner they handled themselves throughout this ordeal. All three of them were found in good condition.

I ask this House to join me in applauding the efforts of all those involved in the search and rescue effort, and also to Wayne, Terry, and Steven for using their experience and inner strength to survive in what can be a very unforgiving area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, by leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador President Roger Skinner, who passed away suddenly this February while performing in support of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Celebrity Secrets Variety Show at Mile One.

Mr. Skinner has been active in the music industry since 1968 as the drummer for the Ducats, a Newfoundland based rock and roll group. He also had considerable experience as a studio musician during his long and successful career.

Roger Skinner had been quite active within the Music Association organization, promoting Newfoundland and Labrador artists through participation in the ECMA awards, and preparation for the upcoming Juno's this April.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in expressing condolences to Mr. Skinner's family, and be cognizant of the contribution his work and volunteer achievements have made to our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in a press release yesterday entitled, Highway Robbery; Province Has Broken Labrador's Trust, the hard-working and devoted Member of Parliament for Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien, said that the raid of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was beneath despicable and disgraceful, in addition to being fraudulent.

The devoted and outspoken Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay describes the action as a crime and says that we, in fact, have a credibility problem with Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier tell the people of this Province: Does he feel that these two strong and very negative opinions, from two champions of Labrador, reflect the reasons why he is unsuccessful in obtaining clawback concessions, equalization concessions, transportation funding, and other issues of major importance to the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two thing of note in the question. The first is that we do acknowledge a difference of opinion with the MP, Mr. O'Brien, and the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, at this point in time. We do understand one other thing, though, Mr. Speaker. Those same two gentlemen fully support this government in all of our efforts to have a better fiscal arrangement with the government in Ottawa, and they fully support us on that despite a disagreement over this issue at this point in time.

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, Mr. O'Brien may have changed his opinion since the last time that the Premier spoke (inaudible). The Member of Parliament also said yesterday that this government has shown the federal government that their promises mean nothing, that their commitments mean nothing, and that they cannot be trusted with a blank cheque. He said that they have broken the trust of the federal government, but he also said, more importantly, they have broken the trust of the people of Labrador and the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that Lawrence O'Brien, Member of Parliament, advises Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien on Labrador issues, would the Premier tell us how much damage he is doing to this Province because the Member of Parliament simply does not trust him?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I can say this and inform the Opposition Leader and all Members of the House of Assembly, I spoke with the Prime Minister yesterday in the morning and he raises no concerns about a lack of trust or confidence with respect to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Mr. O'Brien as the MP, our members in Labrador, our Liberal members in Labrador and the members of this caucus will gladly, on any one day, if there is a debate to be had with respect to Mr. O'Brien. We do not intend to debate Mr. O'Brien. We understand he has a difference of opinion on this issue. We accept that, for this point in time. We will continue to work with him, but in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we will gladly put our record of accomplishment in Labrador as provincial MHAs up against Mr. O'Brien's and the federal government's accomplishments in Labrador anytime.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: You pass along the message, Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Member of Parliament for Labrador has also said that on two separate occasions, both in person and by letter, he asked the Premier and his ministers to submit a formal and a detailed proposal for highway funding and he still does not have one to date. He says that this government is not cooperating with the federal government and he has also said there is no wonder they are so far in debt and had to steal from the Labrador Transportation Fund.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the Premier explain why his government has not even bothered to prepare and present a proper proposal as ammunition for Mr. O'Brien to take to his caucus and ministers, and your friend, the Prime Minister, when this Province is strangling under its own deficits and its own debt?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the Opposition must be delighted that Mr. O'Brien said something because they have not said anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: All we heard here for three days since the Budget are the members opposite quoting Mr. O'Brien, because they refuse to say what their stand is on Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. They refuse to say what they would have done differently other than take the money from the fund as revenue so that we could keep a deficit down to manageable means and strike the balance in the Budget, Mr. Speaker. Those are the issues that we are dealing with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Mr. O'Brien understands quite fully that we are going through all of the appropriate channels. I personally have written the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Manley, as to what instructions he wants the government to follow, government-to-government. We do not need to use Mr. O'Brien or anyone else as an emissary for the government. He will be a supporter of ours in the initiatives -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - that are put forward when we get the directions and instructions from the Deputy Prime Minister as to exactly how he wants to make a detailed solution with respect to the infrastructure funding -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and we will deal with it on a government-to-government basis.

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 am delighted. I am delighted that a Liberal has finally told it the way it is, and I thank Mr. O'Brien.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the government fought tooth and nail to prevent the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation from tabling his slide presentation. The reason why government did not want it tabled was because they embarrassed this Province by presenting it to the federal government.

The Member of Parliament, Lawrence O'Brien, said that a request for nearly a billion dollars required a concrete, a properly costed, a formal presentation and not something which was amateurish and not formal and not professional.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: I know what it takes to present a properly costed business presentation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister of Finance for her comment and her recognition (inaudible) ability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier tell the people of this Province how he expects the federal government to hand over nearly $1 billion to this Province on the basis of a Mickey Mouse powerpoint presentation, which is being laughed at by the federal government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the people of Labrador, as well as the people on the Island portion of the Province, are delighted to see the level of support that the Leader of the Opposition is giving to our very serious attempts to have the federal government engage in a meaningful discussion with respect to highway priorities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition just described, and contrary to what Mr. O'Brien described, Minister Collenette was quite pleased to know that the number one priority for this government is the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. He understood that completely and fully from the presentation that was given, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He was also pleased to know that there are also concerns with respect to highway construction and needs on the Island, as highlighted by members like the Member for Baie Verte and so on, that we are also trying to accomplish. We laid out the general nature of the needs of the Province over the next ten years and indicated that we would like to hear from him, exactly when he would like to sit down and negotiate the details of how we deal with $100 million for Phase III, first, and the other needs for the next ten years for the Province, secondly.

So, unlike the description of it by the Leader of the Opposition, the federal minister involved was pleased to receive the information, and we are anxious to get involved with the detailed negotiation when they are ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how Mr. Collenette feels, after the raid on the Labrador -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you have the guts to stand up and speak in the Legislature, on the record, Eddie Joyce, because you haven't said anything here yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't have the guts to do it.

MR. FRENCH: That is right, you haven't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Sitting in your seat yapping all the time. Stand up and speak in the House, put yourself on the record.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to this government's actions on this Budget, independent people, quite independent people, like fellow Liberal MP, Lawrence O'Brien, the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Peter O'Brien of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, have used several terms to describe the raid on Labrador.

My question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier is: What does he think the words despicable, disgraceful - this is the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Pardon, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is the question.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Does he think the words: despicable, disgraceful, highway robbery, broken trust, fraudulent, crime -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member now is getting into an area that is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is inflammatory, the words are inflammatory. It is going to cause, I guess, problems and disorder in the House. This kind of language ought not to be used in Parliament. I am asking the hon. member to be cautious with the kind of language that he is using. I do not want to bring this House into disrepute. It cannot reflect on members of this House or on this institution, and I ask the hon. member to get to his question and to be more selective with the vocabulary that he is using.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I could respectfully point out to the Chair, these are not my words.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Honourable members cannot do that. They cannot - what we have referred to in this House - use the back door to do what we cannot do through the front door. The Chair is not going to tolerate this kind of language.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: What does the Premier think of these characterizations which have been used by other people, and also comments made - financial perspective, a business perspective - that talk about the credibility problem that this government has with Ottawa, that talk about a need to get a financial act together, that talk about the fact that the Province has stumbled badly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: - and the fact that the Province cannot be trusted with a blank cheque?

My question for the Premier is: Premier, do you think that these characterizations and these public comments by truly independent people are having any further effect on the business reputation of Newfoundland and Labrador in addition to the damage you have already done as a result of the FPI fiasco?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the reference to one person who is independent, and the fact that his name was used. I expect that means the Leader of the Opposition agrees with his views, and that is Mr. O'Brien of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He is nodding, which means he indicates, Mr. Speaker, that he agrees with his views.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: The view, Mr. Speaker, of Mr. O'Brien, the most telling one for Striking the Balance, is that he suggested that there was something wrong with the Budget because the government should have rolled back the wage increases for public sector (inaudible). That indicates quite clearly, the fact that the Leader of the Opposition supports the views of Mr. O'Brien, that is the real agenda of the Opposition; because they will not talk about it openly and publically. Maybe he might like to stand up and talk about whether or not he supports the views of people like -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - Mr. O'Brien, and that is what they would do if they were the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, if the federal Government of Canada hired a cultural research company or a consultant company out of Winnipeg to do a study on how people in this Province feel about working, this Legislature and people in this Province would be rightfully outraged.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. How can he justify, based on comments made by his Parliamentary Secretary yesterday, that it is okay for this Province to hire a cultural research company out of Winnipeg to study the attitudes of how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel about working?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, for all of the hon. gentleman's feigned opposition, his feigned offence to what this government has done, let me just say this to him. This government believes in research and development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I know that the hon. gentleman believes in research, unlike his leader who sits next to him.

Mr. Speaker, the kind of interview that the hon. gentleman gave to The Telegram yesterday, just goes to show either one of two things: either his lack of understanding of what it takes to do proper planning for this Province, or his lack of understanding of what he has in his hands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Based on the comments by the Parliamentary Secretary, the minister or Deputy Premier can try to spin and turn this issue any way he wants. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a statistical agency that can provide any and all of the information; all you need to do is call.

The fact of the matter remains, Mr. Speaker, to the Deputy Premier: How can you and your government, how can the Premier, the Deputy Premier - because this issue was passed in Cabinet - justify spending $380,000 of taxpayers' money to find out how people in Gaultois or the Goulds or Kilbride or Griquet or on the South Coast or Northern Coast of Labrador, to find out how they feel about a job? Here is how they feel: Create the opportunity and they will take the job!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what a shallow understanding of what this piece of research is all about.

Mr. Speaker, so that the hon. gentleman can take it home over Easter, if he does not have all of what is in this contract and what is in this proposal, I want him to take it over Easter and read it. I am going to table it for him so he can take it and read it over Easter, as to what this project is about. What this project really is about, I say to the hon. gentleman, is to study and research as to how we can, in our efforts to improve the economy in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: He is at it again.

- to study and research as to how we can foster innovation, how we can foster entrepreneurship, how we can make the workplace a better place for our people in Newfoundland and Labrador to work in. That is what it is about; I will table that document for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: What an unbelievable revelation here. The Deputy Premier has stood in the House to say that the government has hired a research company out of Winnipeg to see if their jobs and renewal strategy for growth is happening. That is what he is saying, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this: If that is the case, while he is tabling the remainder of the contract could he also table how this company was chosen? Were Newfoundland and Labrador companies given the opportunity to participate? What made this company so special to study how the attitudes of Newfoundlanders are towards work? What made this company so special to justify how the government's own jobs and renewal strategy for growth is occurring? What is it, minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I sat down and I listened to my member when he asked his constituent a question. I would like for my member to respect his constituent, who happens to be the minister, and listen as well.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman, he has the thing backwards. Unlike the Opposition, unlike his leader, we believe in research. We believe in finding the best there is and I think in this case we found it. We believe in finding the best there is so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can reap the benefits of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stated yesterday in this House of Assembly that he met with the federal Minister of Finance to discuss the $100 million for research for Placentia & St. Mary's in order to start negotiations with Inco.

Mr. Speaker, I will quote from Hansard: "...I also talked to Paul Martin to see if he could come up with $100 million ..."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that the House has ruled that he cannot quote directly from any document; not from Hansard, or any document.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is news to me. I thought we could quote from Hansard.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, he said he met with the federal Minister of Finance to discuss the $100 million for research for Placentia & St. Mary's in order to start negotiations with Inco. To give the minister a chance to clear this matter up, can the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tell this House of Assembly when he met the federal Minister of Finance to discuss this matter? Where he met? What were the details of that discussion, and what can he produce to show that he actually did meet the minister to discuss this matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked the question because when I was in Ottawa, any time I am in Ottawa, I take opportunity to meet with a whole range of people in Ottawa. The people in the federal Cabinet in Ottawa are good friends of mine, and one of my good friends in Ottawa is Paul Martin. Paul Martin and I sat and discussed economic and social opportunities for this Province for about an hour. I do it all the time I go to Ottawa. I have met with numerous Cabinet ministers in the thirteen years that I have been involved in politics.

In Newfoundland, I have met with numerous federal politicians in the last thirteen years and I am always there to advance the cause of Newfoundland and Labrador. I talked about the Trans- Labrador Highway and all kinds of other initiatives for Newfoundland and Labrador. What is the problem with that? What is the seriousness of going to Ottawa and calling upon your friends and saying, I would like to talk about economic opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador? That is why we were elected, to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as long as I am the member for the District of Bellevue, I will go to Ottawa and talk to my federal counterparts about economic and social and infrastructure needs for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, from that answer it should be noted that the minister did not say when he met with him or where he met with him. In other words, he did not meet with him, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this matter.

As the Opposition critic for Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. Speaker, and along with government's so-called open, transparent and accountable government policy, I requested on January 3, 2002, under the Freedom of Information Act, information pertaining to the provincial roads program. I received a letter back from the Deputy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stating that they wanted $236.25 for that information. Mr. Minister, do you agree that your department should charge the Official Opposition critic for the information that should be in the public domain and required to carry out that position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I guess there are two questions. I will handle the first one. My discussions and my meeting with my good friend Paul Martin occurred on February 5, 2002, at 5:03 p.m. Ottawa time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: At 5:03 p.m. Ottawa time and if he wants to know the location, it was in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Do you want to ask another question where the location was?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to get to his answer.

MR. BARRETT: So you will not run out of questions, I will let you ask where the meeting took place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to get to his answer quickly.

MR. BARRETT: The second question was the hon. member said that he requested some information from the department. All the information that he requested was on the public record. What he wanted was the tenders and all the items that were tendered for road work for the last couple of years. The House of Assembly financed a research department in the Leader of the Opposition's office, and I am sure that if he were to consult with his people in his office upstairs that they would have been able to go into the computer and get all the information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be checking out the 5:03 p.m. Ottawa time, to make sure that the minister is not misleading this House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: On March 1, 2002, I responded in writing agreeing to pay for the requested information. His department now wants this charge for information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: - to be paid upfront before I get the information. Does the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation really believe that it is right and proper to charge his critic upfront for information required to do his job, which is part of the democratic process?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Isn't this just delaying tactics and in effect, denying information to the Official Opposition? Where is the openness and transparency of government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue with respect to a request under Freedom of Information, it is a choice that the Opposition has to make. The instructions that are in this government, which is the most open and accountable that the Province has ever seen, is this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Instructions are, if he needs information that is available - they do not have to use the Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom of Information Act, they would know, has a section that says you have to pay for the information if it is requested under that act. There is a charge section in the act. If they want the information for free, just ask for it. You do not have to write a request under the Freedom of Information, just ask for the information. But, if you write under the Freedom of Information, then you trigger the act.

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 Minister of Health and Community Services. There are over 5,000 people in the Province with Alzheimer's, and about 1,500 of them with mild to moderate (inaudible) would benefit from medication such as Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl to the point that entry to nursing home care would be significantly delayed; at a cost of $1,800 a year per patient compared to more than $25,000 for nursing home care. If only 10 per cent of those patients could benefit from these drugs the Province could save approximately $3.5 million a year by improving their health and improving their lives, as well as saving the Province money. Will the minister indicate to the House today that these drugs will be included in the provincial drug formulary so they could be available to Alzheimer's patients in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to make that commitment here today, that we will include Aricept or similar class of drugs in the provincial drug formulary.

As members would realize, the drug program is one that is highly overextended. It costs us in the order of close to $80 million a year in order to be able to fund drugs under this program. In doing so, we try to keep with what is already on the formulary and obviously, to only add drugs that have proven clinical, pharmaco-economic value. We review that, and have agreed to review that, through the Atlantic drug review program.

At this point the drug program has not recommended this particular drug or class of drugs. However, there is review that is continuing on this area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; time for one quick question.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is one example of saving money and improving lives in our health care system. I have here a national study showing that the current drug system with 12 per cent of Canadians with no drug coverage whatsoever leads to poor health, increase of costs, additional hospital and doctor visits, as well as increased hospitalization.

Will this Province support a national pharmacare plan which studies have shown the overall cost would be less than what is now being spent on drugs in this country and improve people's lives? Will this government support such a national initiative, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House on many occasions and spoken -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House on many occasions of our commitment to try and be able to provide, as best we can, for the drug needs for people in this Province who have prescription drug requirements. We do not have the resources to have a universal drug program. This is an issue for health departments right across the country. It is something that we recognize as being a major cost of health care in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to quickly conclude her answer.

MS BETTNEY: - and we are taking every measure that we possibly can to try and make the most efficient use of the money that we can put to our provincial drug formulary, but it is not universal at this point and we simply do not have the resources for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the first Annual Report of the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation in accordance with section 13(3) of the Municipal Financing Corporation Act.

Mr. Speaker, the NMFC plays a very important role in financing municipal capital projects in our Province. The Corporation borrows the necessary funds in the Canadian capital markets and re-lends these funds to our municipalities for such projects as water and sewer, paving, waste management, as well as recreation, and life safety requirements.

The Corporation's borrowings are guaranteed by government, Mr. Speaker, but there has never been a requirement for our Province to make a payment under its guarantee. A significant portion of the Corporation's loans to municipalities is paid by government under various cost-sharing arrangements, and in recent years government has also provided funding to assist with the restructuring of municipal debt.

To date, $35 million has been allocated to the debt relief fund maintained by NMFC for this purpose. Mr. Speaker, NMFC has carried out a very important public policy function on behalf of government and I would like to acknowledge the efforts put forth by staff, the corporation's board, as well as my colleagues at the Department of Finance, Justice, and Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 55(3) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the following information with respect to guaranteed loans paid out by the Province since the last report to the House of Assembly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table the annual report of the Labour Relations Board for the calender year 2001. This report outlines the activities of the Labour Relations Board in 2001 with respect to case loads, hearings and various matters which come under the jurisdiction of the board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report of the Public Tender Act exemptions for December, January and February.

Notices of Motion

 

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if some time throughout the day, or even when the House gets back after Easter, just if I could, seek clarification. I want to be very clear that I am not challenging the Speaker, his rulings, or anything.

Today, the Member for Cape St. Francis, in Question Period, was quoting from Hansard. We were of the understanding, based upon Beauchesne, page 152, §497 that that was allowable. I will just quote it. I am just seeking clarification from the Chair. It is under the section Documents Cited during Rules of Debate, it says: "§497. A Member may quote from Hansard, but not from the unedited preliminary version known as the "blues"." That is: Debates, September 24, 1985, p. 6893.

I am just asking the Chair that at some point - not necessarily immediately, but certainly when we get back over the Easter break, if he could take the matter under advisement to give some direction, I guess, to all members in terms of our own debates. When we are citing documents in the House, is Hansard an acceptable document that we can cite, because if it is not we will not plan to do it in the future?

MR. SPEAKER: To the point that the hon. member has raised, our own Standing Orders, of course, are to be guiding the parliamentary authorities that we follow, or the rules that we follow. If it is not covered in our own Standing Orders we use the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and then, of course, other parliamentary authorities beyond that.

I think the member should recall that some time ago we had the same point of order raised. I think the ruling at that time, based on our own Standing Orders, was that quoting from any document, including Hansard, was not acceptable in the House.

I will certainly review that ruling, but I believe that was the ruling at the time because our Standing Orders are the ones that guide us in making decisions in the House. If an incident or a point raised is not covered by own Standing Orders we use the House of Commons, and then we use parliamentary authorities after that.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to respond to a question which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, in Question Period, with regard to the culture research project which we heard referenced here in debate this afternoon. The question was with regard to the involvement of the Department of Human Resources and Employment. In fact, in his remarks, the Opposition House Leader had in fact alluded and stated that the department was actually managing the project.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, again, I am just trying to set the matter straight. The hon. member will have ample opportunity to rise and respond, as I am sure he will.

The situation is, I have gone back and checked out, certainly yesterday when the question was raised I had no knowledge of the program, or at least the involvement by my own department. Upon check, the only reference that I can find is in fact an arrangement that was made between the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal, at that time, and the deputy from my department whereby an arrangement was made in the absence of the deputy from Industry, Trade and Rural Development, when he was going to be away on holidays. He had assigned the signing authority to the deputy from my department, in fact, that operated only during the absence of the deputy while he was on holidays. There was one transaction which happened through that period of time. When he returned, that was it.

There was no involvement by my department, Mr. Speaker, but I do say that I would have been delighted to be involved because we have heard the hon. minister say here today that this is a good initiative on part of the people of the Province, it is something that we need to do, and I am sure the people of the Province recognize that we are on the right track in trying to do what is in their best interest.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment had just said that this is only a one-time thing because the deputy minister from the Deputy Premier's office was on holidays.

In the documents that I have, it does not say that, and I want to quote it for clarification and set the record straight. This is a letter from the Deputy Minister, Mr. John Scott, to your Deputy Minister, Miss Vivian Randell, and it says: The initiative will be managed by the Department of Human Resources and Employment in its capacity as lead department for the Strategic Social Plan. I am delegating my signing authority relating to its implementation (inaudible) to Miss Vivian Randell, Deputy Minister of Human Resources. The delegation is effective immediately and will continue until the end of the initiative or the end of the fiscal year.

So, my questions are based upon correspondence that went from that department to yours, not any conjecture, but where it actually said that your department would administer it from this day forward until the end of the initiative or until the end of the fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

It being Wednesday, and 3:00 p.m., we are now at private member's resolution.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: By leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have leave to table some more reports.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking for leave to table a report. Is it agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

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

I want today to table a summary of the special warrants for 2001-2002, in a very timely manner, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

A special warrant for $17 million to provide additional funds for health care facilities equipment and renovations. Special warrants to provide additional funds for occupational reclassifications. A special warrant of $6.3 million to provide additional funds for our income support and our senior citizens' drug subsidization programs. Under education, a special warrant of $10 million to provide additional funds for teachers' salaries, and also for the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation, the fund that builds and does maintenance and renovations to our schools in the Province. Mr. Speaker, under the Department of Justice, a special warrant for $411 million to provide additional funds for occupational reclassifications. A special warrant of $1.9 million to provide additional funds for payment of salary increases and retroactive pay to provincial court judges, and a special warrant of $720,000 to provide additional funds, Mr. Speaker, for the purchase of digital court recording equipment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is customary under the act and legislation of this House, the Financial Administration Act, that warrants should not be tabled here if they are issued during the period the House is sitting. They should come as a Supplementary Supply Bill or be included in the Budget for 2002-2003. It is contrary to the act, and it is incumbent upon the minister, if the date on this is when this House is in session, it is contrary to the act and we should see a Supply Bill to be debated here if it is in this Budget or presented for approval in the 2002-2003 Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to debate a private member's motion that I put forward. I am going to read the motion so that people are clear:

WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada commits the Parliament and Government of Canada to make equalization payments to provinces to ensure Canadians have access to reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation; and

WHEREAS the current equalization program does not meet this constitutional requirement and there is evidence that we are moving further away from satisfying this commitment; and

WHEREAS the treatment of non-renewable resource revenues in the present equalization system is unfair;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the federal government to replace the current equalization formula with a fairer system that re-establishes the fundamental principles on which this program is based; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House go on record of supporting the efforts of our Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Premier of Nova Scotia, in campaigning for fairness as it relates to offshore resource royalties.

Madam Speaker, that is the motion that I put forward to hon. members today, and it is a motion of tremendous significance and of importance that it be raised and its awareness be raised at this particular time in our history in Newfoundland and Labrador especially.

We have to encourage people to become involved in this cause. One way, certainly, to do that is to have it debated in this House, have it recorded, and all of us, as elected members, have the opportunity to express our views on this important issue.

Equalization is there to assist the equalization receiving provinces to achieve a greater degree of fiscal self-reliance so that those provinces can deliver an appropriate level of services to the people they serve.

Madam Speaker, equalization payments are subject to several things. One of them is ceiling and floor provisions. This is to provide protection to individual provinces, year over year, so that there are not reductions within their payments. The program is an important source of revenue for all the seven provinces that are now receiving those payments. Those provinces are: Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.

Madam Speaker, equalization and the natural resources is probably one of the areas that has been causing the greatest contention for us in Newfoundland and Labrador. Non-renewable natural resource revenues have posed numerous difficulties in the operation of the equalization formula. The greatest difficulty is created by the volatility provincial non-renewable resource earnings. I say that because this is obviously the situation that we find ourselves in, as a government, and as a Province, as we deal with some of the non-renewable resource developments that are before us today.

There are some generic solutions that have been applied to the formula by the Government of Canada and to Newfoundland and Labrador when we negotiated the Atlantic Accord on offshore revenues and royalties. We did get a solution, I guess, then, or an Accord, in which we looked at a percentage of the revenues that would be left to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Nova Scotia also has a similar arrangement on its offshore revenues, Quebec on its asbestos, and Saskatchewan on potash. There are a number of agreements that have been put in place by the federal government over the years to deal with equalization, and, having done so, certainly realizing the tremendous importance it is to Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to hold on to those revenues that are generated.

Madam Speaker, equalization impacts all areas of government within this Province. It is a new approach. If not found, we will remain trapped in what some people would call a cycle of dependency and never be able to get ahead. Because, as the formula is today, any revenues that we generate, as a Province, are claw backed dollar for dollar on equalization, which leaves our Province with very little capital to be able to invest in other areas of governance, and in other areas of infrastructure, programs, service delivery, or whatever the case may be.

We have to find a new approach. We are at a time in our history where we are being forced to look at another alternative, at a new way, a different way in which we can generate revenues, provide more benefits.

Equalization was one of the founding principles of the Canadian Confederation. Its purpose was to ensure that no matter what province you lived in across this country, from east to west, that you would have a right to have similar services and opportunities provided to the people of this country. This principle of equalization is placed in the Constitution of the country, which gives it the highest priority in terms of reflecting what the need is from province to province.

When the Province is strong, Mr. Speaker, Canada is strong as a nation. When we do well in Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal government does even better. Much better, I might add. We have today, in our Province, a number of non-renewable resources in which large sums of money are being paid out to the federal government in taxes or royalties, or whatever phrase you would like to use to certainly distinguish it. On Hibernia alone, there is over $21 billion in oil reserves with the current system of equalization. This Province could only see 10 per cent of that money entering the provincial Treasury.

Under the current clawback system, Newfoundland and Labrador retained just $29 million of $98 million of revenues in 2001, and stands to retain only $54 million of $180 million in revenues in 2002. That is just one example, Madam Speaker, of what we are dealing with as a provincial government and as a Province, people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you can generate $100 million in revenue, and only be able to turn in $29 million or $30 million of that revenue to the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I do not think I need to indicate any further the kind of problems that can cause when you have such high demands and such tremendous need out there across Labrador.

The same thing is happening with iron ore in Labrador West. The same thing is happening with other oil and gas developments within our Province, and now, Mr. Speaker, we are, in Newfoundland and Labrador, at a time in our history where we are looking at developing more non-renewable resources than we have had in the past. We are looking at Voisey's Bay. We are looking at the Lower Churchill. We are looking at future oil and gas developments. All of these projects are non-renewable resources. All of these projects could provide to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, finances, investments, and opportunities that they do not have today. But, we can only do that if we have the co-operation of the Government of Canada. We can only do that if the Government of Canada can see, understand, and feel what it is that we feel in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is our opportunity, Madam Speaker, to make real progress. This is our opportunity to generate our own revenues for our own people to make tremendous progress to move forward to do things in this Province that we could not do in previous years.

That opportunity can only be afforded to us if the Government of Canada is willing to co-operate, if they are willing to work with the Provinces that are affected, like Newfoundland and Labrador, to create a new format, a new way, a different way, a way that allows us to be able to see some of the revenues that are generated from our own resources invested for our own people and for our own benefits.

Madam Speaker, this is not a new issue for Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is certainly an issue where we have reached a point in our history where we have to certainly stand up, be counted, and launch a very serious campaign to have equalization changed.

As I have said already, every other service, every other program, every other piece of infrastructure that is in this Province, is affected by how equalization is dealt with. We started that. Our Premier, when he told office, launched a major campaign. He presented our case to the federal government. He has presented it to all the other premiers and to the Canadian public. He did that through a number of forums. He provided a position paper to the Senate in Ottawa, on how we would like to see this particular issue handled, and where we would like to see our Province and the federal government move with it.

Madam Speaker, the Senate Committee released its report on equalization just a few days ago, and I was really pleased with some of the recommendations that I saw in their report. Pleased on two accounts. One, that finally there is a realization in Ottawa that this is a problem, and that it needs to be dealt with, first of all. Secondly, there is an understanding of how it needs to be dealt with, which is very important; because you just cannot tinker with equalization without actually being able to fix the problem so that provinces benefit. Every single time you change one particular aspect of the equalization formula, it affects payments in the provinces.

I was pleased with the report of the Senate Committee and I know that we, as a Province and as a government, has a significant role in that process. Our Premier was in Ottawa; he presented to the Senate Committee. He outlined where we would like to go with this, as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He made suggestions to them on how it could be changed.

I was pleased when I saw the recommendations, because the recommendations of the Senate report certainly reflect where it is that we want to go as a provincial government, and it is certainly supportive of the campaign that has been ongoing in Nova Scotia and in the other Atlantic Provinces.

Madam Speaker, some of the recommendations in the report I want to outline. One, removing the ceiling on equalization payments, and maintaining the floor provisions in the equalization program; but restoring to a ten province standard, which is what we have been asking for. This is one of the key pieces to being able to develop an equalization program that is going to provide fair returns on non-renewable resources or revenues for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Another recommendation: provisions to protect non-renewable resource revenues from clawbacks and an undertaking and evolution of the equalization provisions of the Atlantic Accord to determine if they have met the intent for which they were designed. These particular recommendations have a combination effect in terms of where we want to go. We need to ensure that any new developments that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador will provide significant revenues to our government and to the people of the Province. For example, when you look at Voisey's Bay - and I will just take some estimations because I do not have firm figures in front of me. Some people would say that over the twenty years of developing of the Voisey's Bay project that we could see something like $4 billion in revenues accrued to the federal government.

You would think, Madam Speaker, by the sound of my voice I have said it all but I can tell you, I do not have it all said yet. Bear with me for another few minutes.

A very serious note, Madam Speaker, very serious this is because the whole future of this Province is contingent on what happens with equalization. This I can assure you, the amount of progress that we make will be measured by how we reform or re-devise a new equalization program. Take Voisey's Bay for example, economists will say that over the life of the project, twenty years of the project, over $4 billion in revenues will be accrued to the federal government in royalties and taxes and so on - benefits, revenues, accrued to the federal government. That is a very large sum of money and a sum of money that if it were accruing to the provincial government, would have significant impacts upon the economy of this Province.

MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MS JONES: May I have leave to clue up my comments?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: We will make sure the hon. members across the way are accommodated in this debate; let there be no fear in that.

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the amount of royalties that accrue to the federal government as a result of equalization from our non-renewable resources is significantly higher, much higher, tremendously higher, than what accrues to us as a Province. This is where we have some significant problems and we want to ensure that we make changes. We can stand in this House each and every day and talk about roads that need to be upgraded, that need to be paved; talk about infrastructure, like water and sewer. Even in my own district, water and sewer is needed in almost every community categorically from one end to the other end. But, it is these pieces of infrastructure that we would then be able to afford, without question, be able to afford if we were deriving more investments from our non-renewable resources, more revenues from our non-renewable resources.

We have a responsibility, Madam Speaker, we are at a period in our history today where we have to make significant changes if we are to make significant progress. I can honestly tell you that this government is about making progress. It is about serving the needs of people in our Province, the infrastructure needs of our people, the service needs of our people and we can only do that when we have control and have the revenues that are to be derived from the resources that we develop. We have to develop for ourselves, Madam Speaker, and we can only do that with the cooperation of our federal counterparts.

I hope that all members in the House today will support the resolution that has been put forward. I am going to conclude my comments now. I will have a few remarks at the end. I encourage all members to take part in this debate today. I think it is an important piece for the progress of our Province and I will certainly look forward to the comments from other members.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I, too, have some comments that I want to make, in particular, to this resolution here. I guess one of the fundamental principles or basis upon which we get equalization is in article 36(2) of the 1982 Constituent Act. I will just quote the Constituent Act, it says: "Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation."

Madam Speaker, I advocate that we are breaking the Constituent of our country because our Province is now in a position where we are not able to provide reasonably comparable levels of service under reasonably comparable levels of taxation with other provinces across this country. Six times over this past year I have done news releases, I might add, Madam Speaker, on this topic. I have indicated in one - on May 25, for example, I indicated that I am convinced that Ottawa is not living up to its constitutional obligation to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador's revenues are comparable to that of other provinces in terms of being able to provide a level of services.

There are at least thirty-three different provincial revenue sources of income used in calculating this equalization formula. That compares to fiscal capacities of individual provinces to a national standard. Now, some of the areas that are included here, in at least thirty-three areas - for example, personal income tax revenue. We look at our business income revenue, capital tax revenues. We have general and miscellaneous taxes; tobacco taxes; gasoline; diesel fuel; non-commercial, another category; commercial vehicle licenses, another category; and it goes on and on. There are a lot of categories that deal with - like natural resources, for example. There is a new oil revenue category, an old oil revenue category, heavy oil revenues, mined oil revenues, and domestically sold natural gas revenues. So, you can see how many are tied into gas. We have exported natural gas revenues as another category. We have other oil and gas revenues in another category. Mineral resources from asbestos - because this is a national thing now and not every province would have access to all these resources and revenues, but some do. Mineral resources under coal, other mineral resources, water power rentals - there are a whole variety of taxes, payroll taxes, you name it. Lottery revenue is another one. They are just some of the thirty-three areas that are equated into this particular standard.

Now, the national standard against which the fiscal capacity of each province is currently determined, it is the average per capita, basically, revenue generating capacity of five provinces. These provinces are Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Quebec. That is commonly referred to as the FPS, or five-province standard. Now, this five-province standard has created, I might add, some serious problems. For example, the entitlements that were there under the ten-province standard, when we went to the five-province standard, I understand it was only 92 per cent of that amount. I am being told now, and it is my understanding, that under the current five-province standard that we are only equalized up to 80 per cent of that figure, which is not full equalization under our equalization.

Why is that the case? Well, why do we have a five-province standard? Alberta initially was removed from that in the beginning because Alberta's resources seemed to weigh to one end of the scale, and to sort of balance that they dropped, basically, the four Atlantic Provinces from the other end of the continuum that did not have the same fiscal capacity, and they took the remaining five provinces. Now, that is no longer relevant today, and it has cost us money because the ten-province standard would be more applicable today.

Now, Madam Speaker, there is another problem too, another big problem with equalization, a very major problem, and that is the cap on equalization. Now, that cap on equalization has been there for twenty years and it has caused a problem. In other words, by having a cap, it means that the Government of Canada is not going to put any more money, basically, into the equalization pot, and everybody has to share it. So, as the disparity becomes greater between us and other parts of the country - and that is happening in numerous areas - when we look at comparing economies and their capacities, there is no way to compensate for that growth and difference in disparity, because there is a cap. In 2000-2001, it was lifted for one year. In the year it was lifted, our Province got $38 million extra, but the legislation removed it for one year, which meant: Just what would we have received over the last twenty years? If it was $38 million for that year, I know it would vary with each year, it just gives you an indication of how many millions - it is in the hundreds of millions, not in the tens of millions - in effect, we have lost because of a cap on equalization.

You might wonder, why do we have a cap on equalization? Well, I made reference back in my news release just last May on this same topic, and one of the points I made in that release with reference to the cap, I said that changing the ceiling or the cap on equalization does not need provincial consent. It went on without provincial consent. It was lifted in 2000-2001 without provincial consent, I might add. It was instituted unilaterally by the federal government. It was revoked, legislation, unilaterally, and it was put back on, basically, again the following year.

If they have the power - we do not have to wait until 2004 to make changes to the equalization formula. That is wrong. The federal government, Paul Martin and the Prime Minister of Canada are telling us that is not correct. In fact, not only do we not have to wait for 2004; we do not have to wait at all. The federal government can lift that cap. It did it the year before last with an election coming on. With an election coming up, it lifted the cap. It put it back on again after the election. That is not a very honourable thing to do, and the $38 million we got, we would not have gotten. What about the other nineteen years when we faced the cap, what would we have received in that period of time?

Now, there are a variety of concerns. One of the big concerns of mine, and I spent some time this morning to sit down and do a little bit of research. I went back to previous Budgets and revised figures I am taking from the government's own documents. One of the big areas of concern, the Canada Health and Social Transfer. This government, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, supported changing the equalization formula, or changed supporting the change in transfers to this Province, I might add - not equalization - the transfers to this Province for health, post-secondary education and social services by allowing the Government of Canada to change it to a per capita rather than a need basis. They went along with that, and that was wrong. Here is the impact. I will just tell you. I researched figures right back to 1992 this morning, from Budget documents that I have. I have kept them since I came in, and I went back to that point when I came to this House.

In 1994-1995, for example, we got $441 million in the programs that preceded the Canada Health and Social Transfer. They were called Established Program Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan or CAP. Now, I am going to take the last year in which we converted. Now $441 million in 1994-1995; the year after 1995-1996, it was $427 million. We got a bit less. So, after that year, 1995-1996, when we changed it with the consent of this Province without a ripple, I might add, on the waves of discontent in this Province, the government went along with it, what did we get the next year? We got $342.5 million, a loss of $84.5 million. In 1997-1998 we got only $280 million, a loss of $133 million. In 1998-1999, $275 million, a loss of $152 million. In 1999-2000, $290 million, a loss of $137 million. That is when the fuss got created. They were trying to put some money back in the pot then; they cut so deep and so on, it had such a devastating effect on health care, post-secondary education in our Province. The next year, 2000-2001, $339 million. That is still $88 million less than we got in 1995-1996. In 2001-2002, $331 million, $96 million less, and this year's Budget we are projecting $341 million, and that would be a loss of $86 million.

You might say, what effect does all of those figures have, just in the last seven years? In seven years, our Province is going to receive $776.5 million less, over the seven years, than we were getting under the old plan before they went to per capita. Divide that by seven; we are looking at $110 million a year.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We have not gone back to the per capita, I might tell the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

In 1994-1995, leading up to 1995-1996, the government, of which you are a member, did not create a ripple. They went along with changing the federal equalization formula. If you can, show me something in print that you did to oppose it. We have raised it very strongly. I raised it at the time, as Leader of the Opposition, and prior to that as Health critic, of how devastating it is to the health care of our Province. They did not do anything about it, I might add. They did not rectify that situation and it has cost us over $750 million dollars in seven years, and I am not looking at accumulative effect; I am just looking at each year, the amount we lose every single year. Add it up. I am not doing the double counting that they do accumulatively, that government often does. For example, in year one, if we lost $84.5 million; in year two, if we lost $133 million, then there is an accumulative affect there, but what we lost was over $750 million dollars. Can you imagine what we could do today in this Province? Just imagine, with $750 million, what we could do.

That has damaged us, and that is an area they fail to balance. How can Newfoundland and Labrador provide the same level of health care as Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, or any province of this country, with our geography and our population. I have been saying for some time, there has to be a certain base established that levels the playing field, and then you can go per capita. But you have to level the playing fields of geography and the cost to get these services out to these areas. Something has to be done about that. I think we have to move to correct that.

Now, we talked about - I know I only have about fifteen minutes. I know I will get a couple of extra minutes, they indicated, to give me a little bit of time, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know. I am just saying I did give the initial one there, I think, something like eighteen or twenty minutes initially when they only had fifteen, and that person gets to speak again and I do not. We are only going to put one other speaker up on this, I think, so if you could just bear with me. I will only be a couple of minutes or so more.

The second part of that resolution, I want to bring to your attention. I would like to have a comment on that. I am sure the member who moved that might certainly tune in and, I am sure, could agree with me. The first part of that is fairly clear, basically, that this House call upon the federal government to replace the current fund with a fairer system that re-establishes fundamental principles. That is probably very general, but we do not have a point with that.

The second point I would like to have a little more clarification because the second BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED states: "that this Honourable House go on record of supporting the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and Premier of Nova Scotia in campaigning for fairness as it relates to offshore resource royalties."

One point I am asking is: What is fairness? Has this government put forth a plan, a certain principle, or a certain aspect that they consider fair? We have not seen what you forth. How do we know what you are looking for? If we know what you are looking for we can tell you if it is fair and support it.

I have a suggested amendment to replace that, that is very positive and I hope will get support. I will just read a replacement for that, that could be specific and I am sure hon. members of this House can support. I am going to move an amendment to replace the second AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED with the following: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Honourable House go on record of supporting - they are the same words - the position that all non-renewable resources be exempt from federal clawback under the equalization formula. I think that is something specific that we can say. Why should they be clawing back on non-renewable resources? I think this is something that is positive, it is specific. No offence to the resolution but, how do we support what is fairness? What is the government's definition of fairness, and what have they presented? If we see something in front of us that says here is what we consider fairness and here is what we are looking for, we could turn around and say: Yes, we will support that.

At least the amendment I am moving is specific. It says, basically, let's stop this clawback on non-renewable resources on equalization and let us allow our economy of this Province to keep the revenues to grow. Don't penalize us for showing growth, don't penalize us for showing promise and negotiating agreements, don't penalize us because we want to become equal partners in this country. I can tell you, we are not equal partners in this country right now because we are not getting a fair opportunity to deliver educational programs, health care programs and other programs. We are at a competitive disadvantage because of our geography, and that is not recognized by the Government of Canada and that is something the Government of Canada had better wake up and realize.

The member who proposed it from Labrador - we need extra revenues. The Trans-Labrador Highway is a fantastic concept. The faster it gets a reality in this Province, I can tell you, the better. The faster we can get control of our resources to be able to do the things we need - the Trans-Labrador Highway, and I think across the Straits also, that was only a vision in Prince Edward Island; a fixed link. It might be a vision but it can become a reality because what better way for people in this Province - they could get on a road, drive the Northern Peninsula, go across the Straits and right through Labrador into Quebec. I cannot wait, to be honest with you, for an opportunity to be able to travel across this Province and right on through into Labrador. Open up a whole new area for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: About thirty seconds to wrap up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is an excellent opportunity and I think the way to do it, Mr. Speaker, is to put pressure on the federal government to accomplish this.

I will just table this here, give the Chair a copy of this amendment, and hopefully it will get the support of everybody here in this House so we can deal with this fairly expeditiously here today. I think, certainly, it has the support of this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak for a few moments today in support of the motion brought forward by my hon. colleague the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

It is a very important motion, Mr. Speaker, and we have to debate and raise awareness and strengthen our resolve in relation to this particular issue. The issue before us today, Mr. Speaker, is probably the most important issue facing this Province. It is not something that we can change through a vote in this House of Assembly, therefore our role is to put pressure on the federal government to make change. This issue, Mr. Speaker, is the most important issue in this Province today because it impacts on all aspects of government in this Province. The challenge is to make it a major issue for all Canadians.

Canada is a country that was established and built on principles that all citizens, no matter which province they live in, should have a right to similar services and opportunities. In fact, as the motion notes, this principle is placed right in the Constitution of this country. It is a part of what we stand for as a nation. It is a part of what makes Canada the best country in the world today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a part of the fabric of this country, but it is not yet a reality. The fact is, that successive federal governments have not kept this constitutional commitment. In fact, we are slipping further away from this objective, one of our founding principles. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the current system is not working for Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a Province, the present system traps us in a situation where we cannot get ahead. Each year we work to provide services for the people of this Province. The Opposition makes demands on us for more and more spending. Many legitimate needs have to be balanced as government tries to live within the financial realities that we face. This year we have struck a balance, and the Minister of Finance has certainly done a really good job with the resources that are available to us. But, Mr. Speaker, this does not lessen the importance of this issue. We have to find a way to deal with this problem, with the current system, if we are ever going to realize our full potential as a province within the Canadian Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, it should be clear to all Canadians that we do not want to be trapped in a position of dependency. The current situation is unacceptable to us as a Province. We want a new approach which allows us to be contributors to the rest of Canada. We have much potential in this Province and we should not be perpetually looking to the federal government for a major portion of our revenue. Mr. Speaker, we have the potential here to be a stronger Province. We have the potential to help make Canada an even stronger nation. It is time for us, as a country, to reestablish the basic principles that this country was founded on.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, this issue is vital to our future. We are entering a period of resource development in this Province which may be the best chance we have had in a long time to change our position in relation to the rest of Canada. This will be our chance, Mr. Speaker, to assert ourselves and realize our potential to break what some people have called the cycle of dependency. We will not break that cycle of dependency unless there are changes at the federal level, unless there is a new approach.

Mr. Speaker, the way things are now, most of the benefits from new resource development goes to the federal government rather than to this Province. Some have even said that there is no incentive to go ahead with development because the benefits for this Province are so small. This is why the system has to be changed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk about government's decision to establish a Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada. I think this Commission and the issue of equalization are very closely linked. Although the Royal Commission will have a broad mandate, I think the issue of equalization must be dealt with by this Commission.

Also, Mr. Speaker, although the terms of reference have not yet been announced, it has been stated that the Commission's mandate will be to involve the people of the Province in seeking a broad consensus to position ourselves in the global community, to renew our relationship within Canada, to complete a critical analysis of our strengths and weaknesses, and to provide direction for the decade to come.

The Royal Commission, Mr. Speaker, will address, among other things, who we were when we joined Canada in 1949; how we have changed over the past five decades; our relations with other governments; our contribution as a society, and where we see ourselves in the future. The Commission will have a broad mandate to undertake necessary research and conduct public consultations in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I also sincerely believe that this Royal Commission would have the effect of placing the issues of this Province before the rest of Canada in a way that has never been done before. We have to place equalization on the national agenda. We have to make our issues, issues for all Canadians.

I am hopefully that this Royal Commission will go along way in not only causing us to re-examine how we see ourselves, but also, Mr. Speaker, also require others to re-examine how they see us. I am hopefully this Commission will enable us to make a stronger case on policy issues such as equalization.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter this debate and this struggle to get a better arrangement on equalization, we should not be naive about the challenges which are before us. We should be aware of the mindset which is present in the rest of Canada and has to be dealt with. We are dealing with a mindset which allowed the former Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario to equate equalization to welfare. We are up against members of the national press who do not understand this Province and view everything from a Canadian perspective. So, there are many challenges ahead of us on this issue. We have to change minds and we have to change the way people see us.

Mr. Speaker, the challenges ahead are daunting but there is some evidence that when we are persistent and make our case, we can change people's minds. This is evident in the recently released report of the Senate Committee on National Finance. The Premier made a presentation to this Committee last October. He made a strong case that the Province should be the principal beneficiary of its offshore resource revenues as committed to under the Atlantic Accord. The recommendations in the report which came out last week recognize that there are flaws in the current equalization program that need to be fixed. Several of the recommendations support things the Province has been calling for. This is certainly an encouraging sign. It is a sign that we have made progress on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the member.

MS M. HODDER: It is okay, Mr. Speaker, I am about to conclude.

I will say, in conclusion, that this is a very important motion. It is a part of this government's overall effort to bring about change in this area, and this motion deserves the support of all members in this hon. House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding, the Chair has considered the amendment as put forward by the Member for Ferryland, and we find the amendment to be in order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise on this important debate here in the House of Assembly on the motion by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in relation to the equalization payment system. We have, as part of the Constitution of Canada, a provision that there shall be an equalization formula in place, an equalization program to balance out the interests of the various provinces and to provide, in some measure, for provincial equity in this country. The idea is very clear, that no citizen of Canada should have a lesser level of services because of the place in Canada where they live, and the tax burden on people across this country should be comparable. That is clearly not the case, Mr. Speaker. It is clearly not the case in this Province where we have consistently suffered from the necessity of the higher taxes, or the highest tax rate in Canada some say, the highest tax rate for income tax, a higher level of taxation for other items, with some exceptions, and I will get to them in a moment. Exceptions in the area of corporate taxation, in the area of mineral taxation, in the area of royalties, were very low, comparatively speaking, but in the area of personal income tax and other burdens on individuals we are on the high end.

The equalization formula is supposed to even things out, Mr. Speaker. Well, there are a number of very serious problems with that formula, as has been brought to the attention of the public in this Province a number of times and also nationally by people from this Province, including myself. Perhaps the best way to explain, Mr. Speaker, the effects of the equalization program is to look at the percentage; and the importance of that program is to look at the percentage of the equalization monies as a percentage of provincial own source revenues.

You will see, Mr. Speaker, from a table included in the recent Senate report on equalization, that Newfoundland and Labrador is the Province whose equalization contributions are the highest as a percentage of its own source revenue. In Newfoundland and Labrador, up until 1997-1998, the last year included in this report, the equalization payments were 49 per cent of the Province's own source revenues. That compares with numbers for other provinces that are quite low by comparison.

The equalization formula, Mr. Speaker, resulted in a contribution to this Province of great significance as a result of the way that it has operated here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to recognize its importance. In fact, it is vital to this Province that that formula work, and work effectively, to ensure that we do have the ability to provide for our own citizens in terms of programs and make sure that because you live in Newfoundland and Labrador, you do not miss out.

Mr. Speaker, now with Newfoundland and Labrador at around 49 per cent, we see other provinces such as Saskatchewan, which sometimes is referred to as a have-not province because they are on the lower end of some of the indicators, but they receive, as a percentage of own source revenue, about 3.5 per cent in the latest year for which it was reported. They received 3.5 per cent; the Province of Quebec about 10 per cent; Nova Scotia 37 per cent; Prince Edward Island 39 per cent; and Newfoundland 49 per cent. It is more important to this Province than any other province in the country, that we have an equalization formula that works, and works well for Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the difficulties with the formula is that there was an upper, and there still is, a cap or a ceiling on that formula. That results in a loss to this Province of funds. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if there had been no cap since 1982, when the most recent equalization plan was put in place, this Province would have received an additional $800 million over that twenty year period. That is a significant number, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the needs that we have in this Province to provide for services, to pay our debt and our interest on our debt, and to look after the needs of this Province, and to try and be innovative and creative in sorting out some of the inequities within our Province between people.

To use an example though, Mr. Speaker, of the concerns that a lot of people have about the equalization formula, we have to look at the clawback. The clawback is a situation where, when we earn money, new money from tax revenues in this Province, that sum is just taken away from what we would otherwise receive in equalization payments. So we have a net benefit of zero if we are losing dollar for dollar on revenues that we earn in this Province. Let me give you the biggest example that I know of, and that is the proposals and projections for the Voisey's Bay project put forth by Inco. These figures are not mine. These are figures that were produced by Inco as a result of a request from the Federal Environmental Assessment Panel looking into the Voisey's Bay project and they gave an economic impact statement based on a fiscal model. They were looking at the employment impacts of the Voisey's Bay project, which they projected at 28,000 person years of employment.

For the total project they also looked at the provincial and federal treasury impacts, and the treasury impacts are what money the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador gets versus the Government of Canada gets as a result of various taxes; whether they be corporate income tax, mining taxes, personal income taxes from the employees working there, sales taxes, EI premiums, et cetera. What we came up with is that the Government of Canada would have, as a total revenue, $4.9 billion over the life of the project, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Government would have a net revenue of $417 million. Four hundred and seventeen million for Newfoundland and Labrador and $4.9 billion for the Government of Canada; more than ten times as much. That is on a project based solely in this Province using a mineral resource that is wholly owned by the people of this Province, in the ground in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no dispute about ownership; not like offshore oil and gas. This is a provincial resource mined and processed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the net benefits to the people of this Province through the tax system are $417 million, and to the Government of Canada $4.9 billion.

Mr. Speaker, that stark figure, that stark realization, is enough to make you wonder how it is we can ever get ahead in this Province, within this country, under these terms and conditions. It caused me to raise this publicly two years ago, three years ago now, and I raised it again and again because it is the starkest example that there is as to how the equalization formula and the clawback provisions work against this Province. Equalization is only part of the problem here, and I have to recognize that. Equalization causes about $1.2 billion worth of inequality. If you took the equalization part of it out of this formula, the provincial treasury revenues would be $1.5 billion and the federal would be $3.7 billion. So, we do have a deficiency in terms of the level and type of royalties that we extract, and taxes that we extract from mineral development.

The minister from Labrador is having some trouble with his earpiece there. Maybe it is the volume that is affecting him, but the minister for Labrador, the Member for Lake Melville, will know that in Labrador West the taxation system for this Province is terrible. It is miserable. It goes back to 1938 when the Commission of Government was happy enough to give a mineral lease and a provision that guaranteed that they did not have to pay any corporate income tax, and our mineral tax on the minerals from Labrador. So, we get less.

It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the Budget. Look at our Budget and our Estimates and you see that the whole of resource revenues in this Province, mineral tax and royalties, amounts to about $50 million, and our provincial revenues from lottery tickets and lottery sales alone is in excess of $100 million. So, we have some problems by our own but when we see these kinds of numbers that are affected by the equalization formula we know that we have a serious problem and it has to be changed.

Mr. Speaker, we do have support outside the Province for changes to these formulas. The New Democratic Party of Canada at its convention in August of 1999, in Ottawa, supported a resolution brought forward by St. John's East Federal Riding Association. I spoke to that resolution in Ottawa and we got unanimous support for a resolution to review and change the equalization formula to make it fairer for economic development in places like Newfoundland and Labrador. So, we do have support outside this Province for significant changes in the equalization formula.

We now have support from the Senate Committee which its report was issued the other day. The Senate Standing Committee on National Finance, chaired by Senator Lowell Murray, issued a report recently which supported a number of changes to the equalization formula, some of which would benefit significantly this Province. We have to move forward, Mr. Speaker, to bring about significant changes to the equalization formula for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, I support the first part of the resolution wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker. I know, sometimes, there are difficulties in private member's resolutions, especially where members phrase things in a certain way to try and make it difficult for other people to support them, or have them vague enough that it is difficult to know what exactly you are supporting.

I have a bit of a problem with the second part of the resolve: House go on record of supporting the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and Premier of Nova Scotia in campaigning for fairness as it relates to offshore resource royalties. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that there needs to be a campaign, the offshore royalties, the royalties are set by this Province. We are the ones who set the royalties. I suppose the mover means that the clawback as it relates to them, or something like that. It is a little bit vague here.

I have a serious problem with offshore royalties in this Province, the formulas that are used, how they are devised, the fact that there was no public consultation or discussion before agreements were put in place, and all of those things that really have to be changed. Obviously, I suppose what the mover means is that we want a greater level of fairness in terms of the clawback so that we do not get nailed on collecting revenues on one hand and giving them back to Ottawa with the other. That is something that I think we have to - having them (inaudible). That is something that I can support.

I know we have significant differences between the Atlantic Accord as it affects Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. We have formulas for our royalties that prevent us from taking full advantage of the Atlantic Accord because we are actually letting the developers of offshore resources of this Province recoup all their capital costs before our royalty system properly kicks in. The ten- or twelve-year formula that is spelled out in the Atlantic Accord will be gone before we get any significant revenues from the offshore oil development.

There are serious problem with the way we do things as well, and the way we have done things in our own offshore; but, with respect to equalization, I have to support the resolution and to support the amendment which is a little bit more clear, because the amendment says -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is now up.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I just need a minute to refer to the amendment which recognizes that all non-renewable resource revenues be exempt from the federal clawback under our equalization formula. That would provide us with a measure of protection so that we could go ahead and have a proper regime to recover from our resources the proper level of royalties and be able to keep them for ourselves, Mr. Speaker, so that we can come to the point that we need to get to where our revenues are equal to our ability to pay for our system, to pay for our public institutions, to pay properly for our health care system, to provide for our share of a national pharmacare system, which I believe we should have, and to do other things that need to be done to bring about greater equalization within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as across the country. The equalization formula and how it operates does not do a proper job of ensuring that we have regional equity, or interprovincial equity, in the country. That is a very basic point about Confederation, that we are sadly lacking from right now. We need to see a change and I want to be on record, along with all other members of the House, I hope, in supporting a major effort to bring about changes to the equalization formula so it better serves the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to participate in the debate, the private member's resolution that has been put forward by my hon. colleague, related to the serious inequities as we deal with the imbalance, I guess, is the best way to put it, the serious inequities between the federal government and the provincial government.

My colleague from Ferryland has articulated very clearly, I believe, the financial consequences on the one hand but also, in a very articulate and forthright manner, what has transpired in the last seven to eight years in particular as it relates to transfers from this Province under the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act, and what we have lost as a result of that imbalance that was perpetrated and complied with, I might add, by former members of the federal government, including the former Premier and former federal Fisheries Minister.

I am not going to revisit that ground because it has already been visited and, in a way, I think that does more than justice to it; only to say, as my colleague has pointed out, that the amount of money alone, $776.5 million less than what we should have been receiving, and that has provided, obviously, some serious, serious challenges to everybody in the Province and certainly the government. That is acknowledged, and I want to be on record as acknowledging that.

I also note that with respect to the issue of equalization, that in our own Legislature, in terms of treating opportunities fairly and squarely in dealing with benefits for the people of the Province, the government has raised the notion that we are not receiving our just reward, or the benefits accruing from the Atlantic Accord have not been forthcoming. It begs this question, and the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is the custodian over that Accord on behalf of the government and the people of the Province, it begs the question that, before any development - offshore development - can go ahead, there is a process by which it must take place.

First of all, the proponent puts forward a plan. Hearings are conducted. The C-NOPB - the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board - makes its recommendations. Those recommendations go to two ministers: the federal minister responsible for energy or natural resources, whoever it may be at the time in the federal Cabinet, and the Minister of Mines and Energy in this Province. Before any development can go ahead, whether that be Hibernia, whether that be Terra Nova, whether it be White Rose, Ben Nevis, or any other future development in natural gas, that minister's signature must be on the development scheme. When he receives, or the government receives, through him, the proponent's application that has been vetted through the process, through the C-NOPB, the minister and the government can say they can reject all of the recommendations, some of the recommendations, accept all of the recommendations or only some of the recommendations. He has the power, and the government has the power, to say that this development can only go ahead under the following conditions.

It cannot go ahead in our absence. Our signature must be on the document. It must be, along with the federal minister's signature. You cannot stand up necessarily on the one hand and complain about benefits from the Atlantic Accord have not been accruing to the Province as they should have been, when you have participated in allowing that to happen. That is the facts of the situation as they are. Those are not my opinions. Those are not the opinions of any one particular person, group, or agency in the Province. That is the way it is.

The legislation on development schemes and plans demand, require, it is mandatory, for the Province to sign off. If the government of the day, the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, through the Minister of Mines and Energy, do not sign off on a development scheme, that project does not go ahead. That is the way it works.

On the one hand, we are talking about fairness and correcting inequities. We complain on the one hand, government has, that we are not getting the benefits accrued or should be accruing to the Province, but yet, it is that very government that signed off on those development schemes. No question about it, the former former Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier has asked, would I permit an interjection. If the Premier can assure me that his interjection is going to add to the debate in a positive way, then absolutely. I will certainly permit an interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted, for further clarity, to the point - what the hon. member says is exactly correct with respect to the sign-off by the two governments in order for the project to proceed. The issue that is being addressed here today with respect to the unfairness of the Accord, is that once the project proceeds with the conditions that are attached by the federal and provincial governments - because with White Rose, for example, if it proceeds, there were thirty-eight conditions agreed to by the two governments.

What we are talking about here in the Accord though is that once the project does proceed and revenues from the royalty stream, which are not part of that approval process, that does not get approved in that process. The development plan gets approved by the two governments. The Accord says, when the money starts to flow, because the oil is actually produced. Then the inequity comes in where we were supposed to be the principal beneficiaries, but the Accord itself needs to be amended because we only get to keep thirty cents on a dollar, seventy cents goes back to the federal government and then they clawback part of the thirty cents. So that is not covered and that is not what is signed-off by the governments when they agree to a development plan. So there are two different parts and this motion today, as I understand it, is dealing with the inequity of the cash flows from the revenues. What the hon. member said about the approvals is 100 per cent correct in terms of letting it proceed in a certain fashion in the first instances.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough, the Premier wanted to lay a point of view on the table. To a large degree, there is some merit in what the Premier has said. However, knowing the Atlantic Accord as I do, I am not professing to be the ultimate authority on what is contained in its document, but I do know what is contained in this document. I would not say any better than anybody else but certainly, I will not go as far to say that any worse than anybody else either.

I recall, as a former critic for Mines and Energy, when the Terra Nova development went ahead, for example. We sought intervener status and, through myself, the caucus made at the time a presentation to the board in terms of what the benefits should be. One of the big problems that we had at the time, and we predicted at the time, was that we traded off significant benefits to the Province. We said the government has traded off significant benefits to the Province because they have opted for more royalties and have lost the boat when it came to jobs and technology transfer. We felt at the time, and we said it in writing, that the significant loss at that time would be enormous. It has proven to be so.

For example, all of the procurement that was done on that project, and by that I mean, whether it is a roll of toilet paper, materials needed for the structure that was built outside the Province - all of that was done, all of that procurement - from a faucet required on a sink - all of that was done outside this Province. When it came to technology transfer and building a heightened educational workforce or a heightened trained workforce, where did the engineering work take place? It took place in Leatherhead, England. That was done because the provincial government let it be done.

Now, with respect to the royalties, to the point the Premier makes, is a good one. With respect to the royalties; there are provisions within the Atlantic Accord that do address the royalty scheme. My suggestion, or I guess the proposition that I will put forward is this, that the interpretation, that the powers that manage the Accord, in terms of the federal government - because the authors of the Atlantic Accord saw this as a potential problem, and within the Accord itself, identified royalties in terms of how that would impact on equalization, possibly. Those notions are covered and we have not made the case, in my view. We have not made the case solid enough. We have not made the case strong enough, because, I believe, that within the Atlantic Accord right now, that while it is not spelled out as it should be, I agree, but certainly the notion and principle of equalization and the royalties coming from those, and how it should not impact on equalization, was in that Accord, and is in that Accord. It may not be spelled out strongly enough. It may not have been spelled out clearly enough, but it is spelled out and was addressed there.

The question now also in terms of what is before us today, and the member has talked about, that we support the Premier. This House is being asked, all of us in this House, and this is Private Members' Day which means that, as individual members, we have an opportunity to vote as we wish. Generally speaking, that is the notion of private members. We have been asked -

MR. MATTHEWS: Is that the practice over there though?

MR. E. BYRNE: Occasionally. The Minister of Mines and Energy has asked me: is that the practice over here? I can say with certainty, that on occasion, that has happened and I can point to those times when it has happened. However, the question he asked me is one that he can also ask of his own colleagues. But, the point is this -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's for sure.

MR. E. BYRNE: Sure. Would every member in this House - irrespective of where we sit, on this issue what is important is not where we sit but where we stand. That is what is important. That is what is critically important. We have been asked to, I guess, support - the member has asked us to support this Premier and the Premier of Nova Scotia in their campaign for fairness and equity.

Now, my colleague from Ferryland has pointed out, quite correctly, as had the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in what is the definition of fairness and where is the trouble? In pointing that out, our Finance critic, the Member for Ferryland, Mr. Sullivan, has also made an amendment. The amendment said: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Honourable House go on the record of supporting the position that all non-renewable resource revenues, that is all non-renewable resource revenues, be exempt from federal clawback under the equalization formula.

MR. J. BYRNE: A good amendment.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is an excellent amendment, I say to my colleague from Cape St. Francis.

When he was initially up he suggested that we substitute our amendment for the second part of your amendment, which asks us to support you, the Premier, and the Premier of Nova Scotia in your campaign for fairness.

The Member for Ferryland, the Finance critic, my colleague, has asked me to say that in talking with the House Leader, is my understanding, what we are now prepared to suggest - on his behalf I will put it forward - that we leave your amendment there as it is, and that we add this to it. The private member's motion, the Member for L'Anse au Clair, what we would like to do is leave what you have proposed to the House this afternoon as is, but amend it by adding yet another clause. That clause then would say - all of what you put forward for debate this afternoon we agree with, if you accept our amendment which says: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Honourable House go on record of supporting the position that all non-renewable resource revenues be exempt from federal clawback under the equalization formula.

In our view, this strengthens what we are asked to support here this afternoon. It further clarifies what we have been asked to support here this afternoon. It gives better definition. To use the words of the Premier - I recall one day in the House when he got up to give us a lesson about how words were important, we members realize that, and how he had done this course in university - he even held up the book, he still had the book -

MR. SULLIVAN: Grade 10.

MR. E. BYRNE: What he was doing in Grade 10 you were doing in the second year of university. I do understand that Premier.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he was doing Grade 11 (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I see.

I recall him holding up the book, Words Are Important, and how that very book, how the Member for Waterford Valley, in his excellent research capability, former educator, stood up shortly thereafter and for a week to two weeks in a row, used those words very effectively against the Premier who was a minister at the time.

For the sake of clarity, to use his words, this amendment, in our view, strengthens, further defines what the view and will of the members of this House is going to be on this issue. That is what is important.

The final thing I will say is that in terms of our negotiations, or ongoing negotiations with the federal government, vis-à-vis the restructuring of equalization for the Province, this Province, all of Atlantic Canada, I suppose, it is critically important to us to have the right federal members to advance our cause, to have federal members who are influential in advancing our cause, and that leaves this question open: Who will the people of Gander and Grand Falls send to Ottawa to champion this cause? Who will the people of Gander and Grand Falls be asked to support in championing this cause?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I know the members are getting a little antsy here now. Relax, I say to everybody. This is important. This is extremely, extremely important. There is nothing like when a vacancy becomes available, whether it is here in our own provincial Assembly, or federally, to get people talking about, who is going to be the next Liberal candidate? Who will be the next Tory candidate? Who will be the next NDP candidate? Who will be, maybe, the next Canadian Alliance candidate? But, the question for us here today is, who in this House aspires to be that MP?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Who is it, in this Assembly, who aspires to be that next MP to represent a part of our Province in the federal House of Commons, who is going to be, and who wants to be, and who believes they are going to be, if they aspire to it, the most effective voice for the people of this Province, to be able to work in association with the members in this House to advance our issues on the national stage and on national Commons? That is the question.

MR. REID: Who would you (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries, so the people who may be listening in the public, has asked me - I wasn't going to say any of this, but seeing that you have asked - the Minister of Fisheries has asked me, who would I pick?

MR. REID: No, who would you support?

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not a matter of who I would pick or who I would support. It is a matter of what the people in Gander and Grand Falls, who they want to pick and support. But, here is what I have heard. Seeing that you have asked me, I will tell you. Here is what I have heard.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I cannot reveal my sources. I say to the Minister of Finance, if I begin to reveal my sources, I may embarrass some of your colleagues on that side of the House, because I have been asked.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Come on.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I cannot. A serious matter.

I will say this. I want to deal with this seriously. I don't want to try to, you know, make light of this situation because it is serious. Because who we send, who the people choose to send there, is extremely important. There are some people. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, for example, is rumoured to be interested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Gander. I heard, last night, people phoning in and supporting her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I even heard that the Premier was interested, but I know why he is not going.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why isn't he going?

MR. E. BYRNE: I know why he is not going. Do you know why he is not going? I can tell you why the Premier is not going, because in 1979 he chose to run in Grand Falls and he was beaten 2 to1 by Len Simms. That is probably why he is not going.

In all seriousness, the Member for Bonavista North is strongly rumoured to be interested, and was interviewed today on it, for example. Absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I just want to say this: The Government House Leader is strongly rumored. I am not going to look into my crystal ball today and pick who it is going to be, but I will say this, and I want to be sincere in saying this: Whoever it is, if it ends up being one of the members on the opposite side who is the Liberal candidate, and they run in the federal by-election against a slate of other candidates, whoever it is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: If I could just have a moment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: If I could just have a moment. Whoever it is, we need to understand that if it is one of the members that I have mentioned on the other side who becomes the federal candidate, we all should understand that the moment they are the official candidate, their seat becomes vacant here. So, they put a lot on the line. Automatically, once you are the federal candidate, you are required to resign your seat provincially.

In all seriousness, in doing that, there is leap and a risk associated with elected politics. Nobody else understands that like the people who are here. If it is one of those members, let me say this to them, because I may not get the opportunity before - because the House closes today for Easter. Depending on what happens with the nomination, if one of those individuals I have mentioned becomes the official federal Liberal party candidate, they will not be back in this House after Easter. In the event that that may happen, let me wish them all very well in their deliberations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me wish them all very well in the choices that they are about to make, because they are important ones. Let me say this: Each and every member of this House understands what elected politics is like, and what it will take in particular to get this type of motion, the spirit and intent of this type of motion, to the federal House of Commons, to influence what is done at the federal Cabinet. From that, Mr. Speaker, who we send is critically important. That will be up to the people in Gander and Grand Falls, not up to us here.

Mr. Speaker, in the event that it is the minister, or the Member for Bonavista North, I wish him all the personal success - maybe not political success, as a former Premier said about me - but certainly I wish him all the personal success, and other members as well, in deciding what your own futures will bring.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Speaking now will close the debate.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to just have a couple of concluding remarks on the motion that has been put forward and to certainly thank all the speakers who have spoken in support of it: my colleague, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Kilbride, and also the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was put forward by the Member for Ferryland, I understand now that the member is willing to add the amendment to the motion that is already on the Table. We certainly have no exception to that. We welcome that. We have had a chance to look at it and we certainly do agree that it adds to the motion. It is our intention here today to debate and pass a motion that truly reflects our position on equalization as it relates to the Government of Canada. We certainly do accept the amendment that has been put forward by the Member for Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious motion that we have debated here today. It is certainly serious in terms of where we go as a Province in the future, serious in terms of the revenues that we will see accrue to our Province from non-renewable resources and other resource developments in the future years, in the years to come.

I certainly want to ask that all members in this House today stand and vote for this motion and be counted in terms of where our support is on this particular issue. Emphasize to the Government of Canada that we mean business and that we will carry forward with a plan to see the equalization formula changed.

My colleague, the Member for Kilbride, I will not say too much on his speculation with regard to the upcoming elections, and especially who the next Member for Gander-Grand Falls will be, but I can certainly tell you, Mr Speaker, that the member, I am sure, will be a strong voice for Newfoundland and Labrador, they will be a strong voice on equalization, and they will be a good Liberal, I am sure, with long-standing political roots in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We can certainly assure the member of those particular facts, and we will certainly see the results of all that in the weeks to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against? Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, as amended, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against? Carried.

On motion, resolution, as amended, carried.

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

MR. TULK: I wonder if the record would show that the vote was unanimous? The vote was unanimous. There were no nays.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the record, the resolution was carried unanimously.

It being Wednesday -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand that we will be adjourning this afternoon, to the Call of the Chair. Is that correct?

MR. LUSH: Until April 15.

MR. SPEAKER: April 15.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, April 15, at 1:30 p.m.