The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon the Chair would like to welcome some visitors to our galleries. We have ten students from the Brother T.I. Murphy Centre in St. John's, with their teacher Eileen Brazil.

We also have, from the Town of Deer Lake, Mayor Harold Ball, with his councillors who are sitting in the gallery this afternoon as well. We have Deputy Mayor Reg Tilley, Town Manager Walter Dominie, and Councillor Dean Ball.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have Statements by Members, and we will be hearing statements by the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the Member for Humber Valley, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the Member for St. John's North, and the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to extend congratulations to Ms. Susan Tobin of Marystown on winning the Dr. Paul O'Neil Scholarship for Excellence in Newfoundland and Labrador Studies.

The Historic Sites Association established this scholarship in honour of Dr. Paul O'Neil, to recognize his many contributions to the study and promotion of Newfoundland and Labrador culture and history, and awards the scholarship annually to an undergraduate student at Memorial University who is enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts degree program.

Ms. Tobin is the daughter of Glen and Linda Tobin. Many of you will remember that Mr. Tobin was a member of this House from 1982 to 1996, representing the District of Burin-Placentia West.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in wishing Ms. Susan Tobin congratulations and every success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pat O' Toole from Carbonear, who recently ran a marathon in Bermuda to raise money for the Arthritis Society. Mr. O' Toole is a teacher at the College of the North Atlantic and has been running for the past few years. He only ran his first marathon last year at the St. John's Tely 10 and afterwards became involved with the Joints in Motion Training Team to raise funds for the Arthritis Society.

In January, Mr. O'Toole and seven other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians took part in the forty-two kilometre marathon in Bermuda. Mr. O'Toole was running for his neighbour, Beatrice Oates, who has arthritis. Of the 400 runners in Bermuda, Mr. O'Toole finished in thirty-first place in the time of three hours and forty-one minutes. Moreover, he has raised almost $5,000 for the Arthritis Society and arthritis research.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the House to join me in congratulating Mr. O'Toole on his successful marathon as well as his efforts to aid arthritis research.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise before you today to congratulate His Worship Mayor of Deer Lake, Harold "Smokey" Ball, on receiving the Queen's Golden Jubilee Award.

The award was bestowed on him by the Government General, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, for his contribution to his community and country.

Mr. Ball was born in, and has lived his entire life in, his home town of Deer Lake. He is married to Rowena and together they have seven children.

Mr. Ball worked in the Town of Deer Lake and after raising his family, which wasn't always an easy task, stepped into municipal politics.

With eleven grandchildren living in Deer Lake, Mayor Ball took on his role as Deputy Mayor with vigor. Some of his many accomplishments include revitalizing Main Street and building a swimming pool and bowling alley for the town. Due to his leadership, the Town of Deer Lake has become one of the most progressive communities in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Mr. Ball on receiving the Queen's Golden Jubilee Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recent recipients of awards from the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary at the organization's twenty-fifth anniversary banquet. The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary is a non-profit organization made up of hard-working volunteers and assists the Canadian Coast Guard in conducting search and rescue operations and boat safety programs.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, 1,047 individuals volunteer with the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, and the organization operates more than 480 vessels.

Needless to say, the work of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary is of great importance in a Province with a seafaring heritage and culture. Six auxiliary members were awarded medals for twenty-five years of service. In this group a constituent of mine, Mr. Jack Troake of Twillingate, was honoured.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in showing appreciation of the hard work and dedication of Mr. Troake and the five other volunteers, as well as the many others in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary who help keep our citizens safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to offer congratulations to a sixteen-year-old lady named Betty Zou. Betty is a Grade 12 student at Prince of Wales Collegiate and recently was the winner of the Northwest Rotary Speak off held in St. John's. In her speech entitled: Modern Day Slavery, Betty called attention to the horrendous crime of trafficking in human beings.

Mr. Speaker, it is worthy of note that Betty and her family came to Canada in 1993 from China and moved to our Province in 1999. So, she had to learn English as a second language; her first language being Mandarin. She will now travel to Ottawa in May for the national competition which is part of the Adventures in Citizenship program.

I would ask all members to join me in congratulating Betty Zou on winning the Rotary speak off and we wish her well in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work done by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers in the Province. The group visited several schools in the Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune district with representatives from the RCMP. Northern and Central Newfoundland MADD spokespersons Irving and Glenda Hale shared the story of their own personal loss when a drunk driver in Michigan killed their daughter Amanda in 2001.

In 2002, according to MADD, 944 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were injured or killed in accidents relating to drinking and driving. Mr. and Mrs. Hale hope that their efforts can lower this number and prevent further tragedies like their own. The Hale family, as well as Sergeant Don Jackman of the Bay d'Espoir RCMP detachment, were pleased that their presentations had a very large impact on all those in attendance at King Academy, Harbour Breton; Bay d'Espoir Academy in Milltown; and Fitzgerald Academy in English Harbour West.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hale family, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and the RCMP for their very important and often difficult efforts to make the youth of our Province aware of the dangers of drinking and driving.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is not necessarily a ministerial statement, but just a point of information. Today, as we speak, the Premier will not be in the House; I indicated the possibility of this to the Opposition House Leader. As we speak, the Premier himself is engaged in negotiations with the public sector unions. I believe the Minister of Finance, who just arrived, left those negotiations just a few moments ago. Immediately following Question Period, I understand he will be back to those negotiations.

I want to put on the record, for anybody who is concerned, the reason why the Premier is not here today is that he is actively and personally engaged with the public service sector unions in an attempt to reach a collective agreement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a press release dated October 2, the Premier, as Leader of the then Opposition, made a release talking about: PC policy is about job creation, not layoffs. Mr. Speaker, in that release there was a comment from the leader of the party, the now Premier, saying: Any suggestions to the contrary were nothing more than scaremongering by candidates for other parties. Well, yesterday everybody found out who was scaremongering and who was not when the government announced that they were going to slash 4,000 jobs from the public service over the next four years; a complete and total betrayal of the public service workers in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, all of these people are now in a government with the one-man show -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How does this government - and whomever would like to speak for them today - how do they expect people to believe them? Aren't they concerned about a growing credibility deficit with this government, just like there is concern about a financial deficit, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our government is taking responsible action. The Leader of the Opposition, during the election campaign, accused us of wanting to lay off 6,400 people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We are going to look at accommodating the people - the 400 collective bargaining members who are affected - to the greatest extent possible under attrition, which will be a number of about 1,500 this year. I informed the unions that last Saturday. I have had discussions with them on that since to have a smooth accommodation. By their own admission the accommodations in 1990s, when it happened, the workforce reduction worked very well there and by their own admission, it was a fairly accommodating process. The numbers are way smaller in this regard and we hope to have a very positive transition of outlook for people as they move into other positions that they work during their terms of notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commentary but it does not address the issue about a growing credibility deficit with respect to this government, particularly the Premier, and now the Finance Minister.

Mr. Speaker, again, from the same press release that said clearly, and I state: I have clearly stated that there will not be public service layoffs. Nothing about whether they were massive or not, or whether it is 700, 1,000, or 6,000. It says there will not be public sector layoffs. No layoffs, Mr. Speaker, is the statement.

I ask again: How can this government expect anybody to believe what they are saying? As they stated their policy was, before they released it: people should trust me, what I say I will do when I get elected. How can anybody believe anything this group is saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we continue with Question Period, I have to remind members that wearing of lapel slogans and buttons communicating messages that are not pertinent to the parliamentary process is strictly forbidden in this House. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition if he will remove from his lapel any object which would be contrary to the parliamentary process.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member speaking to my commentary?

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In this particular case the Speaker has made a ruling, he has asked the Leader of the Opposition - I do understand he is wearing a button in his lapel which would be contrary to the parliamentary procedures, and I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition if he would remove, from his lapel, any buttons or slogans which may not be pertaining to the parliamentary traditions of this House or not pertaining to the parliamentary traditions of the House of Commons in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: The leader is certainly not protesting or contesting - on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I rise again because, in this particular case, this is not a matter of where there can be a great deal of commentary. The rule is very simple. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition again, if he would remove from his lapel the object that I do understand he has there which is part of some other thing, which is not germane to the parliamentary process in the House. I am asking you to comply with the Speaker's request.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, before I get into commenting on your commentary, I need some clarification, I guess, in the sense that I feel Your Honour's comments are contrary to what is stated in Rule 504 of Beauchesne. I just need some clarification.

The Speaker here has said that it is contrary to the traditions of this House and contrary to the rules of the House of Commons. I just point out for the Speaker's clarification, that Section 504 of Beauchesne, which deals with exhibits, says quite clearly, "Political buttons and similar lapel pins do not constitute an exhibit." The only rules I can find anywhere dealing with exhibits are those. There are none in our Standing Orders. I would like it clarified, Mr. Speaker. If there is something I am missing here I would like to be made aware of it, that is all.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the Speaker has made a request of the House - I remind members that even when in Ottawa, when we had the flag debate, there was a request that even the small flags would be removed from the desk of the members. Certainly, I do believe that request is very moderate. This House is not a place for carrying on the commentaries by way of buttons, slogans, and that kind of thing. Again, I am asking the Leader of the Opposition if he would remove the button from his lapel.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will gladly provide the pin to Your Honour and ask you to have a look at it again to see whether or not it meets the criteria, because I am sure you would like to read the pin at some point to see whether or not you think it violates any particular rule. I do not want to violate any of the rules. I respect your judgement in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, the -

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

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

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

This is taking up a little bit of time in Question Period so I ask if it would be okay with all members that if three or four minutes, or whatever time has been eaten up on this section, that we extend Question Period by that time to ensure that the integrity of Question Period is maintained.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will certainly take that under advisement. If it is agreeable to all members we can extend it by the appropriate amount of time.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We referenced in our Blue Book, to significant attrition in the system, that we would look after dealing with any workforce reductions primarily through attrition. We are intending to do that.

I would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition, a credibility problem is not on this side of the House. When he was Minister of Employment and Labour Relations he said: At the end of the day it means that some things that were promised and committed to cannot be honoured. That is a very tough decision to make, and it is a very tough decision that the government took a couple of years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: One thing the Leader of the Opposition forgot to tell us was the significant deficit that he put this Province in for many years to come!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am sure that the Finance Minister would not like to be - particularly today with the negotiations going on - stating the same as the Premier, that the problem with the finances is that the public servants got too big a raise. Because he would know, Mr. Speaker, that the cash deficit this year, that he announced yesterday, is the size of the raise for the public servants. That, and that alone. That is the only thing.

Mr. Speaker, he talks about the attrition policy. The ads that were in every district, for all the members with their leader during the election said: Government, there will be no layoffs in the public service under a Progressive Conservative Government. How do they expect to have creditability when yesterday they are saying there are 700 layoffs for starters -

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

MR. GRIMES: - and thousands more to come over the next four years, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to deal with our fiscal situation in a responsible manner. Decisions made in the past - we are still in this fiscal year - are going to be accounted for in this Budget; $30 million of annualized on salary increases that were not accounted before. We have on an annualized basis - the full implementation is a $350 million cost to government on that specific issue, I say to him. If we are talking about the serious situation we are in, I can only refer him back to his comments, as Minister of Health and Community Services, when he said: We are on an extremely dangerous course, which did not contain -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - a lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Legislature would know that the Minister of Finance tried to convince everyone in the last ten years that he knew how serious the problem was and that the government was not coming clean. He has made that speech repeatedly, Mr. Speaker. If he knew, how could he run with a straight face under a banner that said: I know how serious the problem is but I will still say, never mind the problem, there will be no layoffs, and then read yesterday's statement that says: 700 layoffs, 4,000 jobs to be slashed over the next four years, and you can trust me because everything I say I am going to do. How do they expect anyone to believe them, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I always expect people to believe the truth, and my statement on the fiscal situation of our Province in the current year - we had a ballpark estimate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the Opposition to allow me to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is impossible for us to have a Question Period that is able to function unless members are going to co-operate and keep their noise levels to an appropriate low level.

Again, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board - a few moments to complete your answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We fully anticipated the deficit for the current fiscal year to be high even though it was understated on an accrual basis. What we did not expect was to keep hidden from us that in three years and two years and four years time we would amass about $400 million more than we anticipated. Hiding that from the people of the Province was a wrong act to do. It was not honest and forthright. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now: Why did you hide it from the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the real truth comes when you listen closely to the words of people like the Minister of Finance. He was asked yesterday, by one of the media interviewing him outside the Legislature: Wouldn't you rather have presented a different Budget, not so harsh? His answer was very telling. His answer was: No, not really. I am proud to present this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this. He is proud to present it because he is one of the ones who gets to talk to the one-man show, and the fact of the matter is that they planned all along for wage freezes and layoffs and job cuts. It is only now that they are proud to announce it. Before, they told people: No layoffs. How are we ever to supposed to believe this government, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think what irritates the Opposition there is that finally they are getting the truth and they don't like it, because they have to wear the truth of what has happened here in our Province.

Oh, how things change when he goes to that side. As a member, previously he said: On our year-to-year salary items, you have to be able to pay your own way. On the financial markets they will start looking at you and saying: These people are fiscally irresponsible. In the bigger picture, he said, the expenditure of government has to be controlled. It has to be better and reduce the risk.

That is what he said when he sat over here. Now we are getting a different story from him. Stand up and give the people the truth -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and stop hiding it from the people of the Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I should stop questioning my friend, the neighbour, because I am afraid something might happen to him health-wise there. I have seen him change colour before, and it was not a good situation.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: The people of the Province today feel betrayed by this government, absolutely betrayed. They have been pierced through their hearts and souls with the first prong. Yesterday there was no mention of the second prong for economic development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: When is the Minister of Finance going to start meeting with the Premier and getting on with growing the economy?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his supplementary should not need a lengthy preamble. It might be very interesting, but it is not necessary. I ask him to get directly to his question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be very interested in knowing what the Leader of the Opposition meant when he said: We are on an extremely dangerous course which, if not contained, could lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to tell him, he expects the seeds of economic development to grow overnight. What does he think? That it is a yeast we are going to put there; in fifteen minutes we are going to create thousands of jobs in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Anyone who knows the role of government should understand, you set the seeds of economic development. They have to grow and nurture. We put a department in place. We are going to be friendly to businesses of the Province; grow and increase the business climate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: We are going to create jobs in the economy of our Province. The Leader of the Opposition does not want to see that happen, Mr. Speaker. He does not want to see it happen. That is what is wrong with him. He would not do it, and I (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we all look forward to the seeds of growth rather than the seeds of despair that were sown yesterday by the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, the documents from yesterday show that, despite the first time in a decade that we had in-migration and population growth last year, their own documents are saying this year, because of the slashing of 4,000 jobs and the dampening of the economy, not the seeds of growth, that there is going to be a return to out-migration and declining populations starting right away. What kinds of seeds are they, I ask the Minister of Finance? When are we going to get down to the real task of growing the economy and having some hope in Newfoundland and Labrador, instead of dashing the hopes like you did yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very surprised that the Leader of the Opposition, who was premier of this government, does not know what the long-term forecast, in terms of numbers of people under migration in and out in the Province are, and where the birth and death rates are at. We are getting, for the first time in our history now, where deaths are going to start increasing births. The same figures, Mr. Speaker, are provided to me that were provided to him before. It tells us that over the next several years we should see deaths increasing births. That should reduce the population in our Province because net in and out migration have tapered off.

This year, over the past several months, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer his question if wanted to hear the answer.

There are roughly 270-some less people than there were last summer because - and this occurred during the fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Out-migration.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!

Thank you very much.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday government tabled a Budget that increased fees for all government services which affect people from the cradle to the grave; including a twenty-five dollar fee for a death certificate.

I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services: Can she tell the House how much money her department will collect from this tax grab?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

I do not have the dollar figure in front of me but I will tell him, the fee that was brought in was for individuals - we have had several requests in our department for death certificates. In fact, we have had as high as ten to fifteen requests from one individual. It is cost recovery. Some of those fees will retain this government. This government has to generate revenue for the mess that we have been left in, Mr. Speaker. We will do the honourable thing and we have fee increases.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: It is a sad, sad commentary that the minister recognizes it was a tax grab. I can tell the minister how much it was. I can tell you how much it was. The government will rip $25 million out of the people's pockets this year. And you claim there are no tax increases, only fee increases! The Department of Government Services, I say to the Minister of Finance, if he would let me ask my question, will take $15 million out of that themselves. Can the minister tell us why she is taxing the poor and rewarding the rich with these excessive fees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The reason for the increase in fees - and the hon. member across the House should know this because he has been presented with the same figures I have been presented with, as a minister, but I have had the courage to stand here and put this Province back on a fiscal (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad commentary this afternoon, that the minister would stand on her feet and say that she is growing the economy out of the pockets of the poor people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the things in life that people expect in this Province, like getting a moose, an ambulance trip, a hospital room, buying a new house or purchasing a vehicle or anything else from this government, you have got to pay through the nose for it.

The minister is using this as a cash grab. They have not increased the roads budget, not one cent, or services even close to the amount they have raised the fees.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. SWEENEY: Can the minister tell this hon. House why the forty dollar increase for vehicle registrations and licenses will not go into roadwork?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this increase will provide this Province with an additional $7 million to put into the infrastructure of road funding in this Province, and the hon. member knows full well that the road conditions in this Province are deplorable, left by the previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Monday, the Premier confirmed that he didn't stand for layoffs, which is what he told Leo Puddister on October 17, and later committed it in writing, prior to the election, that there would be no layoffs in the public service.

Why, Mr. Speaker, in light of these commitments and the statements of the Premier and this party seeking election, has this government chosen to violate those commitments and chosen layoffs, massive job cuts and regressive fees, as were just discussed by the previous speaker, instead of tax fairness for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Why have they chosen that course of action?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the same reason we did not increase taxes, because we do not want to have a dampening effect on the economy of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask for members' co-operation so the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board can answer the question.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the member, currently we are the highest taxed province in the entire country and we have the highest number of public servants as a percentage of our working population than any other province in this country to deliver similar levels of public services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Instead of raising ambulance fees by 53 per cent, couldn't the Minister of Finance recognize that if the corporate tax rate for this Province was the same as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that we would have, in fact, an additional $65 million in revenue for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for services? Why doesn't he look at things like that? We are not overtaxed when it comes to corporations and royalties from our offshore.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are trying to entice businesses to come to our Province and grow the economy of our Province, not turn them away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems to be working better for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. member.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty clear; economists say that all this amounts to, in fact, is a windfall for the businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador. People do not come here to exploit iron ore, offshore oil or nickel because it is in Newfoundland and Labrador and lower tax rates. They come here because of the resources. The minister knows that, and yet he is giving them a windfall, a free ride, at the expense of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what his question was, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not hear a question but, Mr. Speaker, we are here to effect the best deals. It is the people opposite who struck bad deals on behalf of the people of this Province. We have ensured that any future deals in this Province will serve the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education.

Last year, the minister and his colleagues criticized our government for eliminating teaching positions. In fact, according to the Chair of the School Councils, while they were in Opposition they stood shoulder to shoulder with her in their condemnation of the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, now that he has slashed 475 teaching positions, does he feel that he mislead and betrayed the teachers and the students of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministerial Panel on Education - and the hon. member knows what I am referring to because he referenced it in a question earlier - the Sparkes-Williams Report has a set of recommendations with respect to the number of teaching units that would come out of the system each year. The number that will come out, I say to the hon. member, the number of teaching units that come out in September coming, is 256, and that number is arrived at in the following way, I say to the hon. member: 147 because of declining enrollment this year, and an additional 109, which is one-half of the 218 that was kept in arbitrarily several years ago. I say to the hon. member, the situation for September coming could have been much worse, but in the interests of the students of this Province we retained 109 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to complete his answer.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - from the 218, for a total of 256 teaching units. As the hon. member is fully aware, the school boards in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that the 400 teachers that we left in according to the same formula were eliminated yesterday with the stroke of a pen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister said in The Telegram this morning that he wants to improve an already superlative education system. The Minister of Finance said yesterday that he want to revitalize education in our Province.

I ask the minister: Does he believe that by eliminating 475 teachers and replacing them with computer monitors, that he is going to revitalize the education system in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we do have a superlative system of education in this Province, and this government will enhance the system that we enjoy in this Province, but I do wish to correct the hon. member. When he uses figures such as 400 or 500, he is misleading the people of this Province. In September of this year, in September of 2004, we will have 256 teaching units less, and the explanation has been given as to why.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say that yesterday officials from the department of the Minister of Finance told me that this year and next year you will eliminate 475 positions. Mr. Speaker, the minister, with no consultation with anyone in this Province involved with education, yesterday announced: six school boards will be eliminated in this Province. The Minister of Finance cannot even tell me how much money this will save him in this year's Budget.

I ask the minister: Will he tell me today how many jobs will be slashed at these boards, and will he reinvest the money back into education from those savings like they promised in the Blue Book?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, the details of governance will be determined in due course. We will be putting in place interim school boards made up of qualified, component people, who will continue to work along with the school board officials and the school board trustees from the existing school boards and with the assistance of my department, the Department of Education, to ensure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask again for the House's cooperation. It is impossible for the Chamber to be able to hear what the minister is saying. The minister still has about twenty seconds left. I ask him to continue his answer.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the cooperation of the interim boards, our present boards, and with the Department of Education, I will say to the public of this Province, with confidence, that we will have a system ready to go on September 1, 2004.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

This government announced in the Budget that they will close twenty offices, which serves some of the poorest people in this Province. They have cut funds for training programs of people who are trying to break the poverty cycle. These are more examples of betrayal by this heartless government. Will the minister stand in her place and tell the people of this Province which offices will close down?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we make the final determination -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask members for their cooperation. We have time for one answer here, and I think we might have time for one more question on that side.

The hon. the minister.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question. As soon as the final determination has been made on the office sites and regional staff have been consulted, I will stand in this House and inform him of what specific sites.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one brief supplementary.

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

I am totally amazed that they have made decisions to close offices in this Province and they do not even know which ones they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: All they mind is cutting and putting each department in total disarray; the offices around this Province.

I ask the minister, rather than wait for the axe to fall, why won't she stand in her place and tell the people who are in the offices in Piccadilly, Stephenville, Port aux Basques and Deer Lake and other offices, what their future is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, very briefly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have just indicated, once the final decisions have been made, when our regional offices have been consulted, I will stand in this House and inform the members opposite of the specific sites.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

The time for Question Period has ended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Channel-Port aux Basques. It is in relation to the impending slashing that is anticipated to take place in the Western Health Care Corporation. It is signed by residents from anywhere in my district, ranging from Rose Blanche, which is in the mid-section of my district of Burgeo-LaPoile, into the Codroy Valley, which is into the hon. Minister for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, up in South Branch in the Codroy Valley.

Mr. Speaker, there are about 200 names on this petition. There are, at least, another 5,000 names that are en route by way of petitions. It deals with the Minister of Health having requested from the Western Health Care Corporation a plan to save $3 million by today, at that time, by the end of this fiscal year, and to save $21 million over the next ten years.

There has been a lot of controversy on the West Coast. The residents, in addition to having ambulance increases and everything else now as we see as of yesterday, we now are left in a rather sad situation again of not knowing where we are going with the health care system. Notwithstanding that, a best practices review was requested by the Western Health Care Corporation some months ago. The minister finally got around to announcing it about three or four weeks ago. Now we are waiting until May.

One of the biggest problems that the public has is not knowing. I realize this may be a government in its infancy, but saying we don't have the answers we have to wait until Budget, and then after the Budget saying, we don't have the answers we have to wait further - the same is happening in this health care situation; we cannot give you the answers - it is very disheartening and very disturbing and causes great distress to the people who signed this petition. That is one the big problems here.

This is a petition opposing any cuts, because the Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre in Port aux Basques which services all the people of that region, from Rose Blanche up to and including the Codroy Valley which is in the hon. member's district as well, is already operating on bare bones. It has been cut over the years, because sometimes they couldn't get, for example, the necessary medical personnel. What is there now is a bare bones services. You cannot take away from what already are the essentials.

Of course, we have a similar problem in Stephenville. The Member for Port au Port entered a petition here a few days ago in that regard. I am pleased to see that, notwithstanding he is on the government side, he stood up on behalf of his constituents and said the same thing: We cannot accept any less than what we already have, because what we already have is the bare minimum.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, over the next few days I will be standing in this House again, to put forward a case for the people of Burgeo & LaPoile, particularly these petitions that are coming from the Rose Blanche to the South Branch area, protesting any diminution whatsoever and reduction in health care services in the Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am standing in the House today, and not at the pleasure, I can tell you, of my constituents, but certainly at the urging and encouragement of them, to get this government to make a decision with regard to the Labrador coastal marine service.

Mr. Speaker, the people of my district have been treated in the most despicable, deplorable way that any citizens of this Province could be treated by a government. Not only have they been told that, we won't clear the snow off your roads because there is too much there, we cannot handle it. We cannot handle getting a big of snow off the roads in Southern Labrador, Mr. Speaker, but yet they are going to get a handle on the deficit in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the people in my district today don't know if they are going to have a marine service operating between Cartwright and Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, they don't know when the service will come into play, if they will have one. They don't have a reservation system, Mr. Speaker. This is an area of the Province that has pioneered in the tourism industry. This is an area that has seen growth in the tourism industry from 25 to 30 per cent on an annual basis for the past six years. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the entire economy of that area is being shot.

Do you know why it is, Mr. Speaker? Because you have a minister who is torn between making a decision that is right and proper for the people of the Province and making one that is going to be politically beneficial to him in his own district. That is the problem.

This government went out and had another study done. Another study to look at the marine services in Southern Labrador, and still today they are sitting on the report making no decisions. The people in that area have never been so demoralized in their entire life as they are today.

Do you know what they are dealing with? They are dealing with and entrusting the service and the future of their area to a minister who has been in the paper repeatedly saying that he would like to have the service in his own district, in the District of Lewisporte. I will fight for you. I will make sure that it is done. I will do this and I will do that, Mr. Speaker. With no regard to the people in Southern Labrador; no regard to any other people in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask members if they would permit the member to present her petition in a manner which facilitates debate without great numbers of interruptions.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, when the media, on behalf of the people in my district, went to look for answers this morning on the radio from the minister responsible for Labrador he could not find his notes. He was on the radio and he could not find his notes. That is the accountability that the minister responsible for Labrador is showing to the people in that area.

I listened to the Member for Lake Melville, who is up there in his seat tapping his desk. Tapping, Mr. Speaker, at a time when people in Labrador, adjacent to where he lives, do not have any snow-clearing on their roads -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: - do not have a marine service for this summer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we move to Orders of the Day and the resolution before the House, I want to bring to members' attention an issue which came up during Question Period relative to displays, exhibits and props.

Clearly, in Marleau and Montpetit, page 520, in an article entitled: Displays, Exhibits, Props, the following is said, "Speakers have consistently ruled out of order displays or demonstrations of any kind used by Members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions. Similarly, props of any kind, used as a way of making a silent comment on issues, have always been found unacceptable in the Chamber. Members may hold notes in their hands, but they will be interrupted and reprimanded by the Speaker if they use papers, documents or other objects to illustrate their remarks."

Today we had several offences to that particular rule by holding up articles and demonstrations. We had the wearing of lapel objects. Clearly, in Marleau and Montpetit this practice is not sanctioned, and I refer members to that.

In addition, I bring to members' attention that the rule for the House is, in any House to one extent, the wearing of such objects or holding of such papers creates disorder. Today it was clear to me that disorder was being created in both instances.

Thank you very much.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have some buttons that say: Don't blame me, I voted NDP. Do I take it, that would be out of order as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I refer the member to page 520 of Marleau for his consolation and consolidation.

Today being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, I do believe that an arrangement has been made by members to recognize the Opposition House Leader.

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

Before we move on to the actual motion of the day, I just want to bring to the attention of the House that because we are dealing with a Wednesday here, and Private Members' Day, the procedure is outlined in Standing Order 63. Particularly, I refer to Standing Order 63.(3), which says that a Private Member's motion ought to be entered into the House on a Monday. In this case we did not have any such motion entered on a Monday. It was, in fact, read in by the Premier yesterday following the Budget. I would submit, if that is the case, and the Standing Order has not been followed, the proper procedure is for the Government House Leader to ask leave to proceed with the debate on the private member's motion.

Secondly, on the issue of the Premier giving a motion in this House on Private Member's Day, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that is inappropriate as well. The Speaker is not here as a private member, he is here as the head of government. Private Member's Days, Wednesdays, are specifically reserved for private members; not government ministers or for the Premier to give his resolutions in this House. It may have been done in the past, but only done with the express leave and consent of all parties in the House. I just want to bring it to your attention that this was not done. There has been, I would submit, two breaches of the rules here. If we are to proceed - I understand the Government House Leader will be seeking leave in order to proceed today in that regard.

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

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

The Opposition House Leader is technically correct, but let me give the fuller side of the story. In the past several years there have been, I think on five separate occasions, when the Opposition for the government, that the day after the Budget the House closed for a variety of reasons. One, is that it provided an opportunity both to the government and to the Official Opposition to hold press conferences; deal with the Budget; get their message out, may in fact be guests on Open Line - for the Opposition. I remember one time, in my capacity as Leader of the Opposition, being on Open Line directly following the premier of the day. That request was made on Monday to the Official Opposition, would they see that as a possibility. It was a request, not a demand, and I want to emphasis that to everybody.

On Monday afternoon, the Opposition House Leader advised me that the Official Opposition wanted to have the House open today and, in my capacity as Government House Leader, immediately said: Okay, that is fair enough. It was only a request, so we will proceed.

As a result of that action, Private Members' Day, we, as a government caucus, never had an opportunity to discuss a motion for Private Members' Day because we honestly thought that there might be an opportunity where the House would not open today to deal with the Budget and potential implications arising from negotiations.

Having said that, by circumstance, we would have introduced it yesterday, under a normal day, but for the Budget. It was Budget Day. Normally, Budget Day is really essentially a day for the government, through the Minister of Finance, to deliver the Budget Speech and then table the Estimates of the House for all of us to have an opportunity.

Now, there have been instances in the past where, under Notices of Motion, motions have been presented. Yesterday, on behalf of the government and on behalf of all government members, a discussion had taken place within our own caucus that we wanted to put forward a motion to be debated related to offshore oil and gas revenues as it relates to the framework and the legal entity that we operate under called the Atlantic Accord. That was a decision of the government caucus.

Mr. Speaker, from that, it is not normal for the Premier to introduce a private member's motion, but standing practice and tradition of our own institution, being the House of Assembly, has always provided, I guess, some latitude to both caucuses. For example, next Wednesday is the Opposition caucus day. It is their decision to put forward whatever private member's motion or motion they wish, and the latitude has always been given, so we see this as critical and fundamental. It is not a political motion. It does not call on the House to congratulate government for its actions. There is no grandstanding involved in the words or in the intent or the phrasing. It does-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am responding to the point of order. I will come on, and if the minister wants to give me a chance to come on, I will come on with it and I will get to my conclusion without interruption, I ask the member.

In the spirit and intent of that, that is what was put forward. So technically, Mr. Speaker, today, as required by the rules, we will ask leave to introduce this motion to give all hon. members the opportunity for us to debate a significant piece of business, calling upon the Government of Canada to give us 100 per cent of the revenues so that we can put those revenues back into the coffers of government so that we can offer the types of services and increased level of services that every member - and I emphasize every member - wants to offer to the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, there are traditions in this House, one of which is - the Government House Leader is correct in that on Private Members' Day the technicalities of whether the motion is put on Monday or announced on Tuesday are often overlooked and leave is sought and normally granted to allow either one side or the other of the House to have a private member's resolution before the House.

We also have another tradition, Mr. Speaker, and that is: When the Premier of the day, or someone else, has a resolution that is of such great importance to the people of the Province that the idea of the resolution really is to get unanimous support of this House for something that we feel is important to send a message to the Government of Canada. For example, we did it with respect to the post-TAGS; we did it with respect to the seal fishery; we did it with respect to Term 17 of the Constitution, and other matters where the premier of the day normally would say: We have this resolution, and we would like to send a clear message and signal to Ottawa that we are together on this.

I think this is one of those types of resolutions. The tradition is normally that we would agree to that and also that leave and discussions would go on before the fact as opposed to after the fact. Yesterday, we had the motion of the Premier without any prior consultation - and perhaps there was not time, so I accept the Government House Leader's point on that. When we spoke about it yesterday afternoon, after the fact, I certainly indicated that if it was this type of resolution, that the intention was to seek the unanimous consent of this House and allow people to put their views on the record with the Premier here - although I understand he is not here for other reasons today - then we would agree to that.

If the Government House Leader wants to proceed with this very important resolution, we certainly are in agreement with doing that today and following the normal procedure in doing that, and we offer our consent to that procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will rule on the point of order and report back to the House at a later date; however, I do understand that we do have leave to proceed with the resolution that is on the Order Paper today. I am hearing consent that we do have leave, so I would call upon the Government House Leader to proceed now with the resolution.

We are seven minutes over the mandatory time, and I will seek direction from the Government House Leader before he closes debate as to whether he wishes to extend the debate beyond 5:00 p.m.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate the opportunity, on behalf of all members of the government and the willingness of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP. I want, before I read the resolution, to say to the Leader of the NDP, so it is clearly understood: The Premier is not out of the House for other reasons. I think it is clearly important to understand, and that people understand, that the other reasons are dealing specifically with negotiations that he is personally involved with today with the leadership of the public sector unions, to try to avert - and try to reach, I guess, a collective agreement.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the resolution first. It states:

WHEREAS the main purpose of the Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland and Labrador, according to paragraph 2(c), is to become the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores;

AND WHEREAS that condition - in our view - has not been met;

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon the Government of Canada to acknowledge and honour its obligation under the Atlantic Accord to ensure Newfoundland and Labrador is the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores...

Mr. Speaker, when we entered Confederation, Canada essentially took control, in every way, of all of the resources contained within our ocean and Continental Shelf. Under the Constitution, provinces control and derive benefit from land-based resources, but Ottawa, or the central government, controls and allocates benefits from ocean resources, and this distinction, in our view, is fundamentally unfair.

Canada's Supreme Court, for example, ruled in 1967 that Canada had propriety rights offshore. I raise a bit of history to put this debate in context, Mr. Speaker, because it is important that we understand how we got from where we are to where we are today, and why this resolution is so absolutely necessary to the future economic and social well-being of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 1972, while the Trudeau government was preparing, I guess, a Supreme Court Reference on Jurisdiction, Canada and the eastern Premiers had agreed to put aside jurisdiction in order to reach agreements on revenue sharing and administration of offshore resources, but the very next year Canada rejected the proposal put forward by the government of the day.

Seven years later, there was a new government in office in Ottawa, the minority government of Prime Minister Joe Clarke. In the summer of 1979, the Clarke government promised to transfer ownership and jurisdiction of offshore mineral rights to coastal provinces. That was seen, at the time, a significant departure from previous federal policy. Unfortunately, for this Province - and I think most would agree on this point - the minority government of Mr. Clarke, before he and his government had time to implement this important policy and how it would have impacted and benefitted the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and thus the people, was defeated on a non-confidence motion before changes were made.

Mr. Speaker, in September of 1980, the newly re-elected Prime Minister Trudeau proposed that the question of ownership be set aside and the federal government agree in principle that the major benefits from development offshore should accrue to the residents of the adjacent coastal province.

"The federal government further proposes..." - and this is what he said, not what we are saying or paraphrasing but what he said, the Prime Minister of the day. "The federal government further proposes that until those provinces..." - and I have it quoted here - "...became ‘have' provinces, they should receive the same kinds of revenues as are derived by provinces from their onshore resources. Canada also proposes a system of joint administration for offshore mineral resources involving Canada and each of the coastal provinces."

I raise this point, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate in the clearest of ways that even the federal Liberal government of the day in the early 1980s recognized, because of our adjacency to these lucrative resources, that we, as a people and as a Province involved in the Canadian Confederation, should be and ought to be the principle beneficiary of their development.

Mr. Speaker, "On July 27, 1981..." - and this comes from the former government's Royal Commission that they had instituted on Our Place in Canada - "...Prime Minister Trudeau faxed a letter to Premier Peckford stating..." - in 1981, on July 27 - "Our position on revenue sharing is that, if such sharing can be agreed upon through negotiation, Newfoundland and Labrador should be entitled to all provincial-type revenues." Here is what he said - Trudeau, that is, in the letter - "In effect, we would for revenue purposes treat offshore revenues as though they were located on land. This system would continue for as long as Newfoundland..." - and Labrador - "...remained a ‘have-not' province." - by Canada's definition. "After this, a sharing of benefits with other Canadians would start to take place."

Again, Mr. Speaker, I raise this to illustrate in the clearest possible way that this was a statement of intent that our Province would be the principal beneficiary of offshore development, certainly until we became self-reliant from a financial point of view.

In 1982, Canada and Nova Scotia reached the 1982 Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement, which is presently the Nova Scotia Accord, but their Accord differs from ours.

Meanwhile, a few months after 1982, Mr. Speaker, Canada announced it would take the entire offshore jurisdictional dispute issue affecting Newfoundland and Labrador to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, Ottawa and the Province continued, while this reference was being forwarded to the Supreme Court, to negotiate.

By September of 1982, Mr. Speaker, Canada had come up with a comprehensive proposal, to use their words, to our Province on offshore oil and gas resource management and revenue sharing, very similar - very similar - to what had been agreed upon between the Province of Nova Scotia and Canada.

In Nova Scotia - a point of interest and a point of history - when Nova Scotia entered and agreed upon, with the federal government, their Accord, they had a little clause in there that became very important after we signed ours. It was this: that if any other province had signed an Accord which gave that province more benefits, the Province of Nova Scotia Accord would automatically kick in, or would bring up to date a better revenue sharing if another province had reached a better revenue sharing mechanism.

Mr. Speaker, that was essentially, I guess, the - or, I will put it in this term. Nova Scotia said:

"...until the Province reaches a level of fiscal and economical capacity well above the national average...".

Mr. Speaker, in the background paper for the recent Royal Commission, John Crosbie concluded, for example, and I quote him, "It is clear to anyone who reads this Canada Proposal what the objects, purposes and intentions..." of the federal government of the day "...were with respect to the question of who would be..." - not who should, but who would - "...the primary or principal beneficiaries of the revenues produced by the oil and gas resources lying off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador."

Yet, two years later, Mr. Trudeau and his energy minister and resources minister, Jean Chrétien at the time, were still championing, or trying to champion, another agreement. For example, Mr. Chrétien had hypothesized - and I want to quote him because it is important. History plays an important part that tells us, irrespective of who is in power in Ottawa, whether it was the federal Liberals or the federal Tories, the intention of what our agreement ultimately was can be seen: that we were, as a Province, supposed to be the principal beneficiaries of the resources that lie off our coast.

For example, Mr. Chrétien said, and I quote, "Hibernia development, or even two Hibernias, would probably not provide enough revenue to reach the trigger for broader sharing - leaving almost all offshore revenue with the provincial government."

Again, it is clear the the federal Liberal government intended for our Province to be the principal beneficiary.

In 1984, the federal Progressive Conservative Opposition of the day offered to sign a deal with the Province if they became the government. On June 14 of that year, Premier Peckford of the day signed a MOU, or Memorandum of Understanding, with the Opposition to this effect. About a year later, on February 11, 1985, Premier Peckford and the newly-elected Prime Minister Mulroney signed the Atlantic Accord. In 1986, the Accord was given effect by enacting legislation both in the House of Assembly here and in the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the Atlantic Accord is spelled out in paragraph 2(c), which I have here. It states the following, "[The purposes of this Accord are:] (c) to recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores, consistent with the requirement for a strong and united Canada".

It seemed, at the time, that such a statement was very clear. It seemed, at the time, that the principal beneficiaries of that resource would, in fact, be us over time.

Another purpose, Mr. Speaker, was spelled out in paragraph (e) of the Accord. Here is what that said: that the Accord is - and I quote, "to provide that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador can establish and collect resource revenues as if these resources were on land, within the province." That is directly in the Atlantic Accord.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is clear to every member in this House, that the Government of Canada intended that we, as a Province, should benefit from oil and gas development offshore as if those oil and gas wells were on land, as Alberta's are. And as we know, as we all know, Alberta, as a province, because of the richness on land of its resources, has become extraordinarily wealthy because of its patrolling resources.

So where is the revenue? The question needs to be asked. Where is the revenue that we are supposed to be receiving? Currently, if there was ever an example of injustice, of how the Canadian Confederation works, this Province is an example on many fronts. The infamous Upper Churchill deal being one. One that we signed, yes, but the federal government's inability in recognition of that injustice to allow this Province to wield power across our sister province's border. Yet, on the western side of the country other provinces enjoy that privilege and right.

Another example, Voisey's Bay - and the Leader of the Opposition knows this - that prior to equalization and corporate tax, this Province is scheduled to collect $858 million on corporate tax from the Voisey's Bay agreement and development. The federal government's share of corporate tax will be $563 million - and I am using approximate figures. Yet, after equalization clawback, $1.3 billion will go into the federal Treasury and $71 million will come to the provincial coffers. Those are two examples that we, as a people, live with each and every day. Irrespective and exclusive of the partisanship that exists in this House - and should exist, because that is the system we operate under - I know that each and every member does not support that.

Now we come to the Atlantic Accord. Yet another example. When you understand what the equalization formula in the country is all about, one of the only federal programs that is enshrined in the constitution - and here is what it is supposed to do, in principal. It is supposed to equalize provinces that are not up to a national standard. The current program does nothing to meet that objective. It does not equalize anybody. It has created a sense of dependancy. It has fostered dependency. It continues to foster our dependency within the confederation of the country. Unless, fundamentally, there are alterations made to that principle than we, as a Province, not so long from now, are going to have to face some other critical decisions.

For example: How is it today that we are sending hundreds of millions of dollars into the federal coffers on all of our projects, yet this year, and yesterday, the Finance Minister had to stand up - and whether it was a Finance Minister from the Liberal Party or the Tory Party, the stark reality would be the same, that we are going to be in receipt of $200 million less in equalization this year. Yet, we have to see hundreds of millions of dollars off our shores -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yet, we have to see hundreds of millions of dollars go into federal coffers while we, as a people, have to make the types of tough decisions, through no fault of our own, that we had to make yesterday. That is the injustice we are seeking to redress, and that is the injustice we are asking all members to deal with us and support this motion today.

For example, currently the federal government receives 86 per cent of all revenues related to our petroleum resources; 86 per cent of offshore revenues goes into the federal government's coffers. That leaves this Province with a meager 14 per cent. No wonder we fight strongly for industrial benefits. What choice do we have, when you see that type of revenue arrangement in place?

Over the life of these projects, for example, Mr. Speaker, and the projects I am talking about right now, are the ones that have been in existence and are producing, or are about to produce oil: Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose. Much of the oil and gas revenues will be clawed back through the equalization program we receive. That is even with the offset provisions that are contained in the current Atlantic Accord.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I do not want to take up too much time. I have much to say, but let me say this, what we are seeking, as a people and as a government, from the federal government is important, it is critical to our future economic and social well-being.

I want to spend a few moments answering the question that has been asked of us as a new government: What are we doing about it? What have we done, so far to date, as a new government?

I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and, more importantly, on behalf of the Premier, that I believe that he, our Premier, has been proactive and aggressive on the federal front in trying to achieve a resolution to this. For example, the Premier has contacted each premier individually to outline Newfoundland and Labrador' proposal to Ottawa. On March 12, he met with ten of the other twelve territories and provinces who have confirmed - ten out of twelve territories and provinces for the first time have confirmed - that they are supportive of Newfoundland and Labrador's position on the Atlantic Accord. Two provinces have deferred opinion at this time; however, they have asked our Premier to be supplied with additional material on the subject. I am quoting here now because these are important facts in answering the question as to what this government has done. I think that the Premier has been pleased, and so have all of us, that many provinces and territories for the first time have recognized the legitimacy of our argument and have supported our position.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been actively pursuing the federal government to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to keep 100 per cent - 100 per cent - of the provincial revenues from offshore oil and gas, and we believe that we deserve no less.

The Premier met with Prime Minister Martin when he was first elected as Primer Minister. Within a week of him being elected as Primer Minister, the Premier of our Province was the first Premier to meet with him. This is one of the priority issues that he laid on the table. In subsequent meetings and conversations with both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources for Canada, John Efford, I attended a meeting where we put forward the discussion and the ideas that emanate and that are coming out of the private member's resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated this publicly, what I am about to say, that he believes that the work is about to pay off, as do we all.

The federal government has indicated to him that any agreement to give Newfoundland and Labrador increased revenues under the Atlantic Accord should have the support of the majority of provinces, and we have that. The same response was given to former governments, but the federal government cannot say that anymore because we have that. We have the support of the majority of our sister provinces.

Now, Mr. Speaker, today we are looking for a resolution from the House of Assembly in the clearest, strongest terms, non-partisan, an expression of the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be echoed in the Chamber today, asking the Government of Canada to follow through on its obligation and on the stated intentions of both former Liberal and Conservative governments, and that is to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador is, in fact, the principal beneficiary of our non-renewable resource.

While we are making tough choices, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of the Province that the choices that we made in yesterday's Budget were not easy for anybody. If anyone thinks that they were, or assumes that they were, or purports that they were, I can tell you that they were not; but, when faced with the situation that we have, it is even more critical and more important that on issues related to offshore oil and gas that we must - it is not a question of if any more, that we must - by whatever means necessary, ensure that the revenues associated with these resources, all of them, 100 per cent of them, come to accrue to the people of the Province through the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; and we as a government, led by the Premier of the Province, are demanding no less, Mr. Speaker.

This is not about, Mr. Speaker - and I want to re-emphasis this - this is not about trying to be partisan. This resolution is requesting all forty-eight members in the House today to send a clear and unequivocal message to the federal government, that on this issue members in this Assembly have laid down partisanship and have expressed their will in a singular way, and that is to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, all we ask for and all we want is the ability to benefit from what has been given to us, our God-given rights from our resources, to prosecute them and to exploit them in an environmentally sound and responsible way. To require companies in this Province, who operate and exploit those resources, to allow them, yes, to make a fair profit but not to allow them to gouge us, so that we, as a people, can benefit ultimately from the resources. On this sense, Mr. Speaker, we do not have much time. These resources in terms of offshore oil and gas are not infinite; they are finite. It means they will end; that the day we begin to exploit them is the beginning of the day that at some point they will be gone. So, we only have a certain window or a certain period of time by which we can extract benefits from those, whether that be in knowledge transfer, technology transfer, whether that be an industrial benefits, the creation of infrastructure such as the Bull Arm Site Corporation and the ability to draw benefits from that, we have a finite or a certain period of time to be able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of resolutions that have passed this House and all of them, each and every one of them, are important, because I believe, as does the Premier believe, that they reflect the aspirations of individuals who were elected to represent the people of the Province; but, some resolutions are unusually powerful. Strongly-supported resolutions on fisheries in recent years have sent a strong and undeniable message, Mr. Speaker, to the federal government. For example, I know the Premier has talked to MP Loyola Hearn, and we want to compliment him today, for example, on his member's bill that affirms the stand on custodial management that our Legislature affirmed many months ago in an all-party non-partisan way.

We, on behalf of the Premier, want to say that he was overjoyed, as we all were, that the House of Commons voted in favour of a stage of that bill several days ago, with the support of many government members.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that resolutions like this, while not having impact and in force today, that they do make a real difference and advance our case for future change over the long haul.

Mr. Speaker, we urge members today to support this resolution. We ask all members to stand with us today, not necessarily as government, although we are, but let us take an opportunity and stand today, forty-eight men and women in this Legislature, who were elected to do the best we could for the people we represent.

In our view, this resolution today asks one simple but important thing. It asks that the Government of Canada recognize our inherent rights as a people to benefit from our resources. It asks the Government of Canada to recognize our rights as a people to decide for ourselves where revenues should be spent, where they should go, to whom they should go, and how we prosecute those. That is what we are asking for, that is what we are demanding, and, Mr. Speaker, we are asking all members to stand with us today to accept no less.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just before I recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would like to welcome Mayor Andy Wells to the Chamber. I know that he has some interest in this particular debate and I welcome him to our House of Assembly on this day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is good to see the old amalgamator up there looking at his friend from Mount Pearl with a gleam in his eye. I know he made a great offer to the government yesterday that they will find hard to turn down, I am sure. I see the Member for St. John's Centre is glad he is here too. There is probably going to be a private member's motion on this sometime soon.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to make a few comments today with respect to this motion. I believe it is an important one. I am glad to see it here before the House and I am glad to have an opportunity to stand and voice my support for the whole concept, the whole motion and the whole notion and idea.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, just to make a comment: In listening intently to the representation and the presentation made by the Government House Leader and the Minister of Natural Resources, it is clear for the record that many of the things he talked about as being flaws and why we don't have the money, what he really articulated were difficulties with the equalization program, not necessarily with this Accord or with any particular arrangement or contract but with the equalization program.

So people would know, and so all members would know, while the Premier today is out getting support from other premiers, which is good to see, for a bilateral issue, an issue that is only of concern to Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada. We already have, unless it has changed, every single jurisdiction, including Ontario and Alberta, onside, agreeing that the equalization program should be changed. The problem is, there is one government offside; it is the Government of Canada, and that has been the problem with this issue from day one. There is no trouble getting support here in this Legislature today, no trouble whatsoever. There is no trouble getting support with every single living, breathing Newfoundlander and Labradorian. They would all want all of us to vote for this particular motion. The trouble has been, and is, and remains, the political will in the Government of Canada.

We have experienced speeches and good-sounding words from governments in Ottawa that have been Conservative and that have been Liberal, but we have not gotten the action. I wish this time, more than anything else, and I have said this publicly, that our government in Newfoundland and Labrador, led by our current Premier, has success that eluded a government that I led, a government that Brian Tobin led, a government that Brian Peckford led, a government that Clyde Wells led - because everybody was looking for this, by the way. Everybody wanted this. That is one of the things that brings Newfoundlanders and Labradorians together. One of the sad parts of it - and I will not dwell on it, because this is something that we should champion - is that the current government seems to want to paint me personally sometimes as a bit of an enemy in this or something, that I am a bit of a bad guy. One of the things they talk about is: Oh, the relationship was so bad with the former Premier and the Prime Minister that they could not possibility get this deal.

Well, I will tell you, it will be bad with me when they treat us like they have done for the last fifty-four years, forever, and I am glad to see a new approach being attempted but I am not at all glad to see - because most of the issues dealt with by the Natural Resources Minister and the Government House Leader talked about the fact that we get $800 million, by the way, in Voisey's Bay. We actually get it. They send it to us. They do not send it to Ottawa. They give it to this Treasury, but then the equalization program sees us lose money in equalization, so we do not get a great net gain.

It is not that we have such a terrible deal, that we let Voisey's Bay Nickel and Inco take the money and send it all to Ottawa. They do not send it to Ottawa. They send it to our Finance Minister. That is where the money goes; but then, because we are standing up on our own two feet and doing some things ourselves, the way equalization works is that, every step ahead you take, Ottawa sends you three-quarters or 80 per cent of a step back. We have unanimous consent in the country to change that, but it means nothing because the equalization program is a unilateral program run by the Government of Canada and we just saw them snub us again in the Throne Speech and in the Budget a few days ago. The minister and the current Primer Minister, who used to be the Finance Minister - a Liberal, by the way, and I am a Liberal - snubbed us again and said: Come back in five years.

I took exception, and I still do, to the fact that our federal minister, the Minister of Natural Resources for Canada, who is a representative from Newfoundland and Labrador, said - well, here is the quote: You can't expect to have your cake and eat it too.

I ask our Minister of Natural Resources, who has been here for a long time: Did you ever hear our current federal Minister of Natural Resources make that speech when he was in this Legislature? Not likely! He just made the speech you just made. Now that he is up there in Ottawa, instead of fighting for us, he is telling us that you cannot have any changes to equalization, you Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It is as if somebody jumped into his body, somebody brand new. This is not even the person we know. He goes to Ottawa and becomes a federal minister. The Speaker himself was here and heard him make the speeches, impassioned speeches, in this House about how we should keep what we do in Newfoundland and Labrador, how we have a right to it. Now he would stand up, go in the media and say: Oh, well, you should not be pushing for equalization changes. You cannot really expect to have your cake and eat it too.

I find that offensive. I do not know about anybody else, but I find that offensive. I hope that all of that gets overcome and that we do focus on the Accord between Newfoundland and Labrador, as this motion says, and Canada, and that we do find a way, because it is all, by the way, in the hands of Ottawa. We would change - I know our current Premier and the current government would change - the Accord any way they wanted to, to make sure we get the money, and that we get to keep it and use it. We would change the equalization program any way anybody wanted to, as long as the end result is that we get to keep the money, we get to use the money and we get the benefit from the resource. Any one of us would do that any day of the week. I would have done it three years ago. Brian Tobin would have done it five years ago. They say: Oh, it was because of the bad relationship.

Would anybody have described the relationship between Brian Tobin and Jean Chrétien as a bad relationship? I do not think so. As a matter of fact, they used to go around the country suggesting that Jean Chrétien thought of Brian Tobin as his son. That is how close they were. Did anybody hear tell of that before, that Jean Chrétien actually loved Brian Tobin? I do not know if it was a myth spread around the land, but we were led to believe that they were so tight, they were so cozy, that they would sort of do anything for each other. They loved each other. Guess what Brian Tobin asked Jean Chrétien to do? He asked him to give us 100 per cent of the money for the offshore. They loved each other more dearly than the current Premier and Paul Martin could ever hope to love each other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I am not pooh-poohing this new approach. The Royal Commission suggested we try it. Let's try it! I am for trying anything that brings a benefit for Newfoundland and Labrador, but I say to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, do not waste your time talking about: Well, you know, this new approach is going to work. That Roger Grimes, boy, he was bad. He was really bad. You couldn't expect him to get it.

Well, how come Brian Tobin didn't get it, who was Jean Chrétien's son? That is how close they were. I tell you, the relationship thing, let's try it. Let's work hard at it. Let's keep going. I think we have a bit of work to do with our own minister, because I am disappointed in minister who says: You can't have your cake and eat it, too. We need this and we need it to change.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing I would like to do. I think it is important and it is timely. I would move an amendment to the motion, as well, to suggest that we not lose an opportunity, because in getting 100 per cent of the benefits there is one other piece of this whole Accord and this whole offshore that is tremendously valuable to Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the 8.5 per cent share that the Government of Canada holds in that particular project. They have made the investment. They have gotten all their money back and then some, and if the politcal will is there to give us - yes, I have a copy, Mr Speaker, and I will give it to the House as soon as I read it into the record.

I will move the amendment, seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, that in the second resolve, "AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon the Government of Canada specifically to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to receive 100 per cent of the provincial revenues from oil and gas off its shores" - that it continue to say - "including the transfer to the province of the 8.5% share in Hibernia now owned by the Federal Government." Because I do have, and we on this side do have, this fear, because I have heard the Premier, Mr. Speaker - and I should probably table the amendment so you can see if it is in order - I do have this fear that I have heard the plan laid out by the Premier that I will ask for this 100 per cent first and I got some good signs that the good relationship is working and we might be going to get it soon - we hear all that kind of language - and then I will go back and ask for the 8.5 per cent afterwards. Because, by the way - and the Minister of Natural Resources would know this - monetarily the 8.5 per cent is worth as much, or more, on an annual basis as the 100 per cent of the revenues from the royalties - in cash. It is worth just as much.

There have been proposals made before. Let me suggest this: There have been proposals made to the Government of Canada along these lines many times before, a dozen different scenarios suggested, and every time the only thing that has been lacking has been the political will in Ottawa to say yes. That is why I have also been saying, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government right now, and the federal politicians, need us in the next little while. There is probably going to be the first real election in Canada in ten years. I am glad to see it coming. I do not like governments winning by default. I think they should earn their way in. There is likely to be a real challenge this time, and I am glad to see it happen.

I am glad to see a real election occurring in Canada, and whoever wins should deserve our vote and whoever gets our votes in Newfoundland and Labrador should be the people who will make a commitment to what this motion says today. That should be one of the key issues, and I say we should get it in writing. I have said it publicly, we should get it in writing before the election. We should absolutely demand it, and that is why I am proud to stand here today speaking in support of the motion. I would hope also, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members would accept and vote for the amendment as well, just so that the House of Assembly is on record. It does not tell the government how to strategize and how to negotiate. The Premier has already said he is going to try to get the 100 per cent first and go back for the 8.5 per cent later. What it will say is this House agrees we should have both of it; that we, as politicians, believe we deserve both of it. Now how the government goes about getting it is left to them and their strategy and to development it, but I believe it is fundamentally important for this Legislature to be on record saying: we believe, all forty-eight of us, that we should get 100 per cent of the revenues and we should have access to the value that is in the 8.5 per cent share as well because the Government of Canada has gotten its $432 million back. They have gotten it back with interest and now they are going to either sell it to somebody else and let someone else in Canada reap the benefits of our offshore or they will find a way to transfer it, as the amendment says, back along with the 100 per cent share.

I will not go any further than that, Mr. Speaker, other than to say I fully support the motion. I encourage everyone to vote for it and pass it. Again, I wish the Premier and the government every single success that is humanly possible to see the intent of this kind of motion actually come to fruition for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition, seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, has put forward a motion. The motion reads: Mr. Speaker, I move the following amendment to the motion before the House. That it be added to the end of the motion; including the transfer to the Province of the 8.5 per cent share in Hibernia now owned by the federal government.

The Speaker has conferred with the Table Officers and rules that this amendment is in order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise to join in the debate on this extremely important motion for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and also to say that the amendment which has been added by the Leader of the Opposition is certainly an appropriate one and one that we fully support, and have for some quite some time, Mr. Speaker.

The whole notion of Newfoundland and Labrador having the benefit of its own offshore oil resources, of course, is a matter of great debate and historical significance, giving rise to actions before the Supreme Court of Canada much discussion, which the Government House Leader has refereed to, in terms of commitments made by previous Governments of Canada, including that of Prime Minister Trudeau and Prime Minister Chrétien as well; notions at the time that it was becoming realized that Newfoundland and Labrador had significant offshore resources. We wanted, obviously, to be not only the principal beneficiary, we saw ourselves as the people who had brought that resource with us into Confederation with Canada, and we were determined to ensure that we were going to have that resource, to do for this Province, what oil and gas had done for the Province of Alberta, and for other provinces who are so lucky to have that natural resource.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad irony of this Province and one of the reasons why it is today that we have to have, such as these motions - is that we have had, throughout our history, significant resources available to people who settled here, who were born here, and who made their lives here; whether they be in the forestry, in the minerals of Labrador through the Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush Mines in Labrador West; whether it be through the paper mills and the forest industry, and of course, our principal reason for existence, Mr. Speaker, the fishery for over 500 years. The sad irony is that those incredible resources have not, in fact, made us wealthy and prosperous. They have indeed made certain people wealthy and prosperous. In fact, made other regions wealthy and prosperous but they have not made the entity, the Province and the people of this Province as a whole, wealthy and prosperous.

When we look at the fishery, Mr. Speaker, for hundreds and hundreds of years we did not see the capital and the profits and the wealth generated by our fishery staying here; as perhaps it did in Massachusetts and New England where the profits that were made stayed in the form of capital, were invested in other types of businesses, banks and financial institutions, insurance companies, other manufacturing institutions and built up the New England States around the fishery so that the capital and the resources made a tremendous difference to the wealth and prosperity of that region.

What we saw in this Province, Mr. Speaker, was that the wealth of the fishery was brought back to England, or brought back to Portugal, or brought back to Italy or other countries that were fishing off our coasts. Even in respect of the people who settled here, Mr. Speaker, the people in most regard who ended up settling here were those who were working in the fishery, not those who owned the means of production, and the wealth that was generated here went somewhere else.

It is ironic as well, Mr. Speaker, when looking at the court case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada, when we talked about ownership of our offshore resources, that the debate centered around when it was in international law that the seabed resources became the ownership of the coastal state; was it sufficiently matured in 1949 so that Newfoundland, as a Dominion of equal legal status with Canada as a result of the Statute of Westminster in 1933; did this entity known as Newfoundland in 1949 have, at that point, acquired, in international law, the right to own the resources in our seabed around our coast. One of the ironies, Mr. Speaker, is, if we had waited another five years, perhaps, before Confederation, there would have been 100 per cent ownership by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador of all of those resources just as if we had stayed as a separate country, and they would be the same as if they were on land.

It is perhaps a little bit more complicated than that, Mr. Speaker. It was very clear that the big issue was going to be who was going to benefit from the resource. Successive leaders in Canada - Pierre Trudeau has been mentioned, John Chrétien has been mentioned, and others have been mentioned who gave assurances that whatever happened, Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of this Province were going to be the ones who would benefit from the resource, who would share only with the rest of Canada when we had become a have province. There was a lot of enthusiasm about that notion, Mr. Speaker.

The phrase that was being used as well: When this Province reached 140 per cent of the fiscal capacity of the Canadian average province, only then could we start to share. Mr. Speaker, the exact opposite has happened, and a review of the Atlantic Accord and its consequences, the one that was signed in 1985, prepared by John Crosbie, who is, of course, fairly knowledgeable on this issue, having been involved in much of the debate over the years - his conclusion, in writing a report for the use of the Royal Commission, was that, based on current figures and the projections known at the time of this report being made, that in fact the share of Newfoundland and Labrador of its offshore resources and known resources would be about 12 per cent and the Government of Canada would be about 88 per cent. So clearly the exact opposite has happened as what was contemplated by the principles that were agreed upon, the commitments that were made, by the Government of Canada.

We ought, in fact, not be here debating this. We ought to be full participants in our offshore oil and gas activities in the way that Norway is, by an ownership share, by an ownership share in our offshore resource. That should have been the model on which the development took place, and I am glad to see the amendment put forth by the Leader of the Opposition because that recognizes that function as well.

It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago, I was doing some research in preparation for discussion about royalties here in this Province, and I looked at one of the annual financial statements of Husky Oil, or Husky Energy, as it is known, which is the operator of the new White Rose project, a partner in Terra Nova as well. They are also active in the South China Sea, and make substantial revenue from a project there. Their partner is the Government of China. The Government of China has a 60 per cent interest in the project, and Husky Energy has a 40 per cent interest in the project. It is operated by Husky Energy. That is the kind of model that we see in country after country that takes control over and understands that the value of resources is dependent to a large measure on ownership, and if you do not have ownership you are ending up having to deal with issues such as we are dealing with here today, clawbacks on equalization, various kinds of formulas, whether or not we can convince the Government of Canada to recognize our fair position.

I want to talk about royalties for a moment, Mr. Speaker. When we get caught up in this notion of whether Ottawa is a greater beneficiary than the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we lose sight of the fact that the real principal beneficiaries of our offshore oil and gas reserves and matters are the oil companies themselves. The oil companies themselves are the principal beneficiaries, in reality, of our offshore oil. The relationship between Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador - where the beneficiary of the 12 per cent versus 88 per cent under the Atlantic Accord also exists for Voisey's Bay, I say, Mr. Speaker. So, I do not think we should get lost in the notion that our offshore oil, the solution to that problem is to treat our offshore oil as if it were on land, because our resources that are clearly owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in Voisey's Bay nickel, those resources are clearly owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet, when you look at the impacts of a project in Labrador - and I am relying on figures produced by Voisey's Bay Nickel Company Limited themselves, to an environmental assessment panel - their projections, prior to the project going forward, were that the provincial and federal Treasury impacts would result in a benefit to the Province over the life of the project of a total of $417 million, and to the Government of Canada of $4.9 billion, more than ten times as much. In fact, the numbers look extremely like the 88 per cent and 12 per cent that John Crosbie has identified under the Atlantic Accord. In fact, they are somewhat worse. It is more than ten to one going to the Government of Canada. So, of the $5.4 billion in net revenue, only $417 million goes to the Province of Newfoundland, and the other $4.989 billion goes to the Government of Canada. So, we are down to about 9 per cent or 8 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem on our hands in making sure that we extract revenue from our own resources ourselves by having proper income tax, proper corporate taxes, proper other taxes in place to ensure that we have the revenue. Yes, we are suffering from the clawback, but I say to hon. members that the clawback on equalization only accounts for about half of the difference. Before you even touch the impact of equalization, the imbalance is already there to about three to one. Without the clawback, the provincial revenues, instead of being $417 million, would be $1.49 billion or $1.5 billion. The federal revenues would be $3.7 billion. We would still, without equalization entering the formula at all, be getting less than one-half of what the Government of Canada is. In fact, only about one-third, less than one-third, of the overall revenues that the project would generate. So, yes, equalization is a problem both onshore and offshore, but also the amount of revenue that we seek is clearly an important issue as well.

If we looked at the revenues - and I talked about this the other day - that we extract by way of royalties, and I used the example of Terra Nova because I had pretty exact figures on Terra Nova available, those figures show that we are seeing the oil companies get, by far, the lion's share of the revenues by a long, long shot, and that we are getting, in fact, in royalties what would be considered a paltry sum by comparison. Those figures, Mr. Speaker, are based on revenues that have been shown by the filings, the shareholders, of participants in the projects. The Terra Nova revenues, for example, for 2003, the value of the oil produced was $1.89 billion and the royalties to this Province amounted only to $39.5 million; $39.5 million to this Province on the production of 48 million barrels of oil at Terra Nova last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members. I do have a couple of other points that I would like to make.

The point I am making right now is that the revenues that we are actually receiving are less than what we should be receiving, by a long shot, so that has to be fixed. It has to be fixed in the short term and it has to be fixed in the long term. We need a significant change in the system of revenues. We need to recognize that the time is running short for us to do that.

According to the most recent figures published by the C-NOPB, 40 per cent of the proven reserves at Hibernia have already been extracted. Since November, 1997, oil has been pumped from the Hibernia Project and 40 per cent of the proven reserves are now already gone.

The Terra Nova Project, which only started in 2002, has already extracted 25 per cent of the proven reserves, so we have, Mr. Speaker, to act quickly. We have to get an agreement quickly and we have to pull out all of the stops to ensure that, in Ottawa, not only do the government know about this but private members know about this, that Opposition parties know about this, that we should make it an issue in the next federal election, that we have to have a full-fledged campaign to ensure that all of this is known.

We have seen, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, that events sometimes conspire to deprive us of our just entitlements; whether that be from iron ore in Labrador, from the Churchill Falls agreement, and most recently from Voisey's Bay. We cannot let this happen with our offshore oil and gas, Mr. Speaker. We would be the laughing stock of this country if we come to the point of producing one-quarter, then one-third, and then 40 per cent of the annual need for oil in Canada, which we are approaching - we will be doing that and yet be at the bottom of the list when it comes to per capita income. At the bottom of the list when it comes to the ability to provide decent public services for our citizens. At the bottom of the list when it comes to unemployment rates. At the top of the list when it comes to the highest poverty rate amongst people and amongst children.

We, Mr. Speaker, have an obligation to all of our citizens, to our children as well, and to our children's children, to not let this happen. If there is only one thing that can be accomplished by the members in this Legislature, let it be that we redress the wrongs that exist in us getting our fair share, as a people, of our offshore oil and gas revenues; through changes in the Atlantic Accord, through increases in royalty payments, through better participation in our projects and ownership share. We have proposed an energy corporation, Mr. Speaker, that would guarantee that in forthcoming projects we have a provincial Crown share in further energy projects. We should be the owners on an upfront basis.

If the members of this House, on both sides - because we all have to work together to do it, Mr. Speaker, but the responsibility clearly lies across the way. But if we, all together, can accomplish one thing, and I do not care who takes the credit for it - but if we can accomplish that we start getting our fair share of our offshore oil and gas resource for ourselves and our children and our children's children, then we will accomplish something.

I support this resolution and the amendment wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a real pleasure today to be able to stand and support this resolution.

I just want to refer for a moment, and I will take - as my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources did - us down through a bit of history. Just look at the resolution itself when it talks about - it says, "The main purpose of the Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland and Labrador is spelled out in paragraph 2(c) ...to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores."

I just want to make reference to that particular clause in the Accord. I just want to read it for the record, Mr. Speaker. It says - paragraph 2(c), under the heading of purposes of the Accord, "...to recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores." This is an important point, Mr. Speaker. It is consistent with the requirement for a strong and united Canada.

I think one of the things that the federal government, for years, since the very beginning, have not fundamentally acknowledged in this debate is - the Atlantic Accord, yes, is about Newfoundland and Labrador being the principal benefactor of its offshore resources, but it is also about a strong and united Canada, because as any country can be, as any nation can be, it is only as strong as its various regions. In this case, it is Canada's provinces and territories. The country, as a whole, can only be as strong as any one of its provinces or territories. Any time a federal body, like the federal government, puts itself in a position where it is using its power and using its control to the disadvantage of one of its partners - in this case the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - it lends itself to weakening the country. I think that is something we all should be a little bit concerned about when a federal government decides to use its power and control to weaken the nation as a whole by imposing such a limitation and restriction on the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, just to put this debate in some kind of context, I just want to - I was curious actually about the - I did not have a personal memory of that event. I could not recall the detail of that signing event on February 11, 1985, so I did just a bit of research this morning. What was interesting was listening to - I just want to read into the record the comments made by the Prime Minister of the day, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. This is taken directly from his speech here that day, when he talks about - I will read four particular points. He says, "We also said that as a Government, we would recognize the legitimate desire of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that the manner of development maximizes the social and economic benefits to the province." The Prime Minister goes on to say, the signing of this Accord, "It is unquestionably an historic Accord, probably the most important agreement reached between Ottawa and St. John's since Newfoundland entered Confederation nearly 36 years ago."

The Prime Minister that same day goes on to say, "We have adopted the principle that the revenue sharing between the two governments should be identical for all oil and gas producing regions - without discrimination." Then it goes on to say, and he kind of concludes with this comment, "Most of all, this agreement is about dignity for Newfoundland and Labrador...". Madam Speaker, he goes on to read in that same sentence, "... long a "have-not" province. Today..." - February 11, 1985 - "...marks the beginning of a new era -- one that will enhance..." the provincial economy through the collective accomplishments of both the federal and provincial government.

Without wanting to read all of history, I think it is important to read into the record just one more commentary from that day's event, and those are the statements made by the Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources of that day, the hon. Pat Carney. I just want to read one part of her statement that day. "The Atlantic Accord is designed to facilitate the development of the vast oil and gas resources in the offshore. It is based on three fundamental concepts. The first is that the principal beneficiary of these resources should be Newfoundland and Labrador because that is in the national interest." It was in the country's best interest to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador became the principal benefactor of this particular resource.

"The second concept is that these resources should contribute to energy security for all Canadians, because that, too, is in the national interest." Again, this was a document that addressed the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador but also the national interests of the entire country.

"The third and final concept is that producing provinces should be treated equally, in areas such as revenue sharing, whether the resource is on land or offshore, because equality serves the national interest."

I think that is something that we should not lose in this debate. Here you had, back in 1985, the day that this agreement was signed, the national minister suggesting that this was an important and historic moment, not just for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but for a nation, because it acknowledges that as a partner in this federation we all share in the wealth, we all contribute in the development, and we all share equally in supporting each other as partners in the federation. That is one of the significant messages that I think we need to be delivering to Ottawa, that they continue and refuse to acknowledge Newfoundland and Labrador's place, acknowledge that under this Accord we should be the principal benefactors. I think that is important.

One other piece of trivia that I will just read into the record, Madam Speaker, the Premier of the day, the hon. Brian Peckford - and I think he said this in all sincerity, because I think at that particular time, given the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and by the federal minister, it is easy to see why a Premier of the Province of that day would make this statement. He goes on to say, "There is no other document in existence signed by Newfoundland that has within it the ability to see this province truly grow and prosper. There is no other document in existence that so clearly establishes Newfoundland's right to have a significant say and control over such a huge resource." That is the backdrop, Madam Speaker.

In 1985, the people who signed this agreement spoke very clearly. Both levels of government, the representatives of both levels of government, spoke very clearly. It was truly their intent, and inasmuch as in the document, over time, people may have identified some flaws, and if we had known today what we now know, and if we were back in time writing it we may have changed some clauses, we may have strengthened it, we may have provided a greater protection, but based on the commitment of the parties to that contract that day, and based on the expressed, clearly expressed, intent - Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer but I understand a little bit about contract law. It has always been my understanding that when the parties clearly expressed their intent in the contract, and they clearly expressed their intent of creating language to ensure that what their wishes will be at that time become a reality, courts have always ruled that the intent is obvious so therefore the contract is enforceable.

In this particular case here we have been a long time, in fact for the last ten or fifteen years, trying to bring some order of justice to this particular agreement. I think it is incumbent upon the federal government to finally acknowledge that they have a legal obligation, and if not a strictly legal obligation they have a moral obligation to speak to and to live up to the true intent of their predecessors in honoring a contract that was entered into in good faith by the residents of this Province and the residents of Canada, and signed off by the Prime Minister of Canada, representing all of the other provinces and territories, and signed off by the Premier of this Province, representing all of us, people who lived in the Province that day, and future generations.

As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, we have a very narrow window here. If we are not careful here - this particular Accord deals with a non-renewable resource, and we are reaching a point in time in our history that, if we do not get this issue resolved in the next year or so, it is going to be really to late. Because saying to us in ten years time: Hey, listen, we should have listened to you back in 2000-2003, it is going to be too late then. We have been saying it for a long, long time now. We have been trying to convince governments ever since then to enforce it in the spirit and intent in which it was entered into, but we are fast approaching a time when it may be too late. In five years time, it is probably going to be too late. We have a narrow window.

I was delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition, early in his comments, talking about his commitment, his real commitment to want to endorse this motion, and real commitment to show some co-operation. I think it is important that we all, in this House, representing the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, speak with a unanimous voice on this issue and clearly send the message that we do want, we have always wanted, and we will always want, I believe, Mr. Speaker, to contribute as an equal partner in this federation; but in order for us to be able to do that we need to fundamentally have the ability to be able to maximize the income that we have from our natural resources and from our non-renewable resources, because this opportunity will not be there for our grandchildren down the road. They will not have the opportunities that we have today to try to make this significant change in this agreement.

I think one of the key issues here, and it should not be lost, even if Ottawa today were to give us and step up to the plate and say that we recognize that our claim for 100 per cent of our offshore oil and gas resources - the federal government are not going to be in a situation where they are not going to have any revenues. The federal government will still receive more than 50 per cent of the revenues. There is still a significant piece of revenue here for the federal government. I think that is one of the things that the federal government needs to recognize, and the people of Canada need to recognize. We have already heard of the ten provinces and two territories that we have all but two that have already agreed to support our position on this. Once we reach a point - and I think we will, Madam Speaker. I think we will reach a point when all of Canada will recognize that Newfoundland and Labrador has been disadvantaged by this Accord and in the application of this Accord.

I just want to summarize, Madam Speaker, because I think the already expressed view of members who have spoken on this issue sends a clear message to all of us that there will be, I believe, at the end of the day, a unanimous support for this resolution, and I think that is important. The federal government needs to understand clearly that all of the elected people in this Province, representing all of its residents, today and into the future, clearly believe, as do at least ten other jurisdictions across this country, genuinely believe, that in this particular Accord there was an expressed intent to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador became the principal benefactor.

In so doing, not only will it strengthen the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador but it will strengthen us as a nation, as we come together to recognize and to build on the strength of each region and to ensure that we are a united country. I think that is the message also, Madam Speaker, that we should be sending to Ottawa, an endorsement of this resolution. It not only strengthens Newfoundland and Labrador and gives us an opportunity to grow our economy but it also strengthens us as a nation, because it recognizes our individuality, it recognizes that as a nation the principle of nation building is that we support each other, support our uniqueness, build on the strength of one region as one region supports another in growing its economy and moving forward as a prosperous participant in this federation.

On that note, Madam Speaker, I conclude my comments and echo the request made by my colleagues and ask all the elected members in this House, all hon. members, to unanimously stand with us at the end of debate and endorse this motion and send a strong message to Ottawa.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise to speak in favour of the resolution that has been put forward here today, the private member's resolution, and the amendment which deals with calling upon the Government of Canada to acknowledge and honour its obligations under the Atlantic Accord. As was stated by the Leader of the Opposition, there is no right thinking Newfoundlander or Labradorian who could possibly be opposed to this resolution and the amendment here today.

February 11, 1985, was hailed as a great day in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was the day that `have not will be no more' supposedly began. The then Premier, Premier Peckford, says, and I quote: This is an historic day for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. At last we, in Newfoundland, will be treated as an equal partner in offshore development and will be in a position to establish and collect revenues in the same way as other oil and gas producing provinces of Canada." Absolutely true! We do, in fact, collect our revenues now from the offshore. Unfortunately, we do not get the benefit of those resources because there is a thing called a clawback that the federal government imposes.

On the same day Mr. Crosbie, who was then the Member for St. John's West and Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet, said, I quote, "We will do our best to see that the legislation required to implement this Accord will be introduced in Parliament as soon as possible. In the meantime, both governments will live by the spirit of this Accord and work can begin on the creation of the joint board, and other provisions."

There is no question about what the spirit and the intent was of this piece of documentation back in 1985. It was to benefit Newfoundland. In fact, as ably pointed out by the hon. Member for Trinity North, clause 2(c) does state: ...to recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores. Although he read the last section of that, I think it bears repeating and emphasis, because it says: ....consistent with the requirement of a strong and united Canada. That is the piece that is getting lost there. Besides us getting the principal benefits from our offshore, how can the federal government possibly feel that it is in the best interests of Canada, or it is good for a strong and united Canada, to have Newfoundland and Labrador not be in the strongest position it can possibly be in? We weaken the federation by not giving life to what the intent is of this section 2(c).

Words are very important, as we are used to hearing in this House from the Leader of the Opposition, very, very important, but words are of no value unless somebody has the gumption and the intestinal fortitude to give them some meaning and give them some life. We have had Prime Ministers galore since 1985 and federal ministers and Premiers disputing and arguing over this particular Accord, but somebody finally has to get the gumption to say: Give it the life that we intended it to have back on February 11, 1985.

What is in the best national interest - and I note the word national interest is used throughout this Accord repeatedly - what is in the best national interest of our federation, if it is not to have Newfoundland be the best and be all that it can be? There is only one party - lets not mistake ourselves - there is only one group in Canada who is prohibiting that from happening, and that is the Federal Government of Canada; repeatedly.

We have a problem, not with the Accord but with the equalization and where the clawback comes. Everybody in the provinces, all the provinces of Canada, are in favour of fixing the equalization. There is only party, and that is a party to the agreement, who do not have the intestinal fortitude to live by the words which they themselves signed on to on February 11, 1985.

The issue of the amendment has been raised here, as well, the share value of 8.5 per cent of Hibernia. I think, Madam Speaker, it is very important that we not overlook this because we have always dealt with this issue of the Atlantic Accord and getting what is fair and what is proper and us being the principle beneficiary. From the point of view of - we talk about Atlantic Accord as if it includes the 8.5 per cent, but we must be very explicit, I would submit, and make sure that it does not fall off the radar screen. It is fine to say we are going to look at Section 39, the offset provisions, and see if we can recoup some benefits from that process, as the Premier is doing; and hats off to the Premier if he is successful in getting the offset provisions of this Accord to work, Clause 39, and benefit this Province.

We cannot be so focused on section 39, offset provisions, and ignore the 8.5 per cent. Everyone knows, who has listened to any media source in this country in the last two months, that the sale of those shares, the 8.5 per cent, is imminent. The oil company executives in Calgary are salivating at the thought of being able to buy it. The issue is fodder every morning over the coffee urns in Toronto and Bay Street: Who is going to get the 8.5 per cent? There should be no discussion about oil executives getting it. There should only be one consideration and that is that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ought to get it.

I have a fear that the administration, by being silent, is not doing the service on this one angle of our fair share that we should be doing. They say silence is golden, and that may be fine in song, but I would submit in law, and in politics, silence may be taken as acquiescence and we should never allow the federal government to think that because we do not have the 8.5 share issue on the table that that is silence on our part and that we do not necessarily want it or that we are not pushing for it. That is the reason for the amendment here.

Any tool that this administration has available to get redress for this Province ought to be put forward in one package. If anybody is going to take anything off the table it ought to be Ottawa who takes it off, not us who do not put it on. We have to make sure that it is always put on.

I also heard, in the context of the offshore provision announcements that we had a few weeks ago, that we are going to pursue that avenue and cooperation. The Premier has since informed the Province that he has gotten good cooperation from the provinces, virtually unanimous, except for Premier Lord of New Brunswick who may have some concerns for certain reasons with it.

In that context as well he was asked a question about: Can we take legal action on the Accord in addition to the offset provisions? The comments he made were to the effect of: Well, maybe we can, but we may have a problem in terms of timelines. By the time we get it into court we may not get this resolved, it might be no benefit to us. Again, silence, I think, could be a downfall for us here, because it is another tool, the legal tool.

It is my understanding - I am sure I am not as proficient in the ways of corporate law and constitutional law as some colleagues here in this House, and certainly here in the Province, but the fact that we are discussing the offset provisions does not take away from our right as a Province to at least initiate the legal action to have the Accord be given the intent that was expressly written in the Accord. To say that we may run out of time, I think, is not sufficient. We need - in addition to the offset provisions - to be initiating the action. I think the Minister of Justice, in his capacity, certainly ought to be looking into that possibility.

Regardless of when the case gets heard, if it is decided by a court in this country - and I would suggest that this might even go to a reference to the Supreme Court so that we do not have to worry about timelines and running out of time because people put up roadblocks. I am suggesting that we ought to even consider a reference to get it into the courts in a timely fashion so we do not run out of time. I am sure the Minister of Justice can fill me in on the details of doing that process.

Number one, we do have a legal action, I would submit. Number two, we can avoid timelines by

Number one, we do have a legal action, I would submit. Number two, we can avoid timelines by having it done on a reference. Even if, in the course of talking to the federal government, we were to ask them to expedite the hearing of the matter - if they are so good to us or want to be so good to us, as everybody seems to be indicating, why not ask the federal government to agree to expedite the legal action, to have the terms and conditions of the Accord verified, that they are supposed to be, for us, the principal beneficiary, and that the spirit and intent and the clauses of the agreement are, in fact, not being abided by by the federal government.

It is nice to go ask them, it is a great approach, it should be used, but don't give up the other tools we have in our tool box, and that includes the legal action and that includes the offset provisions that are being done. It is my understanding, that if there is a contract between two parties and it is determined, regardless of when it is determined, if it is determined down the road, that one of the parties broke the agreement thereby causing damages to the other, that you can recover at any time. It is a matter, then, of quantification of your loss. It is not a case of: We are out of time, the twelve years are gone, sorry we are out of time. If it is ever decided that this agreement was broken in a legal action, then you get into the issue of quantum of damages. That should be fairly simple once you have won your case and have seen that the agreement itself has been broken.

We have to take step one first, prove that the agreement was broken by the feds. I think that is pretty clear. There are all kinds of principles in law, everything from officially induced error and everything else, and we have officials of the federal government, right to Prime Ministers themselves, saying: This is the intent of this agreement and this is what it is intended to do. So, we have lots of legal footing to ground on. There is no need to wait. We ought to take that tool out of our basket right now and proceed with the legal action, at the same time we are doing the offset discussions. There is nothing telling somebody, let's see if we can work out a deal, but in the meantime I am preserving my rights if we cannot cooperate and we don't come to a deal. There is nothing wrong with me saying, I am preserving my rights to have them heard in another forum, such as a courtroom. That is absolutely acceptable to everybody, otherwise we wouldn't have courts.

I think the resolution is definitely in order, it is definitely proper. It is motherhood and apple pie, in terms of what the federal government ought to do, but we must be diligent and vigilant and make sure that we don't just leave it where it is.

There are other provisions as well in the Accord, which our Minister of Natural Resources, I am sure, there were references in the Blue Book to doing things in terms of refining capacities in the Province. There are, right now - and our Minister of Natural Resources is famous. I learned this quote from him: The devil is in the details. There is no doubt that the devil is in the details of the Atlantic Accord. There are great prohibitions in there - right now as we speak - against us developing any further industries, particularly refining industries in this Province, as long as there is other capacity in the other Atlantic provinces. That needs to be changed as well, because when we talked yesterday here in the Budget about a two-pronged approach of managing the money that you have, and on the other hand growing the economy. It is no good if that second prong, economic development, becomes a wet noodle simply because we have not used every tool that we have.

Getting extra refining capacity is a big problem in this Atlantic Accord, which also must be looked at at the same time. There are all kinds of options here, and all I am hearing about is: Let's cooperate on the off-set provisions. We have to go further. We need to go further, and the Premier and the government will have the absolute support of everybody over here, but we need to do it all, all at the same time. Let's not compromise ourselves by being silent on the other issues. We do not want to miss an opportunity when we read the Globe and Mail two weeks out and somebody says that XYZ Company in Calgary has bought the 8.5 per cent shares, and the federal government then says: Oh, we did not know you were serious about it. We have to continue to press them everyday and then they will know we are serious about it. We will not tolerate that they turn around and dispose of or sell the 8.5 per cent share and not have it come here to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I noticed - it was only with humour I guess. It was not with humour actually, she is a very serious lady - Avril Baker wrote an article in the R& B papers recently. I thought it was a very good article dealing with this Atlantic Accord. As I said, Madam Speaker, our Minister of Natural Resources is probably famous, at least in this House. I learned one quote from him that I always stick in my back pocket, he says: The devil is in the details. She used the same quote in her article, and it is very true, right down to the name I noticed. I think it is very appropriate that she pointed it out. She says: Why is it called the Atlantic Accord? Every other province who has a deal with Canada is called -

MR. E. BYRNE: The Nova Scotia Accord.

MR. PARSONS: The Nova Scotia Canada Accord. Anybody has their province's name and Canada in their accord, and yet we were called the Atlantic Accord.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: I think that speaks volumes as well.

Just a moment to clue up, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: I think that speaks volumes in itself. The bottom line is that two parties have signed a deal here; they ought to live up to the deal. The very highest people in this land - the Prime Minister said it was a deal, said what it was intended for and this government should be and will be supported wholeheartedly in seeing that the Atlantic Accord is given its full effect as every premier in the past has wanted to see done for the people of this Province.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is indeed a great pleasure for me to stand in this hon. House and to certainly support this resolution here this afternoon.

Basically, to reiterate, what we are talking about here is the Atlantic Accord and the fact that we, as a Province, want to become the beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk this afternoon for a few minutes about my life in Labrador. I am very proud to say that I grew up there. I am very proud of the fact that I live there and my family was raised there. I want to talk about the resources in the big land of Labrador. We have watched over the years - and I can tell you, as a small boy growing up in Twin Falls and Churchill Falls I sold The Evening Telegram there to a construction camp of over 2,000 working men and women for the construction of the mighty Churchill Falls power site; that today provides 5,400 megawatts of power to Quebec and the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. We look at our particular Province here, our revenues from that is almost nil. It is a real shame that one of our resources has gone to another province because we did not have the fortitude or the insight, or for whatever reasons to make the deals at the end of the day that would have gained maximum benefits to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker.

I want to talk about the iron ore mines of Labrador West. My good friend from Labrador West fully knows what I am going to talk about here. When we look at the magnitude of the iron ore mines of Labrador West that have been a fueling a whole economy of Seven Islands, 52,000 people are there in the community of Sept-Iles, Quebec, because of the iron ore coming out of Labrador West, Labrador City and Wabush.

AN HON. MEMBER: From 1,200 in the beginning.

MR. HICKEY: From 1,200 in the beginning, my good hon. member from across the way reminds me.

Let me say this: These were mistakes that we made in our past. We have to learn from our past and make sure that we do not make those mistakes in the future.

I want to commend our Premier and leader of this government today for taking the leadership to bring this motion forward to this hon. House. When we look at the fiscal situation that we are enduring as a government in this Province today, let me say this: I took my pain yesterday as well as many other members in this House. We did not want to do it but we had no other choice.

I say to you, Madam Speaker, that the time has come for us to send the message to the Prime Minister, to the seven MPs from this Province in the federal government, that we want our fair share and we want it today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Madam Speaker, when we looked at the Speech from the Throne, we said that our government had three priorities when it comes to guiding our government's decisions for Newfoundland and Labrador. Let me say this: We have identified as a priority to improve federal-provincial relations in concrete ways that bring real benefits to the people, the economy, and the Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are committed to that, Madam Speaker, but we need the tools to be able to do that. That tool is to make sure that we get the benefits of the offshore gas and oil on our particular coast, and that we get the benefits coming into this Province into all of the things that we need to provide services to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is what we want, Madam Speaker, and that is what this motion certainly talks about, the urgency to make sure that Ottawa and the federal government understand that.

When we talk about the Accord, we talk about inconsistency in a principle that basically was supposed to be there so that we would get some benefits. Well, we have not gotten any benefits. It is very clear that certainly 100 per cent of our offshore revenues are not going to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the majority of those benefits go to the federal government. We see the same thing on the Voisey's Bay project. I can say to you, we are a land of rich resources. We have not even started to tap the natural resources of Labrador in this Province, and we have still the resources off our shores.

I want to notice today, Madam Speaker, that seven miles off the Coast of Labrador in a small community of Hopedale, in the great District of Torngat Mountains, those people there see the opportunity for 3 million to 4 trillion cubic metres of natural gas to be harvested,. We want that natural gas to come ashore and we want to make sure that benefit is used in order that we have opportunity to build a natural gas industry in our Province and get the maximum benefits.

Madam Speaker, I want to say that this is indeed a pleasure for me to support this motion, and I call upon my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the House to fully support this motion today.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to this particular motion in the House of Assembly; an issue, Madam Speaker, that has been talked about many times in this Chamber, talked about outside of this Chamber by people all over Newfoundland and Labrador, because this is an issue that really gets to the foundation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this Province. It is one that reaches into every one of our homes simply because of the weight that comes to bear from our return on resources within our Province and within our federation of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I actually put forward almost the same motion on March 27, 2002, in the House of Assembly. At that time, all members rose and spoke and supported the motion. It is unfortunate that two years later we are bringing the same motion back into the House of Assembly again for debate. The speeches I hear today are almost identical to the speeches that were made two years ago by the hon. members in this House. The speeches look at the importance that this Accord is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, how future generations in this Province depend upon the deals that we make with the Canadian government, the deals that we brokerage within this Province on our renewable and non-renewable resources.

We need this revenues, Madam Speaker. We need them in order to have the stability and the quality of life that we all wish for in this Province in order to have the standards that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve.

Madam Speaker, we have always felt that we have a double standard when it comes to the Canadian government. As a Province, we always felt that we were treated differently, mistreated in some ways, not always taken seriously enough when it came to the real fundamental issues that affected Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Madam Speaker, I probably know that as much or more as anyone in this House, because I also grew up in Labrador like the member opposite who just spoke. I, too, felt what it was like to be a Labradorian and to feel alienated in many ways from a government in Newfoundland. I went through that, through generations with my parents, my grandparents and then in my own generation. That was difficult, very difficult. Madam Speaker, today I cannot really stand here and feel a whole lot different, especially in terms of the budget that came down yesterday. I know what it is like to feel like you are alienated, to feel like you are targeted and to feel like you are not getting the full, fair share that you deserve as a part of a federation within this country.

Madam Speaker, the double standard does exist, because if you look at the non-renewable resources in provinces like Alberta where there are different share agreements that have been worked out between the province and the Canadian government, share agreements that have not been afforded to us in this Province, that are not deriving the same kind of economic wealth that we would hope to have, the double standard does exist, Madam Speaker.

Earlier today one of the members got up and talked about hydro development. I think it is important to look at, not just what is happening with the oil and gas and the Accord, but also with the hydro development in the Province. We are at the mercy of another province in order to develop hydro power that we would sell into the US market. That is such an unfortunate story to have to tell to future generations in this Province, Madam Speaker, and it is even more unfortunate when you know that you have the tremendous potential to be able to develop another 2,200 megawatts of power in the Lower Churchill, to be able to use power for development in Labrador of up to 500 or 1,000 megawatts, whatever the demand would be, and still be able to sell the additional power right into the eastern seaboard, right into the US market and be able to derive good wealth, good royalty, on that resource that belongs to the people of our Province.

No, Madam Speaker, the Canadian Government has not seen fit to interfere in what could be contrived at a dispute between Quebec and the Newfoundland and Labrador government, to allow us that corridor through their province, within this country, so that we can be a full and fair partner in the sale of power, in the development of this resource, for the people of the Province.

Now, Madam Speaker, we also need to talk about the Voisey's Bay project because Voisey's Bay is deriving over $800 million in revenue to this government today. It is what is being derived into- I do not know about today, but it will be deriving $800 million in revenue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, revenue, Madam Speaker, that we do not have the opportunity to spend in the ways that we would like to spend it simply because of the equalization formulas and the clawback formulas that are implemented by the federal government. Of that revenue that is coming into our Province, more than 70 per cent of it is going back out to the federal government to spend in programs and services for the people of the country, not just for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those are the kinds of challenges that we are faced with in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of trying to develop our resources and to broaden and build on our economy.

When you look at what the principles of the deal are, in terms of the Accord, one of them talks about principal beneficiaries of which we should be one, in Newfoundland and Labrador. It talks about how the resources contribute to the energy security of the country and it talks about producing provinces and how they should be treated equally both on land and offshore. This is not the case. The principles are being violated in terms of the Accord and therefore we need to ensure that the federal government does not continue with these grand speeches and these wonderful phrases but, in fact, they act; they act on what is a critically important issue to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, Canada is a strong nation and Newfoundland and Labrador can do well within the federal government, but we also need to be able to build ourselves a strong Province. When we are stronger as a Province in Canada, so will the rest of the country. We cannot continue with the kind of equalization clawback system that we have right now, especially as it pertains to our non-renewal resources.

I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, when he spoke today, talked about the billions of dollars that were now being generated through Terra Nova and Hibernia. I think in the last year, in 2003, they recorded $4.7 billion, almost $5 billion, in revenue just from Terra Nova and Hibernia. Just in the Terra Nova Project alone there was $1.9 billion, of which this Province received under $40 million in revenue, and out of that $40 million in revenue we lost over 70 per cent of it to the federal government, so we are not being given the kind of opportunities that we need. We are generating our own revenue. We are generating revenue on the resources that we are developing. We are not being afforded the opportunity to keep those revenues and be able to make some tremendous progress, being able to move forward with the things that we want to do in this Province that would be able to benefit all people.

Madam Speaker, I am just going to say today that we also feel that the amendment put forward by my colleague is a very important part of this particular motion and needs to be considered in its entirety in any debate and in any vote that would take place in this House today. We need to make sure that any deal that we are able to achieve with the federal government is all-encompassing and looks at all the aspects for Newfoundland and Labrador, ensuring that we are serving the people of this Province in the best way that we possibly can.

Before I sit down, I want to say that the seven MPs who represent us in the federal government, they have a responsibility as well, Madam Speaker, to the people of this Province and to this Chamber as well. That responsibility is to go forward and lobby the federal government, to be able to show the people, on both sides of the House of Commons and all parts of this country, how important it is for us in Newfoundland and Labrador to develop our oil and gas, our mining industry, our energy sector, in a way that when we generate wealth from these resources we are able to keep it and spend it in our own Province, in our own economy, to ensure that we are not always being a have-not Province, so that we are not always looking to the nation's capital to be able to fund the kinds of programs and services that we want to enjoy as a Province.

I say to those MPs who are there, that you also have a responsibility. Take it seriously. Go forward and serve the people of this Province and try and lobby side by side with us to achieve fairness and equality and equity under this particular agreement.

I am totally supportive of the motion, Madam Speaker, as amended, and I hope that other members in the House will stand and support it as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

I remind the hon. member, when he speaks now he will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, let me say thank you to all members of the House on both sides for participating in this motion today and recognizing and understanding the significance and importance of what the House has put forward for debate today.

I want to deal with a few points. I will deal with the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition last. The Opposition House Leader raised a number of interesting points from a legal point of view in terms of preserving our right as a Province and as a people from a legal context of pursuit, at some point possibly, I think, he made, of actually going after the federal government from a legal point of view.

Madam Speaker, let me say this: As a former Minister of Justice, he would know that there is a body of work that has been done by the Department of Justice and other departments in collaboration on this very issue. With respect to that, I think we need to leave it at that, at this point.

I think every provincial government - and as a province, and as a government - would not rule out any option whatsoever in terms of trying to pursue, on behalf of the people of the Province, the things that we think are important. This, I am sure and convinced of in my own heart and soul - I know the Premier is, that is why he introduced the motion. It is one of his biggest priorities as the leader of the government. I commend him for it. It is one of the reasons why it is on his agenda, because he understands the significance of getting redress on this issue and what it will mean to the social and economic well-being of the people of the Province.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition put forward a motion that essentially asked us to - I guess, an amendment. It was a bit of an amendment. I look at it this way, I think it is a friendly amendment. I have no trouble or hesitation today in accepting the amendment put forward, for a couple of reasons. When I recall - I think it was in 2000, or maybe 2001 - when the now Premier was Leader of the Opposition, one of the first press releases he put out actually was that - as the leader of the party and as a potential premier at the time, he issued a release calling on Ottawa, at the time, to transfer ownership of Ottawa's share in the Hibernia Project, 8.5 per cent share, to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He felt it was an issue of equity, an issue of fairness, an issue that would go a long way to recognizing our inherent rights as a people in the Province.

The Opposition House Leader has it. He just flagged it for me. Was the date 2001? May I ask that question for a second?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leader designate.

MR. E. BYRNE: He was leader designate. So it was the fall of 2000 - or the spring of 2000, I believe.

We have no trouble whatsoever in accepting the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. For the record, I will read the resolution as amended. Then, Madam Speaker, we will vote on the amendment and then we vote on the resolution as amended. Let me just read it for the record. It will now say:

WHEREAS the main purpose of the Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland and Labrador, according to paragraph 2(c), is to become the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores; and

WHEREAS that condition has not been met;

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the Government of Canada to acknowledge and honour its obligation under the Atlantic Accord to ensure Newfoundland and Labrador is the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores, including the transfer to the Province of the 8.5 per cent share in Hibernia now owned by the Federal Government. I believe that is the intent. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, I think that is the way you intended it to be read? We consider this a friendly amendment. We will certainly accept it.

Let me conclude by saying this, that it is our hope and our intention, and as articulated by the Premier of the Province, that it is his hope and his intention to have this extremely important issue resolved in the short term, not the long term. We look forward to that actually taking place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

All those in favour of the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

On motion, the amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the resolution as amended?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried as amended.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We move that the record reflect that the resolution as amended was unanimously agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreeable to the House that the record show that the resolution was adopted unanimously?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

On motion, resolution was adopted unanimously.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, this House does now stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday at 1:30 of the clock.