The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have only one statement by a member for which I have notice, that is the Member for Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to Jennifer Brown, a resident of Upper Amherst Cove in the District of Bonavista South.

Jennifer is a Grade 12 student at Discovery Collegiate who recently was awarded the $20,000 National Excellence Award from the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, Jennifer won this award for her contribution to her school and to her community. Jennifer maintains a 91 per cent average and is involved with: the school band; the French Club; local theater; public speaking and the arts; and she is President of the Student Council.

She is also a very committed volunteer with many local organizations including the TIP-A-VISTA Performing Arts and the RCMP Youth Advisory Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this scholarship is a tremendous achievement for Jennifer and will greatly assist her when she attends university in September.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Jennifer Brown and in wishing her all the best in her future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to draw the attention of the hon. members and people of our Province to a very important vote that is taking place today, May 26, for the Labrador Inuit. This vote, of course, is in relation to the ratification of the land claims agreement.

Today's vote is a culmination of decades of hard work by the Labrador Inuit Association, the federal government, as well as the provincial government. These three parties initialed the final agreement on August 29, 2003. Now eligible voters have been asked to giver their approval of it. The Labrador Inuit must ratify the final agreement before it will be considered for ratification by both the provincial and federal governments.

Mr. Speaker, this government certainly encourages all eligible voters to participate in the ratification of this agreement. I was encouraged to see that several hundred individuals have already voted, either through the advanced poll or by mail-in ballot. I would like to remind those who are eligible to vote that failure to cast a ballot will be deemed a no vote. There are 4,300 eligible voters on the official voters list and in order for the agreement to be ratified, 50 per cent plus one must vote in favour of the agreement. I would also like to inform those who are eligible to vote that polling stations will be open until 8:00 p. m. local time in eleven locations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Inuit ratification vote is the most important decision that the Inuit will make for their future. It is in the interest of all Inuit to participate in the ratification vote for this historic agreement. The results of this vote could forever change the face of Labrador as we know it.

Mr. Speaker, this will be the first comprehensive land claims agreement to be concluded in the Province and in Atlantic Canada. This is an historic agreement and, in our view, it is a positive step toward further self-reliance and self-determination for the Labrador Inuit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement today. I stand, of course, on behalf of the Member for Torngat Mountains, in his place. The Member for Torngat Mountains, Mr. Andersen, is, of course, the critic for the Opposition for Aboriginal Affairs. The Member for Torngat Mountains, of course being a very proud Inuit himself, this is a very proud day and he is, indeed, in Labrador as this most important and historic vote is taking place today.

It took many parties, many, many months and much hard work to reach this point where the agreement is indeed to a point where it can be voted upon by the Inuit. I would encourage all Inuit in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to take part today. They have until 8:00 p.m. local time, I understand, to do that. It is their vote. It is their agreement. It is their land claims and it is their future. We wish them all the best and hope that every single one of them takes the opportunity to vote today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the previous speakers have said, this is a very historic vote for the Inuit of Labrador and culminates the decades of hard work by the LIA and the other partners, and the federal government and the Province in reaching this agreement. I am assuming that if the agreement is ratified by the Inuit, that the ratification by the federal and provincial governments is a formality. So this vote is in the hands, really, of the Inuit of Labrador. We hope that the result - and everyone will get to participate in that - that the result, if it is not positive at this point, will lead to a positive result -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - that we would certainly want to encourage everybody to participate in this vote because it does determine the future and the nature of the kind of self-determination that the Labrador Inuit will have for the future in a historic constitutional way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was for the Premier but I will direct it, at this point, to the Government House Leader, I guess. The Premier yesterday was asked by myself several questions concerning the striking of an all-party committee that would put an accord to all federal candidates in the current federal election, and leaders, to determine their positions vis-à-vis issues that affect Newfoundland and Labrador and ask them to endorse it. The Premier has refused to endorse such a committee, but in the course of the answers he gave yesterday, and reflected in Hansard today on page 1883, he did acknowledge that he has written commitments from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Conservative Party.

I would ask the Premier: Is he prepared to table that written correspondence, those commitments that he has from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party here in the House as soon as possible?

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, not only are we prepared to table it, but I am proud to say today that the Leader of the Conservative Party said today that he would move to a ten-province formula on equalization -

MR. SULLIVAN: And no clawbacks.

MR. E. BYRNE: - and no clawbacks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what he said today. Secondly, he said today at a luncheon, that on non-renewable resources the provincial government would receive all revenues from non-renewable resources. That is the second thing he said today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, not only was it made in a speech, but it is contained in the Conservative Party blueprint. That is what you call commitment to Atlantic Canada. That is what you call commiment to Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are proud to say that we are part of that commitment. Now, only if the Liberal Party of Canada would show some gumption and do exactly the same thing.

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.

I take it the short answer to the question was, yes, they will table the letter soon. I am delighted to hear the good news reported by the Government House Leader and hope that there is good news from all of the party leaders and all of the candidates along those same lines, which is what the debate will be about later this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, I asked the Minister of Government Services about the premature termination of the former Commissioner of Petroleum Products Pricing, and in her response the minister indicated that she had received a resignation letter from Mr. Saunders. Could she table in this Legislature the letter of resignation, as she described it yesterday, from the former commissioner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I do have on file a letter from Mr. Saunders, with his resignation, and I will table it in this House for the Opposition Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the duties of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commissioner and the Commission itself was to ensure, and is to ensure, that gas supplies, gasoline supplies, are available to isolated communities at market prices. With the upheaval now taking place in the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission office, some suppliers are refusing to fill orders in parts of Labrador until the new commissioner interrupts the zonal pricing formula to allow them to make a higher profit.

Is the minister aware of this developing crisis situation, and is she aware that community gas stations in Labrador have today sold out of their supply and cannot get new orders filled? The question then, along with that, Mr. Speaker, is: What is the minister planning to do to ensure that untenable situation in Labrador is resolved and that people living in some of these communities in Labrador do not have to go another day without having any access to gasoline?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Opposition Leader for his question. I will take it under advisement and check into the situation.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think that answer in itself is a testimony to the fact that there is an upheaval and that the minister does not know what is going on with respect to interruptions and lack of availability of gasoline. She will find the answer when she provides the undertaking that she just did, to check into it.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention as well that the oil companies are taking advantage of the confusion currently surrounding the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission - confusion that was created largely by the government and the minister in the rushed and poorly-thought-out move to fire the pricing commissioner prematurely.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: Isn't it true, and can the minister confirm, that the oil companies have already approached the new commissioner, the Public Utilities Board commissioner, for another price hike, with the hope of capitalizing on the inexperience in the position today, and is it likely that we will see price increases again, even as early as the end of this week or this weekend?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, all of our gas regulations will now come under the PUB. Mr. Noseworthy is the interim commissioner, has been appointed, and any questions referring to the gas interruption should be put to the PUB. Also, I understand that they are using the same formulas that the previous commission used, so there is no interruption in services. Any questions will have to be directed to the PUB, because that is an independent agency.

Thank you.

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, the minister might like to be reminded that the piece of legislation that establishes fuel price regulation is administered on behalf of the people of the Province by herself, as the minister, and the commissioner, the PUB now, is only the mechanism by which it happens. The fact that it happens is decided in this Legislature with a piece of legislation for which she, as the minister, is solely responsible.

Mr. Speaker, similar to the vanishing automobile insurance reforms, the consumers of the Province are suffering today because of the inaction of this government with respect to fuel price regulation.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance this question. The leader of your federal party was here today, making certain commitments, the man whom the Finance Minister supported personally in his bid to become the leader, campaigning today. One of the major federal platform pieces for the Conservative Party and this leader that he personally supports is not to apply GST tax to gasoline if the price goes above eighty-five cents a litre.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question is: Will our Minister of Finance state whether or not he agrees with that part of the federal Conservative platform, and whether he will go along with that here in Newfoundland and Labrador so that our consumers can have the benefit of that kind of a tax break?

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.

The federal government can choose to do whatever they desire with their surpluses. I am not going to be the one to speak for that. I am not a member of the federal Cabinet. I will leave that to the federal people to speak on behalf, but on this Province's aspect I have stated in this House before that in 1991 I answered the Finance critic on this same question. In 199, we moved to a per litre tax on gasoline, sixteen point five cents. When the price goes up, we do not take any more taxes on a gasoline tax. In fact, what happens is, if consumption goes down we get less. I said we will make - if the price stays as it is for the entire year - we would make in revenue on our 8 per cent of the HST, $3 million. That could be offset with reduced consumption on a per litre tax and an extra cost of gasoline and diesel fuel that this government uses in its ferries and vehicles all across this Province that there is no net gain for this Province, there is no windfall, there is absolutely nothing on the revenue side to gain from that.

The federal government are different. This is a tax on price. They could get an extra windfall. It is estimated to be $230 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: If they want to rebate that back, I will support whatever they want to do in rebating it back to the consumers of the Province.

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.

Let me ask the question simply again. The Finance Minister knows - and the parts that he does not tell are as telling as the parts he does tell - the federal government also applies a flat tax on a litre of gasoline, just like we do in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are talking about the 15 per cent HST in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is not a flat tax. Unlike the Minister of Finance, everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador understands that with the prices going to be well over $1 a litre, there will be a windfall for the provincial government just like there is a projected one for the federal government. Does he agree with his federal counterpart that the consumers deserve a break or not?

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 said it and I will say it again. There will be no revenue increase with the price increasing for our Province. There will be none. I am supportive of whatever the federal government wants to do out of their surplus of money, the billions they have. If they want to rebate it back to consumers in high gasoline, I think it is a very noble effort. I wish they would do it. If they want to give it all back, even above any amount, I would support that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

I know this might be unbelievable, but in the odd chance that the Finance Minister just might be incorrect and that there might be more tax from gasoline sales than he anticipated in the Budget, would he commit to giving any windfall, that he says won't occur when everybody else in the Province are convinced that it will occur, if he should happen to be wrong, and if there is a windfall, will he give the break back to the consumers, 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 won't get spooked by a one-week or two-week wonder. Hopefully it will go down. We look at things in the total perspective, Mr. Speaker, over the course of a twelve-month period. We don't jump on whims every week when something happens. That is why we got in trouble in the first place. We are going to do responsible governing here and we are going to deal with it in the proper way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it looks as though the government might finally bring insurance reform legislation to the House tomorrow. Back in March, the Premier and minister held a press conference and announced their watered down plan that offered very little to the consumers. The government was harshly criticized for not ending rating discrimination based on age, gender and martial status.

Will the minister tell the House if she has reconsidered that decision, and will address the substantially higher insurance premiums paid by young drivers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the insurance legislation will be tabled in this House before this session ends. We are now reviewing the legislation to have a comfort level that will do what it is supposed to do. That is going to be our first step, and we will have it in this session.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, to me, it seems like the old movie, Groundhog Day, everything repeats itself.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that government is failing consumers every step of the way. In protecting lawyers by introducing their concept of a deductible, the government has lost their ability to provide savings to young people who are being discriminated against by insurance companies.

Will the minister admit that had she capped payouts, as her government promised last August, she could be providing substantial savings to customers now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, our legislation will indeed achieve savings for our consumers. I would like to say, though, to the hon. member, that he had that file in the previous Administration for years, did absolutely nothing. I have been in office now for seven months and I am bringing in reforms in this session.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, not every day opportunity knocks so easily but, let me assure you, I will take the high road today and be the gentleman that I prefer to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: I will tell the minister that I did as much in the short eight months that I was minister over there than she has done in the past eight months as not being the minister over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question quickly.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the government is obviously not committed to putting consumers ahead of insurance companies or lawyers. Maybe they can provide savings in another way. This Province is the only province that charges a 15 per cent tax on insurance. This entire tax goes to the Province. It is not shared with the federal government and it is not common in other jurisdictions. Will the Minister of Government Services, or the President of Treasury Board, commit today to reducing or eliminating the tax on insurance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, with the new legislation that is coming in for auto insurance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: - the consumer will see savings between 9 per cent to 20 per cent, up to 20 per cent, so there are savings for the consumer.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mixed communications there.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, regarding the recent PUB decision to increase hydro rates in Labrador West, which the minister is aware can have a more negative impact, probably only second to the closure of the mines, on the local economy of Labrador West.

I want to ask the minister: When can the people of Labrador West expect an answer from his government as to what action they are going to take concerning this decision so that people in Labrador West will not be held ransom by the PUB or by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is almost the last of the week. Just on a light note before I answer a very important, serious question, when both members stood up, I thought we were looking at a crisis in the NDP caucus for a second.

Having said that, the member knows that about ten days ago, I guess, myself and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs met with the delegation: the Mayor of Labrador City, the Mayor of Wabush, legal counsel for both towns and the member, and we did make a commitment at the time. We had just been in receipt of the decision, like all of the Province, based upon the publication of the PUB order. We made a commitment at the time that we would assess the information and that we would respond to the representatives of the region in the very near future. That assessment is not complete. It is in the process of being complete.

There are some challenges, I say to the member. That PUB decision came out of a decision by the former government which put in place a public process that was to deal with uniform rates in Labrador. All parties, including representatives from Labrador West - there was a public hearing held right in the town of Labrador City, it is my understanding, and representations and presentations were made, and the PUB, in the face of all of that, made a decision that, in the representatives of the region's opinion, has had a very negative, and will have a negative, impact.

We are assessing that. I do not mean to be long-winded but it is important. We are assessing that information now. When we have something to report, I can give this commitment to the member, I will share that immediately with him, as the region's representative, and with the representatives of the delegation that visited us. We do have some time. While the PUB have made their decision, there is a period of time before it is implemented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: We do have some time to deal with it, and I am hoping, in due course, to be able to release, or have that assessment complete and provide it to the people of the 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.

Prime Minister Martin, as Leader of the Liberal Party, made an announcement yesterday that would have the effect, if you used the normal formulas, of giving this Province a total of about $50 million a year in health care transfers when we have a $1.6 billion health care budget.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance, as the minister responsible for government finances, is he delighted, as the Premier said he was, and quoted as saying in the paper today, and is that the level of expectations that he and his government have from the Government of Canada in terms of support for health care?

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 always happy when we get extra money in our Province to use, in particular for health care, one of the highest concerns of people here in our Province.

I am a strong believer, and I have said it before, that there should be some way of leveling the playing field in health care contributions, not strictly on a per capita basis, where we end up getting 1.622 per cent of the total. We will never be happy until there is an equalization, a balance to level the playing field, but anything is positive.

In fact, I am going to be attending this weekend - with the Minister of Health, and all health and finance ministers across this country - a meeting in Toronto to deal with health care issues that are placed of upmost importance to the people of this country. All the premiers will be meeting, following that this summer, on the same particular issues. So, we would like to see more money -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - but we would like to see something done that is not on an ad hoc basis and done on a highly sustainable basis in line with the needs of the people in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the delight of the Premier with the minimal response of the Martin team: Would he agree that - given that he has a letter from Jack Layton, which I have here and am prepared to table - the NDP has committed itself to a 25 per cent contribution to health care, such as we had before, up from 16 per cent, and to close the Romanow gap and also to support transfers based on the needs of the Province and not on population alone? Would he express his delight about that policy, and his displeasure with Paul Martin and his government in not reaching that kind of commitment to this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I believe that we should get up to 25 per cent in the Romanow report to enhance levels of health care funding in our Province. It is very, very strong. In fact - and it should be done on a needs basis. There should be a leveling of the playing field before you move to per capita. I said that numerous times in Opposition and I will say it again.

I am pleased to hear an announcement today. I just attended a luncheon in which Mr. Harper said the ten-province formula, they would support it as part of their platform, which would mean $150 million in this fiscal year to our Province, and also a commitment not to claw back non-renewable resources. That is $130 million in this year's dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: In five years' time on the claw back, it would be $400 million to $500 million extra money. This is money that could be used for health care in our Province to help out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is very important here. That is the type of commitment that is given from the Conservative Party of Canada and that is one we support here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all federal leaders have guaranteed that there will be more dollars for health care after this election is over. Earlier this spring we saw the federal Liberals invest more money into municipalities in the country and we saw the provincial Tory Party of Newfoundland and Labrador take that money back in clawbacks from our municipalities.

My question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Will you commit to spend these new federal dollars in health care, topping up the health care budget in Newfoundland and Labrador and not clawing back the provincial contributions that are there now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have not received any money yet from any provincial party. When we do I would like to see what terms and conditions are attached to that money. So, no, Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to give a commitment as to how we are going to spend the money because I do not know what conditions are going to be attached to the money.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, irregardless of the terms and conditions, we know that there will be new money forthcoming for health care. A recent study by Memorial University that was done by the Canadian Cancer Society focused on the burden of out-of-pocket expenses being incurred by cancer patients in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it certainly drew a lot of attention from everyone.

I ask the minister today: Is she now willing to commit to a new program to assist patients of chronic illness in this Province, in light of that study, to ensure that they have the financial resources they need to access proper treatments and conditions? Minister, will you make sure that this new money is allocated for a new initiative like this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated, I cannot make a commitment as to how I am going to spend money until I know what terms and conditions are attached to it. I am very familiar with the report that was issued by the Newfoundland Cancer Society. I have met with them and I will be meeting with them again. That report was quite critical but it is quite critical of a program that was in place when the members across the way were in government. So, yes, I will be looking at that study, Mr. Speaker, and doing a review and making a decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know that the health care budget in the Province will be topped up providing that the Administration across does not claw back provincial investment in health care. I say to minister, there will be new money. Will you commit to put it into Alzheimer's drugs in this Province? Will you reconsider your decisions on capital projects, like the Grand Bank hospital that is in the national media today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not make any commitment to spend any money that I have not yet received. That is the problem -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: That is the situation that we are in now, when the hon. members across the way spent money that we did not have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health as well.

Minister, in your recent budget you outlined that your government had a new blueprint for health reform, and you indicated that over the next eighteen months there would be a new structure in place that would consolidate existing health care boards. The two Central boards serve a population of 100,000 people, from Baie Verte to Eastport, and 85 per cent of that population are living within a one-hour drive from Grand Falls-Windsor.

Minister, can you tell this House today, is proximity part of the criteria that will be used to determine the location of the new Central Health Care Board?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, during the Budget process we did indicate that we would be looking at the health board structure across the Province. We are still working on that file. When I have made a decision, I will inform the hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: In terms of working with the federal government, Minister, to bring about economic development in our Province, I ask that, since we are now in the middle of a federal election, and since this is the last year for a Comprehensive Economic Development Agreement, which is 70 per cent funded by the federal government, has she pursued with the government an alternative to CEDA? Have you, in fact, put forward a proposal to the federal government that would see a replacement for badly needed federal dollars come to this Province for economic development?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have made representation to the federal government to revisit the CEDA funding. Unfortunately, we have not been able, at this point in time, to change their minds on that. We continue that representation. We wish to be a partner at the table once more, Mr. Speaker, rather than a stakeholder, and we are working with the officials at the official level, and also with the Prime Minister and the caucus to change our position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish the minister all the luck in the world, because we certainly need more federal money in terms of economic development in this Province; however -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - I am a bit skeptical, given our experience in the past in terms of reaching any kind of a further agreement such as CEDA. In fact, when we were the government, we put forward a different alternative and that was the Canada-Newfoundland Economic Development Board. I am wondering if the minister has pursued anything along those lines?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are reviewing all options with the federal government. Indications are that our representations are being well-received. The message that we are getting, loud and clear, is that, now that we have an Administration that is prepared to get our own fiscal house in order, they are more than prepared to come halfway to meet us. We look forward to that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister all the luck in the world; but, again, I will remain skeptical on that one.

I am just wondering about another serious question with respect to rural development, Minister, and that has to do with the Regional Economic Development Boards. I am wondering if, in fact, the federal government has committed the funding to carry on with those boards. You know they are 70 per cent funded, so I am wondering if they have committed to that, if you are committed to that, and your government, or, in fact, are you looking at reducing them the way that you have done the school boards in the Province, even though we know that the funding for the Regional Economic Development Boards is 70 per cent funded by the feds?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no reduction in funding to Regional Economic Development Boards in this year's Budget, and this government remains committed to regional economic development with the boards. We are working with the boards throughout the Province to strengthen our partnership and to find ways to work better together to make regional economic development happen more productively right across the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: 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.

During Question Period the Opposition House Leader asked the government to table a letter to the Premier from the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I could offer to table it. I do not believe that people other than ministers are permitted to table documents in the House. I sent a copy over to the minister, so the minister can certainly table it, as of right, but I am offering to table - with the consent of the hon. members - a copy of the letter dated April 25, from Jack Layton to Mr. Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With the hon. members' consent, I would be happy to table a copy of the letter for hon. members.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would certainly have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the NDP for his usual promptness and courtesies in tabling this document. We just hope we can look forward to the response of Mr. Harper and certainly the response of Mr. Martin, from the government in due course.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to my good friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Leader of the NDP, tabling the document. I assume that, after today's very public announcement, we will not have any trouble tabling the document by Mr. Harper.

The Member for Twillingate said he would like it delivered with a kiss. The only thing that we are hoping is that it will not be a kiss-off with the federal government, Mr. Speaker, and at wonder with the federal Liberal government at the moment. It begs the question, with two federal parties on the record in terms of the issues that we are going to be debating this afternoon, where would we send an all-party committee anyway, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As members have indicated, only members of the executive of the government are permitted to table documents in the House; however, with agreement, anything can be done by leave. If leave is granted then the Speaker certainly has no objection to tabling the document.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank members for their leave and consent to tabling this document. It does contain the position of the New Democratic Party of Canada and the leader on oil and gas development, on equalization formulas on the ten-province standard, on transfer payments and the 25 per cent of shared public health spending to close the Romano gap, on fisheries management, hydro power, highways and fixed link and military training. These are issues covered by this and I will be very happy to table it for all hon. members and members of the press to have a look at.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the Department of Labour.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Section 26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of motion? Answers to questions for which notice has been given? Petitions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in Northern Newfoundland and Southern Labrador with regard to Grenfell Regional Health Services. Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition:

WHEREAS the provincial government's Budget for 2004 announced imminent changes to health care boards and medical services in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents of Grenfell Regional Health Services area deserve the same health care facilities and services as any other region of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the name Grenfell is synonymous with health care throughout the world; and

WHEREAS Grenfell Regional Health Services is already an integrated board; and

WHEREAS Grenfell Regional Health Services has provided health care for the residents of Northern Newfoundland and Southern Labrador for the past 100 years; and

WHEREAS Grenfell Regional Health Services is a leader in the health care profession; and

WHEREAS Grenfell Regional Health Services provides Medivac Services to the whole Province; and

WHEREAS Grenfell Regional Health Services provides services to residents who would be geographically restricted during most of the year because of inclement weather;

WHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the petitioners request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not decrease the level of service offered by the Grenfell Regional Health Services and maintain the present board structure while providing the necessary funding to fulfill its mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of petitions like this and it is my understanding that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North has also received those petitions, or, if not, will receive them very shortly, as I know they are being circulated in all areas of the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this region are feeling very threatened by the principles that the Minister of Health and Community Services and her government have outlined as a new platform for health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. They feel that in their area of the Province, where there are health services that have been created and delivered in one of the most northern remote regions of the Province and it has been designed to meet their needs and to fulfill the needs of the people in their region, they feel that is being threatened. It is being threatened by this minister and by this government whose philosophies and principles within the Budget, as we heard, and within the Throne Speech, as we heard, does not put social programs first and foremost in this Province, but rather puts fiscal responsibilities above all other things, even the services being provided to people within the health care sector.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this area have been driven to this petition because of that; because they no longer feel that the stability they have become accustomed to within the health care service is going to be there for them in the years to come. They are feeling very threatened by the mere fact that they could be swallowed up by a larger board structure, like that in Western Newfoundland, or come under the huge administration of one large Western-Northern Labrador health care sector. That, Mr. Speaker, places a lot of fear in the minds of these particular people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: - to the point that they feel it necessary to come to this House and to ask that their concerns be heard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the parents and students of Carbonear who do not want to have their school closed and busing take place that is not deemed necessary.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of concern voiced by the parents of the district, and a lot of concern by the students. The students are not sure where they are going to be in September. There have been no renovations take place at either St. Joseph's, Davis Elementary or St. Francis. All three schools are not ready to take any extra students. St. Joseph's is supposed to close and the other two schools are not prepared or equipped to handle the extra influx of students.

Mr. Speaker, aside from that, the Avalon West School Board says that there was extensive consultation used in the process. As part of the extensive consultation, the parents, in my opinion, were never listened to, the parents or the students. From day one the school board had an agenda set to close a school in that district. The end result was, regardless of what was brought forward to them, the parents were never listened to. Meeting after meeting after meeting, the board was chased throughout their whole district, whenever they had their meetings, sometimes secret meetings, I say, Mr. Speaker, meetings that were called on a very impromptu basis, so that the parents wouldn't know where they were, so they wouldn't be harassed by people voicing their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, the consultation process was flawed from day one. It came down, to my opinion, from some of the meetings I attended, to a personality conflict between the chairman of the parents' committee, some of the other members of the parents' committee and the school board. I feel that because their concerns were so strong and they were so right in what they believed in, that the school board could not come to grips with their views, and, as a matter of fact, would not come to grips.

As a matter of fact, there was a motion made to rescind a decision by the school board. In that whole process, again, with new information brought forward, the board would not listen to the parents or the students. That motion was eventually defeated, the motion to rescind.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the government and I asked the minister to look at this situation. I say to the minister that it is exactly the same situation that happened at the primary school here in St. John's - the very same situation - and that school now is put on hold to close. It is not going to close right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the minister, I know he is out visiting today, Leary's Brook school in the city, and I would like to ask him to take his visit a little bit further outside of the overpass and come around Conception Bay North and have a look at the facilities in Carbonear and Harbour Grace.

Again, Mr. Speaker, here is the petition. I will be back again tomorrow with another one.

Thank you very much.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition. This one is with regard to the Williams Harbour road, Mr. Speaker. The people in the community of Williams Harbour, in my district, are about eighteen kilometres from being connected to the main highway in the district.

Mr. Speaker, they were under the assumption and the belief that they would have a road connection that would start this year. As you know, the engineering work has been completed for this section of road. The environmental assessment has been approved. The only thing remaining is the actual construction work.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of building this road is somewhere in the vicinity of $5 million. Last year, the Labrador Transportation Fund generated an interest of $4.5 million in last year, which is almost enough to build the road into this community, to connect this community, the eighteen kilometres that is required, to the main highway.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labrador Affairs was on Labrador Morning, back a few months ago, saying that they did a cost analysis and that it was not economic feasible for them to connect this community with the main highway. Well, I would have to ask the question: In how many roads and how many communities in this Province was it ever economically feasible to build a highway to? I can guarantee you that there were a lot of them where it probably was not, but you do not measure the access and the service that you provide to people in this Province based upon numbers and feasibility.

This is a situation where the Labrador Transportation Fund is there for Labrador communities. The minister has no problem taking $10 million or $12 million out of that fund over the next seven years to put a vessel in Lewisporte to look after his own political agenda; but, Mr. Speaker, refuses - refuses - to build a road into one of the most rural isolated communities in this Province, that is only eighteen kilometres from a highway at a cost of $5 million. The money does not even have to come from the provincial government Treasury. It can come directly out of the Labrador Transportation Fund.

Mr. Speaker, every municipality in Labrador - because I sat at the Combined Councils' AGM - every municipality in Labrador supported a highway connection for this community. Every single one of them voted unanimously that the money from the Labrador Fund should go to build this road. Mr. Speaker, they did not vote unanimously to take $10 million or $12 million out of that fund to run a ferry into Lewisporte, into the hon. member's district. No, that was not the motion. The motion was to connect this isolated community with a highway. This is an injustice to people in Labrador. They are the custodians of the Labrador Fund: the Minister of Labrador Affairs, the Member for Lake Melville, the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, and they have not taken their responsibility seriously, Mr. Speaker. They have not been good custodians of this fund -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: - and now the community of Williams Harbour will go without a highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Orders of the day.

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

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

Just before we proceed to the private member's motion as put forward by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, I believe, and to the ensuing debate that will take place between now and 5:00 p.m., according to Standing Order 11, I do want to move that the House on tomorrow give notice that the House not rise at 5:30 p.m., and further do move, Mr. Speaker, that the House not rise at 10:00 p.m.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Today being Private Members' Day, I do believe we are debating a resolution put forward by the hon. Opposition House Leader.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to lead off the speeches on this particular topic because it is, of course, not only very timely; it is very, very urgent and important to this Province and everybody who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In a nutshell, what the resolution is saying is that the House of Assembly supports the establishment of an all-party committee of this House to draft a policy document for presentation and endorsement by all candidates in this Province and the party leaders in the upcoming federal election.

The purpose, of course, of such an all-party committee and the policy document we referenced is to determine what issues are of importance to our Province, vis-à-vis the federal government, and how would we like and what would we like the federal government candidates and everybody partaking in the federal election to endorse and say what they do and do not agree with, and where they stand on these most important issues.

In the preamble to the resolution we listed some of them: that we are the principle beneficiary of offshore resource revenue; improvements to equalization; health and post-secondary funding; improvements in the EI system; custodial management over the stocks off our coast; joint management of our fishery; a say in the development of the Lower Churchill; increased federal presence in the Province; continued operation and marketing of 5 Wing Goose Bay on a long-term basis.

There are many others that are not in here. They are just examples of federal-provincial issues that need to be addressed. For example: student loans; roads agreements, as was raised in Private Members' Day last week by the Member for Bonavista South, could fit easily under this type of resolution and policy document. Other federal-provincial agreements, such as infrastructure agreements that would no doubt be of concern to the Minister of Municipal Affairs; Aboriginal policing issues and other Aboriginal issues that need to be discussed; the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia. There is a myriad of issues that could be drafted and put into a policy document and ask the federal politicians, all of them, regardless of stripe, NDP, PC, Conservative, whatever they call themselves now, Liberal Party: Where do you stand on these most important issues? That is the purpose and intent of this. Now, we know already the Premier has said no to this party committee. So, I am assuming if there are any speeches from the other side today, they are certainly not going to vote in favour of doing this with the federal government because the Premier has already said: No, I do not agree with that. He does not agree with that. This bunch over here, why would he want to co-operate with them anyway? We have done nothing but been a - as he put it, who would want to hitch their horse to this wagon because all we did over here was be confrontational.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the importance of the issues to be put in the policy document, I believe, are without question. I do not think anybody in this House would dispute that any of these issues, I referenced in this document, would be unimportant. They are most important to the future of this Province. So, there is no question about the intent of the issues to be put in the document. Now, there might be some confusion, there might be some disagreement as to how best to convey to the federal candidates and party leaders how we should achieve what we want to achieve as a Province. It is obvious the Premier does not agree with doing it this way. But, historically, it is not unusual either for this Province to act as one when it comes to dealing with the federal government; nonpartisan.

We have had former premiers, for example, who have had opportunities to go head-to-head with the federal government, and when I say head-to-head, it does not have to be in an aggressive, confrontational, knock-down, drag-'em-out way. Head-to-head can be: This is my position. I firmly believe in it. I can firmly justify my position. Where do you stand on it? Now, that is not being nasty. That is not being confrontational. That is asking someone, as we have a right to ask, as one of the partners in this Confederation: Where do you, the federal government, stand? That is not an unreasonable request.

We all remember the days of Premier Peckford, back when he wanted to take on, and, indeed, took on the federal government. The mantra of his election was: Where do you stand? Give us our share of the offshore. I believe that was in 1979. That was not unusual to ask everybody to come together to fight for the rights and the benefits of this Province.

Premier Wells - maybe in a different context, but the Meech Lake issue and the constitutional piece of where we fit in this Confederation - did it. Big debates in this House. I believe the Prime Minister of the day, Mulroney, was here and actually spoke. So, it is not unusual to ask the federal government bluntly, heads-up, face-up: Where do you stand? That is all this resolution is suggesting that we end up with, is a policy document - I do not care what politics you are - you can put to anybody who is running in this federal election, any party stripe and say: Here are the issues that are of importance to us. You tell me, you tell us, you tell this Province: Where do you stand?

Now, we have the position of the NDP. I have not had an opportunity to read it in detail. The Leader of the NDP, in fact, tabled it here in the House today. We have, presumably, the opinion of the Leader of the Conservative Party. I understand he did, indeed, speak here in St. John's today at a function and outlined, quite clearly, his position on some of these issues, but we do not have the position of the federal Liberal Party. There is something different about this time in taking on the federal government, if that is the connotation and the framework we want to put it in. I still maintain we are not taking them on. Every other time when this has come up it has usually been in the context of a provincial election and we, in the Province, are saying we are going to go after the federal government for something, but it is done in the context of us being involved in a provincial election. We, as a government - if we form the government - are going to fight Ottawa for this. We are going to demand this of Ottawa. This is the reverse. We do not find ourselves in a situation where there is a provincial election on and we are trying to win an election based upon carrying the flag and wrapping ourselves in the flag. We are saying to those other federal politicians who are engaged in an election: You tell us where you stand. We are not out with our amours, our knives and our bayonets or anything. We are just simply saying: Where do you stand? Very important issues!

Someone might say: Why would a Liberal be in this House putting forward such a resolution? My God! Is that being non-supportive of the Liberal Party? I am sure there might be some people in Liberal circles, in Liberal federal circles in this Province, even today, who might be saying: Why is the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile - who is a Liberal over there, sitting in Opposition in the provincial government - up ranting and raving about trying to get Paul Martin and the Liberal Party to sign on to such a policy document? Why is he doing that? Is he a troublemaker? That is not very supportive of him when we are already in the middle on an election.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the party politics is irrelevant to this issue. It is of such importance to this Province that no matter what your political stripe there comes a time when you have to stand up for something. Because, you know the old saying, if you are not prepared to stand up for something you are prepared to fall for anything. I do not think anybody in this Province is prepared to fall for anything, particularly when it comes to our resources and our people and what is best for us.

The Government House Leader said today, across the house there: Where would you send an all-party committee? Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we need to send them anywhere right now. I do not know where we need to send them because, presumably -

MR. E. BYRNE: Send them to the provincial Liberal headquarters.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I say to the people of this Province, maybe the Government House Leader does think this is a joke and treat it as a joke.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of where we send them right now. The first step we have to take is to make a decision that something deserves to be done. That could be part of the considerations itself as to where we send the committee. Presumably, we have the position of the Conservative leader. We have the position of the NDP. So there is not too far to go to find out who is left, for example, the Liberal Party. Presumably, the Leader of the federal Liberal Party will be in this jurisdiction some time between now and June 28. It should not be a big deal to ask him.

In terms of the history of this House doing stuff as an all-party committee, there is lots of historical precedent for that as well. From the brief check that I did, and had done here, we have had all-party committees in this House dating back to 1993, on everything: fisheries management; compensation for South Coast fishermen; rural development agreements; seal fisheries; compensation for the Argentia employees; the land mines; the TAGS program; shipbuilding; Gulf ferries; Canada postal rates; adjacency principles; the Gulf fishery; the Atlantic Accord; and 5 Wing Goose Bay. Just going back to 1993, we have had different resolutions in this House where everybody unanimously voted in favour and support of those things, vis-à-vis the federal government, on twenty different subject areas. So, it is not like we haven't done it here before.

The Premier doesn't think we need to have a co-operative approach, vis-à-vis co-operation from this House at least, in the way of a resolution, even to get our heads together, because there may be some people who might have an idea he didn't think about. I am not saying this in a nasty way. All I am suggesting is that the more contributions we have to any proposal - I am a firm believer that it is better to have someone say something, you toss it around, you decide that it is not worthy of further consideration, than it is to nullify even considering it and say, it is not worthy of thought, before you have even heard what the thought is.

Also, we are getting conflicting opinions from the Premier, and conflicting comments. This man stood in this House yesterday and said, don't take - this man I am referring to is the Premier. The Premier said: I don't want anything to do with the all-party committee; a bad wagon to which to hitch my horse. You were confrontational on trying a new approach. We leave this House and I watch the NTV news last night and what do I hear from the very same Premier who six hours ago in this House made a comment that he wasn't going to be confrontational? We are either going to get an answer that we want from the federal Liberal Party within two weeks or we are lowering the boom. Now, I call that a very confusing message, when this Premier stands in this House and says, I don't want to be confrontational, and yet he can go on the media in this Province within hours and say: I am giving them two weeks to make up their mind and tell me where they stand or else. That means only one thing to me; or else. That means that his co-operative wait-and-see approach, even he himself expects might not work What is he going to do then? What is the other approach if that doesn't work?

There are some very confusing messages. It is like the one in The Telegram today, in fact - you talk about confusing messages again. The Prime Minister of Canada makes an announcement on health care funding. The question was raised in Question Period today by the Leader of the NDP, saying, that works out to be about $50 million for us. He used the word delighted. The Premier said he was delighted, because that is what is reported in The Telegram today.

Now, if you look at that article, not one single Premier of the country said they were delighted or anything near that. Everybody said, well, it is a start but we have to see what strings are attached. We do not even know if it is enough. We have to check it out and see what it is. Not one expressed any kind of satisfaction, pleasure or delight, with the decision and announcement of the Prime Minister yesterday. Yet, what does our Premier say? I am delighted. Yet, his own Minister of Health and Community Services, in response to a question here today, says: Well, we cannot get too excited and make commitments because we do not know how much we are going to get, first of all, and we do not know what strings are attached, second of all. Thirdly, we do not even know when we are going to get it.

Now, that is the kind of restraint and thought that I would have expected to see and hear from the Premier. We heard something, let's check it out. Let's not forget now, we are in the middle of an election campaign here. Some politicians in some jurisdictions have been known to make some promises that they never kept. There is a little bit of, should I take this in or should I take this with a grain of salt? But, no, our Premier: I am delighted to hear the decision. Never mind the details, I am delighted with the decision.

The other thing is: What is the problem - for the life of me I cannot figure it out - what is the problem with asking anybody to put in writing what they believe in? Does anyone else have a problem with that? The Premier is saying, I am taking the Prime Minister at his word. I have made phone calls; we are working on this. That is not a problem. I fully encourage him and I accept what he has done - that is a great thing to do - but, what is wrong, in reality, with asking someone: Would you put in writing what you sincerely, honestly believe in?

That is all that we are asking here, is to ask all of the federal candidates and leaders to put in writing. If I believe it firmly enough, and I am telling you that I believe in it, and I am committing to you that I will do it, why would I not put it in writing for you? That seems like a logical step. In fact, I would want fifty people to witness that I told you that I am going to do it, because that shows my sincerity. That shows the fact that I am honest about what I am saying. That shows that I am committed.

It does not take away from our friendship, it does not take away from our relationship, but it certainly puts me on the record, if I make a commitment, where I stand. That is all we are suggesting here. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to put in writing something that they firmly believe in and that they are prepared to commit to.

Now, the converse of that is also true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a second to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. PARSONS: Again, in summary, I feel this is a very important resolution. I am terribly disappointed with the Premier's position on it. I think we, as a Province, only stand to gain by asking the federal candidates and leaders, all of them, to commit to this. How the process would work, what should be in it, is anybody's opportunity to complement and detail, but I think the process itself needs to be done because we, as a Province and as residents, will be the losers if we do not follow this through in this format.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I do want to, as per request of the Opposition House Leader - the request was made about tabling any information or correspondence we had from federal leaders. The Leader of the NDP, with the leave of the House, tabled one to the Premier which was received. I am happy to be able to table the one received from the Conservative Party of Canada to Mr. Williams from Mr. Harper, dealing with all of the significant federal-provincial issues from oil and gas, transfers, equalization, fisheries management, hydro power, highways, fixed links and military training, Mr. Speaker, the issues in the letter. If I could table that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words to say on this resolution today. There are a number of people on this side who would like to have a few words to say on it as well, so I probably will not have the luxury of using my whole twenty minutes.

The BE IT RESOLVED part of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, says, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the establishment of an all party committee of this House to draft a policy document for presentation and endorsement by all candidates in this province and the party leaders in..." - it said the upcoming election, but in the federal election that we are now in the midst of.

I have been sitting here thinking and kind of hoping that the hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution would turn on a light bulb somewhere up here in this dumb old skull as to what this is asking us to do, Mr. Speaker. I have never before heard of this House, or any House for that matter, being asked to strike an all-party committee to go off searching for one party. That is what it is all about, to go off in search of the Liberal Party of Canada, to see exactly what their position is on a number of issues that are supposedly - not supposedly - are important to Newfoundland and Labrador.

We struck all-party committees in this House previously, Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions. We sent it off to Ottawa a year or two ago on custodial management of the fisheries, to try to win all-party support in Ottawa on that important and vital issue, but today, on issues that have been articulated by the government of the Province as being important - equalization, clawback, taxation, education transfers, a whole bunch of them - the Premier of the Province, on behalf of the people of the Province, has written all the party leaders in Canada. I do not know about the Rhinoceros Party or the Green Party, but the major party leaders have been written, Mr. Speaker. Two of those major party leaders have responded in detail, in the minutest detail, as they should. One of them has not, and you want us to strike an all-party committee to go tracing down somewhere, in some part of Canada, up in the North maybe, or out in the West Coast, to try to get a response from that party leader.

Mr. Speaker, that person, who happens to be the Prime Minister, was written when all the other party leaders were written. The letters went out at the same time, as far as I know. They have had weeks and months to respond, but nothing has happened. Now we are in the middle of an election and the group opposite, the cousins of that party in Ottawa, the political kinfolk, the kissing cousins of that crowd in Ottawa, they want to find a way to isolate themselves from whatever political fallout may come, may accrue to them, as a result of their federal cousins not having the fortitude to respond to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not likely. Not likely. That is not what we are going to participate in, that kind of a charade. It is not going to be on.

If we struck this committee, where should we send it? Should we send it off to London to see the Queen? Should we send it to Sussex Drive to see the Governor-General? Should we go up, like a former member of this House threatened to do, and park in front of Sussex Drive and wait for the Prime Minister to turn up? Five or six or us, two or three from this side, two or three from the other side, park on the pavement outside of Sussex Drive and wait for him to turn up and say: I have a list of questions for you. The Premier of Newfoundland sent them up to you months and weeks ago and you did not respond to them. Now there is an election called; we are going to take you by the throat, we are going to put you in the corner and force a response out of you.

Mr. Speaker, what kind of nonsense are we getting on with here? To me, it makes as much sense as that: an all-party committee struck to go chasing after one party. Two of the major party leaders in this country have responded in minute detail - minute detail - to the queries that were made on behalf of the people of this Province by the Premier of this Province.

The New Democratic Party, the provincial cousins of that party, were very happy to table their federal leader's response today, on oil and gas, on equalization, on transfers, on fisheries management, on education, hydro power, highways and fixed links, military training, 5 Wing Goose Bay. The New Democratic Party gave a detailed answer. We do not need anything else. We do not need anything else from the New Democratic Party. If the federal NDP forms a government, this is the basis of the contract that I would expect them to deliver to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is it, Mr. Speaker. Equally, if the Conservative Party of Canada forms the government, this is the basis of the contract I would expect them to deliver to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, where's the beef? Where is basis of the contract that the Liberal Party of Canada is prepared to deliver to Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that might be it. I say to my friend, the Leader of the NDP, maybe the only hope is a minority government with either one of those two parties, with the NDP holding the balance.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves this blunt question: Where is the piece of paper from the Liberal Party of Canada? We have two of the three. We are missing a piece - not that the Prime Minister did not have time to respond to it. It has been up there for weeks and months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was not unaware.

MR. RIDEOUT: Was not unaware. They have been talking to the Premier on numerous occasions. We have met with Newfoundland's minister in the federal Cabinet on numerous occasions. We have, as ministers, the Premier, as leader of the government, but there is a piece missing. The provincial Liberal Party would like for us to strike an all-party committee to go off looking for that missing piece. That is the only thing that I can make out of this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: A search and rescue.

MR. RIDEOUT: A search and rescue effort, to go out and search for and try to rescue Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador. They might need rescuing, Mr. Speaker, out in the new Avalon District now after another few days, but we are not going to get into that game, Mr. Speaker, because that is all it is. I think this is just the provincial Liberal Party taking an opportunity to try to cover up for themselves and the lack of a response from their political cousins in Ottawa. That is all that is, and I think that every member of the public of Newfoundland and Labrador will see it. The other two parties, without any duress, without any encouragement other than a letter, without any prompting, without any pressure, they responded to a legitimate letter from the legitimate leader of the legitimate Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, why couldn't -

AN HON. MEMBER: The elected government.

MR. RIDEOUT: The elected government. Why couldn't the leader of the third party in Ottawa - I do not mean the third party in the polls, but the leader of one of three parties; they might before the election is over - the leader of one of the three main political parties in Ottawa, who so happens to occupy the Office of Prime Minister, a very important and significant office, why is it that person's response cannot be here? Now, that is the question that has to be asked.

What chance would an all-party committee of this Legislature have in getting that response in the midst of an election? I say, Mr. Speaker, the same chance as last year's snowball. It is just not on; it is just not going to happen. We are not going to participate, quite frankly, in a charade to try to mitigate the political fallout from the Liberal Party of Canada, not taking seriously the position and the questions sent to it by this government. We are not going to legitimize it by taking part in it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: We are not going to provide them an out.

MR. RIDEOUT: We are not going to provide them an out. If they have not responded to us by now, let the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador put the pressure on the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada to respond.

We know clearly where the NDP stand, we know clearly where the Conservative Party stands, and if the people of this Province want to know where the Liberal Party stands, when the Liberal candidate knocks on their door they will ask him, or ask her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: If Ms Coady knocks on my door over in the West End of St. John's, I am going to ask her, Mr. Speaker. If Mr. Matthews were to knock on my door, I would ask him, or Mr. Efford: Where do you stand on all of those items? And, by the way, would you care explaining to me, before I make up my mind on how I am going to vote, why it is that your party is the only party that have not responded to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why have you waited? Did you want to sort of skate your way through this election, get back with your comfortable majority that the polls told you that you were going to have back a few weeks ago, and then thumb your nose at the Government of Newfoundland and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that what you had in mind, Mr. Martin? Well, perhaps we might have something to say about that.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this election, for the first time in a long time, the seven seats in Newfoundland and Labrador might be important seats this time around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I remember times back in the late1960s and early 1970s when the seven seats out of Newfoundland were very powerful seats, when there were minority governments in those days. You might see that happen again, Mr. Speaker. It could be that every seat plucked off in Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland could be so vital to this Province - so that the government who was so arrogant in the position in Ottawa that they would take the chance of skating their way to victory, of going in there with a great majority and being able to just try to appease the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but when they got in there ignored them.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not about to happen. The jig is up, the truth is out. We have the response from two of the three leaders, two of the three parties in Canada. They are excellent responses. Some of my colleagues will no doubt go into them in detail, but they are excellent responses, detailed minuet responses to every question that we asked, and I think the question of today, particularly since we are into the first week of a federal election, is twofold. One, where is the response of the Liberal Party of Canada? But, more importantly, why did they not respond?

We are not going to take part in this charade of an all-party committee to get them out of it, Mr. Speaker. That is the bottom line, and I would be very interested to see what the Prime Minister of Canada does now. This has now, as it should during an election campaign, become your public issue, despite what some former prime ministers have said. That is what election campaigns are all about, to debate public issues.

Now that this is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. RIDEOUT: No, you had no worries about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: She got her answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: She got her answer. Maybe this Prime Minister will get his answer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That you fail to debate legitimate public issues at your own peril. That is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to play any games here. We have written the Prime Minister of Canada. We posed the same questions to the Prime Minister of Canada on the same date as we posed the questions to Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton. So far we have not had the courtesy of a response. Maybe the heat from a general election might do much more greater things than an all-party committee from this Legislature might do. It may just force them, in some form or other, to pay attention, to reply at least, and give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at least the courtesy of a response.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be voting against this resolution because I am not playing any part in giving the political cousins of the federal Liberals in this House something to hide behind. I am not going to take part in it, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to vote it down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have a chance to speak in this debate today because we are in the midst now - I think when the resolution was put forth we had not embarked on this federal election campaign, but now we are here, boots and all, and it is a very important election for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We just came out of a Royal Commission which talked about our future in Canada, our place in Canada. We all agreed, I think, with the Royal Commission when they said that our place in Canada was seriously compromised by certain basic issues that are important to this Province. We do need to get change on those issues. A number of these issues have been addressed in the correspondence that has been the subject of some discussion today. For example, we have been talking here - our party has talked about this for several years - of the need for the Canada share in Hibernia, 8.5 per cent, to be transferred to the Province. That is something that we want to see happen. That is something that is committed to by the New Democratic Party of Canada in the letter that was tabled here this afternoon. Jack Layton, the national leader of the party says that, "...the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should have an ownership stake in offshore oil and gas developments as equity partners. We would expect that an ownership stake would be a pre-condition to all future developments. The Government of Canada, as an equity partner in Hibernia, has already recouped its investment and should transfer its 8.5 % equity share of the Hibernia project to the Province." It is a firm commitment by the New Democratic Party of Canada to something that is of great importance to Newfoundland and Labrador.

With respect to transfers, as I mentioned earlier today, we have seen a reduction under the Paul Martin government of transfers to support health care from the previous level of 25 per cent down to 16 per cent. Actually, from the previous level of 50 per cent at one time, but 16 per cent or less today, what has been known and called the Romanow gap. The commitment that was made by the federal New Democrats is that the federal government must raise federal cash transfers from today's level of 16 per cent to 25 per cent of shared public health spending to close the Romanow gap. This restoration must be designed to achieve Canada-wide goals and public not-for-profit health care delivery that ease the deep financial burden on provinces.

The NDP also supports transfers for health based on need and not on population alone. This shows a clear understanding by the New Democratic Party of Canada of the problems that we face here in this Province with respect to health care funding. The kind of announcement that we have heard so far from the Liberal Party, which suggest that the answer to health care funding - the solution for a generation, I think it was called. The solution for a generation, so far from the Liberal Party of Canada, is something that will net this Province about $50 million a year for five years; over a five-year period. Fifty million dollars for the first two, reduced in the next three to about $18 million a year. That is a solution for a generation from a Prime Minister who, when he was Minister of Finance, took about $25 billion out of transfer payments to the provinces.

So, we do have a significant problem, Mr. Speaker, and we do have a real gap in what we are hearing from the various parities and we do have an understanding that this election is crucial. There is an opportunity, as has been mentioned, for a close election where the number of seats that Newfoundland and Labrador has, be it only seven, could be very, very important. We recognize that there are a number of scenarios that could take place after this election. We know there is a strong possibility that we could have a minority government, whether it be minority Liberal or minority Conservative government, that would require the NDP support in order to exist.

In previous minority government situations we had Petro Canada created at the insistence of the New Democratic Party, which has played, as we all know, a significant role in the development of oil and gas development in our offshore. The NDP also - and this is a little known fact, section 92(a) of the Constitution Act, the one that allows for a direct and indirect tax of energy resources, was negotiated by the New Democratic Party during the minority government in the early 1980s. That is in the Constitution because the NDP insisted that it is there. So far our Province has not used it. They have not taken advantage of the options available under section 92(a) to ensure that we get greater revenues from the Upper Churchill, from our energy resources, generally. But that was there because of a minority government situation.

You know, of course, that on health care, would any government be able to get away with less than a full commitment to close the so-called Romanow gap if they wished to support the New Democratic Party in Parliament under a minority government. We know that it would be extremely important, if this kind of minority government situation were to occur, to have an NDP presence from this Province to make a crucial difference for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, whatever the configuration that occurs after the next election, it is really vital that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in Parliament, whether they be in the House of Commons or in the Senate, speak with a strong united voice on issues that affect this Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me get to the resolution, because I am going to speak in support of that resolution. We have heard members opposite complain about the Liberal Party of Canada. We heard a confrontation last week between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition saying that, we wouldn't want to sit down with you folks and come to some agreement, because we don't like what has happened in the past. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem we have in this Province. We spend an awful lot of energy and time fighting with each other when there is the opportunity here for identifying a whole series of issues that we, in this House, agree on, in terms of supporting the ten-province stand on equalization, for example, a change in transfer payments, a commitment on joint fisheries management, a commitment from the Government of Canada to take custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. This is an important series of issues that I believe all three parties in this Province, provincial parties, support.

The motion doesn't just talk about leaders, Mr. Speaker. The motion actually talks about the candidates. They have called it a policy document, I call it a Newfoundland and Labrador manifesto, a series of issues upon which the Newfoundland and Labrador parties, the provincial parties, agree, that we would want our MPs of whatever political stripe - obviously we are going to go out and support our own candidates in this election, we are going to try to get them elected, and obviously we, in the New Democratic Party, hope to have great success. Even if we don't elect all seven New Democrats, Mr. Speaker, we would want to be sure, as the New Democratic Party, that whoever was elected from this Province was on side and on board and committed to all of the principles that we might agree upon through an all-party committee. That is a positive leadership role that we, in this House of Assembly, can play in the upcoming election.

We are not going to get very far, Mr. Speaker, if we spent all our time fighting with each other here in this House, when, if you looked a little closely, if you spent a couple of days doing this you could probably come up with a list of things - the letter that the Premier wrote to the leaders is probably a good start. I suspect if we had an all-party committee from this House with a list of items that we were agreed upon, that you might actually get a commitment from the Liberal Party of Canada, which the Premier has not seemed to have been able to get by himself.

That is the spirit, I believe, in which this resolution ought to be accepted by the House and accepted by the other side. Instead, what we have seen is a politicization of it. The use of it, for an attack by the Premier on the Leader of the Opposition. The kind of ridicule that we have heard today as to why - the search and rescue mission for the Leader of the Liberal Party. All of this stuff, Mr. Speaker, is great politics but will it get the job done in terms of showing a unified front to all parties and an expectation that anybody running for any party in this Province should get behind the kind of things that we would want to include, and I think all members here would want to include, in a manifesto for Newfoundland and Labrador? That, I believe, would be a positive step and it would avoid some of the politicization of the issues that we have seen; the kind of confrontation that we have seen.

There is an opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to say: Yes, we will put aside the rivalries that exist in this House for a few days. We will sit down and jointly put together a document that can represent the aspirations of all three provincial parties and then put that document to the individuals running for those parties, whether it be Liberal, NDP or Conservative - or even as I heard this morning, one individual phoning in to Open Line this morning assuming that the best solution is to have everybody run as independents and when we elect all these independents then they will get together and decide which party they will support. Well, that is great pie in the sky, Mr. Speaker, but it is never going to happen. But, we do have an opportunity here to say: Okay, we are prepared to recognize that we have party differences, that we have ideological differences, but as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians there is a fairly wide consensus, I believe, in terms of issues like equalization formulas, ten province standard, issues such as custodial management, issues such as the need for federal government participation in hydro power.

The NDP has its own unique stand on that, in saying that we are the only national party that clearly supports federal government leadership in the development of a national energy strategy, especially in the construction and in the immediate future of a full east-west energy grid. That is an idea that we have as a national party, but we do support the efforts of Newfoundland and Labrador to have direct access to energy markets, which is very important. We support the Government of Canada in playing a strong role in helping to make that happen with respect to Churchill Falls, especially with the Lower Churchill and the Churchill River projects. That is something that we can all agree on. Maybe everybody would not agree on a national power grid in this Province. We do, but we also agree, and perhaps we can come to some consensus on what level of expectation we would have from our Members of Parliament, something that we could also impress upon the senators that sit in the Parliament of Canada representing these provinces.

It is a positive step, I should say, Mr. Speaker, something that can be considered as a role of leadership that members of this House and the political parties represented in this House can play in trying to influence, not only the individuals running for political office in this party, but influence what happens after the election is over. If there is a need for minority government support, that somewhere that could be significantly conditional upon the kinds of things that are contained in a manifesto that we might agree upon, that are seen in the letter we have and the commitments that we have from the New Democratic Party. I have not read it in detail but I am assuming from the glee with which it was tabled in this House, that there are some positive commitments from Stephen Harper when he was seeking to lead the Conservative Party, which, I assume, he has managed to convince the party to adopt and we will see in his election manifesto.

I was not at his speech today to the Board of Trade. You will not be surprised by that, Mr. Speaker. I did not go down to hear him speak. I was here in the House asking questions about health care transfers and the importance of ensuring that we get, at least, 25 per cent of our health care costs contributed to by the Government of Canada, which is dearly needed in this Province because we are bursting at the seams here trying to meet the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for health care, trying to deliver a substantial home care program, trying to improve on our drug care program. These are things that are vitally important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we are not going to make any progress unless we do have some kind of a unified approach. I would submit that it is worth trying. It is worth trying. There is nothing, frankly, to lose by sitting together as three parties in this House for a couple of days and say: Okay, let's put together a Newfoundland and Labrador all-party manifesto that we would ask individual candidates to sign on to, to endorse and to be committed to championing when, and if, they are elected. Some of them, of course, will surely be to the House of Commons on June 28.

That is my plea, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite join in, what I believe, is a sincere and positive approach to try and get some unity from members of this House and from the political parties on matters that are vitally important to us. Lay aside our provincial differences now. We are not going to have an election, provincially, for another several years. Members opposite are members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative Party, not the Conservative Party of Canada. I understand that. So, you know, we do not have to be totally partisan about this. We can say: Hey, we have a role here as provincial politicians. These are significant issues that are vital to our Province and to the provincial government's ability to delivery on the expectations of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So let's put aside those partisan differences for a few days, put together a manifesto for Newfoundland and Labrador, and let's see if that approach can have some influence on the future of this Province within Canada.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has lapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one final sentence, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Lord knows that the other approach, the approach of continuing partisan confrontation, has not really delivered for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have been in Confederation now for nearly fifty-five years and that approach has not delivered to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we went to the Royal Commission. That is why we have to examine the relationship and we are seeking to improve that. Perhaps this is a way that we can try something new for the next thirty days and see if it works.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise to my feet today in the House of Assembly and to support my colleagues on this side of the House in that we believe, certainly, that this proposal which has been put before the House of Assembly is pure politics. I have to say, as a new member sitting over here and watching it all, I find it awful funny when the Liberal Party across the way are asking us to form an all-party committee to talk and to put pressure on their federal cousins up in Ottawa.

I want to say a couple of other things too because, you know, as I sit over here and listen to the Leader of the Opposition throwing barbs across the House here and making fun and all the things that he does in the House of Assembly - or he feels they are anyway. I want to say that we have shown great leadership here. This is not about party politics. This is about what is best for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you, we are not going to be part of a charade because there is absolutely no communication between the provincial Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: When was the last time you called the Prime Minister? When was the last time you talked to Mr. Efford? When was the last time you talked to the other Liberal MPs about this issue? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, there was no call because there is no relationship between the provincial Liberals and the federal Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, this is about an issue that goes to the very heart of our Province. It is about fairness. I want to talk, for a couple of minutes, about the letters that we did get from the NDP and we did get from the Conservative Party of Canada. I have to say, when I looked at the correspondence - Stephen Harper writes, "Dear, Mr. Williams, Thank you for your letter of February 24, 2004...". Over three months ago, and we still have not received anything from the federal party. We still have not received anything from the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I look at Jack Layton - and I have to say, I have known Jack Layton a long time. Him and I served with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. He was president of the organization and I was a director from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to say, myself and Mr. Layton have been on different sides of the issues over the years, but I want to say, I was glad to hear some of his comments in the letter, particularly when it comes to the issue of oil and gas. "The NDP supports Newfoundland and Labrador receiving 100% of its offshore oil and gas revenues to make it the ‘principal beneficiary' of these resources based on the principles set forth in the Atlantic Accord."

I was pleased to see that, "The NDP supports the principle that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador must have greater say in the fisheries management and the future of the fishery." I was particularly proud recently to have been able to attend a meeting with the European Union Commission with the Premier, where he very clearly and firmly laid out this Province's issues with regards to the overfishing off the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. I want to say, I was very proud when our Premier told them that this is not about politics, this is about this Province's survival. Mr. Speaker, this is the type of leadership that we plan to bring to this particular issue.

I want to talk about Stephen Harper's response, because I think it is very important that the people of the Province understand the response that we got from this particular letter, which was sent by the Premier to Stephen Harper on February 24, 2004. When it comes to the oil and gas - and I want to cover this because this is important. The question went very simply, "Will you support Newfoundland and Labrador's claim to 100 percent of our offshore oil and gas provincial revenues, making the province the true "principal beneficiary" as intended under the Atlantic Accord?" His answer, "Yes. I would support the exclusion of non-renewable resource revenues from the Equalization formula."

When he was asked, "Will you support giving Newfoundland and Labrador jurisdictional control and ownership over petroleum and other economic resources in the offshore as a means to achieve greater prosperity for our province and more opportunity for our people?" His answer, "I favour giving Atlantic Canada (as well as British Columbia) greater control over offshore resources such as fish and non-renewable resources."

When he was asked about equalization, "Will you support calculating equalization entitlement based on ten-province standard?" His answer, "Yes, in concert with removing non-renewable resources from the formula."

Hydro power, and this is something that is very, very important to me and to my district, Mr. Speaker. When he was asked, "Will you as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada support efforts to develop the hydro power resources of the Lower Churchill River system for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of Federal Government guarantee if necessary to proceed with the project on a stand-alone basis?" His answer was, "I support the further development of hydro power resources in Newfoundland and Labrador."

There are a couple of other ones which I thought were very interesting. It is something that, again, really affects me in Labrador and really affects the people of Labrador, and, indeed, the people of the whole Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is regarding highways. "Will you as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada support the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway and raise it to an acceptable standard?" His answer, "I would transfer control over 3 to 5 cents of the federal gas tax to provinces and municipalities so that they have the necessary funds to make infrastructure investments. These gas tax revenues would enter the equalization formula to ensure that the distribution is fair across Canada. I also support continued federal investment in national highways."

Mr. Speaker, we have been, this government has been - I do know that the Minister of Transportation, the Member for Lewisporte has had discussions with our federal colleagues regarding paving programs and upgrades to the Trans-Labrador Highway. We are still looking for answers. We are still looking for the commitment to paving the Trans-Labrador Highway. I can tell you, as a Member for Lake Melville and a member from Labrador, I continue to press that particular issue. This is a very important issue for this government and, indeed, this Province.

When we talk about military training - again, I was very happy to be able to go and meet with some of the allies, particularly the Germans, the Dutch and the Italians when we were recently in Europe. The door is not closed on military training in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It is very much open. But, having said that, we got to make sure that we have the right product, we have the right investment on behalf of the Government of Canada. This is a federal government issue and I can tell you, we are going to ensure that this particular issue stays in the forefront.

Mr. Speaker, as we sit here today and we ponder this, I must say that I will not be supporting this particular resolution. I see no point in us becoming involved in the all-party committee. If it was going to do us any good, we would be involved in it; but, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, when was the last time you called the Prime Minister and your federal cousins in Ottawa? Because I believe it is time for you to make that call, Sir, and the sooner you make it the better.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this private member's motion. I must say how terribly disappointed I am with the representation of it made by the government; the complete misrepresentation of it, I should say, Mr. Speaker. Either that or their misunderstanding of it, this being a serious effort to show again to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that in this House of Assembly, right here, where the forty-eight of us have chosen to run for office in Newfoundland and Labrador to try to make a difference, that we would at least meet together as an all-party group and make sure that we had asked all the questions that we wanted to ask on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and take partisan politics out of it. Unlike the Member for Lake Melville just saying it is time for you to call your leader. It is not a matter of me calling my leader, or the Leader of the NDP calling his leader, or the Premier calling his - they are not my leaders. We happen to run for the same party, for different purposes, at different times, in different places. I can tell you that I am the Leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the commitments I would like to see made for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by every single candidate running for any party, to represent us in Ottawa in this election, and it is not what I see in the letter from Stephen Harper, for example.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify it, because I would like to see if there is an undertaking from the Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works - because I believe that he was misinformed and I am glad to be corrected, glad to have new information - he said that all the leaders were written at the same time and that we have gotten a response from Mr. Harper from the Conservative Party, and from Mr. Layton from the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, the history of it, as I understand it, is this: that Mr. Harper was written by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador on February 24, 2004, when he was contesting the leadership of the new party along with Mr. Mackay and others - Ms Stronach, and Mr. Clements. There was a competition on the go. Mr. Mackay had already won the other leadership. The three leaders were vying for the leadership of the party, and he wrote to them asking their position on certain items, and I will get to a couple because, again, the minister, speaking on behalf of the government, a Minister of the Crown today, said: I would assume this is the contract and I am happy with it. This is in writing and I am happy with it.

I will point out a couple of things that none of us should be happy with, because if we are happy with this then we have sold ourselves out, Mr. Speaker, and I will point out a couple of those in the next few minutes.

He said in the same letter - now the history of it, as I understand it, was this, because it made the national news - he said our Premier wrote to the three candidates for Leadership of the Conservative Party and by accident - because it became a bit of a joke, it became an embarrassment - he also sent a copy to Jack Layton, and thought that he was a candidate for the Leader of the Conservative Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be so foolish.

MR. GRIMES: That was reported in the national press, Mr. Speaker. Now they are suggesting: Don't be so foolish. Mr. Layton was not written, to my understanding, on February 24, on the same day as the minister said, by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, asking for his position. I will be glad to be proven wrong, if they can table the letters. Let's now table the letters that were sent to Mr. Layton, Prime Minister Martin, and Mr. Harper, and see if they actually exist for starters, because I do not believe that there was ever a letter written to Prime Minister Martin asking the same questions that were asked of Mr. Stephen Harper when he was running for Leader of the Conservative Party. Those are the answers that we have right here, tabled today. These answers from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, he said: I know I was not supposed to get the letter because I am not running for Leader of the Conservative Party, but I will answer them anyway because I want to.

So, there is a letter. There is a letter to Mr. Stephen Harper on February 24. There is a letter to the Leader of the New Democratic Party on February 24, sent by mistake, assuming that he was a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what he answered.

I would expect, unless again - the Minister of Environment and Conservation seems to be getting a bit agitated. Maybe he will stand up and make an offer to table the letter that was sent to Prime Minister Martin on February 24, because, Mr. Speaker, it does not exist. The letter on February 24 to the Prime Minister of Canada does not exist, and I will gladly have him prove me wrong. He can send someone out now, get a copy of the letter and table it right in this Legislature if it exists, because it does not, Mr. Speaker.

You have a Minister of the Crown who stated something as if it were a fact, in speaking to this motion, that is not a fact. You have another minister over there now suggesting - because he is a little bit disturbed by what I am saying - that he thinks there is such a letter. Well, prove it, Mr. Speaker. There is an easy way to do that. Put it before the Legislature and there will be no doubt. There will be absolutely no doubt.

Mr. Speaker, let me look at the issue of, we do not need to do anything else because we have the answers. Let me look at a couple of the answers from Mr. Harper. Let me look at a couple of the answers, Mr. Speaker, from Mr. Harper. A question is, "Will you as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada support transferring at no cost to Newfoundland and Labrador the 8.5 percent Hibernia shares...." It is an important question, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the ones that is in the private member's motion today. As a matter of fact, it is one of the ones they agreed to an amendment. When we voted on a private member's motion presented by the government, presented by the Premier, asking for 100 per cent share of the offshore, Mr. Speaker, they agreed to an amendment that said: Let's also ask them for the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia.

The Minister of Transportation and Works, speaking on behalf of the government today in this debate, said: We have a contract here from Mr. Harper. He said: I am satisfied with it, I am assuming this is what he lived to. We don't need to ask anymore questions, we are satisfied.

Here is what he is satisfied with, Mr. Speaker. Important! Members, again, of the government caucus are hearing this for the first time, because they have never seen these letters, you see, Mr. Speaker. Let me repeat the question. Will you, as Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, support transferring, at no cost, to Newfoundland and Labrador the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia? Good question. That is one I think all of us want answered, and all of us hope for an answer. Guess what the answer is from the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, in writing? It says: On behalf of the people of Canada, the Government of Canada is the shareholder of these shares. I support the eventual disposition of these shares that maintains the value to - now, what are we hoping the answer will be? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What does it say: The value to Canadians, maximizes the value to Canadians. Now, is that the answer? The Minister of Transportation and Works got up and said: I am satisfied with that answer. We don't need to go to anybody else, we don't need to talk to anybody else, that is fine with me.

You have the Conservative Party Leader, in writing, and the Minister of Transportation and Works, who is a Minister of the Crown who spoke on behalf of the government today, saying, this is fine by me. We don't need to ask anymore questions. We don't need to get together ourselves, as elected Parliamentarians here, and say: Well, are all forty-eight of us satisfied with that answer. I am not satisfied with that answer, I don't think the members of the NDP are satisfied with that answer, and I don't believe the minister himself, who said that, is satisfied with that answer. It was placed in his hand when he jumped up to make his speech, to try to pooh-pooh the whole notion, and he didn't even read it.

I would like for him to stand up again. We would give him leave on this side, to stand up again and say if he personally agrees that the 8.5 per cent share is not important and it is okay for a federal leader, who might be the Prime Minister after June 28, to say, in writing, that the 8.5 per cent share is going to be disposed of to maximize the value for all Canadians. I believe that the answer, and the position he thought was here had he read it, because he didn't see it until today, was that he thought it said - it was given to him by their House Leader, who said: Here is the letter, this is perfect. Just get up and wave around this letter. Well, you should look at it first.

I don't believe there is anybody here, Mr. Speaker - I don't believe the Premier is satisfied with that answer. I don't believe that for a minute. I refuse to believe that. As much as we have disagreements on many issues, I am convinced that I know in my heart and soul that is not an answer that satisfies the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador today; but, his Minister of Transportation and Works got up and said: We do not need to ask about anything else.

Let me point out one more example that the Minister of Transportation and Works did not read, and maybe some of the others might ask to get a copy of the letter because they are seeing it for the first time, like happens with everything in that caucus, Mr. Speaker, like happens with just about everything. We saw them today passing around a letter that they have never seen before and we have a Minister of the Crown who gets sucked into jumping up and saying: I agree with it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, not because the Leader of the Opposition says something it is right but, just in case - because when he was over here as leader of the government he used to take very great pains in making sure the record was correct, just in case somebody might look at the record some time in the future.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this letter was hand-delivered to our caucus, at a caucus meeting, by Mr. Harper himself when he was campaigning for the leadership, so we have all seen the letter. We all have the letter. We have all read the letter.

For the Leader of the Opposition to get up and say anything else, and try to make people believe it, Mr. Speaker, and get on with this nonsense about people over here not knowing things until months and months after, it is just total nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and I just wanted, like himself, to correct the record.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order, just a point of clarification.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad he made the clarification because it makes it even worse. It makes it even worse, because now he is standing as a Minister of the Crown saying that I have seen this letter, I have read it in detail. We have all seen it and the Progressive Conservative Party, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agrees that the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia should be disposed of to maximize the benefit for Canadians, all Canadians.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what it says in the letter.

MR. GRIMES: That is what it says in the letter, Mr. Speaker. That is what it says in the letter, and the minister got up and said: This is a contract. I am glad to sign this. This is what we will hold them to if they ever get elected.

Let me talk about health care, Mr. Speaker. Let me talk about health care for a second, something else that they are satisfied with. Now, if the minister wants to get up and say he made a mistake when he said he was satisfied with the answers, that is something else. Transfers for health care, Mr. Speaker. Everybody in this Legislature and everybody in the Province knows one of the greatest difficulties is that transfers for health care, post-secondary education and social services, are done on a per capita basis. A change made, by the way, by a federal Liberal government with Jean Chrétien as the Prime Minister, with Paul Martin as the Finance Minister, with Brian Tobin as a minister in the government, who later became Premier of this Province, and they changed it to per capita transfers. As a result, today in Newfoundland and Labrador, the government that our Premier leads, the new government, is receiving today, for health care alone, $100 million less than we did in 1996, and it is not right. It works for Ontario. It works for big population centres. It does not work for us, so guess what happened?

The Member for Lake Melville is having a great laugh because he does not understand the point, Mr. Speaker. The question was asked to Mr. Harper, "Will you support the allocation of future transfers on the basis of need..." instead of on the basis of per capita? A good question. I am glad the question was asked, Mr. Speaker. The minister said: I am satisfied with the response. Guess what the response is? The response is: Oh, the equalization program already takes care of that.

There is no commitment. There is absolutely no commitment to change from per capita funding. You have a Minister of the Crown standing up and saying, we all received the letter. The Member for Lake Melville nodded his head and said: Oh, yes, I received the letter - because he wanted that to be the answer. Oh, yes, I read the letter. Oh, yes, I am happy to sign on to this. The question was: Would you like to change the per capita in the future and go back to something that was right? Because what the Liberals did in 1996, I admit, was wrong. The Leader of the Conservative Party says: No, we are not going to change it because the equalization formula takes care of that. He says: Oh, that is okay with me.

That is the whole purpose of this motion, that at least we would get together, put aside partisan politics, discuss the issues and say: Are these the questions we all think should be asked of all of our leaders, not on a partisan basis? Then, let's demand some answers. Because, for purely partisan political reasons I would gladly, as a Liberal, publish that answer from Mr. Harper and say: Is that who you want to be Prime Minister, a person who says we are going to continue on with per capita funding for health care, for post-secondary education and for social assistance, and have Newfoundland and Labrador continue indefinitely into the future and receive $100 million less than we should be getting and we used to receive in 1996? It is not satisfactory to me, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is a sad, sad day to see the Premier, who has misunderstood and misrepresented this initiative from the beginning, the minister and the other speakers today saying there is nothing to be gained from this. I have shown two examples where there is a lot to be gained from this, by us getting together. Who do you go? We do not go anywhere. That is the whole point. We get together ourselves, right here in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, we decide whether or not we are satisfied with the questions that were asked as a group, collectively, and then we will all check and see what answers we get. You do not have to go anywhere. You just send them to the candidates, send them to the leaders. Mr. Speaker, I ask this for clarification: Would the minister undertake to table today - because I have made an accusation that he described to be false, that he said the same letter was sent to the Prime Minister and the other two leaders on the same day. That did not happen. I say that pretty definitively. Now, prove me wrong by tabling the letter, because otherwise he has started this whole debate on behalf of government members with a false premise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: That is the kind of thing that has been happening in their caucus. They believe a certain story. They do not want to listen to anybody else and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - that is it, Mr. Speaker, they make bad decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his allotted time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity. I have spoken and I am saddened by the fact that the two speakers from the government side today have completely missed the point, misrepresented some serious facts, and are suggesting that they are satisfied to sign on to some things that will leave Newfoundland and Labrador hamstrung within Canada for at least another term of office if some of these answers are going to be the platform that we are going to get, and if we are going to say we are okay with it, then we have a huge, huge, massive problem if that is the representation we are going to get and if that is the only voice that is going to be heard in this debate. As the Premier says: We do not want to talk to you guys. I will handle it myself.

Well, handling it myself, so far, is turning it into a mess, Mr. Speaker, and I hope they see the light between now and 5 o'clock and will to come to vote for this so we can restart the process and do something constructive and positive for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to this resolution before the House. When you go down through it, Mr. Speaker, the only sad thing here today is that we do not have any letter or any confirmation on the Liberal stand. We have the NDP, we have the Conservative, but we do not have the Liberal stand. That is the saddest thing here today.

Mr. Speaker, when you go down through the WHEREAS, there is not much here that is not in the Blue Book. I had a funny feeling they read the Blue Book before they put the resolution before the House. Now, something tells me that is where they got this resolution. When we look at everything that is here, we talk about offshore, we talk about fisheries, we talk about education, we talk about health care, we talk about Labrador issues, the hydro deal, all of them, they are all there. They are all in our book. They are all in the Blue Book, every one of them. Now, there are some things that happened here.

This resolution that came before the House was of last week. That is the first time I saw this, or early Monday, whenever the resolution was put forward by the House. This government, under the leadership of the Premier, took it upon himself to ask those leaders, prior to all of that - prior to that. There was a letter dated March 16, and there is one here on April 25, from the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I call vision, in looking forward to the future of what Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be, looking at these issues. This government over there - this previous government, I should say. Excuse me, I made a slip. This previous government over there spent fifteen years, fifteen years, and they never got to first base. The Leader of the Opposition said: Well, do you realize that we are getting $100 million less in health care since 1993? What did they do about that? They just let that go. They did not do anything about that. They never called upon the prime minister of the day to revisit that, and he mentioned that former Prime Minister Chrétien was part of that, and Finance Minister Paul Marin was part of that.

Mr. Speaker, this is nothing more, nothing more, than politics pure and simple. The issues here that they bring up were already addressed by this government and this leader on those issues. We know what is going to happen. We are confident of the responses that we got. We will bring everything to the forefront, and when we get the letter from the Liberal side, we will evaluate that too. As some member of the House said, the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will ask these questions when the candidates come knocking on their doors, as they did to us when we did prior to October 21.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did that get them?

MR. DENINE: A government that they wanted to get rid of.

We did not go through the door; we came in as government. There is someone else who went though - I ask the hon. member, I let him speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard in silence.

Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House now, we have been elected since October 21, and all I have heard from that side of the House is: Oh, that was a Liberal initiative. That was what we put in.

Not once, not once, Mr. Speaker, did they address the deficit and say that was their problem. That is the one that they created, every single one of them, but they are willing to take credit for everything else except the debt, the deficit that they accumulated. Not one of them opened their mouth over there. Look, they are silent. By the commitment that they have over there, they know exactly what they did.

Mr. Speaker, this Premier, Premier Williams, has a good rapport with the present Government of Canada right now, each and every one of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DENINE: They laugh over there, Mr. Speaker, because that is the attitude that destroys the communication between the federal government and the provincial government, that same attitude that is over there now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, this government here, under Premier Williams, will go to Ottawa, will set up an office, and the cynicism over there about setting up that office is unbearable because they cannot stand anyone else succeeding. Every one of them, they tried everything for fifteen years and were a complete failure, a total failure.

Mr. Speaker, everyone has said that the tactics that were used by the previous government - the previous government - were not acceptable between the relationships of provincial and federal - not one. Even the people over there laugh at it today.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here today is this, and I mentioned the deficit and I mentioned the fact that they want to take credit for all of the Liberal initiatives. That was a Liberal initiative. That was that, and so on, but no one said anything about the debt. They want to stand up over there and say: Mr. Speaker, people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we put those questions to the candidates of this federal election. We did that.

That is so ironic, because you guys were not even out of the starting gate and we were almost at the finish line.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: Yes, and we won that one, didn't we?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DENINE: To the hon. member I ask: Who won that one? Who came out on the finish line in that one?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: That is right.

Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to support today an all-party resolution to go after one party. If every one of them over there are trying to be cute as far as politics is concerned, why don't each one of them phone the Liberal candidates and report back to the House rather than wasting time? You can take that upon yourselves. Every single one of you can do it. No, Mr. Speaker, they would rather banter back and forth and not do anything. It is the inaction of the Liberal Party that got us where we are. The biggest deficit in our history. They will sit back.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the former members of that government, that former government, was on Open Line and said -

AN HON. MEMBER: Former?

MR. DENINE: Yes, former.

It says the political will is there. Well, the political will is there with John Efford. Nobody needs to second guess that, and there is no doubt about the political will is there with the Province. We certainly made that clear, but what I am encouraged by is the political will is there for the Prime Minister. Guess who is the Prime Minister? Paul Martin.

Now, I can understand the members over there not going to their candidates. I can understand that very well because there was sometime it happened - someone mentioned something about Mount Pearl. Something happened in Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, that set the tone for this party when the leadership was on. None of them have face enough to go and ask John Efford now what they did to the man. They do not have face. They do not have the face.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, because sometimes people over there will misinterpret when the cameras are on, saying: The government is laughing over there. They do not understand. They do not take things seriously. Everything in that resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a very, very, serious issue. Everyone of them. That is the reason why this government is going to act on them. This government has taken action prior to this resolution coming into the House; prior to it. We don't sleep over here, we work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, we have gone through six months of paving the way for a new Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the new approach. Over there they laugh at it. The cynicism is unreal because they cannot understand the new approach. Not only can't they understand it, because they are so entrenched in the old approach they figure that is going to happen. No, Mr. Speaker, we are moving beyond that. To support this here, this would be, I think, ironic because we already have letters from the NDP. We already have comments from the Conservative Party, but what is missing? What is missing is there is nothing here. Nothing in writing, nothing said, nothing done and those people over there, the Liberal Party, the Liberal members over there, each one of their candidates - I wonder, did they question any of their candidates on these issues? I did because I ran into a couple of them. I ran into a couple of them on my walks, when I walk around Mount Pearl. I asked them the issues on the oil. I asked issues on the fisheries. I asked issues on the roads, Lower Churchill and all these issues that are outlined in this resolution. None of them, not one of them over there has done that. None of them.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at this whole thing here, we should be proud of ourselves over here because we took the initiative. As the hon. member over here said: Who came first? What happened in the race on October 21? I think he missed the point because we came in first. Guess who came in second? That is the problem, they are always coming in second because we are much more ahead of them now today than we ever were.

Mr. Speaker, to each and everyone of us here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: - we are committed to all of this resolution here, Mr. Speaker, because we said it before. The Premier in the House had many, many conversations with the Prime Minister over the last number of months. I can assure you, not knowing any details on it, but I am sure all of these issues were discussed, every single one of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, obviously they do not want to listen but that is okay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is far too much shouting back and forth the House. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member for Mount Pearl. He has been recognized by the Chair. If other members would like to speak, wait until your turn comes up, be recognized by the Chair, and they will have a chance to take part in this debate here today. Otherwise, I ask that we show some respect to the member who presently has the floor.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I must say you are the first one who said that you couldn't hear me. When I was teaching, Mr. Speaker, they told me I could teach from any classroom on the top floor and teach the whole floor, because I had such a big mouth. That is true, I believe that.

Mr. Speaker, to support this today, the irony is unbelievable. Total irony here today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on with you. (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: The hon. member over there, God bless her. You threw me off. Thank you very much. She was waiting to do that to me for a long time.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think what should happen, as I said before, is, each and every one of those members over there, in the Liberal Party, should contact their Liberal members, every one of them. I did state, there are some they would be a little bit shy on. They might not want to contact them. They might be a little bit shy because they don't want to ruffle any feathers. There are two hon. members over there who would not want to see them.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, rest assured this government has vision, rest assured this government has addressed those problems, and rest assured we will have the positive answers that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Private Member's Motion today. I guess I can go back, because of age, to the first election in Newfoundland and Labrador when we became a part of Canada, in 1949. I remember very distinctly, on our part of the Coast, when we had people to represent us. I remember Senator Carter, who represented us for a long time on that Coast. Then, of course, there were other people who followed him, the hon. Don Jamieson who represented us very, very well on that part of the Coast.

I look at it from two perspectives, Mr. Speaker. I look at the benefits that have come to us as a Province in the form of social benefits. We have had many social benefits that have come to us since 1949. We have had unemployment insurance. Even though we would like to have everybody in the Province working twelve months of the year, that is impossible in this Province because of the climate and so on, and we do have part-time jobs and the people are entitled to their EI.

We think of the old age pensions that came to people who are seniors. We think of the family allowance, now called the child benefit package, that comes to our residents in this Province, because we are a part of the great Country of Canada; and the list goes on.

However, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the political party has been in Ottawa, whether it has been - and there have only been two, the Progressive Conservative, now the Conservative Party of Canada, and the Liberal Party which has formed government for a number of years. I look at there commitment to us, as a people, when it comes to developing our resources that we have here. It can all go back to Churchill Falls, in the early stages, when BRINCO went bankrupt. The federal government could have helped Smallwood out but they did not help him out. He was put into a situation where it was a juggernaut, and we got the deal today that we should never have had, but we did.

The only good thing about Churchill Falls is the fact that it is a renewable resource, that in 2024 when it comes up for renewable, we can get it, because there is just as much water in the Churchill River today as there was back then, even though - 2041, I am sorry, rather than 2024. I might not be around to see it but my kids will, and my grandchildren, no doubt, if all goes well. I think about that, and, as a result of that, I think of the offshore oil. You know, whether it was a give away or whatever the case might be - history will decide that and the people themselves will decide that.

What I want to say to you, is that there is no political party in Ottawa that is immune when it comes to not treating us the way that we should be treated. We have become the brunt of jokes in a number of situations, primarily because of the federal system that we are in.

I sympathize with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I was there for a long time, a couple of years. I sympathize with the Minister of Transportation and Works, and with the Minister of Health, when it comes to monies for our people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a large geographical area. Our population is small. We get 2 per cent of the money.

I was talking to the minister only a few days ago about the $2 billion special infrastructure fund that is there for Canada. Do you know how much we are going to get? We are going to get about $28 million over ten years out of that fund. That is not enough to put a water treatment plant in Corner Brook. That will not do it. We have to have a different system.

It is the same thing with the transportation system, 2 per cent of the Transportation Fund for Canada. It is a joke. Here is a situation where we have resources and we talk about getting commitment. I think the time has come - this is a pivotal election in the Country of Canada, and I think that the outcome of the election is in doubt, as to who would win, whether it would be a majority government or a minority government. Nobody can look into a crystal ball today and determine what that particular outcome will be.

I see that as an opportunity for us, as the House of Assembly, and the people that we represent here - not everybody will agree, and I understand that the members opposite do not want to agree with it, but I just want to make my point. The fact is, there has been no letter yet from the Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin. I agree, I have not seen it. I look at the commitment that was given by Stephen Harper. In the resolution, for example, we talk about EI changes. Now, whether Mr. Harper has mended his ways - I guess there is always time to repent. You can do that and say that you are sorry. Only a few years ago he was down here and he told us that we were defeated, we had a defeated attitude, because we only work part-time during the year. Until such time as they can create full-time employment in Newfoundland and Labrador for people, then are we defeated, are we of a defeated attitude, because we have to go to the EI system? Is that the type of person that we want to lead us, to be our leader in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, with that type of an attitude toward us? I question it, but I also say that it is possible for a person to repent and to amend his ways. I understand that.

I talk about the letter here, just one thing. We have heard a lot about 5 Wing Goose Bay. This is from Stephen Harper, by the way, and it is not since he has been the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. This particular document came when he was running for leadership. Listen very carefully to the military training, and I will read it into the record. It says, "Will you, as Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, support efforts to restore and enhance military training activities at 5 Wing Goose Bay, which has served for many years as key to NATO international flight training base?" Here is his answer, "I have committed to an immediate injection of $1.2 billion into defence spending, with further increases to bring our spending in line with similar countries around the world."

Now, where is the commitment to Goose Bay? Where can the $1.2 billion go? It could go to Cold Lake, Alberta. There is nothing in here for Happy Valley-Goose Bay. There is no commitment to 5 Wing. He is the leader. Are we saying this is okay? It is not okay.

The same thing when we talk about the transportation, and talk about, as I said, the 2 per cent. Do you know what his solution is to it? Not to give us a larger share and not to give us a special need, but give us three to five cents a litre for gasoline. Now, look at the number of vehicles in Newfoundland compared to the numbers in Alberta or the numbers in Ontario, and they do not add up. They do not add up. I am telling you, there are a lot of questions in here that I would not be proud to say, if I was the Leader of the Conservative Party, to favour Newfoundland.

Look at another one that is here. "Will you support giving Newfoundland and Labrador jurisdictional control and ownership over petroleum and other economic resources in the offshore as a means to achieve greater prosperity for our province and more opportunity for our people?" He says, "I favour giving Atlantic Canada (as well as British Columbia) greater control over offshore resources such as fish and non-renewable resources."

What does greater control mean? What is the extent? It is not tied down. It is not definitive. It is not there. It is probably a lot more than we have now, I understand that, but here is an opportunity for us - because in our history, in our time, we have an opportunity because the federal system today, with the parties as they are, we do not know who the Prime Minister would be. Here is a great opportunity for us to be able to tie these people down and to get commitments from them. For me it is not political. It is not political for me because, I tell you, having lived in this Province all my life and familiar with rural Newfoundland, it does not matter what government sits on that side of the House over here, whether you are Liberal, whether you are Progressive Conservative or whether you are NDP, unless the federal system itself is changed and we get a further commitment from the leaders of Canada we will always have the rural area getting less than we should be getting because it is not within the resources of the provincial government to meet the needs. I do not say want, but meet the needs of all of the communities that we have out there. I recognize that you cannot put a hospital in every community. You cannot put an arena in every community either. It has to be done in a growth centre area, but you have to give people the services. There is no government in this Province that has the wherewithal to do it.

I am sure that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs today could confirm with me that if we were to have water, proper insulation in all of our areas and bring in a full sewage treatment plant and so on, conditions so that they have no direct lines into the water, how much money would he need from Ottawa? He would need about $3 billion to $4 billion to $5 billion. Our Province does not have the opportunity, it does not have the resources, to do it.

Offshore, Hibernia is ours. It belongs to us. Just think of Alberta, for example. Next year, in 2005, do you know what they are going to be? They are going to be debt free. Debt free! Here we have Hibernia, we have Terra Nova, we have the White Rose about to come on, and then there will be other programs, other wells offshore, and we are not getting ours. Every time that we have a dollar, 70 per cent, seventy cents or eighty cents is clawed back to us. We will never be able to achieve any status unless we can tie down. That is the whole idea.

I have not had an opportunity to read all of this here in the way that I would like, but there are a lot of issues that Stephen Harper has not addressed that are in this particular resolution right here.

When you think of education, the key - I think of education from the time that I went to a three-room school in a small outport in Newfoundland where I have said many, many times in this House I can have a graduation whenever I like because I was the only person in Grade 11, in the school. We had no physics. We had no chemistry. We had no honours math. We had no advanced writing. We did not have any of those things. Here is a situation today, again, where I heard a student on this morning complaining because some of the enriched programs had been taken away from him. If we are to compete, if we are to bring our Province up and have our young people having equal opportunity then we have to have a good education. We have to have the services that they provide.

There is no way, Mr. Speaker, and it is not political for me, because I am concerned about the people that I represent and I could not care less who gets the benefit or who gets the credit for doing it, as long as it is done. If I could see tomorrow morning that we were going to get $250 million extra to put in the provincial coffers to do some things in the Province, then all power to whoever the government is. We are here to represent our people. We are here today and we are going to be gone tomorrow. Myself, I have been here for five terms. In terms of history, that is only like a fleeting moment.

Some of us who are here, in the next General Assembly we will not be back, because the people will not give us that opportunity. The people will still be there. They want us to do what is right for them, and that is how I see it. I am not, as I said, one bit happy with what I see from Stephen Harper. I have not had an opportunity to look at what Jack Layton had to say, but I will have an opportune time to do that later.

Getting to the Liberals, what difference does it make if it is our political cousins in Ottawa? I am concerned about the people in Ramea. I am concerned about the people in Grey River. I am concerned about the people in Harbour Breton, and am really concerned about the people in Harbour Breton today after I saw the article of what FPI is about to do: sell off their marketing arm of the fish plant of the FPI company.

In the plant in Harbour Breton, for example, we usually have the frozen cod and the groundfish to produce there. The company is paying about $2 a pound at source for that particular product. They are not making a profit on that. What they are doing is, they are using the marketing arm, the dollars that they have, to keep these plants in Marystown and in Harbour Breton and in Fortune operational. What do you think is going to happen if they sell off the marketing arm of it, the profitable part of the company? I am really concerned about that.

These are the issues that we need to address for the people who we represent. The people put us here and they want us to do these types of things. That is what I see, having a letter - I don't care about Paul Martin, if he is Liberal or Tory or whatever. I want a commitment from him so that the Province I live in, and my children and my grandchildren, are going to benefit and we are going to get services. I couldn't care about our political cousins. That is not what it is about, it is a commitment for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have to say, I do support my federal member, and when the time comes I will probably go door to door with him like he did with me. The point is, you have to say to them, even though you are friends: We have to get what is best for the people who we represent. It doesn't matter if we are federal or we are provincial, it is the benefits that are accruing to us, it is the people who we represent that are of benefit to us. That is what it is about here and I see nothing wrong with it.

The thing about it here, what we are asking for - there is nobody going anywhere. I guess you could do it as a group, five or six people, look at all the issues and then have it written to all the leaders. I am not satisfied with the answers here that Stephen Harper has given, or Jack Layton. We have our own group. We are the legislators in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know what is best and, collectively, we can put things in the paper and hopefully present it to them, and have it signed. I am not so naive not to realize that they can sign it and they are not going to fulfill their commitment. We have seen that happen many, many times too.

What it does is, at the end of the day we can say to them: That is what you ran on. That is your commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you don't hold up your end of the bargain, I am telling you, the next time don't come to my door and look for support. The people in the Province are cynical and they have a right to be cynical about politicians like us, because sometimes we make commitments and before we turn around we have them broken. That is not what they want because they think we are honourable, we are people who come here and we have to be true to our word. If you give your word, then your word is your bond. If it is not, then what are we here for. That is what I see we should do as a group.

I will certainly be supporting this Private Member's Motion and it has nothing to do with politics, all it has to do with, for me, is getting something that will benefit the people who I represent and, collectively, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If it is not for that, then I shouldn't be here.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a couple of the members on that side of the House speak. One of the concerns, Mr. Speaker, with putting an all-party committee in place is that you do not always get all of the facts from the members on that side of the House. We had the Leader of the Opposition stand up and point to two of the fourteen questions that were answered by Mr. Harper. Those were not the answers we wanted, he said. Those were not the answers we wanted. There were fourteen questions. He did not talk about the questions that we did get the answers we wanted.

I heard the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune get up and refer to five questions, and say: Those five questions are not exactly what we wanted. They will give us more than what we have now, but they are not exactly what we wanted.

Mr. Speaker, the point is, out of fourteen questions, there are seven of those questions that were answered that give us exactly what we want, five of those questions that give us more than we have now, and two of them that do not give us exactly what we wanted at all.

The reality is, if all fourteen of those questions were answered exactly the way we wanted, that crowd would be up on their feet saying: How can we believe this? How can they give us everything we have been looking for? How can you believe that? That is just an election promise.

The reality is, Mr. Harper answered these questions honestly. Seven of the answers said, yes, we are going to be able to give you exactly what you are looking for; five of them, we are going to give you more than what you have now but not exactly what you are looking for; and two of them were not quite what we wanted to hear.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, that crowd, the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, were in government for fourteen years. Let's have a look at the resolution: WHEREAS this Province should be the principle beneficiary of offshore resource revenue.

Mr. Speaker, they had fourteen years to get the answer to that question, but you know what happened. While they were in government, the Atlantic Accord was not quite lived up to because work that should have been secured for this Province went to other jurisdictions of Canada -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: - went to other countries, went overseas, Mr. Speaker. That is what happened. That is what happened. Not only did they not get what we wanted from Canada, but they did not live up to the Atlantic Accord. They did not even get what we should have gotten under the Atlantic Accord.

WHEREAS there is a need for improvements to the equalization program. Now, after fourteen years, Mr. Speaker, you would think they would have something under the equalization program to brag about today. You would think that there would be something to brag about today, but guess what? Fourteen years, nothing on the equalization formula.

WHEREAS health and post-secondary funding from the federal government should be increased. Mr. Speaker, while that party were in government, their federal counterparts reduced our health and social transfers by hundreds of millions of dollars. I did not see any of them cross the floor. No, Sir, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, every federal election that they had the chance to go and cozy up to their federal counterparts and knock on doors with them, they did it. I do not remember hearing them on the evening news saying their federal cousins cut health and social transfers by hundreds of millions of dollars. Now they have the face, Mr. Speaker, to put this resolution forward and say we are not co-operating.

WHEREAS there is a need for improvements in the EI system. Let us think about what happened with the EI system. In fact, the former Premier, Brian Tobin, was a Cabinet Minister - the federal representative in Cabinet - when there were drastic changes made to the EI system, Mr. Speaker, drastic changes. What happened to Brian Tobin? They all embraced him, Mr. Speaker, when he came back to run for the Leader of the Liberal Party, to be Premier of this Province. That is what happened. That is what happened, Mr. Speaker. Drastic cuts to the EI program to the Province in Canada, the one Province in Canada, that has the heaviest reliance on seasonal employment, and the federal representative in Ottawa, for this party, the Liberal member, Brian Tobin, the federal representative for this Province, was part of a Cabinet that made drastic cuts to the EI program.

Mr. Speaker, who was the Finance Minister at the time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a point of order to the issue just raised by the Minister of Environment and Conservation. He might also, in his speech, recall for the House that when Mr. Tobin returned to Newfoundland and Labrador in 1996, the current Premier embraced him and financed his campaign against the current Opposition House Leader, who was Leader of the PC Party at the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I did not get up and interrupt the Leader of the Opposition when he was giving his talk. I did not get up and interrupt him, and for him to get up on such a foolish point, Mr. Speaker, business people in this Province always support all parties and he knows that as well as everybody else.

Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister in Ottawa, when there were drastic, drastic cuts made to the EI program that had drastic affects on this Province, the one Province in Canada that has the heaviest dependence on EI because of seasonal employment, is now running as Prime Minister, is now the leader of the Liberal Party, the only party we did not get an answer from to the fourteen questions that were posed. Now isn't that ironic?

Mr. Speaker, there should be increased federal presence in the Province for that party when they were a government for fourteen years; that party. I do not remember them out beating the drums because we do not have the federal presence in this Province that are in other provinces. Look at what Halifax has. Halifax, with their Canadian Forces and Navy presence alone, probably has a greater presence than the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from the federal government. That is the reality. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: In fact, Mr. Speaker, because of that parties lack of fight on the removal of the weather station in Gander, our party won that seat. That is the reality. That is the reality of what has happened here.

Let's have a serious look at this, Mr. Speaker. Their counterparts in Ottawa are the only party that has not responded to our fourteen questions. The NDP have responded. The Conservative Party have responded. As I have said, seven of the questions that we have posed, they have agreed to give us everything we are looking for. Five of the questions we posed, have agreed to give us more than what we currently have. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is much to complain about.

Let's have a look, "Will you support Newfoundland and Labrador's claim to 100 percent of our offshore oil and gas provincial revenues, making the province the true "principal beneficiary" as intended under the Atlantic Accord." What is the answer? Yes. In fact they go on, "I would support the exclusion of non-renewable resource revenues from the Equalization formula." So not only our offshore, but all non-renewable resources.

That is one example of the seven we have asked that we have gotten exactly what we wanted, Mr. Speaker. That is one example.

"Will you support calculating equalization entitlement based on ten-province standard?" What was the answer to that? Yes. Then they go on to say, "Yes, in concert with removing non-renewable resources from the formula."

It goes on, Mr, Speaker. There are seven of these questions that we have gotten exactly what we wanted, but neither member of that side of the House, when they got up, were willing to enlighten the listeners who are watching television, as to the fact that: Yes, seven of those questions we have gotten exactly what we wanted.

"Will you as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada support the restoration of federal transfers to the provinces for health care, post-secondary education and social services to 1994-95 levels adjusted for inflation?"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that it is now 4:45 p.m. and that the time for debate is up. Unless the member who introduced the resolution, the hon. Opposition House Leader, would like to give leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just a minute to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. No leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice to hear some of the comments here this afternoon because the resolution, obviously, generated some concern on this side, at least, and a bit of humor from the other side.

I noticed the first person to speak over there today was the Minister of Transportation and Works. One of the first comments he made in response to my opening comments was: Could the hon. member opposite turn on a light bulb over here in my head, because there is something that he sang over there that I missed. Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing - I do not know about turning on light bulbs but I will tell you one thing I will never do, based on the comments I heard today from the Minister of Transportation and Works, I will never, ever ask him to draft a contract for me. Never! He stood here in this House and said that he was quite pleased with everything that Stephen Harper, a man of his word, got up and said, and he would sign a contract; would form the basis of a contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Form the basis of a contract.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to give an example there of comparing. The question that was asked was, "Will you as leader of the Conservative Party..." what would you do with the 8.5 per cent in Hibernia? Now, Mr. Harper, who at that time - in fairness to him, he was not at that time running for the Prime Ministership of the country. I think, by the way, that letter in and of itself might have been tweaked a little differently given that he was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party with other parties, versus now that he is running for the Prime Minister's job. His comment was, "I support the eventual..." - and get the wording here; words are very important - "I support the eventual disposition of these shares that maximizes the value to Canadians."

Now, Mr. Speaker, compare that with what Jack Layton said in his letter on page two, his response, when he says, "The Government of Canada, as an equity partner in Hibernia, has already recouped its investment and should transfer its 8.5% equity share of the Hibernia project to the Province."

Now, that is pretty definitive stuff, no wishy-washy words about that, who I am going to give it to, whether it be for maximizing the benefits to Canadians, none of that stuff. Straightforward, 8.5 per cent to Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a man who puts it and tells it like it is.

Now, another basis of the contract we had here was going to be the other question of Mr. Harper: What would you do, for example, when it talks about jurisdictional control and ownership over petroleum and other economic resources in the offshore? What was Mr. Harper's response? "I favour giving Atlantic Canada (as well as British Columbia) greater control..." No such thing as ownership, greater control. Now, that is not very definitive in my eyes, greater control. What is that, 1 per cent more than we already have? Is that 100 per cent control? No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: On the hydro power issue, talk about commitments again, on the hydro power, the question was, "Will you, as Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, support efforts to develop the hydro power resources of the Lower Churchill River system for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of Federal Government guarantee if necessary to proceed with the project on a stand-alone basis?"

What was the answer of Mr. Harper? "I support the further development of hydro power resources in Newfoundland and Labrador." No mention of a guarantee, not the mention, not the breath of whether he would or would not give a guarantee for the Lower Churchill.

The purpose of this debate today, and the resolution, was not, of course, to get into politicizing the issue. The exact opposite, because my earlier statement when I started was not to take what Stephen Harper said and tear holes into it. We could spend the rest of this election from now until June 28 talking about how wishy-washy that is, but that is not the purpose of the resolution. Nor is it the purpose to tear apart what Jack Layton said.

The purpose of the resolution was because - exactly because - we get these wishy-washy answers, not to single out Stephen Harper, not to single out Jack Layton or Paul Martin. We have a case here, ladies and gentlemen and people in this Province, whereby neither are definitive on all the issues we want dealt with. None. All the resolution calls for is: Let's put our heads together so we can come up with the questions and make sure the responses are definitive, so there is no weaseling out of what we want as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. One party has not given us any answer.

The thought again was that the reason the Prime Minister has not given us his answer is because for whatever reason; he is tardy, he does not want to, he forgot to, he refuses to. The bottom line is, my understanding now is that the Prime Minister was never asked - never asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: The letter was written on February 24 to Conservative leadership hopefuls. To my knowledge, and we challenge the people on the other side, any time between now and June 28, please produce the copy of the letter that went from this Administration to the Prime Minister of Canada asking where he stood on these most important issues.

It does not exist, Mr. Speaker. It does not exist. That is why you are not going to get a response, because you never wrote the letter. I challenge them to produce the letter here in this House and table it whereby they asked the Prime Minister of Canada that. That is the whole purpose of the resolution here today. This resolution is to ask people to bring their heads together so that there is no wishy-washy. We get the questions that we needed answered and then we insist that they give us an answer.

A big problem, I would submit, Mr. Speaker - and there is no question, by the way, I fully understand the parliamentary process vis-à-vis the voting. The people of this Province understand, who are watching this on their TVs.

This resolution that I, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, put forward is going to be defeated today based simply on numbers, but the record will show for posterity that is was the members opposite who lost this opportunity, on the beginning of a federal campaign, to put every single candidate, every single leader in this country, to the test of saying: What do you stand for vis-à-vis these most important issues here in our Province?

We can sugarcoat it, we can discredit it, we can make fun of it, we can tout it all we want, but the bottom line is, today, this afternoon, regardless of what vote is done on this resolution, the issue will not go away today; the issue will not go away on June 28. We will be standing here, and I am sure we will have the benefit of standing in this House again some time in the future to discuss this very important issue and somebody is going to say: Wasn't there a fellow one time who stood up here and said we should get our heads together now that we have the opportunity to all sign on to a pact and say, all of you, tell us what you stand for and tell us what you commit to. That day will come.

This is not about credit. This person here does not need any credit for doing anything for the benefit of this Province and the people in it. Nobody in this House needs any credit, because that is what we are all here for. That is doing our job.

The Premier of this Province need not worry about whose idea this was. It is irrelevant who comes up with an idea if the idea will benefit this Province. Take full credit. I endorse him, if he can go as the Premier of this Province and say: Here is what we, as a unanimous group of our House, want you to stand for, and tell us what you stand for and sign on to. He deserves the credit. This is not a time to be reactive, this is a time to be proactive. Regardless of your political stripe, regardless of what party you are running for, regardless of what party we represent here, this is an opportunity lost if we, as parliamentarians, but most importantly as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, do not put every federal politician, candidate and leader to the test of saying what they stand for.

It is not argumentative, it is not confrontational, to ask someone to put in writing where they stand. If you believe in it, and if they believe in it, and they believe it in it enough, and honestly and sincerely, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking them to sign on to it. We will not get the opportunity after June 28. Let's not be naysayers. All forty-eight of us can stand up for the rest of eternity and say, we missed the opportunity, we missed the opportunity, but we need not miss it.

Lo and behold! If we have to see the Premier of the Province out, in two weeks time, taking off the gloves because his new approach did not work, his co-operative approach doesn't work, and we have not heard anything back from these people, and we have not firmed up the comments of Mr. Harper, and we have not firmed up the comments of Mr. Layton, and we have not got a commitment from the Prime Minister, it is too late to take the gloves off then. Too late!

The first thing any one of those candidates are going to say, rightfully so, and the leadership people will say: Sure you cannot even agree among yourselves about what you believe in. You cannot even get your heads together yourself in your own House of Assembly and say: Yes, we think that is good for Newfoundland, we think that is good for Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot even do that. They would be right, and we would not have a word in our face to say to any candidate in this election, if we do not put forward a unanimous resolution such as this.

Mr. Speaker, again, in conclusion, the resolution is well-intentioned, the resolution was put forward on the purpose and the motivation of non-partisanship, the resolution was put forward for the benefit of this Province and for the purpose of taking full advantage of an opportunity that we have now that the federal election has been called. That is the sole motivation of this resolution and I do not care what motives anyone else wants to assign to it. Because it is well motivated, I do not care who gets credit for it, but it certainly needs to be done. We will never again get the opportunity that we have right now to put all candidates and all federal parties to the test of telling us, in writing, where do you stand on these most important issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are members ready for the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The motion is defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Ring the bells and call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are members ready for the division?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Those in favour of the resolution, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Langdon; Ms Jones; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Ms. Dunderdale; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Sullivan; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr. Shelley; Ms Burke; Mr. Tom Osborne; Ms Whalen; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Hickey; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Denine; Mr. Harding; Mr. Young; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Jackman; Mr. Hodder; Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, nine ayes and twenty-three nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

On motion, resolution defeated.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to remind members before we rise that I think the Government Services Committee will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, at 7:00 p.m. here in the Chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that the House not rise at 5:30 p.m.

MR. RIDEOUT: Those motions are made, I say to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Government Services had indicated earlier in Question Period that she was going to table a letter that was requested by the Leader of the Opposition. I am just wondering if she had an opportunity to get that letter yet, concerning the Commission?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Okay, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This being Wednesday, the House will now adjourn until tomorrow, May 27, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.