May 16, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 14


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome the Chairperson -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, the Chair has asked for order.

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome the Chairperson and members of the "Challenge Yourself" Wellness Program of the Father Val Power Centre of Riverhead, St. Mary's Bay, in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. Sheila Lee is the Chairperson, and the members of the committee are: Carmel St. Croix, Theresa Butland and Bertha Power.

We are also pleased to welcome Ms Bernice Walker, President of Corona College in Grand Falls-Windsor and President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Career Colleges. She is accompanied by Mr. (Inaudible), Director of Marketing with the College.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute and to congratulate the young women and men from across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who were honoured for their accomplishments and achievements as elite athletes. They were recognized at the Annual Premier's Athletic Awards Ceremony held here in St. John's last Wednesday, May 9.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Athletic Awards are designed to assist the Province's elite athletes by providing financial assistance while competing at Atlantic, National and International events. This program is open to all residents of the Province who are registered with a provincial sport organization. They must be competing for, and continue to compete for, the Province at different levels of competition.

As the Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Port au Port, I am extremely proud and honoured to congratulate Nancy Caines of Stephenville for hockey, Katarina Roxon of Kippens for swimming, and Krisite-Lee Leblond of Stephenville for wrestling.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating and thanking these athletes, and all athletes in the Province, for their invaluable contributions they make to this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Drake of Lawn on being selected HMCS Acadia's Top Cadet - a fitting recognition at the end of her cadet career.

Chief Drake, who is graduating from the cadet movement his year, learned she has been selected "Chief of the Camp" this year for HMCS Acadia, the largest Cadet Summer Training Center in Canada.

Chief Drake, the Coxswain of RCSCC 237 Truxtun and a former student of Holy Name of Mary Academy in Lawn, started her cadet career when she joined the Truxtun in 2000. She attended her first summer training center as a two-week general training cadet at HMCS Acadia. She started training as a Boatswain in 2001, attending training centers in Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Ontario, and completed the training in 2004. Ms Drake went on to serve two more years at Acadia as a "Range Staff Cadet."

Chief Drake has won a host of awards including the Royal Canadian Legion Medal of Excellence, the Lord Strathcona Trust Fund Medal and the Navy League of Canada Medal of Excellence. She has represented her Corps and Province at the National Championship level and is a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Marksmanship Team which competed at the National Competition on May 12 in London, Ontario.

Chief Drake, daughter of Dana and Todd Drake of Lawn, will resume her command in July.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Drake and extend her best wishes in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I rise before this House today to congratulate Stephanie Barker of Springdale for recently being named the Outstanding Senior Athlete of the Year at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick.

Stephanie has had many achievements in the recent past, some of which are: Rookie of the Year for 2003-2004; Play-off Star in 2004; 2006 Mount Allison's Sportsmanship Award winner; 2007 James Bayer Memorial Award finalist; Kent's Hill school's Most Valuable Player; Gigi Hicks Memorial Award at Mount Allison; David M MacAulay Memorial Award at Mount Allison; the first recipient of the Chris Young Memorial Scholarship, as well as an Honours Graduate of Kent Hill Preschool in Maine in 2003.

Stephanie will graduate this year with a Bachelor of Science Degree, majoring in Chemistry and a minor in Biology.

I would ask my hon. colleagues to join with me in congratulating Stephanie Barker for a job well done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Governor General's Caring Canadian Award was created in 1996 by the Right Honourable Romeo LeBlanc. This award is presented to individuals and groups whose unpaid, voluntary contributions provide extraordinary help or care to people in the community.

In 2006, I put forth the name of Mrs. Enid E. Barrett of Bishop's Cove, who is a cancer survivor for over twenty-five years, and a dedicated grandmother who brings hope to others afflicted by cancer. Through the sale of cookbooks, Enid Barrett has raised over $42,000 for cancer research.

Enid is a lady with many gifts, who shares her talents to benefit her community. She has volunteered her services as a church organist for two different parishes, and makes crafts for children at Easter and Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Enid E. Barrett of Bishop's Cove, one of four Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, will officially receive the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award on June 13 of this year. The ceremony will be held at Government House, officiated by His Honour Lieutenant Governor Edward Roberts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to Mrs. Barrett on receiving this prestigious award. If anyone cares to place an order for her cookbooks, I will be only too glad to take them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Father Val Power Centre of Riverhead, St. Mary's Bay, on its development of a sixteen-week health and wellness program offered to the residents of St. Mary's Bay.

The program, entitled "Challenge Yourself" engaged residents in a healthy eating and fitness program and was carried out in partnership with health care providers in St. Mary's Bay. The sessions dealt with health problems such as blood pressure, cholesterol, high sugar levels, arthritis, depression, smoking and obesity. A doctor and a personal trainer worked closely with the group.

The participants were divided into groups of three, with a point system for improvements in each area, and prizes were awarded at the end of the program.

The program gave all participants tremendous knowledge and awareness as well as group support and attitudes and lifestyle changes that will reduce seniors health risks.

The goal was to develop a model that could be adopted and used in other rural regions throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to address the important area of preventive medicine.

Mr. Speaker, the participants were most enthusiastic about the program, and indeed many have indicated that they have met and, in most cases, surpassed their goals. Incidently, Mr. Speaker, the overall winner was Carmel St. Croix, a seventy-year-old senior who lost twenty-three pounds, reduced her blood pressure, and no longer walks with a cane. Ms St. Croix is with us today in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me as we applaud the initiative of the "Challenge Yourself" Program of the Father Val Power Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of attending the Knights of Columbus Notre Dame Council eighty-seventh Annual Columbus Day Dinner and Dance in Grand Falls-Windsor. Today I rise in this House to acknowledge and congratulate the members and families who were honoured at that event.

Mr. Speaker, William and Mary Hatt were awarded the honour of Family of the Year, recognizing them for their dedication to their church and the Knights of Columbus. The award for Knight of the Year went to Jim McCarthy, recognizing him for his outstanding contribution to the organization as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant achievement and one that is not realized without a tremendous amount of hard work and commitment to the Knights of Columbus by these dedicated members. They are outstanding citizens in our community, and I am delighted to be able to stand here today and offer them my sincere good wishes on behalf of the citizens of the Grand Falls-Buchans district.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating William and Mary Hatt and Jim McCarthy on their recent accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the success of two Newfoundland and Labrador companies that have earned the designation of Canada's 50 Best Managed Companies. These companies are G. J. Cahill Limited, located in St. John's, and Coleman's Food Stores based in Corner Brook.

Being named as one of the fifty best managed companies in the country is no small achievement. These companies competed with Canada's best to be recognized in the top fifty. In order to be recognized, G.J. Cahill Limited and Coleman's Food Stores were evaluated based on three areas that impact sustainable growth: strategy, capability, and commitment. Companies must demonstrate their ability to hire the right people, set challenging goals for employees, and create flexible compensation packages in addition to a number of other criteria.

G.J. Cahill Limited was established in 1953 as an electrical contracting company, and has evolved into one of the largest multi-disciplinary construction organizations in Atlantic Canada. The company has offices in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and employs over 100 full-time staff with a peak workforce in excess of 500 trades people. G.J. Cahill has been involved with all major industrial projects in Atlantic Canada providing construction, electrical, instrumentation and mechanical services.

In 1934, Arthur James and Margaret Coleman established their first store in a four-room schoolhouse on Broadway in Corner Brook. Since that time, the Coleman Group of Companies has grown to include a retail food division, wholesale division, retail furniture, restaurant and clothing store, employing over 600 individuals throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, on March 6, my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment had the opportunity to attend the awards presentation for these two companies. G.J. Cahill and Coleman Food Centres clearly have the leadership, the talent, and the management skills to provide superior services to their clients and customers each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate G.J. Cahill and Coleman Food Centres, and the Cahill and Coleman families, on being named in the top fifty best managed companies in Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement today.

On behalf of the Official Opposition we obviously extend congratulations to both G.J. Cahill Limited and Coleman Food Stores on this important designation. Of course, to also say congratulations to, not only the owners, but to their employees because I am sure the owners of the companies would say that their success today is due in no small measure to their employees who work so hard to help make the companies what they are today.

G.J. Cahill Limited, in fact, when you talk about that they have a workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, they also have a subsidiary company in Alberta where today they are hiring a great many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So, Congratulations to both companies and certainly to the employees of those companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement and I am very happy on behalf of myself and the NDP to join in congratulating G.J. Cahill Company and Coleman Food Stores. It is a wonderful tribute to the families, to the people who started the business and to the people who continue the work through the employees of both companies.

I have to say, maybe others in the House could say the same thing, that I have enjoyed going to the Coleman Food Store here in St. John's and experiencing the wonderful environment that the workers create and have a sense of community and family when you go there. So, I congratulate the owners and the workers on the wonderful work they do in both of these companies.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to a team of business students from Memorial University. The ACE Memorial team has won the 2007 Students in Free Enterprise national championship. They will now compete globally at the Students in Free Enterprise World Cup in New York City this fall.

This competition brought together over 900 top Canadian student leaders, faculty and business professionals from forty-five universities and colleges across Canada. The teams presented their community-based, entrepreneurial projects to many distinguished judges, including some of Canada's leading CEOs and top executives.

Mr. Speaker, the Memorial team stood out among their competitors due to their dedication to student business owners and new Canadians. Of special interest is Launch Pad. This is the first student-run incubation centre in the country. It provides students with resources to run a successful business. The centre's four full-time clients are expected to generate revenues of over $500,000. In fact, ACE Memorial's programs have impacted over 2,000 people throughout the Province. Clearly, the group is fulfilling its mission which is so similar to the provincial governments - to support innovation, research and development, which in turn leads to economic growth.

These students, Mr. Speaker, are great examples of ingenuity and innovative spirit which exists in post-secondary campuses across the Province. They recognize the diverse opportunities that exist in Newfoundland and Labrador, and are helping others take full advantage of them.

Mr. Speaker, these sixty-seven talented young women and men who make up the ACE Memorial team are the reason government is making such significant investments in post-secondary education.

The total expenditure announced in Budget 2007 is nearly $377 million, a 52 per cent increase in spending since 2003. We recognize that education is fundamental to our growth and prosperity as a Province. It is a key element in our efforts to position our Province and our people to take full advantage of emerging opportunities. For example, just this week I announced details on a $1 million investment for a new School of Ocean Technology. It will provide an excellent training ground for students and enhance the Province's reputation as a world leader in ocean technology.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating our students and faculty on their recent win. We wish them all the best at the World Cup.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

We, in the Official Opposition, want to say to the ACE team at Memorial, congratulations on winning the 2007 Students in Free Enterprise national championship. We wish them all the best, Mr. Speaker, when they go to the World Cup in New York City.

My understanding is this is not something new because Memorial, when it comes to the business students and many other faculties, are known right around this country and around the world for the awards that they have won in the past.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to know that the money that is going into this program is helping other students to start up and become good businesspeople and entrepreneurs in our Province. Hopefully, that is what we need to revitalize the economy here and keep more of our young people in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I want to also commend, I guess, the initiative of government for the new school on Ocean Technology. As you know, our Province, not only this year but in the past, has been known for its involvement and we have a great reputation around the world in ocean technology. The unfortunate thing; it is too bad the minister cannot stand and recognize the accomplishments of our students without getting political and announcing all the money that they put into the Budget this year, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister as well for the advance copy of her statement.

I, too, want to congratulate the students from the School of Business at Memorial University. I am never surprised when students from this Province, or others from this Province, like the two companies that we talked about earlier, come out on top in competitions because we have so much ingenuity, we have so much commitment and energy in this Province and in the people of this Province. It would be really important for government, and all departments government related, to be sure that they keep working on the creation of an economic climate that will retain such wonderful people in our Province, and I encourage our government to do so.

Certainly, the School of Ocean Technology is a step towards that, but we have to make sure that we have jobs for these people and a climate, if they are entrepreneurs, for them to continue their businesses so that they can employ others.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

 

Oral Questions

 

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Fisheries confirmed outside of the House of Assembly that FPI would be willing to put $3 million from the sale of their UK seafood company into a transitional fund to top up salaries paid to its workers here in our Province. Even with this top up, I say to the minister, FPI workers will still make forty-six cents less an hour than they do in their current contract, or at least the contract that they had yesterday. Meanwhile, three or four major shareholders, three or four individuals in FPI will reap millions of dollars in profits from the sale of this seafood company. In addition, they stand to make millions more off the sale of FPI's American marketing and secondary processing division.

I ask the minister: Why is government allowing FPI's shareholders to walk away with millions of dollars in profit, made off the sweat and the tears of the workers who work for that company here in the Province, while forcing those same workers to take wage cuts?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this government makes no apology for trying its best to lever out of FPI, if it happens to sell any of its assets, some money that can go towards helping out the people who work for the company.

Mr. Speaker, we take full credit for having tried to make FPI come to the table, if they sell some of their assets, to put some money into a fund that will be beneficial to the people who helped build that company. It was the Premier who made that clear to FPI, that if they were going to seek the approval of this government to sell some of its assets, then something had to be left behind for the workers. That was one way we were able to do it. The union acknowledges that, the workers acknowledge that and this government is pleased to have been able to have facilitated that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that is the same Premier who advised FPI workers to take over a $2 an hour cut in pay.

Now, let's talk about what you have been able to lever out of FPI. George Armoyan walked away from FPI a couple of weeks ago with $5.7 million in profit, having only been a shareholder in the company for less than a year, I say to the member opposite. Now the other major shareholders, like John Risley, are going to walk away with multi-millions of dollars and you are talking about three measly million dollars for some 2,000 workers here in the Province and you are proud of what you and the Premier are doing. You should be ashamed of yourselves, not proud!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Premier are both on record as stating that none of the assets of FPI would be sold unless it was of a benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Premier: Besides the forty-six-cent an hour cut in pay, what benefits will the people of this Province see from the sale of FPI's seafood company in the UK and the American marketing and secondary processing division? What are they going to see out of that, I say? What benefit is in it for them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we took over the mess that they created in this company. That is what we took over. On their watch when he was Minister of Fisheries, that is when Risley and company got hold of this company, this corporation. That is exactly what happened. That was at a time when his Premier was not interested enough to ask any questions; were not even asking any questions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We spent a year-and-a-half asking questions on the Income Trust in order to try and perfect that. Now that there is a pending sale we are asking all kinds of questions. That particular minister stood up in this House of Assembly and said he was just as much in the dark today as he was yesterday. He did not even know the lights were on, that was his problem when he was minister.

So, what we are doing, if there are assets being sold by this company, we are going to make sure that the workers get some money. The Member for Grand Bank, we are going to make sure that Fortune gets sold to Cooke, and you are going to get that. What is the problem with that one?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, under my watch FPI did not close Harbour Breton and lay off 350 people. FPI did not close Fortune. FPI did not close Marystown. FPI did not roll back the wages of the workers of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: It was you and the group opposite that okayed the Income Trust, against the wishes of those over here, I say to the Premier. You should be ashamed of yourself!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks for co-operation of all members.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to put his question.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous concerns raised by the FFAW, members of the FFAW, regarding the latest offer by FPI, OCI and High Liner. As a matter of fact, 40 per cent of the workers were not happy with the contract that was signed yesterday, especially with regard to the wage (inaudible). Some of the people in the Burin plant, Mr. Speaker, have other concerns. One being that High Liner is not committed to the long-term future of that plant.

I ask the minister or the Premier, now that he is so flippant to get up and talk about everything that he did for FPI, I ask him: Can he give the people of Burin assurance that if that plant is sold to High Liner that there will be some longevity with regard to their careers with that operation there, and will the same numbers of people be employed in the future as there are today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, one thing is abundantly clear, that it was under the watch and the guidance of the person who is now the Leader of the Opposition that John Risley and company came in and took over FPI. Of that, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Of that, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt, and if the member wanted to stop it, if the minister at the time wanted to stop it, if the Premier at the time, who never even had the audacity to ask a question, wanted to stop it, they could have stopped it, Mr. Speaker. That is abundantly clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: In terms of Burin, yes, Mr. Speaker, we are in discussions with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bay of Islands has gone bonkers over there again. Is there anything we can do about him? There must be something in Beauchesne that can be used to roll him in.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I was about to refer to the part of the question dealing with Burin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair expresses concern about the decorum in the House, on both sides of the House. Questions are being asked; time is being expended on preambles.

The Chair would give the minister a few brief seconds to complete his reply.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, in terms of Burin, we are in negotiations and discussions with High Liner. The FFAW is aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and we can assure the people of Burin, the people who work at that facility, that we are in negotiations and in discussions with High Liner and their best interest is what will be guiding those discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will remind the minister again that FPI did not close plants under my watch, FPI did not sell off their vessels under my watch, and we did not allow the company to dismantle it piecemeal and sell it off to the highest bidder while the workers are thrown to the wind in this Province. You still have the FPI Act. Why don't you use it to prevent that from happening?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks the Leader of the Opposition to complete his question.

MR. REID: Another issue, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier should be ashamed of, is this: Mr. Speaker, government recently began an advertising campaign to notify the people of the Province that you could now book a campsite in this Province over the telephone. What they forgot to tell the people of this Province is that if you make a call to make a reservation for a campsite in this Province, in our provincial parks, that call is answered in Montreal, by a call centre in Montreal.

I ask the Premier: Why is there a call centre in Montreal handling the provincial park reservations for our Province? What knowledge do these people have of the geography of this Province, let alone where the parks are located? Where is this so-called commitment to creating jobs here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Where is that gone, I ask the members opposite?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do have a new reservation system, one that is working well. We are getting high praise for it, and within the first two weeks we have had over 2,000 bookings, 80 per cent on-line.

There was a Request for Proposals put out, just as would normally be done in a process like this. No company from Newfoundland and Labrador put in a bid, and this is the company that was awarded the contract, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister obviously does not realize how pathetic he sounded in that answer. How pathetic, to tell the people of this Province that we cannot handle the reservation system; we have to send it to Montreal. Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

I ask him to put his question.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if this government sees the irony in this announcement. The Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development has a program that subsidizes the wage of workers in the call centres in our Province; yet, we are sending this particular contract to Montreal. The Premier even stood in the House of Assembly yesterday talking about recruiting new public sector workers to work right here in the public sector while these jobs have gone to Montreal.

I ask the Premier: Are you suggesting that no call centre in this Province was able to do this work? If not, why didn't you hire a dozen extra civil servants to answer telephones on a toll-free number in this Province, rather than sending those jobs to Montreal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there was no bid, so nobody bid on this. As a result - there was one bid, one bid was put in; they got the bid. That is what happened.

We talk about creating jobs in the Province. The reason we are having a job fair is because we are very proud to announce that there are over 1,000 jobs that are going to be available in this Province in this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, there are going to be 1,001 jobs available because his job is going to be available after the election is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, they talk about public tendering. The Premier talks about public tendering. The Premier does not mind breaking the Public Tender Act to give contracts to his buddies for fibre optics. No problem whatsoever to do that, although he is unwilling to help the average person in this Province get a job or be able to obtain a contract. I am certain that the Government of Quebec is not looking to use the call centres in this Province to do their reservations for their provincial parks in that province. I can guarantee you, they are not doing it.

I ask the Premier: When will you do the right thing and bring these jobs back to the Province where they belong?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Let me randomly select four years for you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the jobs that the Liberals created. In 1995, spending reductions on 475 positions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will have to recess the House if the members cannot co-operate and have order maintained.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the 1995 Budget, 475 positions cut; 1996 Budget, 229 teaching positions, 500 public service jobs, 230 positions in the college system, sixty teachers in the School for the Deaf; 1997 Budget, reduced employment by 1,100 over the next three years.

We are having a job fair to create employment. It is a good thing. We are proud of the public service. I would suggest you set up a booth in there for your Super Weekend the next time you have one, maybe you might get a few candidates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, questions have been raised within our health care system relating to false testing results in breast cancer screening. At the center of this controversy is whether the department and the minister withheld from the public critical information relating to the number of women affected by this error in testing.

In today's Telegram, the Minister of Health and Community Services is quoted as saying: I understand and I appreciate the dilemma that Eastern Health found themselves in trying to balance their responsibility to the patients who needed a change, referring to treatment, and their responsibility to protect in the interests of the organization in the event of litigation.

I ask the minister: Given his ultimate role and responsibility to public health and safety in this Province, does he still stand by this incredibly shocking statement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member in this House yesterday, two years ago Eastern Health recognized and found out themselves that they had a problem with some of the tests being done in their facility. In recognizing that they needed to understand the scope and the extent to which that problem existed, they referred out some 700-and-some-odd tests that had been provided for at the Health Sciences Centre. They sent them out to Mount Sinai for a recheck. Of those that they sent out, there were 317, I believe is the exact number, that came back and suggested that the test results down at the Health Sciences were very different than those that were gotten from Mount Sinai at that particular time.

Of those 300-and-some-odd, an expert panel reviewed the files, reviewed the cases and reviewed the test results and suggested that 117 of those patients needed a change in the course of their treatment, and all of those patients had their changes made. The remaining 200 patients were contacted through their family physicians -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the nature of the question, but I ask the minister if he could complete his answer quickly.

MR. WISEMAN: The 200 remaining patients were advised, through their family physicians, that their test results were, in fact, a false negative and they were advised of the results of the new tests that were completed. At no time were those 200 women at any risk. The risks were associated with the 117 who had their treatment regimes changed. So, I say, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, we understand there was actually about 1,000 women who were retested. It appears to me that the minister has not answered, and he does not really intend to retract this appalling statement. There is a price, I guess, that this government puts on the lives of women in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, almost 1,000 women have been retested to determine the accuracy of their results. Almost half the people received inaccurate information and, unfortunately, there are women and families still waiting results.

I ask the minister: How long will it take for this critical information to be released, or will it take another affidavit to pry these results from your department and your government?

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. It is a significant issue that has had a tremendous impact on many families and women in this Province, and to try to play politics with it I guess speaks to the credibility of the members who are raising it in that fashion. It speaks to the depth that they will reach to try to play cheap politics in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, I heard the member opposite make comments yesterday in the press, bringing into question the credibility of the people who currently, today, are performing those tasks at the Health Sciences Centre. What he is suggesting, I say, Mr. Speaker, and what I laid out in this House yesterday, is - he was asking questions about what happened between 1997 and 2005. There was a problem, an acknowledged problem. It has been dealt with. The fact of the matter is, between last year and today, the people who are having tests performed at the Health Sciences today can be assured that there have been major changes made in the program. I laid them out for the member opposite yesterday. So, to be standing outside of this House or standing in this House and suggesting that there are women today who are awaiting critical results, there are women today who are getting inaccurate information (inaudible) is not responsible, I say to the member opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the tremendous sensitivity of the series of questions being asked, however, I would ask the minister if he could keep his comments relatively within the one minute time frame.

The Chair passes the Question Period back to the hon. Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr Speaker, communication has been a serious problem, I guess, through this whole process. I mean, we heard first-hand yesterday - people were telling us that they were hearing this from the media themselves. That is the only thing I am referring to here. The minister does not seem to appreciate these testing errors, that not just created fear and anxiety in the lives of women and their families, it probably led to some mistreatments and we have seen that.

I ask the minister: Can he be upfront once and for all and confirm when the department first became aware of this serious problem with testing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health and Community Services was advised when Eastern Health realized that there had been problem. The department was advised that the problem did exist. They were advised the extent to which it existed. They were also advised as to how Eastern Health was going to approach that and they, in fact, concurred with the approach being taken, which was to have some - and the member opposite was right, there were close to 1,000 - 900-and-some-odd, actually, to have those tests redone. The department was aware of that at that particular time and concurred with the direction that Eastern Health had taken to correct the issue before them.

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

MR. BALL: I still do not know when you found out.

My final question to the minister is: Given the urgency of this matter, why did it take two long years to carry out these retests; and, more importantly, why wasn't the process fast-tracked?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I think the member opposite needs to look back at the chronology here. He may be reading some recent press and responding to a CBC story the other day, which is two years ago that the issue arose, but I want to just retract here a bit because it is important to put this in perspective.

Eastern Health became aware of this in the spring of 2005. They took their action in 2005, so in July 2005 they started a process to have the retesting done. We are here today, in May 2007. What the member is referring to is an event that occurred two years ago. The people found out about it back then. This is not a new story emerging now. This was an event that occurred two years ago, was dealt with two years ago.

What we are seeing here now is new information that has come in the public domain as a result of an affidavit filed in the courts, I say Mr. Speaker. The issue before us surfaced two years ago, was dealt with two years ago, and the changes made in the system have already been implemented and on a go-forward basis the system currently reflects that new change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The circumstances surrounding the decision to cover up the true magnitude of the problems with the Province's breast screening program is very troublesome. It was certainly unacceptable for government to sit idly by and place litigation costs ahead of the health and treatment needs of the women of this Province.

I ask the Minister of Justice: When was the former Minister of Health - that was yourself - advised of this situation? When was the then Minister of Justice advised of this situation, and what action did the Minister of Justice at that time take?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I was advised, I think it was in November or December of last year, of the severity of the number of cases and the details around the cases that led up to the circumstances that are currently before the House today.

I cannot answer as to when the former Minister of Justice was advised. That is a question that you would have to ask that particular member.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of the Province were indeed shocked upon learning of this inaction and non-disclosure by government, and the statements of the minister trying to justify the decision to keep this important health issue hidden from the public. It is certainly inappropriate and unacceptable.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Do you feel, as the Minister of Justice, that the actions taken from a legal perspective were indeed appropriate, and why would government accept these recommendations knowing that it was putting litigation costs ahead of people's lives?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are cases that are currently before the court regarding this particular issue as it stands today. As an issue that is currently before the court, Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment or answer in response to the question that the member has raised.

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for the Opposition House Leader to have a very brief supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

It sounds like you are putting litigation costs and concerns ahead of the people again.

Minister, laws are put in place to protect the people, not to protect governments against legal action that might come as a result of your action or inaction.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Whom did you consult with at the time you made the decision to keep this hidden?

Also, in view of how important this is to every woman in this Province, and to everybody in this Province, I ask you: Will you immediately undertake to commit to a judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this travesty and hold those persons responsible accountable?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this was an issue that was being dealt with by Eastern Health. When I had first become Minister of Health, I understand there were patients who had gone to Ontario for retesting, and that the lab, that the testing facility here in St. John's, was shut down until we could confirm and prove, in fact, that the test results and the standards at that lab were up to standard.

As far as a judicial inquiry, or an inquiry into this issue, Mr. Speaker, this government certainly does not put litigation or legal issues ahead of the health of individuals. I can assure the member of that, and I can assure the people of the Province that we take this issue very, very seriously. We have taken it very seriously. We had asked, Mr. Speaker, for Eastern Health to provide us with the statistics and the results based on the retesting in Ontario. That information was provided to me in either November or December - I would have to double-check the date for the individual - but, as far as an inquiry into this particular matter, it is currently before the courts and I think, Mr. Speaker, the courts will make a ruling based on the actions or the inactions of Eastern Health.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to continue questioning in the same area, and the questions I have are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

One of the concerns I have is: How many of the women who tested with false negative tests might have not been able to have been contacted because these women had already passed away from breast cancer as a result of incorrect testing?

Eastern Health has not said if any of the patients mistakenly denied hormone treatment had died, or were needlessly given mastectomies when they could have been treated with drugs. Does the minister know - and, if not, is the minister trying to find out - what the mortality rate of women who received incorrect test results is?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand, Mr. Speaker, of the 939 tested that were re-performed, there were 176 of those individuals who had died before the new test results were found.

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that answer has given me a cold shiver. I cannot tell you what is happening to me at this moment with that answer. We have gotten the answer, though, and I thank the minister for having it, but it is shocking.

I will go on with my next question. I am finding it very hard to go on, but I will.

Mr. Speaker, in news reports yesterday, a U.S. specialist said that there are no national standards in Canada when it comes to hormone receptor testing. The minister said in the House yesterday, "We now have a dedicated lab of dedicated technologists, dedicated pathologists, a Centre of Excellence with pathologists and oncologists providing that support to that particular problem. We now have a quality assurance program in place that ensures there is an ongoing monitoring program to ensure that does not happen again in the future."

Will the minister take steps to see that this centre, if this centre has so much expertise in it, will start working with other centres in Canada to develop and adopt what could become national standards?

I never again want to hear that we have people who died, most likely because of wrong testing. I am shocked.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite raises an interesting question with respect to the work that Eastern Health and the Health Sciences Centre in particular would be doing with their colleagues. I understand that kind of interaction is existing between hospitals and testing sites, like you have mentioned, formalizing that kind of initiative. I will take your suggestion and raise it with the CEO of Eastern Health. It is a reasonable suggestion to look at how we might, as a part of a national system, work collectively in establishing standards for a critical area like this.

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is a few minutes before we have to deal with the business of the House today, so I would like to move Motion 4, that the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act - first readings, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 14)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," carried. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 16)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 16?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16 be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a first.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 16 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Motion 6, that the Minister of Justice have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992. (Bill 19)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 19?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992," carried. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 19 be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992. (Bill 19)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Bill 19 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 7, that the Minister of Education have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 13)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act," carried. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 8, that the Minister of Government Services have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 15)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the minister shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997," carried. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the bill be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, motion 9, that the Minister of Government Services have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations. (Bill 17)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations," carried. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17 be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the final motion, motion 10, that the Minister of Government Services have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. (Bill 18)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Investigation and Security Services Act," carried. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation and Security Services Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation and Security Services Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it being Private Members' Day, we now move to motion 13.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Private Members' Day, the Chair recognizes the Member for Conception Bay South. The motion before the House is - we will not read the Whereases. The Chair reads the therefore. "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that all Members of this Honourable House support the Premier and this Government in calling upon the Government of Canada to honour its commitment respecting the removal of non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula."

The Chair recognizes the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to read a Private Member's motion and one that I do, I might add, with great regret and great disappointment. It is something, actually, that I remember - before I read it in, I will just have these few words.

When the federal election was on over the Christmas season, Mr. Speaker, of course during the Christmas season you have the privilege to see a lot more people than normal, you visit a lot of homes and a lot of places. One of the things that I ran into was people's fear of Prime Minister Harper, their concern about him, the concern about some of his views.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I was one of the people who looked these residents in the face, looked them straight in the eyes and told them: Look, there is one thing we can be assured of with Stephen Harper, he does what he says, number one; and number two, he is committed to removing non-renewable resources from the equalization formula. That was one of the things, unfortunately, that I boasted him up. I thought that he would be a man of his word, Mr. Speaker. I am sad to say today that I am reading this Private Member's motion in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: - and explain some of the reasons why I made the statements I did to residents in my district, and in particular close friends of mine who had reservations about the current Prime Minister, and it was me who said to them: Look, he is removing non-renewable resources. This is significant to this Province. You cannot measure the value of it.

Unfortunate, that is not the case. He did not live up to his word. I guess it was people like me, a Conservative stalwart in this Province for as long as I have been able to vote, Mr. Speaker, probably it means more to people like me than it does the average citizen, because I was the one who promoted people like Stephen Harper, based on his word, and today I am saddened by what has transpired over the last number of months.

Mr. Speaker, if I could read in the motion, it says:

WHEREAS this government is committed to protecting the resources and the future of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS our Province has been betrayed by the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada; and

WHEREAS this breach of trust will result in our Province and our people being seriously disadvantaged; and

WHEREAS the Province's non-renewable resource revenues represent a meaningful and long-term opportunity for our Province to attain true self-reliance and economic prosperity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that all Members of this Honourable House support the Premier and this Government in calling upon the Government of Canada to honour its commitment respecting the removal of non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula.

Mr. Speaker, there is no secret, this Province is certainly rich in potential. It has languished, unfortunately, too long while the principal benefits of our renewable and our non-renewable resources have been channelled to other places. For example, our fish when we joined Confederation initially, that was part of joining Canada. The federal Government of Canada took control of that natural resource and, of course, we all know that was traded off to foreign countries so that they would buy other commodities throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, just let me quite clearly say, none of us are against helping our cousins throughout this country. We would certainly love to partner with them and help where we can, but I think it is time that we draw the line.

As well, of course, there is no secret about our hydro power, an old story, whereby we see the Province of Quebec get $1.3 billion a year in revenues and this Province, I think, is estimated at around $30 million in revenues from this massive project.

Mr. Speaker, to say that we are getting - I could describe it a little dirtier - the bad end of the stick, and some people refer to it by other means, I can assure you that we are getting the short end of the stick at the very best.

AN HON. MEMBER: The right letter.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, it certainly was the right letter but the wrong word.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we can go on and talk about minerals, petroleum and, of course, one of our greatest resources, our people, who right now have built this country. They have been all over Canada, doing their bit and piece for Canada. Certainly, anybody who knows Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know that they are looked upon as highly skilled workers and certainly people who work hard at their profession.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we have to talk about before we get into the motion, and that is our provincial debt. I am hoping that the Minister of Finance will stand later today and quantify this a bit more. Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at, in this Province, is a $12 billion debt, an estimated $12 billion, which, as repeated before, it is $23,000 for every man, woman and child in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about fiscal capacity to a Province, what is not considered is the debt load on the other side of the balance sheet. That is very significant, considering the fact, when they talk about fiscal capacity and caps on our fiscal capacity, what they should be looking at as well, Mr. Speaker, is how much we owe, how much we owe for every man, woman and child in this Province. It is significant. As a matter of fact, it is double the next highest province in this country. Our debt is double the next province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you can understand the significance for this Province to have 100 per cent of its non-renewable resources, and understand the magnitude of what it would do to this Province. Certainly, again, I have to repeat it, this is not about not wanting to be part of this country. This is not about not wanting to help our fellow Canadians. Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we had a commitment from the Prime Minister of this country, and this was not a commitment that was taken lightly. The Prime Minister of this country - I do not know how many people in our Province know it - was an economist. This is a man who understands numbers, who understands resources, and understands, when he makes a financial commitment to a Province, and a commitment in words, what it means, Mr. Speaker.

This was not something that was whispered in someone's ear at a social event, or it wasn't, well, boy, we will see what we can do for you at a later date. It certainly was not hinted at, Mr. Speaker. This was something that was well recorded and well talked about, his commitment to this Province.

I guess what I want to do over the next eight or ten minutes, or whatever I have left in opening debate, Mr. Speaker, is to clearly outline the reason that the people of this Province believed he was going to do what he would do. I am sure that by the time I am finished, I have enough stuff here that I can quote the current Prime Minister on the commitment and the promise that he made to the people of this Province that he certainly is not willing to keep.

Mr. Speaker, I will start off with a debate that happened in the House of Commons on November 4, 2004. I have here several of his lines during that debate, and I want to read them into the record here for the House of Assembly, and certainly for the people of the Province, just to prove that this is not some cock-and-bull story that this government whipped up to make the Prime Minister look bad, or to try and shame him into something. These are his comments; these are his words.

I will start off, and this is his first comment, "This is a comment that was made by me in my capacity as leader of the Canadian Alliance when I first arrived here and has it origins in the intentions of the Atlantic Accord signed by former Prime Minister Mulroney in the mid-1980s. These are longstanding commitments, our commitment to 100% of non-renewable resource royalties. It was our commitment during the election, it was our commitment before the election, it remains our commitment today." - quote number one.

Quote number two, and this is concerning the cap, "The eight year time limit and the Ontario clause effectively gutted the commitment made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election campaign. Why should Newfoundland's possibility of achieving levels of prosperity comparable to the rest of Canada be limited to an artificial eight year period? Remember in particular that these are in any case non-renewable resources that will run out. Why is the government so eager to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador always remain below the economic level of Ontario?"

Mr. Speaker, there is the current Prime Minister speaking about the previous Prime Minister, saying: Why should we be kept below the level of prosperity of Ontario? God forbid that the people of this Province should be better off than the people of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, these were his comments that day in debate in the House of Commons.

I want to read one more during that day, one of the things he said. "What is at stake is the future of Atlantic Canada, an unprecedented and historic opportunity for those provinces to get out of the have-not status that has bedeviled them for decades. What is at issue is very simple. It is the honour of the Prime Minister..." - who was then Paul Martin - "...and all he has to do is keep his word. Now, that was the current Prime Minister, referring again to the previous Prime Minister, concerning negotiations that were ongoing at the time between the federal government and the Province on the Atlantic Accord.

So, Mr. Speaker, in that debate there was no misunderstanding, there was no secret where he stood at the time, and what his opinion was. The scary part about this is that, if you talk to the Prime Minister today, and you hear him in media outlets, you will be convinced, by listening to him, that he kept his promise, that he kept his commitment to remove non-renewable resources from the equalization formula. Mr. Speaker, it is simply amazing, when we here in the Province simply know the difference.

Basically, what the Prime Minister has done, he has done three things to the people of this Province and I guess to the people of the country as a whole. He said that promises do not matter. That his promises do not count and certainly they cannot be relied upon. Mr. Speaker, that is a hard thing for a commander and chief of a country to be leading the people in this Province certainly down the garden path.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes in the debate up along and you read some national papers and so on, basically they leave you with the impression that Newfoundland and Labrador does not contribute to this country, and that is the piece that really bothers me. Mr. Speaker, just to give you one little snippet of what this Province does contribute to the rest of the country. Over the life of the three existing oil projects, $20 billion from these projects will go to the coffers of the Government of Canada to help all of Canada. Like I said, we are not greedy. We do not want it all but that is what the federal government will realize out of those three current oil projects. As well - $20 billion, a significant amount.

As well, Mr. Speaker, $7 billion will come out of the Voisey's Bay project that will go directly into the federal coffers of this Province. Again, this will be used to assist the Government of Canada, to assist all Canadians across all provinces. So to say that this Province does not contribute to the Government of Canada is certainly way, way out there.

Mr. Speaker, I have to continue on with some of the exerts from the Prime Minister of the country and some of the things he said to the people of this Province. This one is an excerpt from a letter to the Premier of this Province on March 16, 2004, from Prime Minister Harper - sorry, from Stephen Harper at the time, who was then Leader of the Opposition, and I quote: "Yes, I would support the exclusion of non-renewable resource revenues from the Equalization formula." Now, I do not have an English major and I do not consider myself the sharpest knife in the drawer but, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to have very much education to decipher what that full sentence meant. That was pretty clear, pretty straightforward. Someone with a basic education at the elementary level, I am sure, could quickly explain what that sentence meant.

Mr. Speaker, as well, I have an excerpt from a letter to Premier Williams January 4, 2006, from, again, Prime Minister Harper, then the Leader of the Opposition. "We will remove non-renewable natural resources revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada. The Conservative Government of Canada will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula." Again, Mr. Speaker, his words in a letter to the Premier of this Province. Like I said before, this is not a gentleman who does not know what he is talking about. He is an economist and certainly someone who knows what this means.

Of course, we all know about the flyer that was sent to the West Coast of the Province. That was quite clear. That summed it up totally to us. Not only did he write it to the Premier on many occasions - he also wrote, by the way, the former Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, who was head of the Canadian Federation at the time. There are many, many times that this man is on record of saying what he was going to do for the people of this Province.

There is nothing more telling than this brochure I have in front of me. It says on the front of it, sent out by the Conservative Party: There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept. I know many of us have seen this in newscasts. It was used in the federal house in Ottawa to show, again, to the Prime Minister that he has not kept his word. Just to quote that - this was something in the height of the debate between Premier Williams and Prime Minister Martin, at the time. Here is what he said, as he sent this brochure throughout Western Newfoundland and Labrador. Here is what he had to say: The Conservative Party of Canada believes that offshore oil and gas revenues are the key to real economic growth in Atlantic Canada. That is why we would leave you with 100 per cent of your oil and gas revenue. No small print. No excuses. No caps. Well, Mr. Speaker, we certainly know what happened there.

Mr. Speaker, just before I sit down and let some other people speak on this this evening, I want to make it quite clear that what they have decided to do, yes, we are going to remove non-renewable resources -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. FRENCH: Just by leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, what is significant here is a couple of things. First of all, this is going to make a significant difference to the provincial coffers of this Province. Basically, and this is not numbers that just anybody has cooked up, two economists, one in Nova Scotia and one in Newfoundland and Labrador figure that we will lose $11 billion over a thirteen year period. Mr. Speaker, that would significantly go towards our debt and basically wipe it out. We could be a have Province, contributing to the rest of this country and would only be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker. You can imagine what that would do for our Province and the people in our Province, whether it was in health care, whether it was in education, whether it was in road work, and the list goes on and on and on. I could get into the needs of my district at a time like this, but, Mr. Speaker, because of the debate, the debate time is limited, and I will get a chance to close up later, I will speak to that.

Mr. Speaker, basically what he does - and just before I sit down I want to clue up, he said: Okay, take your 100 per cent of your non-renewable resources, take it all, but here is the catch. Here is where the smoke and mirrors come in. You go ahead and you take your 100 per cent but when you get to this cap, when your fiscal capacity hits Ontario, that is it. It is all ours. So, Mr. Speaker, what they are doing, once you hit that cap the rest flows into the federal coffers and we still are holding a debt of $23,000 for every man, woman, and child in this Province, and that is a significant piece of the argument.

Mr. Speaker, I will sit down now. I ask all hon. members, whoever would like to speak, on both sides of the House, to have a few words in this debate, and I will clue up at the end of it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

I wanted to rise and have a few comments as it relates to the motion that is before the House of Assembly today, put forward by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South.

Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit difficult to get into the realm of debate today, I guess, after the Question Period that we have just been through in the Legislature dealing with - not that this is not a very serious issue for our Province as well, but I think many of us were very emotionally disturbed by the information that we found out today in Question Period, about the number of women in this Province who actually lost their lives due to the testing with regard to breast cancer. So, Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I am not my usual boisterous self in debating this particular motion. There are some important contributions that I would like to make to it.

I would like to say, first of all, that when it comes to keeping promises or commitments, I do not think that should be just limited to the Prime Minister. I think that should be the norm for every single person who enters into political life. I think that when you do so, if you make promises or you make commitments to the people who send you here, then you should make good on your word. I say that because I do not think that should just apply to the Prime Minister, but I think it should apply to the Premier as well and to all the members in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I know that removing the resource revenues from the equalization formula was not the preferred option of the government opposite, nor probably the preferred option of many of the people in our Province - was not the preferred option and, in fact, wanted a deal with the new Harper government that was struck with the Martin government; a deal that was on that same level and that same context.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate for all of us, I guess, in Newfoundland and Labrador that things did not materialize at the rate or the level that we had hoped, but many of us are still left in the dark as to what this means in terms of dollar amounts. The only real analysis that we have seen done on this has been done by Mr. Wade Locke of Memorial University. Mr. Locke, in his diligent efforts, has tried to make the public in Newfoundland and Labrador aware of what this new formula could actually mean in terms of dollars and cents.

Originally in his analysis - and I thought I had a copy of it here, but I seem to have misplaced it - here it is. In his original analysis, he did indicate that this could provide an additional $5.6 billion to the Province and a few days later retracted on that statement saying that, in the absence of interpreting new laws that have been devised by the Government of Canada around the equalization, that he would now have to revise those particular numbers and his projections would be made that the new system would provide $1 billion less than the status quo over the next twelve years.

Mr. Speaker, if that is indeed true, obviously, there is great cause here for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be very upset, because any time you lose that amount of money out of the general revenues of the Province it affects all of us. It affects the government services that are being provided to the people of the Province. Therefore, it has impact upon all of us.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see, and not that I doubt anything that Mr. Locke has provided to us in his analysis, but even he, himself, has been in the provincial paper today saying that we need to have more information and that both the federal government and the provincial government should come forward with the numbers and the analysis that they have done.

What is unfortunate is that the only response that the daily paper, The Telegram could seem to get, one was from the federal government saying that it would take them over 1 million hours to calculate the kind of analysis they wanted and it would need to provide them with a document that was over 30,000 pages. The provincial Department of Finance indicated it would take sixty-nine hours, but the bill would cost around $17,000 to $18,000. So, in my mind, those are not answers. In fact, if the federal government feels confident that the new formula that they are proposing for Newfoundland and Labrador would not adversely affect us in terms of the amount of money we will receive then they should have already done their calculations if they want to make statements like that. Therefore, they should have the information readily available that they can table to any persons in Canada who wishes to see that information. The same would go for the provincial Department of Finance.

The provincial Department of Finance, the Premier, the minister, other members of the Cabinet have been out there in the media saying that we will be adversely affected; that there will be lesser money flowing into the provincial coffers as a result of this new formula developed by the federal government. So, if that is the case, they must have completed some analysis already. If not, they are making statements that are not, I would say, solidified in terms of their own department's work. I would have to ask the minister and members, if they are going to make those statements they must have some information on which to base those comments and if they do, I ask that it be tabled in the House of Assembly and that it be made available to the public. I do not see why an economist like Mr. Locke should have to be out there asking for government to provide them with this information. That should be a given. They are the lead economists in our Province. They are the people who not only make projections in terms of what future business will do in terms of resource development and royalties, but they also do the analysis on a day-to-day basis and how it affects our Province from one day to the next. That is my first thing.

It is one thing to call upon the Prime Minister to keep his promises, but the provincial government has to be accountable as well. That means they have to be accountable for the statements that they make. So, if they are going to make these statements, they need to provide the information to back them up, and if they are going to expect the Prime Minister to keep his commitments, they have to keep their own commitments and their own promises.

The Member for Conception Bay stood and talked about and read from brochures and articles that Prime Minister Harper - statements that he had made, saying that he was going to promise that Newfoundland and Labrador would be able to keep its resource sector royalties under the new equalization formula. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can stand today and read from newspaper articles, read from brochure ads that the Premier made, in which he made promises to the Labrador Metis Nation, promises that he would respect their Aboriginal rights within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I could quote dozens of articles in which he made that commitment both publicly and privately in writing to the president of that organization, but at the end of the day he did not honour those promises or those commitments. He failed to honour them for one reason or another.

Mr. Speaker, I have ads here that I can get up and quote from, that the government took out in the newspaper during the middle of an election, saying they would not legislate public servants back to work. In their first mandate, in the first year of their first mandate, they legislated public servants back to work - another promise that was broken.

If you are going to go out and make those charges and expect those high standards from other people, you have to be able to meet that standard yourself. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that to sound self-righteous in any way, because that is not my intent. My intent only is to say that all of us need to be accountable. That means the Premier and his government should be accountable to the people as well, and not just Stephen Harper.

Mr. Speaker, it has been two months since the federal budget has come down, when the government realized or found out - and I would suspect that they found out long before this - that resource revenues were not going to be part of equalization, but they did find out in the budget, and I suspect they found out before, but when they did find out in the budget, from then until now we are looking at a period of two months. I would like to know if the Minister of Finance has met with his federal counterpart in that two months to discuss any side deals that could be done on resource development for Newfoundland and Labrador, to discuss with him the analysis that your department might have undertaken which indicates that we are going to lose a billion dollars over the course of this project, and to look at what innovative solutions the federal government can work with us on to make that happen.

I would like to know if those meetings have taken place. I would like to know if the Premier has met with the Prime Minister, because I do know that the Prime Minister has been in Nova Scotia, he has been meeting with the Premier of Nova Scotia, that they are looking at a different deal for Nova Scotia that will allow that particular government to hang on to more of the royalties or more of the money that it needs, or to be able to extend its agreement over a longer period of time, however you want to look at it. The point that I am trying to make is that, without dialogue and discussion, we can stand here in the House of Assembly, or we can stand on the steps of Confederation Building, or we can do on-line petitions and rally every single day, but if we are not prepared to sit down and have meaningful discussions with the people who are going to make those decisions, we really do not have a lot to hang our hat on, now, do we?

That is the point I am trying to make, because when I read in the media the things that are happening right now between the other Atlantic Provinces and the federal government, I have to honestly say that, as a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian, I really feel excluded, and I feel that I am being excluded because of the actions that have been taken by the Premier and the government. That is how I feel, as a resident. I do not want to feel that way, Mr. Speaker. I want the government of the day, no matter what party it is, I want the government of the country, no matter what party it is, to be able to work together, because only the people will gain if you work together and have that strength in that relationship to be able to do those kinds of deals. Right now, I really feel that people in our Province are suffering. I really do.

When I hear media reports that the federal government is having a gateway centre that will begin in Nova Scotia, where does that leave us in proportion to the rest of the country? When I hear that they are going to do side deals with the Government of Nova Scotia as it relates to resource royalties and equalization, and yet they have not had a discussion with anyone in our Province, the minister or the Premier, Mr. Speaker, I really have to question that, because I honestly believe that, regardless of what has transpired in the past, there has to be a go-forward basis. Somewhere along the line we have to move forward.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to move forward without having the proper information because, as Wade Locke has said, we do not have the accurate analysis to be able to determine if what the provincial government says is factual or what the federal government says is factual, because neither, at this point, are prepared to back up the information and the statements that they are making in the media.

Mr. Speaker, while I have no problem with demanding that the Prime Minister keep his commitments and keep his promises, I expect the same from all leaders, including our Premier. I also expect, Mr. Speaker, that there be proper information provided to this Legislature and to the public so that we can make those determinations. That is why I want to move the following amendment today, Mr. Speaker, and it is seconded by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo: That the motion be amended by adding to the end the following - and I think you probably have a copy of the motion there - "and in the interest of openness and accountability also calls upon the Premier to release this province's analysis of the proposed equalization formulas."

Very simple, Mr. Speaker, and I table that amendment to the motion for your review. I understand that the Table Officers have already looked at this amendment and it is in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes.

I would like for the Speaker to have a look at it, if he could, please.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Chair has not had a chance to see the amendment as put forward by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I understand it may have been given to the Speaker at an earlier time, so the House will take a brief recess so the Chair can have an opportunity to confer with the Table Officers and come back and report whether the amendment is in order or not.

The House is recessed very briefly.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Chair has had an opportunity to confer with the Table Officers and the Chair will read the motion as put forward by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and duly seconded.

The motion reads: That the motion be amended by adding to the end of the following, "and in the interest of openness and accountability also calls upon the Premier to release this province's analysis of the proposed equalization formulas."

The Chair deems that this resolution is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that, this being Private Members' Day, each member who rises gets fifteen minutes to speak, no member speaks for the second time or gets extra time on an amendment, and the member's time has lapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Opposition Leader is ready, I will begin to talk about this most important motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, standing in this House today to speak to this motion will probably, no doubt, be one of the most important times that I will have to speak in this House of Assembly. It is a very critical motion. It is critical for all people of this Province, and I have no doubt that this motion will be passed unanimously. Unfortunately, though, Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the Member for Conception Bay South did have to introduce this motion because, as we know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - if the Prime Minister had followed through on his commitment we would certainly be dealing with more important matters today.

It is also particularly sad, Mr. Speaker, that our three Conservative members stood with the Prime Minister and against our Province in the vote yesterday in the House of Commons despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that it was a free vote.

Mr. Speaker, even though the Deputy House Leader, Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski, admitted their government did not keep their promise, he, too, still stood with his government and voted against his residents in Saskatchewan.

With that being said, Mr. Speaker, that this is sad that we are here debating this today, in any case it certainly is a privilege to speak to this motion, not only on behalf of my constituents in Trinity-Bay de Verde but what I believe is on behalf of all residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, because it is such an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I clearly remember back in January 2006 when Prime Minister Harper, who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, was first off the mark to respond to Premier Williams' letter in which he outlined questions for each party, and one of those questions, of course, was that about equalization.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Harper was the very first to respond and he vowed to keep non-renewable energy resources out of the equalization formula. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I quote the Prime Minister in saying, "The Conservative Party will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula."

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which dictionary the Prime Minister used, but I did my own little search in the dictionary -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - and here is the definition of adversely that I had come up with. The first definition, or the first meaning, sorry, is: unfavourable or antagonist in purpose or effect; secondly, it could mean: opposing one's interest or desire; thirdly: being or acting in a contrary direction; four: opposite or confronting; and, five: causing harm.

Mr. Speaker, that begs the question: Does receiving $11 billion - which, according to the economist here in Newfoundland and Labrador says - does receiving $11 billion less than we expected over the course of the next thirteen years create an adverse effect? Does breaking a promise that would allow us to capitalize on our finite resources create an adverse effect? Is it, as the dictionary says -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - contrary to our interests, unfavourable and unfortunate, acting or serving to oppose or causing harm. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is all of these things.

Mr. Speaker, that $11 billion that we could have received had Harper kept his promise is the equivalent of wiping out our entire provincial debt. I would like to illustrate in real terms what this could mean to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, in March 2006, stated the following: The Province would require a surplus of $300 million every year for the next forty years to eliminate our existing net debt. Can you imagine what we could do as a Province if Prime Minister Harper had kept his promise, and what we could do here with $300 million a year for the next forty years.

I did do a rough calculation of this for illustrative purposes only, and it is not to say this is what we would do, but, as I say, just to illustrate what $300 million would mean to us over the next forty years. Of course, they are based on approximate numbers in contacting the Department of Health and the Department of Education and the Department of Transportation. Based on those approximate numbers, I came up with the following: $300 million over the next forty years, Mr. Speaker, would be the equivalent of two new hospitals, four MRI machines, five kidney dialysis units, four long-term health care facilities, five new schools and 200 kilometres of road every year for the next forty years. That is what Prime Minister Harper has deprived us of.

Mr. Speaker, constituents and people everywhere in the Province I go these days continually ask the question, why is it that Harper is eager for us to remain below the economic level of Ontario. I find it very ironic that he asked the question of Paul Martin and the Liberals, of course when he was looking himself to become leader of the government. Now, I think, as many people have said, it is time that he look in the mirror and ask himself that very question.

Mr. Speaker, going through school and university I was very fond of math, so I thought that I would put this in mathematical terms. Mr. Speaker, in mathematical terms basically the fiscal capacity of Ontario does not equal revenues in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a completely artificial equation and it is an artificial comparison. If we are to use the fiscal capacity of Ontario as a benchmark, then there is a part of that equation that also should be added, and this is what I suggest the equation should read: The fiscal capacity of Ontario should equal the revenue of Newfoundland and Labrador, plus debt, plus the cost of public works and services, or providing public works and services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the hon. member speak here in the House. I ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, this is a very critical motion here today and not something that should be laughed at.

Anyway, to continue on with that, as I said, the fiscal capacity of Ontario, the real equation, the true numbers should state the revenue from Newfoundland and Labrador, plus the debt that we have incurred here, plus the cost to provide services in public workers. That debt, and that public service and works costs, that is the important side of the equation that the federal government is just refusing to consider.

Mr. Speaker, since Confederation this Province has accumulated the highest amount of debt per capita in the entire country. In fact, as the Member for Conception Bay South said earlier, it is twice that of the next province.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the cost to provide public works and services should also be factored into this equation, as I said. As most people know in the country, we are more widely dispersed than any other province. In this Province we have 1.4 people per square kilometre compared to twelve people per square kilometre in Ontario. Obviously, hospitals and the cost to providing health care, transportation costs, the cost of education and providing schools and so on, it is much more costly in this Province when comparing us to the rest of the country, and particularly Ontario.

So, you can see, Mr. Speaker, by falsely comparing our provincial revenues to Ontario's fiscal capacity, the federal government is ignoring the true picture and providing a major injustice and disservice to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to switch gears for a moment and just speak about something that truly saddens me, and that is the attitude that some people, and I will not say all people in Canada, but some people in Canada, some Canadians have toward our Province here. Before the federal Budget, and leading up after, I would be on the Internet a lot and reading the comments as to what people would have to say regarding our Province on the equalization issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde speak here in the House. I ask members for their co-operation. The member has been recognized by the Chair and she has fifteen minutes. Anybody else who wants to stand, stand and be recognized by the Chair and they will also be allotted their time. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, once again, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before I was interrupted, I did read a lot prior to the federal budget and following the federal budget on the comments that were being said in newspaper articles and just on chat lines, and I have to say that I did stop reading them eventually because I was really flabbergasted and appalled, really truly disappointed in some of the un-Canadian like comments that were being said about our Province here.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Prime Minister is partly to blame for that, as it was his office who provided inaccurate information to a well-known economist here, Mr. Wade Locke. Not only did he provide him with misinformation, Mr. Speaker, but he let that information remain in the public domain for nearly a week, knowing full well that we would be worse off because of the new formula than what he had led Mr. Locke to believe. So, as I said, I blame the Prime Minister for some of the reasons other Canadians have a negative view on our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to educate those naysayers in some of the ways our Province does contribute to the country. I know that the Member for Conception Bay South did allude to some of this but I believe it bears repeating because we need to get the truth out as to what our Province really does contribute to this Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the life of the current offshore oil and gas project the federal government will receive approximately $20 billion. Twenty billion dollars will go directly to the federal government in Ottawa, and that is not something to shy away from. Also, the three offshore oil and gas projects have generated $11 billion for oil companies. Again, a significant investment and contribution to this Province and the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Upper Churchill deal that was signed takes a lot of the revenue out of our Province and puts it right into the Province of Quebec, and namely $1.3 billion, with a b, every year from our hydro while here in this Province we only receive $75 million annually.

Our nickel from Voisey's Bay employees workers in Ontario and Manitoba. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 25 per cent of INCO's Sudbury workforce and 38 per cent of the Thompson workforce are employed as a result of nickel coming from our Province, right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our people - employers have said time and time again, and I have dealt with some employers over the phone for references and so on, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are some of the hardest working people that they have ever come across. It leads me to believe that sometimes some of these naysayers on these chat lines, maybe it is a fact that they are jealous that these workers are harder working than they are, maybe that is why they are passing on the comments.

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that as it was with Quebec and the Upper Churchill in 1969, it still remains today. The votes in Quebec are more important to the federal government than the voters in this Province here. Mr. Speaker, that, I believe, is shameful. The fact also remains that the Prime Minister penalized our Province while bolstering Quebec and their revenues there.

Mr. Speaker, we, as a people in Newfoundland and Labrador, are known throughout the world to be kind and hospitable -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: We are known to be kind and hospitable. We hear that all over from tourists who come here, or any time you get on a plane, they know somebody from Newfoundland. They talk about what a wonderful people we are. We are the type of people that do not begrudge any other province for getting what they deserve from our federal government.

Mr. Speaker, all we simply ask is that we, as a Province, get what we rightfully deserve here, too. What we rightfully deserve is respect and an opportunity to use our finite resources so that we may become self-reliant some day. All we ask is that Prime Minister Harper live up to his commitment. Our communities will benefit. Our future generations will benefit - your children, your grandchildren, my unborn children. Newfoundland and Labrador will benefit and Canada will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, strong provinces make a strong country. Our Province has so much to offer, particularly in the area of natural resources. We ask, through this motion today, that the Prime Minister do what is right and to allow our Province to prosper so that our country can also prosper.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to stand and have my fifteen minutes talking about the resolution that has been put forward by the Member for Conception Bay South.

After hearing three speakers, it is clear that the resolution is certainly a resolution that we all can ascribe to. It is really wrapping yourself in the flag and believing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people and making sure that what we were promised will be delivered. There is nothing more clear than previous speakers have said, that the Prime Minister has broken his word to this Province. The Prime Minister has broken his word and it has been demonstrated in brochures, in newspaper articles, on the House of Common's floor and everywhere you look. The Prime Minister has broken his word.

However, I know that my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, brought forward an amendment that I believe would strengthen the resolution here today. I heard the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde talk about the loss that we will incur by the Prime Minister not keeping his word. She mentioned the figure $11 billion. Wade Locke in today's paper, in The Telegram, after a revision of his figures - now this is what we are up against here in this Province. All we are doing really is repeating what politicians have said in the media.

The Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde said that the economist, Wade Locke, was given information, wrong information, by the federal government, and when he did his homework he thought that we would be gaining about $5 billion. When he revamped his figures he now thinks that we will be losing $1 billion by this deal in the March 19 budget by the Prime Minister. Of course, the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde thinks that we will be losing $11 billion.

What is the truth of the matter? Why is it so complicated to give every household in this Province a condensed version of the equalization, what it means to us and what we will lose if the Prime Minister changes things in the midst of all of this? Why is it so complicated? Is it a moving target? Somebody had to devise the figures that are in front of the federal government and also the ones that are here in our provincial government.

In the Estimates part of our Budget meetings a week ago I asked the Minister of Finance: Why can't you provide information to the people of this Province, so we will not be just getting on a band wagon of rhetoric, we will know, we will actually see for ourselves, and be able to have strong evidence in presenting our case? He was of the same opinion as well. It is a forecast only. It cannot be a pie in the sky, it cannot be something you can't really get a grasp on.

I would say the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is right. She is not taking anything away from this resolution, in fact she is strengthening that resolution.

All taxpayers in this Province should have before them information that everybody can read and assess, because we have a situation here now that decisions will have to be made pretty soon on whether or not we continue on with our old formula or if we go for the new formula. Do we know what is in the O'Brien formula? No, we do not. It has not been made known to anybody in the public.

It is interesting, you know - I looked in our Budget, and when you look at what is coming to us in the way of offshore royalties in our Province, that is the reason why this government is able to write out cheques every day of the week and make a lot of good news announcements. Offshore royalties - look at what is coming to this Province from offshore royalties; $1,038,000,000 in offshore royalties. What is coming to the Province in mining tax and royalties? Two hundred and twenty eight billion. Just imagine if we did not have to declare that as revenue, and just imagine if Stephen Harper would overlook the fact that we have over $1 billion in royalties. Just imagine if Stephen Harper would agree to let matters stand, as he said in his letter to our Premier on January 4, 2006. He said to our Premier: Forget about those non-resource royalties. I am not even going to take those into consideration when I am doing the equalization package for your Province. Imagine if we did not have to declare over $1 billion in royalties in making up the equalization package.

Are we going to get to the point of other provinces, like the Province of Quebec, that has had to hide their royalties. I thought it was an interesting article in The Telegram about a week ago on how to get around the matter of equalization so that the big bad government in Ottawa cannot tax you on what your revenues are. I thought it was quite clever that Hydro Quebec undertakes projects, like they did in 2001. They had $200 million into beautification of communities by hiding electrical lines around their historic sites and scenic views. That was $200 million that Hydro Quebec was able to put out into the Province of Quebec, some beautification projects, whereas if they did not do that, they would have been paying royalty to the Province of Quebec and that would have affected them in their equalization package. Now, are we going to have to get creative like that to hide our royalties?

In fact, on a smaller scale we have already done that. We have actually gotten Inco to build a hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I do not think that we used the amount of that hospital to tell our federal government that Inco build a hospital in happy Valley-Goose Bay. I do not think we did that. We should not have to go to those extremes to hide our royalties from the federal government, because they made a commitment to our Province that we would have a period, we would have a set time frame, when we would not have to include the revenue generated from non-resource royalties, and as a result of that we would be able to these royalties and it would not enter into our equalization package.

There is a different school of thought out there today. Wade Locke, the chief economist from MUN, is telling the Board to Trade and other business groups in our Province that we will be a have province in 2009. Now, that is wonderful news. We will be a have province in 2009. What does that do for equalization? That actually diminishes equalization. Equalization, at that point, when we are a have province, will actually disappear, will go off the radar. Although it is good that you are going to be a have province, then you have the Conference Board of Canada saying that next year we will have the lowest GDP in all of the country. We are leading the country this year in GDP growth, our economy is growing. Next year, the Conference Board of Canada are saying, we will have the lowest GDP rate; next year in 2008. Then we have the chief economist of the Province, Wade Locke, saying we will be a have province in 2009, which will almost eliminate our equalization coming here to this Province. That is not a bad thing.

How can we make an intelligent decision as to what way the Province should actually go? How can we debate in this House of Assembly which way the Province should go? What options are there out there in the O'Brien report? What is laid on the table for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to discuss? We are here in this House of Assembly representing the people of our Province and we have not seen one shred of information regarding the plan for equalization that is before the Government of Canada or the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

All of us are willing and ready to do the right thing for this Province, and we stand behind whatever government - and right now it is the Tory government here in our Province that we are all standing behind and wanting to get the best deal for every citizen of our Province. I do not think any of you will say that we are not patriotic. All of us want to do the right thing. I think this matter that is before us today - and I think members opposite will say they have never seen any piece of information on any sheet of paper that would give them any comfort as to whether the Province is embarking on the right option or the wrong one.

I want to talk about the exchange that is happening between the federal and provincial governments. Even as late as yesterday, with student employment, the attitude between both levels of government is pretty sour. It is very sour. In fact, it is has always been that way over the years, no matter who has been in government, but it is has reached a critical level today. What do you think this government is doing to get the federal government to change their plans on the student criteria for summer employment?

I heard, last night, a bitter exchange on the Open Line show. When I heard it, I thought to myself, there is something amiss here. When you hear the Member for Avalon, the MP for Avalon, saying that our government, the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, has not picked up the phone and phoned Ottawa to ask for a meeting concerning the Budget of March 19. There has not been a request go to the federal government on anything that was in the federal Budget of March 19. My understanding is that they had no request; the only campaign that was launched was in the media done by our Premier and there has been no exchange in a closed room.

I also understand that there is going to be a meeting on June 2 for Premiers across Canada and one of the topics will be equalization. Now, is our Premier prepared to attend that meeting on June 2, knowing full well there has been no exchange, no face-to-face meetings, no telephone calls? Every issue that comes up that needs attention from the federal government, no matter what the issue is, we have not had any representation or any dialogue between our provincial government and the federal government.

I am hearing that the Minister of Transportation and Works is mumbling under his breath, saying: Well, what did you do when you were there? Well, let me tell you what we did when we were there. We had our quarrels, I can tell you, we had our quarrels with the federal government. We are our quarrels with the federal government, but you have to give credit where credit is due. You have to give credit because it was Paul Martin, a Liberal Prime Minister, who gave us the deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I am not saying that, and we are giving the Premier full marks, and we are giving the Liberal government in Ottawa full marks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Listen, we have to deal with the situation at hand. We have to deal with the situation at hand. We are in a very awkward situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

We are into an unusual situation right now. There is a lot of money riding on the equalization formula for our Province, and the sooner our provincial and federal governments get together and discuss the matter, that is when we are going to make some progress.

Last night, I did not know who to believe when I heard the exchange from the Member for Terra Nova and the MP for Avalon, both on the same line calling into Linda Swain on an Open Line program. Well, you know, each person there was trying to defend themselves.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Well, that is too bad, I was going to bring a conclusion to last night's event. I will have a chance to do it later.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here today to be able to take part in this particular debate on a matter that is extremely important, not only for this government and not only for the people of this House but indeed for all people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a motion that supports the position that Premier Williams has taken with respect to the equalization formula and what has happened in Ottawa, and what has happened with respect to the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada has reneged. He gave this Province a promise, the promise was given both in writing and orally, and the promise has not been honoured.

It might be a good time to just go back and take a look at this equalization formula, because I know a lot of people say to me that it is extremely difficult to understand. While the concept of equalization by itself is relatively straightforward, the whole equalization formula is extremely complicated and it is complex. I know a lot of people who listen on the radio or watch it on t.v. or read about it in the paper, it is very difficult for them to be able to follow it.

Equalization stems from a basic commitment of the Government of Canada to fairness and equity, and it's purpose is very simple. It's purpose was to ensure that all across this great country of ours that people have access to reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

This principle is so important that it is entered in the Constitution of our country. It is set out in section 36.2 of the Constitution where it says that, "Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making Equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation."

The concept is straightforward. Equalization itself is not an equalization development formula. It is not intended to ensure that everybody across the country has the same or the common services, but it is to make sure that all provinces have the fiscal capacity or the revenue capability to deliver comparable education, comparable health care, social services and roads and transportation systems, so that the residents get the same comparable levels of services at the same taxation levels. The concept is straightforward, but, as somebody has said, the devil is in the details.

It should be known that the equalization formula is solely a federal government formula. It is not a bilateral agreement, it is not something that we can negotiate with Ottawa, it is their call. It is paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, all taxpayers.

I know when we listen, sometimes, to the federal media or to the national media, we hear people from Ontario saying that Ontarians pay into equalization. Well, all taxpayers across the country pay for equalization. They all pay taxes, it all goes to the Government of Canada, and it is the Government of Canada that pays their equalization, not Ontario and not Alberta, and it is important for everyone to remember that.

The payments are made unconditionally from Ottawa to the provinces. The provinces, if there are no strings attached, we can do what we want. So it is calculated by looking at our fiscal capacity. It is calculated by looking at what is the average fiscal capacity of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador compared to the national standard. So, if this is the national standard and this is our fiscal capacity, if you are under that standard, if you are under the national standard, you get the equalization, and it is multiplied for every man, woman and child who lives in this Province.

Now, the way the system works is that if your fiscal capacity goes up, you lose equalization. If any Province has a fiscal capacity that is higher than the national average, if it is higher than the national average, the province does not get equalization. You do not pay anything in, the province does not pay anything in, you just stop receiving equalization.

That is how the system works, so what has happened is that, as your fiscal capacity increases, as long as you stay underneath, you still get the equalization. If your fiscal capacity goes up you may lose some equalization, but as long as you are under that national standard you will continue to receive it.

What happened, of course, is, when the oil and gas came, it drove our fiscal capacity up; and, as a result of that, we were losing equalization. Granted, our economy was heated up because of the oil and gas, and people were working because of that, but what was happening was that, as the oil and gas was being sucked out of the ground, there was no net fiscal benefit to the people of this Province, there was no net fiscal benefit to the government of this Province. The government was still receiving the same amount of money. Before the oil and gas, it was receiving equalization. A number of years ago that was $1 billion. This year we are going to receive $477 million.

Then, when the oil and gas came, government received equalization money, government also received oil and gas money, but the total amount that was coming in was the same, and the oil and gas was going and the Province was not getting any further ahead from a fiscal point of view. That is where Premier Williams came in, and that is where his negotiations with the Primer Minister of Canada were so successful to the people of this Province.

What it did is, it provided that, even though we were losing equalization because of the oil and gas revenue, we would receive an offset payment from a different department. Now, it is not equalization. It did not come from the Department of Finance. It was a totally, totally, different arrangement that provided us with an offset payment, and that is why it is so important.

The Prime Minister then made a commitment that he would remove 100 per cent of the non-renewable resources from the equalization formula. That was a commitment that was made in writing, it was made orally, and when the Budget came down on March 19 the commitment was not honoured.

What was more egregious is that ten days later, when the Budget implementation bill was introduced in the House of Commons, we found out that not only was the O'Brien formula, which was a formula that would place a cap on the equalization we were receiving, not only were we affected by that, but in addition we found out that in the consequential amendment section of the Budget Implementation Act which passed last night, or at least passed second reading last night, we found out that the federal government, without any recommendation from the O'Brien formula, made an amendment to the Atlantic Accord legislation. This amendment changed the eligibility criteria, it changed the trigger to determine whether the Atlantic Accord would be received.

Previously, under the status quo formula, if we qualified for equalization, we received the Atlantic Accord payments, these very valuable payments which amount to $305 million. I know the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Windsor talked about our oil and gas revenues, but another very important point is the $305 million that is also in there from the Atlantic Accord 2005, which Premier Williams negotiated. I remember when he came down the escalator in St. John's Airport, saying: We got it! We got it!

It was like the oil and gas revenues were going right into the pockets of the people of this Province, and that is what Budget 07 is going to do for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will be talking more about that later. I will be talking about social justice, and I will be talking about tax rates. You will hear it, don't you worry.

Madam Speaker, the other thing to bear in mind is that, what the Atlantic Accord did for us, all this money it provided for us was done for a reason. It was done to allow us to be the principal beneficiaries of our offshore oil and gas revenue, and it was done to allow us to get a hand up. It was a bilateral arrangement. It was not part of equalization. Everybody has to recognize that, that the Atlantic Accord money is not part of equalization. It was a different deal. It is from a different department. What we have to ensure is that we do not lose that, and that is what is happening with respect to the O'Brien formula implemented when the Budget was brought down. They are putting a cap on that. In determining whether or not we get the Atlantic Accord, there is a formula in effect that caps us relative to the fiscal capacity of Ontario. Then, they take that and, in determining our equalization, they put the Accord in, in determining our fiscal capacity.

The legislation determines fiscal capacity. It has a definition for fiscal capacity that changes. On one aspect you use one definition, on another aspect you use another definition. They are using the Atlantic Accord revenues to determine our fiscal capacity, when those revenues are not part of the fiscal capacity of our Province. Those revenues were given to us to get ahead. They were given to us to pay down our debt. They were given to us to invest in the economy, to diversify our economy for the day when the oil and gas revenue was gone.

That was the purpose of the Atlantic Accord, and the federal government, with respect to the budget implementation bill, without calling us, without giving us any notice - they did not call us up and say: Look, you know you have that Atlantic Accord legislation that is very important to your people; we are going to change that.

Now, that is a bilateral arrangement, and that is why we are having our lawyers look at it, and that is why we are having our counsel look at it, to determine if we have the right, if we can have a right, if there has been a breach of that agreement, and if there has been a breach whether we can enforce that agreement. So, it is extremely important.

Now, the federal government, with respect to the O' Brien formula and the O'Brien cap, they could have left it there. They could have put a cap on the equalization that we are receiving and left it there, but unfortunately, and what is particularly egregious about this whole arrangement, is that they went further than that. They went further to amend the Atlantic Accord - without telling us, without giving us notice to amend the Atlantic Accord - that will, in the end, deny us access to all of the Accord monies we were receiving in the past, and that is why we have to pass this resolution.

Madam Speaker, before the federal Budget came down, I met with Minister Flaherty. He was down here to speak at a fundraiser for Minister Sullivan - I am sorry, for Minister Hearn - and he dropped in and we had a meet and greet, and at that meet and greet - this was before the Budget - we had a very cordial discussion and I raised with him the issue of the O'Brien formula. He indicated to me at that time, not that the Prime Minister would not keep his commitment, but he indicated to me that they would honour the Accords, they would respect the Accords.

I found that to be a curious response at the time, because the commitment had been made. It was not a commitment to honour the Accord; the commitment was to remove 100 per cent of the non-renewable resource revenue from the equalization formula.

As I said, when the legislation came in, they brought in the O'Brien formula; but, as I said earlier in my remarks tonight, the equalization is a federal government program. It is not a bilateral program. It is their program to do with what they will, and they have made their decision, and the people of this country will comment on that.

As I said, what is particularly egregious is that, without telling us about it and in spite of assurances that the Accord would be honored, there was an amendment to the budget implementation bill and there was misinformation given about that bill. There was misinformation given to Dr. Locke, there was misinformation given to the representatives of the Department of Finance who were in Ottawa in the lock-up that night, and we saw clarification of that. I wrote to Minister Flaherty on April 5 and I asked him for clarification, and I have not received the courtesy of a response. I have been advised that my letter has been receive and I have been told - I am told by my officials - that the federal government will, in fact, be providing us with an answer, but to date I have not receive the courtesy of a response. Now, I will be writing again to Minister Flaherty today. Next month, on June 19, there will be a federal-provincial territorial meeting of the Finance Ministers in Quebec City, and I intend to raise that again.

This whole equalization is important to the people of this Province. We do not want to live on equalization. I look forward, as everyone in this House does, to the day when equalization will be gone and we can stand on our own -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - and we can continue in our goal to be a prosperous and a self-reliance Newfoundland and Labrador within a strong and united Canada. I know that everyone of us in this room looks forward to that.

Madam Speaker, I will just say one more thing. I know the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair talked about releasing the numbers. There is a plethora of numbers and there is a plethora of assumptions that one would have to make to do these calculations. If we make these assumptions, assumptions as to the price of oil and gas, assumptions as to the price of nickel, production numbers, exchange rates, interest rates, what is the fiscal capacity for our Province going to be not only this year but over the next thirteen years, what is the fiscal capacity of Ontario and Saskatchewan, what are they going to be, if we do those numbers we are going to get caught in a debate involving the minutiae of our assumptions. The Opposition will criticize us for our assumptions and the federal government will criticize us for our assumptions. We have to talk about principles here, or lack of principles. That might be a more appropriate thing to talk about tonight, the lack of principle in giving a commitment and failing to honour it.

Dr. Wade Locke of Memorial University is an independent economist who has spent, I understand, a great part of his life studying equalization and how it impacts on studying the Accords. He is highly qualified and highly respected and he put out his numbers. Rather than get into a fight with the federal government, whether our assumptions are correct or their assumptions are correct, and fighting over the minutiae of the numbers, we have listened to Dr. Locke. He has made his assumptions. I may disagree with him on some of his assumptions, but I do not disagree with the principles of his analysis. He has done the analysis and that is fine with us.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am going to have an abbreviated version of my speech, because I am going to share my time with the Member for Signal Hill, the Leader of the NDP.

Madam Speaker, there are a few things in this private member's motion that I can agree to and there are a few that we would like to add before the end of the day. We already proposed an amendment to it, to add something.

I can agree with the "WHEREAS our Province has been betrayed by the Prime Minister..." That is not a secret. I would go a little further, and I have said it publicly outside the House and I will say it in, I think the Prime Minister lied to us. That does not surprise me, that Stephen Harper lied to us. I never did trust the man. I never supported him for that reason, because of the comments that he had made, prior to the election, about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Eastern Canadians, about our work ethic and things like that. I never did trust the man. When he made that commitment, that he was going to give us all of our non-renewable natural resources and that the non-renewable natural resources would not affect our equalization payments, I knew at the time that he could not honour that commitment.

I does not surprise me, but I guess it does surprise some of those opposite because thirteen of them campaigned for the Tory party in Ottawa and Stephen Harper during the last federal election. They are all over here on pictures. Even the Premier campaigned for Stephen Harper, the Premier of our Province. The current day Premier of our Province campaigned for Stephen Harper, along with twelve of his colleagues across the floor. Here is a picture of it right here, Madam Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) prop.

MR. REID: Yes, I agree, that is a prop, a paid political prop on behalf of the Tory party of Canada. Unfortunately, the Premier was in it, along with thirteen others over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Including you, I say, Madam Speaker; you are in it. You are in another one. The ad says: Stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, well I guess Stephen Harper stood up, walked on us and went back home. That is what Stephen Harper did. I can agree with that, that Stephen Harper betrayed the people of this Province.

The people over here were fortunate enough to have realized that he would betray us long before the last federal election. We did not support him. In fact, we campaigned against him. We told you what he was like, but you did not listen. Instead you went out and took part in political ads to support him. You got him. You could almost say you got what you deserve, but you did not because no one deserves Stephen Harper, from here to Vancouver or Victoria. Nobody deserve Stephen Harper.

Madam Speaker, one thing though that I want to talk about - and my time is growing short - is the amendment that we are putting to this Private Member's Resolution today. We are going to amend it by putting something in at the end, and it says, "and in the interest of openness and accountability also calls upon the Premier to release this province's analysis of the proposed equalization formulas."

The reason I want to talk about that is because this budget, the federal budget, which was passed for the most part last night in the House of Commons - and there are three Federal Tories who voted in favour of it, I might add - this budget was announced on March 17, which was two months ago, Madam Speaker. We hear the Premier, we hear the government, up every day talking about how much money - I think the latest one was this morning. I heard, we are going to lose billions of dollars as a result of it. We hear the federal government on the other hand saying: We are going to gain money as a result of it. We have only heard one analysis of this, an independent individual who did it under his own accord, cost to nobody, and that is Dr. Wade Locke from Memorial University, an economics professor. He did an analysis of it. He came out with his first analysis and told us that we were actually going to gain money under this new equalization formula that Stephen Harper put forward. Then, after he got a little bit of additional information, he came out and said, no, we are going to lose some money that Paul Martin had given us.

What we have not seen, what we have not heard, and our government refuses to put forward, I say to the Member for Conception Bay South, who is putting forward the motion - what we would like to see is an analysis from the Province or from the federal government about how much we are going to lose, because we have not seen it, which is highly unusual. We are up every day talking about losing billions of dollars but we have nothing to support that; absolutely nothing.

I have said it on Open Line, I said it a month ago on Open Line, actually. I called Mr. Bill Rowe one afternoon and said, I am shocked that we are a month now after the federal budget came down and we do not know how much we are losing or gaining under the new equalization formula, even though we have a Minister of Finance and we have some financial wizards in the Department of Finance. We have how many employees over there, Minister? Two or three hundred working for you in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board? Obviously, they have the wherewithal, and if they do not you can go out and hire it. Obviously, they have the wherewithal to crunch numbers to be able to ascertain exactly what we are going to gain and we are going to lose.

The minister shakes his head and says, yes, we can do that. Then, I ask the minister the question: Why is it, in a local newspaper here in St. John's today, that the Premier says he is refusing to give the information? We have put in a Freedom of Information request as the Opposition. We had to put in a request under the Freedom of Information Act to get that information. We got a response back yesterday from your department, or the Department of Justice, saying, no, that is privy to the Cabinet and the Cabinet only. When someone refuses me information I always get suspicious. I always think that somebody is hiding something and I hope that you are not hiding something because I would like to be able to think that if you put forward the information and quantify exactly how much money we are losing, you might be able to strengthen your case, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but you might be able to strengthen it on the mainland.

If you could honestly come forward and show on a piece of paper that we are going to lose $1 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion, $10 billion, $20 billion, $30 billion as a result of this new equalization formula, I think that the people in the country might have a better understanding and a comprehension of what we are screaming and yelling about down here. I think we deserve to yell and scream when the Prime Minister of the country breaks a commitment and he lies to the general population here, because I saw it in writing what he committed to before the election last year. We all saw it. We all had copies of it. It was in the paper here for goodness sake.

What I am saying is we have not seen a financial analysis of what we are going to lose here. We have not seen one from the federal government. Mr. Locke put out one and then retracted it, and we are left to thinking: What are the real numbers? How much are we going to lose? I can remember the day that the federal budget came down, the Premier stood in front of the cameras out there and said we could lose $200 million or $300 million. I was called that night by a VOCM Open Line show, Linda Swain, she said: What do you think about what happened today, Mr. Reid? I said, well - she said: How much do you think we are going to lose? I said: According to the Premier, and I believe him, we are going to lose $200 or $300 million. Now I am hearing billions of dollars, and two months after the federal budget came down we still do not know. So, that is what I would like to see included in this motion today, that you release the information. You release the financial analysis to show exactly how much money we are going to - or even close. I know that because of the price of oil, it fluctuates up and down, but certainly you are not talking a difference of billions of dollars. You might be talking millions. So, why don't you give us the financial analysis of where you think - how much money we are going to lose.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am going to sit down because I have around eight minutes left and I would be glad to pass those along to the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A special thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for sharing his time with me. It is a small period of time for having this discussion. I really did want to have some thoughts on record.

I am quite pleased to stand and support the original motion that is on the floor but I am also supporting the amendment that has been put forward by the Opposition Party. I think that as much information as possible needs to be given to the people in this Province, no matter what it is that we are talking about. It does bother me that we do not have an analysis from the government. I also stand for having that information.

I went to the session that Professor Locke had at Memorial when he released his first figures. I understood from him that night that he was working with what he hoped were final figures but had some sense that might not be the case, and he was quite honest and quite open at that time. I was quite impressed with his openness actually. Then when he got the new information he was quite open and honest again and was able to acknowledge the figures are now different. He worried about his integrity as an economist and as an academic and as a person who is committed to the community.

I call upon the government to worry about its integrity as well when it comes to releasing the information. Why keep that from us? I think the elected representatives of the people and I think the people deserve to have the full picture, based on the information that government has. If an economist like Dr. Locke can be open about the figures, than why isn't government being open about the figures? I just want to put on record that this is a real concern for me.

I will be voting for the amendment. I suspect that government will not. Then I will vote for the main motion because I see myself standing here today - as I did Friday when I went to the rally that was held - representing the people of this Province. I think the one good thing about this motion and about the discussion we are having today is that all three parties recognize that what is happening in the equalization formula affects the people of this Province. It does not matter who we are as a party, whoever was the party in government at this moment, I think would be doing exactly what the current government is doing, and we should be doing that. The reason we should be doing it is because we are talking about our resources and this is the point that we have to make over and over and over again.

When Lorne Calvert, the Premier of Saskatchewan, was here in February and spoke to the Board of Trade, he and the Premier of our Province were quite buddy-buddy because the one thing they had in common was a believe in the ownership of the resources by the people of a Province and the believe that because our particular resources, the ones that Lorne Calvert was talking about and the ones that our Premier is talking about, that these resources are non-renewable and because they are non-renewable the income from them is short term, not long term, and for that reason they need special consideration under the equalization formula.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. There are several private conversations going on. If the members want to continue, I ask you to take your conversations outside.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have to see where I was. Oh, yes, the non-renewable. It is important that the non-renewable resources be not included because the income from non-renewable resources is one time. It does not go on and on and on, so there is a special consideration that must be made for non-renewable resources.

The thing that connects with that, then, is the whole issue of the equity. This is something I find very, very important, and that they do not seem to get in other provinces. They get it in Saskatchewan. They get it in Nova Scotia, too, I think, but Ontario does not get it, people in B.C. do not get it. What they do not understand is how much catch-up we have to do in Newfoundland and Labrador, how much we do not have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We talk about that all the time here in the House, that we are so far behind in all kinds of ways, our social and our physical infrastructure. We are behind in home care, we are behind in education, we are behind in our health system. We know that we are working towards trying to improve. We know that we have always done the best with what we have had - I hope we have - but the reality is, and we have to be honest about it, that we are playing catch-up on every level that I can think about. Therefore, it is really important for us, as a Province, to point out to people - and this is what I want the government to be pointing out to them - that, until we get on an equal footing, on the same rung of the ladder with Ontario when it comes to the services that we are delivering, then and only then, and I have said this publicly, can anybody say to us we do not need equalization payments.

We are going to need them until we have the capacity to deliver according to national standards. That is the reality, and that is why I am standing behind this motion, because we need as much money as we can get in the short term as we do that, working towards that position of being equitable with other provinces. That is what we need, that is what we are seeking, and that is why we have to vote for this today.

I would also think that we should be continuing to show that we are not standing alone, that Lorne Calvert does agree with the position of this Province. I think that we should try to point out that we are not out there in the wilderness as the crazy Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is not what we are. What we are asking for is really reasonable, and I think we need to point out the reasonableness of what it is that we are looking for.

Yes, there are moments when we have to shout and rant, and we did that on Friday, but we have to have reasoned arguments and reasoned discussions. That is what we have to do. We all have that responsibility - the Premier, the government, those of us who are on this side of the House, the people of the Province - reasoned discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Having said that, as I said, my main reason for standing and talking was not to use up fifteen minutes today but to take the time to say where I stand with regard to the motion and with regard to the amendment.

Once again, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for sharing his time with me.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

When the hon. member speaks, he will close debate.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

First of all, I want to thank members today for taking part in the debate: the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde; the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; and, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

As I have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Oops - and the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. Sorry about that. How could I forget? Sorry. I apologize.

It is not hard to get the feel of what is happening here today. It is no secret that all parties support this motion, and it is certainly good to see. As was illustrated at a rally that was held last week with some over 3,000 people, it was probably one of the first times that all parties stood on the one podium. Not only did we have all parties, but we had labour leaders, we had students, and there is no doubt that we are united in our stand on this one.

Just to speak to the motion just for one second, as the Minister of Finance just explained, we are not talking about one variable here: the price of oil. We are talking about many, many variables, whether it is the fiscal capacity of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is the fiscal capacity of Ontario. By producing a list of numbers like that, what you do, you open up a debate, then, for the other parties involved to debate what the fiscal capacities are going to be in five, ten or fifteen years out. So you are really looking at mudding the waters. That was one of the reasons that Dr. Wade Locke was so concerned with the numbers that he worked, because there were so many projections and so many numbers that he had to estimate and hope were right into the future.

Certainly, Dr. Wade Locke, I have watched his work for many years, and watched him several times interpret the numbers that I have seen. I have great faith in him. He is a trained economist. He actually said, himself, that it stressed his level of capabilities to its very end, to make sure that he was finding the numbers correct and accurate. I am sure he would confirm that if anyone were to ask.

I certainly have great faith in Dr. Locke and the numbers he gave out, and I just want to explain. I know the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans said: Well, we are not sure if it is $1 billion or $11 billion. What the difference is here is that when we change to equalization we will be $1 billion worse off. However, when we talk about the $11 billion, the $11 billion refers to what we would have received if the Prime Minister would have kept his commitment. So, there is no variation there of $10 billion. One billion is what we are going to lose in equalization because of the new program. The $11 billion is what we will lose because the Prime Minister did not keep his promise. So, I just want to clear the air on that as well.

Madam Speaker, I will certainly be asking all members to support this and say that by adding this piece that the Opposition want to add to it, I think it just weakens the argument. There is absolutely no need for it. Let's stay united on this. Let's send one solid message. We do not need to get into a debate down life's road on variables. Let's send the message clear and easy and simple. That is the only way, I think, Madam Speaker, we should do this.

Madam Speaker, let me just point out a couple of things. We heard the Finance Minister talk about Section 36 earlier of the Constitution of Canada. Certainly, the only thing that we have in this country to keep us equal, I guess, is equality of scales. The only thing that can keep those scales balanced, we -

MS THISTLE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Normally I would not interrupt a speaker like this but I just want to make a clarification. The only reference I was making was in a newspaper article today that Wade Locke's revised analysis showed that the new system, that is the O'Brien formula, would provide $1 billion less than the status quo. That is what I said. It was the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde who talked about the $11 billion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Not only was it her, I also talked about the $11 billion, Mr. Speaker. I know that I did hear, and I know Hansard will show tomorrow, she went from $1 billion to $11 billion in the same sentence and she seemed to think that there was some difference there. So, I just wanted to make sure. I apologize if she did not say that but I just wanted to make it clear and concise exactly what this was all about, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the scales of equality in this country are done by one simple thing. The one thing that keeps -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one thing in this country that keeps us equal is the constitution, and that is what the constitution of this country is supposed to do. Section 36, as the minister referred to earlier, also says that section 1 - he referred to section 2 - that Parliament and the legislatures, together with the Government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to (a) promoting equal opportunities for the well beings of Canadians, (b) furthering the economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities, and (c) provide essential public service of responsible quality to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I think in this one in particular, in both sections there, one that the Minister of Finance talked about earlier and that one there, I believe that the Harper government has failed us significantly.

Mr. Speaker, in closing debate, I will ask all hon. members, regardless of a political affiliation - political affiliation was not an issue last week when we had that large rally on the steps of this building. I ask all hon. members to stand and support this motion.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will not read the complete motion or the amendment, it has already been put forward through the House.

Is the House ready for the vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members, please.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the vote?

The Chair needs some direction. He is getting mixed signals from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ready now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

My understanding is that the Leader of the Opposition entered the House after the bar was put across the door. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would kindly leave the House until the vote takes place.

CLERK: Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Ms Thistle, Mr. Andersen, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Ms Jones, Ms Michael.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Rideout, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Wiseman, Ms Osborne, Mr. Harding, Mr. Oram, Ms Burke, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hickey, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. French, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Baker, Ms Johnson, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Collins, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Cornect.

Mr. Speaker, the ‘ayes' eight, the ‘nays' twenty-seven.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair deems the amendment defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion.

The Chair deems -

MR. RIDEOUT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Wiseman, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. Harding, Mr. Oram, Ms Burke, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hickey, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. French, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Baker, Ms Johnson, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Collins, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Ms Thistle, Mr. Andersen, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Ms Jones, Ms Michael.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, the ‘ayes' thirty-five, the ‘nays' zero.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair deems the motion carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day - the hon. Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.

I know a motion to adjourn is automatically before the Chair at this point on Wednesday evening, but before we do I would like to take the opportunity to remind colleagues that tomorrow, Thursday, we will carry on with the concurrence debate on, I think it is Social Services. I believe there is fifteen or sixteen minutes left in the time.

When that debate is concluded, we will move into Committee of the Whole and begin discussion of the Estimates relative to Executive Council. I believe there is something around two hours, or two hours and a bit, left for discussion of that head.

If there is any time left at the end of that, Mr. Speaker, between that and our normal adjournment at 5:30 p.m., I would anticipate that I would call the Budget debate.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day, and the private member's motion having been duly debated, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, Thursday.

This House is now adjourned.