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 1 st 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 1 st 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

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

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

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,

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

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

all provinces. So to say that this Province does not contribute to the

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

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

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

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.

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,

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 l