May 26, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 36

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have only one statement by a member for

which I have notice, that is the Member for Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to

Jennifer Brown, a resident of Upper Amherst Cove in the District of Bonavista

South.

Jennifer is a Grade 12 student at Discovery Collegiate who recently was

awarded the $20,000 National Excellence Award from the Canadian Millennium

Scholarship Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, Jennifer won this award for her contribution to her school and

to her community. Jennifer maintains a 91 per cent average and is involved with:

the school band; the French Club; local theater; public speaking and the arts;

and she is President of the Student Council.

She is also a very committed volunteer with many local organizations

including the TIP-A-VISTA Performing Arts and the RCMP Youth Advisory Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this scholarship is a tremendous achievement for Jennifer and

will greatly assist her when she attends university in September.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Jennifer Brown

and in wishing her all the best in her future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to draw the

attention of the hon. members and people of our Province to a very important

vote that is taking place today, May 26, for the Labrador Inuit. This vote, of

course, is in relation to the ratification of the land claims agreement.

Today's vote is a culmination of decades of hard work by the Labrador Inuit

Association, the federal government, as well as the provincial government. These

three parties initialed the final agreement on August 29, 2003. Now eligible

voters have been asked to giver their approval of it. The Labrador Inuit must

ratify the final agreement before it will be considered for ratification by both

the provincial and federal governments.

Mr. Speaker, this government certainly encourages all eligible voters to

participate in the ratification of this agreement. I was encouraged to see that

several hundred individuals have already voted, either through the advanced poll

or by mail-in ballot. I would like to remind those who are eligible to vote that

failure to cast a ballot will be deemed a no vote. There are 4,300 eligible

voters on the official voters list and in order for the agreement to be

ratified, 50 per cent plus one must vote in favour of the agreement. I would

also like to inform those who are eligible to vote that polling stations will be

open until 8:00 p. m. local time in eleven locations throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Inuit ratification vote is the most important

decision that the Inuit will make for their future. It is in the interest of all

Inuit to participate in the ratification vote for this historic agreement. The

results of this vote could forever change the face of Labrador as we know it.

Mr. Speaker, this will be the first comprehensive land claims agreement to be

concluded in the Province and in Atlantic Canada. This is an historic agreement

and, in our view, it is a positive step toward further self-reliance and

self-determination for the Labrador Inuit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

course, on behalf of the Member for Torngat Mountains, in his place. The Member

for Torngat Mountains, Mr. Andersen, is, of course, the critic for the

Opposition for Aboriginal Affairs. The Member for Torngat Mountains, of course

being a very proud Inuit himself, this is a very proud day and he is, indeed, in

Labrador as this most important and historic vote is taking place today.

It took many parties, many, many months and much hard work to reach this

point where the agreement is indeed to a point where it can be voted upon by the

Inuit. I would encourage all Inuit in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

to take part today. They have until 8:00 p.m. local time, I understand, to do

that. It is their vote. It is their agreement. It is their land claims and it is

their future. We wish them all the best and hope that every single one of them

takes the opportunity to vote today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the previous speakers have said, this is a very historic vote for the

Inuit of Labrador and culminates the decades of hard work by the LIA and the

other partners, and the federal government and the Province in reaching this

agreement. I am assuming that if the agreement is ratified by the Inuit, that

the ratification by the federal and provincial governments is a formality. So

this vote is in the hands, really, of the Inuit of Labrador. We hope that the

result - and everyone will get to participate in that - that the result, if it

is not positive at this point, will lead to a positive result -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - that we would certainly want to encourage everybody to

participate in this vote because it does determine the future and the nature of

the kind of self-determination that the Labrador Inuit will have for the future

in a historic constitutional way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was for the Premier but I will direct it, at this point, to the

Government House Leader, I guess. The Premier yesterday was asked by myself

several questions concerning the striking of an all-party committee that would

put an accord to all federal candidates in the current federal election, and

leaders, to determine their positions vis--vis issues that affect Newfoundland

and Labrador and ask them to endorse it. The Premier has refused to endorse such

a committee, but in the course of the answers he gave yesterday, and reflected

in Hansard today on page 1883, he did acknowledge that he has written

commitments from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the

Conservative Party.

I would ask the Premier: Is he prepared to table that written correspondence,

those commitments that he has from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and

the Conservative Party here in the House as soon as possible?

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, not only are we prepared to table it, but I am proud to say

today that the Leader of the Conservative Party said today that he would move to

a ten-province formula on equalization -

MR. SULLIVAN: And no clawbacks.

MR. E. BYRNE: - and no clawbacks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what he said today. Secondly, he said today at a

luncheon, that on non-renewable resources the provincial government would

receive all revenues from non-renewable resources. That is the second thing he

said today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, not only was it made in a speech, but it is

contained in the Conservative Party blueprint. That is what you call commitment

to Atlantic Canada. That is what you call commiment to Newfoundland and

Labrador, and we are proud to say that we are part of that commitment. Now, only

if the Liberal Party of Canada would show some gumption and do exactly the same

thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it the short answer to the question was, yes, they will table the

letter soon. I am delighted to hear the good news reported by the Government

House Leader and hope that there is good news from all of the party leaders and

all of the candidates along those same lines, which is what the debate will be

about later this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, I asked the Minister of Government

Services about the premature termination of the former Commissioner of Petroleum

Products Pricing, and in her response the minister indicated that she had

received a resignation letter from Mr. Saunders. Could she table in this

Legislature the letter of resignation, as she described it yesterday, from the

former commissioner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I do have on file a letter from Mr. Saunders,

with his resignation, and I will table it in this House for the Opposition

Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the duties of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commissioner

and the Commission itself was to ensure, and is to ensure, that gas supplies,

gasoline supplies, are available to isolated communities at market prices. With

the upheaval now taking place in the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission

office, some suppliers are refusing to fill orders in parts of Labrador until

the new commissioner interrupts the zonal pricing formula to allow them to make

a higher profit.

Is the minister aware of this developing crisis situation, and is she aware

that community gas stations in Labrador have today sold out of their supply and

cannot get new orders filled? The question then, along with that, Mr. Speaker,

is: What is the minister planning to do to ensure that untenable situation in

Labrador is resolved and that people living in some of these communities in

Labrador do not have to go another day without having any access to gasoline?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Opposition Leader for his question. I will take it under

advisement and check into the situation.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think that answer in itself is a testimony to the fact that

there is an upheaval and that the minister does not know what is going on with

respect to interruptions and lack of availability of gasoline. She will find the

answer when she provides the undertaking that she just did, to check into it.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention as well that the oil companies are

taking advantage of the confusion currently surrounding the Petroleum Products

Pricing Commission - confusion that was created largely by the government and

the minister in the rushed and poorly-thought-out move to fire the pricing

commissioner prematurely.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: Isn't it true, and can the minister confirm,

that the oil companies have already approached the new commissioner, the Public

Utilities Board commissioner, for another price hike, with the hope of

capitalizing on the inexperience in the position today, and is it likely that we

will see price increases again, even as early as the end of this week or this

weekend?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, all of our gas regulations will now come under

the PUB. Mr. Noseworthy is the interim commissioner, has been appointed, and any

questions referring to the gas interruption should be put to the PUB. Also, I

understand that they are using the same formulas that the previous commission

used, so there is no interruption in services. Any questions will have to be

directed to the PUB, because that is an independent agency.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister might like to be reminded that the piece of

legislation that establishes fuel price regulation is administered on behalf of

the people of the Province by herself, as the minister, and the commissioner,

the PUB now, is only the mechanism by which it happens. The fact that it happens

is decided in this Legislature with a piece of legislation for which she, as the

minister, is solely responsible.

Mr. Speaker, similar to the vanishing automobile insurance reforms, the

consumers of the Province are suffering today because of the inaction of this

government with respect to fuel price regulation.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance this question. The leader of your federal

party was here today, making certain commitments, the man whom the Finance

Minister supported personally in his bid to become the leader, campaigning

today. One of the major federal platform pieces for the Conservative Party and

this leader that he personally supports is not to apply GST tax to gasoline if

the price goes above eighty-five cents a litre.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question is: Will our Minister of Finance state whether or not he agrees

with that part of the federal Conservative platform, and whether he will go

along with that here in Newfoundland and Labrador so that our consumers can have

the benefit of that kind of a tax break?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The federal government can choose to do whatever they desire with their

surpluses. I am not going to be the one to speak for that. I am not a member of

the federal Cabinet. I will leave that to the federal people to speak on behalf,

but on this Province's aspect I have stated in this House before that in 1991

I answered the Finance critic on this same question. In 199, we moved to a per

litre tax on gasoline, sixteen point five cents. When the price goes up, we do

not take any more taxes on a gasoline tax. In fact, what happens is, if

consumption goes down we get less. I said we will make - if the price stays as

it is for the entire year - we would make in revenue on our 8 per cent of the

HST, $3 million. That could be offset with reduced consumption on a per litre

tax and an extra cost of gasoline and diesel fuel that this government uses in

its ferries and vehicles all across this Province that there is no net gain for

this Province, there is no windfall, there is absolutely nothing on the revenue

side to gain from that.

The federal government are different. This is a tax on price. They could get

an extra windfall. It is estimated to be $230 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: If they want to rebate that back, I will support whatever

they want to do in rebating it back to the consumers of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the question simply again. The Finance Minister knows - and the

parts that he does not tell are as telling as the parts he does tell - the

federal government also applies a flat tax on a litre of gasoline, just like we

do in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are talking about the 15 per cent HST in

Newfoundland and Labrador, which is not a flat tax. Unlike the Minister of

Finance, everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador understands that with the prices

going to be well over $1 a litre, there will be a windfall for the provincial

government just like there is a projected one for the federal government. Does

he agree with his federal counterpart that the consumers deserve a break or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said it and I will say it again. There will be no revenue increase with the

price increasing for our Province. There will be none. I am supportive of

whatever the federal government wants to do out of their surplus of money, the

billions they have. If they want to rebate it back to consumers in high

gasoline, I think it is a very noble effort. I wish they would do it. If they

want to give it all back, even above any amount, I would support that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I know this might be unbelievable, but in the odd chance that the Finance

Minister just might be incorrect and that there might be more tax from gasoline

sales than he anticipated in the Budget, would he commit to giving any windfall,

that he says won't occur when everybody else in the Province are convinced

that it will occur, if he should happen to be wrong, and if there is a windfall,

will he give the break back to the consumers, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't get spooked by a one-week or two-week wonder. Hopefully it will go

down. We look at things in the total perspective, Mr. Speaker, over the course

of a twelve-month period. We don't jump on whims every week when something

happens. That is why we got in trouble in the first place. We are going to do

responsible governing here and we are going to deal with it in the proper way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it looks as though the government might finally

bring insurance reform legislation to the House tomorrow. Back in March, the

Premier and minister held a press conference and announced their watered down

plan that offered very little to the consumers. The government was harshly

criticized for not ending rating discrimination based on age, gender and martial

status.

Will the minister tell the House if she has reconsidered that decision, and

will address the substantially higher insurance premiums paid by young drivers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the insurance legislation will be tabled in this

House before this session ends. We are now reviewing the legislation to have a

comfort level that will do what it is supposed to do. That is going to be our

first step, and we will have it in this session.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Day , everything repeats itself.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that government is failing consumers every

step of the way. In protecting lawyers by introducing their concept of a

deductible, the government has lost their ability to provide savings to young

people who are being discriminated against by insurance companies.

Will the minister admit that had she capped payouts, as her government

promised last August, she could be providing substantial savings to customers

now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, our legislation will indeed achieve savings for

our consumers. I would like to say, though, to the hon. member, that he had that

file in the previous Administration for years, did absolutely nothing. I have

been in office now for seven months and I am bringing in reforms in this

session.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, not every day opportunity knocks so easily but,

let me assure you, I will take the high road today and be the gentleman that I

prefer to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: I will tell the minister that I did as much in the short

eight months that I was minister over there than she has done in the past eight

months as not being the minister over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question quickly.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the government is obviously not committed to

putting consumers ahead of insurance companies or lawyers. Maybe they can

provide savings in another way. This Province is the only province that charges

a 15 per cent tax on insurance. This entire tax goes to the Province. It is not

shared with the federal government and it is not common in other jurisdictions.

Will the Minister of Government Services, or the President of Treasury Board,

commit today to reducing or eliminating the tax on insurance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

auto insurance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: - the consumer will see savings between 9 per cent to 20 per

cent, up to 20 per cent, so there are savings for the consumer.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mixed communications there.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, regarding

the recent PUB decision to increase hydro rates in Labrador West, which the

minister is aware can have a more negative impact, probably only second to the

closure of the mines, on the local economy of Labrador West.

I want to ask the minister: When can the people of Labrador West expect an

answer from his government as to what action they are going to take concerning

this decision so that people in Labrador West will not be held ransom by the PUB

or by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is almost the last of the week. Just on a light note before I

answer a very important, serious question, when both members stood up, I thought

we were looking at a crisis in the NDP caucus for a second.

Having said that, the member knows that about ten days ago, I guess, myself

and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs met with the

delegation: the Mayor of Labrador City, the Mayor of Wabush, legal counsel for

both towns and the member, and we did make a commitment at the time. We had just

been in receipt of the decision, like all of the Province, based upon the

publication of the PUB order. We made a commitment at the time that we would

assess the information and that we would respond to the representatives of the

region in the very near future. That assessment is not complete. It is in the

process of being complete.

There are some challenges, I say to the member. That PUB decision came out of

a decision by the former government which put in place a public process that was

to deal with uniform rates in Labrador. All parties, including representatives

from Labrador West - there was a public hearing held right in the town of

Labrador City, it is my understanding, and representations and presentations

were made, and the PUB, in the face of all of that, made a decision that, in the

representatives of the region's opinion, has had a very negative, and will

have a negative, impact.

We are assessing that. I do not mean to be long-winded but it is important.

We are assessing that information now. When we have something to report, I can

give this commitment to the member, I will share that immediately with him, as

the region's representative, and with the representatives of the delegation

that visited us. We do have some time. While the PUB have made their decision,

there is a period of time before it is implemented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: We do have some time to deal with it, and I am hoping, in

due course, to be able to release, or have that assessment complete and provide

it to the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Prime Minister Martin, as Leader of the Liberal Party, made an announcement

yesterday that would have the effect, if you used the normal formulas, of giving

this Province a total of about $50 million a year in health care transfers when

we have a $1.6 billion health care budget.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance, as the minister responsible for

government finances, is he delighted, as the Premier said he was, and quoted as

saying in the paper today, and is that the level of expectations that he and his

care?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am always happy when we get extra money in our Province to use, in

particular for health care, one of the highest concerns of people here in our

Province.

I am a strong believer, and I have said it before, that there should be some

way of leveling the playing field in health care contributions, not strictly on

a per capita basis, where we end up getting 1.622 per cent of the total. We will

never be happy until there is an equalization, a balance to level the playing

field, but anything is positive.

In fact, I am going to be attending this weekend - with the Minister of

Health, and all health and finance ministers across this country - a meeting in

Toronto to deal with health care issues that are placed of upmost importance to

the people of this country. All the premiers will be meeting, following that

this summer, on the same particular issues. So, we would like to see more money

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - but we would like to see something done that is not on an

ad hoc basis and done on a highly sustainable basis in line with the needs of

the people in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the delight of the Premier with the minimal response of the Martin

team: Would he agree that - given that he has a letter from Jack Layton, which I

have here and am prepared to table - the NDP has committed itself to a 25 per

cent contribution to health care, such as we had before, up from 16 per cent,

and to close the Romanow gap and also to support transfers based on the needs of

the Province and not on population alone? Would he express his delight about

that policy, and his displeasure with Paul Martin and his government in not

reaching that kind of commitment to this Province?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I believe that we should get up to 25 per cent in the Romanow report to

enhance levels of health care funding in our Province. It is very, very strong.

In fact - and it should be done on a needs basis. There should be a leveling of

the playing field before you move to per capita. I said that numerous times in

Opposition and I will say it again.

I am pleased to hear an announcement today. I just attended a luncheon in

which Mr. Harper said the ten-province formula, they would support it as part of

their platform, which would mean $150 million in this fiscal year to our

Province, and also a commitment not to claw back non-renewable resources. That

is $130 million in this year's dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: In five years' time on the claw back, it would be $400

million to $500 million extra money. This is money that could be used for health

care in our Province to help out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is very important here. That is the type of commitment

that is given from the Conservative Party of Canada and that is one we support

here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all federal leaders have guaranteed that there will be more

dollars for health care after this election is over. Earlier this spring we saw

the federal Liberals invest more money into municipalities in the country and we

saw the provincial Tory Party of Newfoundland and Labrador take that money back

in clawbacks from our municipalities.

My question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Will

you commit to spend these new federal dollars in health care, topping up the

health care budget in Newfoundland and Labrador and not clawing back the

provincial contributions that are there now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have not received any money yet from any provincial party. When we do I

Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to give a commitment as to how we are going to

spend the money because I do not know what conditions are going to be attached

to the money.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

that there will be new money forthcoming for health care. A recent study by

Memorial University that was done by the Canadian Cancer Society focused on the

burden of out-of-pocket expenses being incurred by cancer patients in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and it certainly drew a lot of attention from

everyone.

I ask the minister today: Is she now willing to commit to a new program to

assist patients of chronic illness in this Province, in light of that study, to

ensure that they have the financial resources they need to access proper

treatments and conditions? Minister, will you make sure that this new money is

allocated for a new initiative like this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I indicated, I cannot make a commitment as to how I am going to spend

familiar with the report that was issued by the Newfoundland Cancer Society. I

have met with them and I will be meeting with them again. That report was quite

critical but it is quite critical of a program that was in place when the

members across the way were in government. So, yes, I will be looking at that

study, Mr. Speaker, and doing a review and making a decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know that the health care budget in the

Province will be topped up providing that the Administration across does not

claw back provincial investment in health care. I say to minister, there will be

new money. Will you commit to put it into Alzheimer's drugs in this Province?

Will you reconsider your decisions on capital projects, like the Grand Bank

hospital that is in the national media today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will not make any commitment to spend any money that I have not yet

received. That is the problem -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: That is the situation that we are in now, when the hon.

members across the way spent money that we did not have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Minister, in your recent budget you outlined that your government had a new

blueprint for health reform, and you indicated that over the next eighteen

months there would be a new structure in place that would consolidate existing

health care boards. The two Central boards serve a population of 100,000 people,

from Baie Verte to Eastport, and 85 per cent of that population are living

within a one-hour drive from Grand Falls-Windsor.

Minister, can you tell this House today, is proximity part of the criteria

that will be used to determine the location of the new Central Health Care

Board?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Yes, during the Budget process we did indicate that we would be looking at

the health board structure across the Province. We are still working on that

file. When I have made a decision, I will inform the hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Innovation,

Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: In terms of working with the federal government, Minister, to

bring about economic development in our Province, I ask that, since we are now

in the middle of a federal election, and since this is the last year for a

Comprehensive Economic Development Agreement, which is 70 per cent funded by the

federal government, has she pursued with the government an alternative to CEDA?

Have you, in fact, put forward a proposal to the federal government that would

see a replacement for badly needed federal dollars come to this Province for

economic development?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have made representation to the federal government to

revisit the CEDA funding. Unfortunately, we have not been able, at this point in

time, to change their minds on that. We continue that representation. We wish to

be a partner at the table once more, Mr. Speaker, rather than a stakeholder, and

we are working with the officials at the official level, and also with the Prime

Minister and the caucus to change our position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish the minister all the luck in the world, because we certainly need more

federal money in terms of economic development in this Province; however -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - I am a bit skeptical, given our experience in the past in

terms of reaching any kind of a further agreement such as CEDA. In fact, when we

were the government, we put forward a different alternative and that was the

Canada-Newfoundland Economic Development Board. I am wondering if the minister

has pursued anything along those lines?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are reviewing all options with the federal government. Indications are

that our representations are being well-received. The message that we are

getting, loud and clear, is that, now that we have an Administration that is

prepared to get our own fiscal house in order, they are more than prepared to

come halfway to meet us. We look forward to that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister all the luck in

the world; but, again, I will remain skeptical on that one.

I am just wondering about another serious question with respect to rural

development, Minister, and that has to do with the Regional Economic Development

Boards. I am wondering if, in fact, the federal government has committed the

funding to carry on with those boards. You know they are 70 per cent funded, so

I am wondering if they have committed to that, if you are committed to that, and

your government, or, in fact, are you looking at reducing them the way that you

have done the school boards in the Province, even though we know that the

funding for the Regional Economic Development Boards is 70 per cent funded by

the feds?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no reduction in funding to Regional Economic Development Boards in

this year's Budget, and this government remains committed to regional economic

development with the boards. We are working with the boards throughout the

Province to strengthen our partnership and to find ways to work better together

to make regional economic development happen more productively right across the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Hill-Quidi Vidi

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During Question Period the Opposition House Leader asked the government to

table a letter to the Premier from the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I

could offer to table it. I do not believe that people other than ministers are

permitted to table documents in the House. I sent a copy over to the minister,

so the minister can certainly table it, as of right, but I am offering to table

- with the consent of the hon. members - a copy of the letter dated April 25,

from Jack Layton to Mr. Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

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

letter for hon. members.

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

House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would certainly have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the NDP

for his usual promptness and courtesies in tabling this document. We just hope

we can look forward to the response of Mr. Harper and certainly the response of

Mr. Martin, from the government in due course.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to

my good friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Leader of the NDP, tabling the

document. I assume that, after today's very public announcement, we will not

have any trouble tabling the document by Mr. Harper.

The Member for Twillingate said he would like it delivered with a kiss. The

only thing that we are hoping is that it will not be a kiss-off with the federal

government, Mr. Speaker, and at wonder with the federal Liberal government at

the moment. It begs the question, with two federal parties on the record in

terms of the issues that we are going to be debating this afternoon, where would

we send an all-party committee anyway, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As members have indicated, only members of the executive of the government

are permitted to table documents in the House; however, with agreement, anything

can be done by leave. If leave is granted then the Speaker certainly has no

objection to tabling the document.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank members for their leave and

consent to tabling this document. It does contain the position of the New

Democratic Party of Canada and the leader on oil and gas development, on

equalization formulas on the ten-province standard, on transfer payments and the

25 per cent of shared public health spending to close the Romano gap, on

fisheries management, hydro power, highways and fixed link and military

training. These are issues covered by this and I will be very happy to table it

for all hon. members and members of the press to have a look at.

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2002-2003 Annual

Report for the Department of Labour.

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

Section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling one Order in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the fiscal

years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008.

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

been given? Petitions.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in Northern

Newfoundland and Southern Labrador with regard to Grenfell Regional Health

Services. Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition:

WHEREAS the provincial government's Budget for 2004 announced imminent

changes to health care boards and medical services in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents of Grenfell Regional Health Services area deserve the

same health care facilities and services as any other region of Newfoundland and

Labrador; and

WHEREAS the name Grenfell is synonymous with health care throughout the

world; and

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

WHEREAS Grenfell Regional Health Services has provided health care for the

residents of Northern Newfoundland and Southern Labrador for the past 100 years;

and

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

profession; and

WHEREAS Grenfell Regional Health Services provides Medivac Services to the

whole Province; and

WHEREAS Grenfell Regional Health Services provides services to residents who

would be geographically restricted during most of the year because of inclement

weather;

WHEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the petitioners request that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador not decrease the level of service offered by the

Grenfell Regional Health Services and maintain the present board structure while

providing the necessary funding to fulfill its mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of petitions like this and it is my

understanding that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North has also

received those petitions, or, if not, will receive them very shortly, as I know

they are being circulated in all areas of the Northern Peninsula and Southern

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this region are feeling very threatened by the

principles that the Minister of Health and Community Services and her government

have outlined as a new platform for health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

They feel that in their area of the Province, where there are health services

that have been created and delivered in one of the most northern remote regions

of the Province and it has been designed to meet their needs and to fulfill the

needs of the people in their region, they feel that is being threatened. It is

being threatened by this minister and by this government whose philosophies and

principles within the Budget, as we heard, and within the Throne Speech, as we

heard, does not put social programs first and foremost in this Province, but

rather puts fiscal responsibilities above all other things, even the services

being provided to people within the health care sector.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this area have been driven to this petition

because of that; because they no longer feel that the stability they have become

accustomed to within the health care service is going to be there for them in

the years to come. They are feeling very threatened by the mere fact that they

could be swallowed up by a larger board structure, like that in Western

Newfoundland, or come under the huge administration of one large

Western-Northern Labrador health care sector. That, Mr. Speaker, places a lot of

fear in the minds of these particular people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: - to the point that they feel it necessary to come to this

House and to ask that their concerns be heard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the parents and students of

Carbonear who do not want to have their school closed and busing take place that

is not deemed necessary.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of concern voiced by the parents of

the district, and a lot of concern by the students. The students are not sure

where they are going to be in September. There have been no renovations take

place at either St. Joseph's, Davis Elementary or St. Francis. All three

schools are not ready to take any extra students. St. Joseph's is supposed to

close and the other two schools are not prepared or equipped to handle the extra

influx of students.

Mr. Speaker, aside from that, the Avalon West School Board says that there

was extensive consultation used in the process. As part of the extensive

consultation, the parents, in my opinion, were never listened to, the parents or

the students. From day one the school board had an agenda set to close a school

in that district. The end result was, regardless of what was brought forward to

them, the parents were never listened to. Meeting after meeting after meeting,

the board was chased throughout their whole district, whenever they had their

meetings, sometimes secret meetings, I say, Mr. Speaker, meetings that were

called on a very impromptu basis, so that the parents wouldn't know where they

were, so they wouldn't be harassed by people voicing their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, the consultation process was flawed from day one. It came down,

to my opinion, from some of the meetings I attended, to a personality conflict

between the chairman of the parents' committee, some of the other members of

the parents' committee and the school board. I feel that because their

concerns were so strong and they were so right in what they believed in, that

the school board could not come to grips with their views, and, as a matter of

fact, would not come to grips.

As a matter of fact, there was a motion made to rescind a decision by the

school board. In that whole process, again, with new information brought

forward, the board would not listen to the parents or the students. That motion

was eventually defeated, the motion to rescind.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the government and I asked the minister to look at this

situation. I say to the minister that it is exactly the same situation that

happened at the primary school here in St. John's - the very same situation -

and that school now is put on hold to close. It is not going to close right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the minister, I know he is out visiting today,

Leary's Brook school in the city, and I would like to ask him to take his

visit a little bit further outside of the overpass and come around Conception

Bay North and have a look at the facilities in Carbonear and Harbour Grace.

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

another one.

Thank you very much.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition. This one is with regard to the

Williams Harbour road, Mr. Speaker. The people in the community of Williams

Harbour, in my district, are about eighteen kilometres from being connected to

the main highway in the district.

Mr. Speaker, they were under the assumption and the belief that they would

have a road connection that would start this year. As you know, the engineering

work has been completed for this

section of road. The environmental assessment

has been approved. The only thing remaining is the actual construction work.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of building this road is somewhere in the vicinity of

$5 million. Last year, the Labrador Transportation Fund generated an interest of

$4.5 million in last year, which is almost enough to build the road into this

community, to connect this community, the eighteen kilometres that is required,

to the main highway.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labrador Affairs was on Labrador Morning ,

back a few months ago, saying that they did a cost analysis and that it was not

economic feasible for them to connect this community with the main highway.

Well, I would have to ask the question: In how many roads and how many

communities in this Province was it ever economically feasible to build a

highway to? I can guarantee you that there were a lot of them where it probably

was not, but you do not measure the access and the service that you provide to

people in this Province based upon numbers and feasibility.

This is a situation where the Labrador Transportation Fund is there for

Labrador communities. The minister has no problem taking $10 million or $12

million out of that fund over the next seven years to put a vessel in Lewisporte

to look after his own political agenda; but, Mr. Speaker, refuses - refuses - to

build a road into one of the most rural isolated communities in this Province,

that is only eighteen kilometres from a highway at a cost of $5 million. The

money does not even have to come from the provincial government Treasury. It can

come directly out of the Labrador Transportation Fund.

Mr. Speaker, every municipality in Labrador - because I sat at the Combined

Councils' AGM - every municipality in Labrador supported a highway connection

for this community. Every single one of them voted unanimously that the money

from the Labrador Fund should go to build this road. Mr. Speaker, they did not

vote unanimously to take $10 million or $12 million out of that fund to run a

ferry into Lewisporte, into the hon. member's district. No, that was not the

motion. The motion was to connect this isolated community with a highway. This

is an injustice to people in Labrador. They are the custodians of the Labrador

Fund: the Minister of Labrador Affairs, the Member for Lake Melville, the

Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, and they have not

taken their responsibility seriously, Mr. Speaker. They have not been good

custodians of this fund -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

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

highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Orders of the day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

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

Just before we proceed to the private member's motion as put forward by the

Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, I believe, and to the ensuing debate that will

take place between now and 5:00 p.m., according to Standing Order 11, I do want

to move that the House on tomorrow give notice that the House not rise at 5:30

p.m., and further do move, Mr. Speaker, that the House not rise at 10:00 p.m.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Today being Private Members' Day, I do believe we are

debating a resolution put forward by the hon. Opposition House Leader.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to lead off the speeches on this particular

topic because it is, of course, not only very timely; it is very, very urgent

and important to this Province and everybody who lives in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

In a nutshell, what the resolution is saying is that the House of Assembly

supports the establishment of an all-party committee of this House to draft a

policy document for presentation and endorsement by all candidates in this

Province and the party leaders in the upcoming federal election.

The purpose, of course, of such an all-party committee and the policy

document we referenced is to determine what issues are of importance to our

Province, vis--vis the federal government, and how would we like and what

would we like the federal government candidates and everybody partaking in the

federal election to endorse and say what they do and do not agree with, and

where they stand on these most important issues.

In the

preamble to the resolution we listed some of them: that we are the

principle beneficiary of offshore resource revenue; improvements to

equalization; health and post-secondary funding; improvements in the EI system;

custodial management over the stocks off our coast; joint management of our

fishery; a say in the development of the Lower Churchill; increased federal

presence in the Province; continued operation and marketing of 5 Wing Goose Bay

on a long-term basis.

There are many others that are not in here. They are just examples of

federal-provincial issues that need to be addressed. For example: student loans;

roads agreements, as was raised in Private Members' Day last week by the

Member for Bonavista South, could fit easily under this type of resolution and

policy document. Other federal-provincial agreements, such as infrastructure

agreements that would no doubt be of concern to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs; Aboriginal policing issues and other Aboriginal issues that need to be

discussed; the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia. There is a myriad of issues that

could be drafted and put into a policy document and ask the federal politicians,

all of them, regardless of stripe, NDP, PC, Conservative, whatever they call

themselves now, Liberal Party: Where do you stand on these most important

issues? That is the purpose and intent of this. Now, we know already the Premier

has said no to this party committee. So, I am assuming if there are any speeches

from the other side today, they are certainly not going to vote in favour of

doing this with the federal government because the Premier has already said: No,

I do not agree with that. He does not agree with that. This bunch over here, why

would he want to co-operate with them anyway? We have done nothing but been a -

as he put it, who would want to hitch their horse to this wagon because all we

did over here was be confrontational.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the importance of the issues to be put in the policy

document, I believe, are without question. I do not think anybody in this House

would dispute that any of these issues, I referenced in this document, would be

unimportant. They are most important to the future of this Province. So, there

is no question about the intent of the issues to be put in the document. Now,

there might be some confusion, there might be some disagreement as to how best

to convey to the federal candidates and party leaders how we should achieve what

we want to achieve as a Province. It is obvious the Premier does not agree with

doing it this way. But, historically, it is not unusual either for this Province

to act as one when it comes to dealing with the federal government; nonpartisan.

We have had former premiers, for example, who have had opportunities to go

head-to-head with the federal government, and when I say head-to-head, it does

not have to be in an aggressive, confrontational, knock-down, drag-'em-out

way. Head-to-head can be: This is my position. I firmly believe in it. I can

firmly justify my position. Where do you stand on it? Now, that is not being

nasty. That is not being confrontational. That is asking someone, as we have a

right to ask, as one of the partners in this Confederation: Where do you, the

federal government, stand? That is not an unreasonable request.

We all remember the days of Premier Peckford, back when he wanted to take on,

and, indeed, took on the federal government. The mantra of his election was:

Where do you stand? Give us our share of the offshore. I believe that was in

1979. That was not unusual to ask everybody to come together to fight for the

rights and the benefits of this Province.

Premier Wells - maybe in a different context, but the Meech Lake issue and

the constitutional piece of where we fit in this Confederation - did it. Big

debates in this House. I believe the Prime Minister of the day, Mulroney, was

here and actually spoke. So, it is not unusual to ask the federal government

bluntly, heads-up, face-up: Where do you stand? That is all this resolution is

suggesting that we end up with, is a policy document - I do not care what

politics you are - you can put to anybody who is running in this federal

election, any party stripe and say: Here are the issues that are of importance

to us. You tell me, you tell us, you tell this Province: Where do you stand?

Now, we have the position of the NDP. I have not had an opportunity to read

it in detail. The Leader of the NDP, in fact, tabled it here in the House today.

We have, presumably, the opinion of the Leader of the Conservative Party. I

understand he did, indeed, speak here in St. John's today at a function and

outlined, quite clearly, his position on some of these issues, but we do not

have the position of the federal Liberal Party. There is something different

about this time in taking on the federal government, if that is the connotation

and the framework we want to put it in. I still maintain we are not taking them

on. Every other time when this has come up it has usually been in the context of

a provincial election and we, in the Province, are saying we are going to go

after the federal government for something, but it is done in the context of us

being involved in a provincial election. We, as a government - if we form the

government - are going to fight Ottawa for this. We are going to demand this of

Ottawa. This is the reverse. We do not find ourselves in a situation where there

is a provincial election on and we are trying to win an election based upon

carrying the flag and wrapping ourselves in the flag. We are saying to those

other federal politicians who are engaged in an election: You tell us where you

stand. We are not out with our amours, our knives and our bayonets or anything.

We are just simply saying: Where do you stand? Very important issues!

Someone might say: Why would a Liberal be in this House putting forward such

a resolution? My God! Is that being non-supportive of the Liberal Party? I am

sure there might be some people in Liberal circles, in Liberal federal circles

in this Province, even today, who might be saying: Why is the Member for Burgeo

& LaPoile - who is a Liberal over there, sitting in Opposition in the

provincial government - up ranting and raving about trying to get Paul Martin

and the Liberal Party to sign on to such a policy document? Why is he doing

that? Is he a troublemaker? That is not very supportive of him when we are

already in the middle on an election.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the party politics is irrelevant to this issue. It is of

such importance to this Province that no matter what your political stripe there

comes a time when you have to stand up for something. Because, you know the old

saying, if you are not prepared to stand up for something you are prepared to

fall for anything. I do not think anybody in this Province is prepared to fall

for anything, particularly when it comes to our resources and our people and

what is best for us.

The Government House Leader said today, across the house there: Where would

you send an all-party committee? Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we need to

send them anywhere right now. I do not know where we need to send them because,

presumably -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I say to the people of this Province, maybe the Government

House Leader does think this is a joke and treat it as a joke.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of where we send them right now. The

first step we have to take is to make a decision that something deserves to be

done. That could be part of the considerations itself as to where we send the

committee. Presumably, we have the position of the Conservative leader. We have

the position of the NDP. So there is not too far to go to find out who is left,

for example, the Liberal Party. Presumably, the Leader of the federal Liberal

Party will be in this jurisdiction some time between now and June 28. It should

not be a big deal to ask him.

In terms of the history of this House doing stuff as an all-party committee,

there is lots of historical precedent for that as well. From the brief check

that I did, and had done here, we have had all-party committees in this House

dating back to 1993, on everything: fisheries management; compensation for South

Coast fishermen; rural development agreements; seal fisheries; compensation for

the Argentia employees; the land mines; the TAGS program; shipbuilding; Gulf

ferries; Canada postal rates; adjacency principles; the Gulf fishery; the

Atlantic Accord; and 5 Wing Goose Bay. Just going back to 1993, we have had

different resolutions in this House where everybody unanimously voted in favour

and support of those things, vis--vis the federal government, on twenty

different subject areas. So, it is not like we haven't done it here before.

The Premier doesn't think we need to have a co-operative approach,

vis--vis co-operation from this House at least, in the way of a resolution,

even to get our heads together, because there may be some people who might have

an idea he didn't think about. I am not saying this in a nasty way. All I am

suggesting is that the more contributions we have to any proposal - I am a firm

believer that it is better to have someone say something, you toss it around,

you decide that it is not worthy of further consideration, than it is to nullify

even considering it and say, it is not worthy of thought, before you have even

heard what the thought is.

Also, we are getting conflicting opinions from the Premier, and conflicting

comments. This man stood in this House yesterday and said, don't take - this

man I am referring to is the Premier. The Premier said: I don't want anything

to do with the all-party committee; a bad wagon to which to hitch my horse. You

were confrontational on trying a new approach. We leave this House and I watch

the NTV news last night and what do I hear from the very same Premier who six

hours ago in this House made a comment that he wasn't going to be

confrontational? We are either going to get an answer that we want from the

federal Liberal Party within two weeks or we are lowering the boom. Now, I call

that a very confusing message, when this Premier stands in this House and says,

I don't want to be confrontational, and yet he can go on the media in this

Province within hours and say: I am giving them two weeks to make up their mind

and tell me where they stand or else. That means only one thing to me; or else.

That means that his co-operative wait-and-see approach, even he himself expects

might not work What is he going to do then? What is the other approach if that

doesn't work?

There are some very confusing messages. It is like the one in The Telegram

today, in fact - you talk about confusing messages again. The Prime Minister of

Canada makes an announcement on health care funding. The question was raised in

Question Period today by the Leader of the NDP, saying, that works out to be

about $50 million for us. He used the word delighted. The Premier said he was

delighted, because that is what is reported in The Telegram today.

Now, if you look at that article, not one single Premier of the country said

they were delighted or anything near that. Everybody said, well, it is a start

but we have to see what strings are attached. We do not even know if it is

enough. We have to check it out and see what it is. Not one expressed any kind

of satisfaction, pleasure or delight, with the decision and announcement of the

Prime Minister yesterday. Yet, what does our Premier say? I am delighted. Yet,

his own Minister of Health and Community Services, in response to a question

here today, says: Well, we cannot get too excited and make commitments because

we do not know how much we are going to get, first of all, and we do not know

what strings are attached, second of all. Thirdly, we do not even know when we

are going to get it.

Now, that is the kind of restraint and thought that I would have expected to

see and hear from the Premier. We heard something, let's check it out. Let's

not forget now, we are in the middle of an election campaign here. Some

politicians in some jurisdictions have been known to make some promises that

they never kept. There is a little bit of, should I take this in or should I

take this with a grain of salt? But, no, our Premier: I am delighted to hear the

decision. Never mind the details, I am delighted with the decision.

The other thing is: What is the problem - for the life of me I cannot figure

it out - what is the problem with asking anybody to put in writing what they

believe in? Does anyone else have a problem with that? The Premier is saying, I

am taking the Prime Minister at his word. I have made phone calls; we are

working on this. That is not a problem. I fully encourage him and I accept what

he has done - that is a great thing to do - but, what is wrong, in reality, with

asking someone: Would you put in writing what you sincerely, honestly believe

in?

That is all that we are asking here, is to ask all of the federal candidates

and leaders to put in writing. If I believe it firmly enough, and I am telling

you that I believe in it, and I am committing to you that I will do it, why

would I not put it in writing for you? That seems like a logical step. In fact,

I would want fifty people to witness that I told you that I am going to do it,

because that shows my sincerity. That shows the fact that I am honest about what

I am saying. That shows that I am committed.

It does not take away from our friendship, it does not take away from our

relationship, but it certainly puts me on the record, if I make a commitment,

where I stand. That is all we are suggesting here. There is nothing wrong with

asking someone to put in writing something that they firmly believe in and that

they are prepared to commit to.

Now, the converse of that is also true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a second to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. PARSONS: Again, in

summary, I feel this is a very important

resolution. I am terribly disappointed with the Premier's position on it. I

think we, as a Province, only stand to gain by asking the federal candidates and

leaders, all of them, to commit to this. How the process would work, what should

be in it, is anybody's opportunity to complement and detail, but I think the

process itself needs to be done because we, as a Province and as residents, will

be the losers if we do not follow this through in this format.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I do want to, as per request of the Opposition House Leader - the request was

made about tabling any information or correspondence we had from federal

leaders. The Leader of the NDP, with the leave of the House, tabled one to the

Premier which was received. I am happy to be able to table the one received from

the Conservative Party of Canada to Mr. Williams from Mr. Harper, dealing with

all of the significant federal-provincial issues from oil and gas, transfers,

equalization, fisheries management, hydro power, highways, fixed links and

military training, Mr. Speaker, the issues in the letter. If I could table that?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words to say on this resolution today. There are a

number of people on this side who would like to have a few words to say on it as

well, so I probably will not have the luxury of using my whole twenty minutes.

The

BE IT RESOLVED part of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, says,

"THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the

establishment of an all party committee of this House to draft a policy document

for presentation and endorsement by all candidates in this province and the

party leaders in..." - it said the upcoming election, but in the federal

election that we are now in the midst of.

I have been sitting here thinking and kind of hoping that the hon. gentleman

who introduced the resolution would turn on a light bulb somewhere up here in

this dumb old skull as to what this is asking us to do, Mr. Speaker. I have

never before heard of this House, or any House for that matter, being asked to

strike an all-party committee to go off searching for one party. That is what it

is all about, to go off in search of the Liberal Party of Canada, to see exactly

what their position is on a number of issues that are supposedly - not

supposedly - are important to Newfoundland and Labrador.

We struck all-party committees in this House previously, Mr. Speaker, on a

number of occasions. We sent it off to Ottawa a year or two ago on custodial

management of the fisheries, to try to win all-party support in Ottawa on that

important and vital issue, but today, on issues that have been articulated by

the government of the Province as being important - equalization, clawback,

taxation, education transfers, a whole bunch of them - the Premier of the

Province, on behalf of the people of the Province, has written all the party

leaders in Canada. I do not know about the Rhinoceros Party or the Green Party,

but the major party leaders have been written, Mr. Speaker. Two of those major

party leaders have responded in detail, in the minutest detail, as they should.

One of them has not, and you want us to strike an all-party committee to go

tracing down somewhere, in some part of Canada, up in the North maybe, or out in

the West Coast, to try to get a response from that party leader.

Mr. Speaker, that person, who happens to be the Prime Minister, was written

when all the other party leaders were written. The letters went out at the same

time, as far as I know. They have had weeks and months to respond, but nothing

has happened. Now we are in the middle of an election and the group opposite,

the cousins of that party in Ottawa, the political kinfolk, the kissing cousins

of that crowd in Ottawa, they want to find a way to isolate themselves from

whatever political fallout may come, may accrue to them, as a result of their

federal cousins not having the fortitude to respond to the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Not likely. Not likely. That is not what we are going

to participate in, that kind of a charade. It is not going to be on.

If we struck this committee, where should we send it? Should we send it off

to London to see the Queen? Should we send it to Sussex Drive to see the

Governor-General? Should we go up, like a former member of this House threatened

to do, and park in front of Sussex Drive and wait for the Prime Minister to turn

up? Five or six or us, two or three from this side, two or three from the other

side, park on the pavement outside of Sussex Drive and wait for him to turn up

and say: I have a list of questions for you. The Premier of Newfoundland sent

them up to you months and weeks ago and you did not respond to them. Now there

is an election called; we are going to take you by the throat, we are going to

put you in the corner and force a response out of you.

Mr. Speaker, what kind of nonsense are we getting on with here? To me, it

makes as much sense as that: an all-party committee struck to go chasing after

one party. Two of the major party leaders in this country have responded in

minute detail - minute detail - to the queries that were made on behalf of the

people of this Province by the Premier of this Province.

The New Democratic Party, the provincial cousins of that party, were very

happy to table their federal leader's response today, on oil and gas, on

equalization, on transfers, on fisheries management, on education, hydro power,

highways and fixed links, military training, 5 Wing Goose Bay. The New

Democratic Party gave a detailed answer. We do not need anything else. We do not

need anything else from the New Democratic Party. If the federal NDP forms a

government, this is the basis of the contract that I would expect them to

deliver to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is it, Mr. Speaker. Equally, if the Conservative Party

of Canada forms the government, this is the basis of the contract I would expect

them to deliver to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, where's the beef? Where is basis of the

contract that the Liberal Party of Canada is prepared to deliver to Newfoundland

and Labrador?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that might be it. I say to my friend, the Leader of

the NDP, maybe the only hope is a minority government with either one of those

two parties, with the NDP holding the balance.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves this blunt question: Where is the piece

of paper from the Liberal Party of Canada? We have two of the three. We are

missing a piece - not that the Prime Minister did not have time to respond to

it. It has been up there for weeks and months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was not unaware.

MR. RIDEOUT: Was not unaware. They have been talking to the Premier on

numerous occasions. We have met with Newfoundland's minister in the federal

Cabinet on numerous occasions. We have, as ministers, the Premier, as leader of

the government, but there is a piece missing. The provincial Liberal Party would

like for us to strike an all-party committee to go off looking for that missing

piece. That is the only thing that I can make out of this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: A search and rescue.

MR. RIDEOUT: A search and rescue effort, to go out and search for and try

to rescue Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador. They might need rescuing, Mr.

Speaker, out in the new Avalon District now after another few days, but we are

not going to get into that game, Mr. Speaker, because that is all it is. I think

this is just the provincial Liberal Party taking an opportunity to try to cover

up for themselves and the lack of a response from their political cousins in

Ottawa. That is all that is, and I think that every member of the public of

Newfoundland and Labrador will see it. The other two parties, without any

duress, without any encouragement other than a letter, without any prompting,

without any pressure, they responded to a legitimate letter from the legitimate

leader of the legitimate Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, why

couldn't -

AN HON. MEMBER: The elected government.

MR. RIDEOUT: The elected government. Why couldn't the leader of the

third party in Ottawa - I do not mean the third party in the polls, but the

leader of one of three parties; they might before the election is over - the

leader of one of the three main political parties in Ottawa, who so happens to

occupy the Office of Prime Minister, a very important and significant office,

why is it that person's response cannot be here? Now, that is the question

that has to be asked.

What chance would an all-party committee of this Legislature have in getting

that response in the midst of an election? I say, Mr. Speaker, the same chance

as last year's snowball. It is just not on; it is just not going to happen. We

are not going to participate, quite frankly, in a charade to try to mitigate the

political fallout from the Liberal Party of Canada, not taking seriously the

position and the questions sent to it by this government. We are not going to

legitimize it by taking

part in it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: We are not going to provide them an out. If they have not

responded to us by now, let the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador put the

We know clearly where the NDP stand, we know clearly where the Conservative

Party stands, and if the people of this Province want to know where the Liberal

Party stands, when the Liberal candidate knocks on their door they will ask him,

or ask her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: If Ms Coady knocks on my door over in the West End of St.

John's, I am going to ask her, Mr. Speaker. If Mr. Matthews were to knock on

my door, I would ask him, or Mr. Efford: Where do you stand on all of those

items? And, by the way, would you care explaining to me, before I make up my

mind on how I am going to vote, why it is that your party is the only party that

have not responded to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why have you

waited? Did you want to sort of skate your way through this election, get back

with your comfortable majority that the polls told you that you were going to

have back a few weeks ago, and then thumb your nose at the Government of

Newfoundland and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that what you had

in mind, Mr. Martin? Well, perhaps we might have something to say about that.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this election, for the first time in a long time, the

seven seats in Newfoundland and Labrador might be important seats this time

around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I remember times back in the late1960s and early 1970s when

the seven seats out of Newfoundland were very powerful seats, when there were

minority governments in those days. You might see that happen again, Mr.

Speaker. It could be that every seat plucked off in Atlantic Canada and

Newfoundland could be so vital to this Province - so that the government who was

so arrogant in the position in Ottawa that they would take the chance of skating

their way to victory, of going in there with a great majority and being able to

just try to appease the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but when they got

in there ignored them.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not about to happen. The jig is up, the truth is

out. We have the response from two of the three leaders, two of the three

parties in Canada. They are excellent responses. Some of my colleagues will no

doubt go into them in detail, but they are excellent responses, detailed minuet

responses to every question that we asked, and I think the question of today,

particularly since we are into the first week of a federal election, is twofold.

One, where is the response of the Liberal Party of Canada? But, more

importantly, why did they not respond?

We are not going to take

part in this charade of an all-party committee to

get them out of it, Mr. Speaker. That is the bottom line, and I would be very

interested to see what the Prime Minister of Canada does now. This has now, as

it should during an election campaign, become your public issue, despite what

some former prime ministers have said. That is what election campaigns are all

about, to debate public issues.

Now that this is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: She got her answer.

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

answer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That you fail to debate legitimate public issues at your own

peril. That is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to play any

games here. We have written the Prime Minister of Canada. We posed the same

questions to the Prime Minister of Canada on the same date as we posed the

questions to Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton. So far we have not had the courtesy of a

response. Maybe the heat from a general election might do much more greater

things than an all-party committee from this Legislature might do. It may just

force them, in some form or other, to pay attention, to reply at least, and give

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at least the courtesy of a response.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be voting against this resolution because I am not

playing any

part in giving the political cousins of the federal Liberals in this

House something to hide behind. I am not going to take

part in it, Mr. Speaker,

and we are going to vote it down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have a chance to speak in this debate today because we are in

the midst now - I think when the resolution was put forth we had not embarked on

this federal election campaign, but now we are here, boots and all, and it is a

very important election for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We just came out of a Royal Commission which talked about our future in

Canada, our place in Canada. We all agreed, I think, with the Royal Commission

when they said that our place in Canada was seriously compromised by certain

basic issues that are important to this Province. We do need to get change on

those issues. A number of these issues have been addressed in the correspondence

that has been the subject of some discussion today. For example, we have been

talking here - our party has talked about this for several years - of the need

for the Canada share in Hibernia, 8.5 per cent, to be transferred to the

Province. That is something that we want to see happen. That is something that

is committed to by the New Democratic Party of Canada in the letter that was

tabled here this afternoon. Jack Layton, the national leader of the party says

that, "...the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should have an ownership

stake in offshore oil and gas developments as equity partners. We would expect

that an ownership stake would be a pre-condition to all future developments. The

investment and should transfer its 8.5 % equity share of the Hibernia project to

the Province." It is a firm commitment by the New Democratic Party of

Canada to something that is of great importance to Newfoundland and Labrador.

With respect to transfers, as I mentioned earlier today, we have seen a

reduction under the Paul Martin government of transfers to support health care

from the previous level of 25 per cent down to 16 per cent. Actually, from the

previous level of 50 per cent at one time, but 16 per cent or less today, what

has been known and called the Romanow gap. The commitment that was made by the

federal New Democrats is that the federal government must raise federal cash

transfers from today's level of 16 per cent to 25 per cent of shared public

health spending to close the Romanow gap. This restoration must be designed to

achieve Canada-wide goals and public not-for-profit health care delivery that

ease the deep financial burden on provinces.

The NDP also supports transfers for health based on need and not on

population alone. This shows a clear understanding by the New Democratic Party

of Canada of the problems that we face here in this Province with respect to

health care funding. The kind of announcement that we have heard so far from the

Liberal Party, which suggest that the answer to health care funding - the

solution for a generation, I think it was called. The solution for a generation,

so far from the Liberal Party of Canada, is something that will net this

Province about $50 million a year for five years; over a five-year period. Fifty

million dollars for the first two, reduced in the next three to about $18

million a year. That is a solution for a generation from a Prime Minister who,

when he was Minister of Finance, took about $25 billion out of transfer payments

to the provinces.

So, we do have a significant problem, Mr. Speaker, and we do have a real gap

in what we are hearing from the various parities and we do have an understanding

that this election is crucial. There is an opportunity, as has been mentioned,

for a close election where the number of seats that Newfoundland and Labrador

has, be it only seven, could be very, very important. We recognize that there

are a number of scenarios that could take place after this election. We know

there is a strong possibility that we could have a minority government, whether

it be minority Liberal or minority Conservative government, that would require

the NDP support in order to exist.

In previous minority government situations we had Petro Canada created at the

insistence of the New Democratic Party, which has played, as we all know, a

significant role in the development of oil and gas development in our offshore.

The NDP also - and this is a little known fact,

section 92(

a) of the

Constitution Act, the one that allows for a direct and indirect tax of energy

resources, was negotiated by the New Democratic Party during the minority

government in the early 1980s. That is in the Constitution because the NDP

insisted that it is there. So far our Province has not used it. They have not

taken advantage of the options available under

section 92(

a) to ensure that we

get greater revenues from the Upper Churchill, from our energy resources,

generally. But that was there because of a minority government situation.

You know, of course, that on health care, would any government be able to get

away with less than a full commitment to close the so-called Romanow gap if they

wished to support the New Democratic Party in Parliament under a minority

government. We know that it would be extremely important, if this kind of

minority government situation were to occur, to have an NDP presence from this

Province to make a crucial difference for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, whatever the configuration that occurs after the next election,

it is really vital that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in Parliament,

whether they be in the House of Commons or in the Senate, speak with a strong

united voice on issues that affect this Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me get to the resolution, because I am going to speak in

support of that resolution. We have heard members opposite complain about the

Liberal Party of Canada. We heard a confrontation last week between the Premier

and the Leader of the Opposition saying that, we wouldn't want to sit down

with you folks and come to some agreement, because we don't like what has

happened in the past. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem we have in this

Province. We spend an awful lot of energy and time fighting with each other when

there is the opportunity here for identifying a whole series of issues that we,

in this House, agree on, in terms of supporting the ten-province stand on

equalization, for example, a change in transfer payments, a commitment on joint

custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish

Cap. This is an important series of issues that I believe all three parties in

this Province, provincial parties, support.

The motion doesn't just talk about leaders, Mr. Speaker. The motion

actually talks about the candidates. They have called it a policy document, I

call it a Newfoundland and Labrador manifesto, a series of issues upon which the

Newfoundland and Labrador parties, the provincial parties, agree, that we would

want our MPs of whatever political stripe - obviously we are going to go out and

support our own candidates in this election, we are going to try to get them

elected, and obviously we, in the New Democratic Party, hope to have great

success. Even if we don't elect all seven New Democrats, Mr. Speaker, we would

want to be sure, as the New Democratic Party, that whoever was elected from this

Province was on side and on board and committed to all of the principles that we

might agree upon through an all-party committee. That is a positive leadership

role that we, in this House of Assembly, can play in the upcoming election.

We are not going to get very far, Mr. Speaker, if we spent all our time

fighting with each other here in this House, when, if you looked a little

closely, if you spent a couple of days doing this you could probably come up

with a list of things - the letter that the Premier wrote to the leaders is

probably a good start. I suspect if we had an all-party committee from this

House with a list of items that we were agreed upon, that you might actually get

a commitment from the Liberal Party of Canada, which the Premier has not seemed

to have been able to get by himself.

That is the spirit, I believe, in which this resolution ought to be accepted

by the House and accepted by the other side. Instead, what we have seen is a

politicization of it. The use of it, for an attack by the Premier on the Leader

of the Opposition. The kind of ridicule that we have heard today as to why - the

search and rescue mission for the Leader of the Liberal Party. All of this

stuff, Mr. Speaker, is great politics but will it get the job done in terms of

showing a unified front to all parties and an expectation that anybody running

for any party in this Province should get behind the kind of things that we

would want to include, and I think all members here would want to include, in a

manifesto for Newfoundland and Labrador? That, I believe, would be a positive

step and it would avoid some of the politicization of the issues that we have

seen; the kind of confrontation that we have seen.

There is an opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to say: Yes, we will put aside

the rivalries that exist in this House for a few days. We will sit down and

jointly put together a document that can represent the aspirations of all three

provincial parties and then put that document to the individuals running for

those parties, whether it be Liberal, NDP or Conservative - or even as I heard

this morning, one individual phoning in to Open Line this morning assuming that

the best solution is to have everybody run as independents and when we elect all

these independents then they will get together and decide which party they will

support. Well, that is great pie in the sky, Mr. Speaker, but it is never going

to happen. But, we do have an opportunity here to say: Okay, we are prepared to

recognize that we have party differences, that we have ideological differences,

but as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians there is a fairly wide consensus, I

believe, in terms of issues like equalization formulas, ten province standard,

issues such as custodial management, issues such as the need for federal

government participation in hydro power.

The NDP has its own unique stand on that, in saying that we are the only

national party that clearly supports federal government leadership in the

development of a national energy strategy, especially in the construction and in

the immediate future of a full east-west energy grid. That is an idea that we

have as a national party, but we do support the efforts of Newfoundland and

Labrador to have direct access to energy markets, which is very important. We

that happen with respect to Churchill Falls, especially with the Lower Churchill

and the Churchill River projects. That is something that we can all agree on.

Maybe everybody would not agree on a national power grid in this Province. We

do, but we also agree, and perhaps we can come to some consensus on what level

of expectation we would have from our Members of Parliament, something that we

could also impress upon the senators that sit in the Parliament of Canada

representing these provinces.

It is a positive step, I should say, Mr. Speaker, something that can be

considered as a role of leadership that members of this House and the political

parties represented in this House can play in trying to influence, not only the

individuals running for political office in this party, but influence what

happens after the election is over. If there is a need for minority government

support, that somewhere that could be significantly conditional upon the kinds

of things that are contained in a manifesto that we might agree upon, that are

seen in the letter we have and the commitments that we have from the New

Democratic Party. I have not read it in detail but I am assuming from the glee

with which it was tabled in this House, that there are some positive commitments

from Stephen Harper when he was seeking to lead the Conservative Party, which, I

assume, he has managed to convince the party to adopt and we will see in his

election manifesto.

I was not at his speech today to the Board of Trade. You will not be

surprised by that, Mr. Speaker. I did not go down to hear him speak. I was here

in the House asking questions about health care transfers and the importance of

ensuring that we get, at least, 25 per cent of our health care costs contributed

we are bursting at the seams here trying to meet the needs of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador for health care, trying to deliver a substantial home

care program, trying to improve on our drug care program. These are things that

are vitally important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we are not

going to make any progress unless we do have some kind of a unified approach. I

would submit that it is worth trying. It is worth trying. There is nothing,

frankly, to lose by sitting together as three parties in this House for a couple

of days and say: Okay, let's put together a Newfoundland and Labrador

all-party manifesto that we would ask individual candidates to sign on to, to

endorse and to be committed to championing when, and if, they are elected. Some

of them, of course, will surely be to the House of Commons on June 28.

That is my plea, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite join in, what I

believe, is a sincere and positive approach to try and get some unity from

members of this House and from the political parties on matters that are vitally

important to us. Lay aside our provincial differences now. We are not going to

have an election, provincially, for another several years. Members opposite are

members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative Party, not the

Conservative Party of Canada. I understand that. So, you know, we do not have to

be totally partisan about this. We can say: Hey, we have a role here as

provincial politicians. These are significant issues that are vital to our

Province and to the provincial government's ability to delivery on the

expectations of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So let's put aside

those partisan differences for a few days, put together a manifesto for

Newfoundland and Labrador, and let's see if that approach can have some

influence on the future of this Province within Canada.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one final sentence, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Lord knows that the other

approach, the approach of continuing partisan confrontation, has not really

delivered for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have been in Confederation now for

nearly fifty-five years and that approach has not delivered to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we went to the Royal Commission. That is

why we have to examine the relationship and we are seeking to improve that.

Perhaps this is a way that we can try something new for the next thirty days and

see if it works.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise to my feet today in the House of

Assembly and to support my colleagues on this side of the House in that we

believe, certainly, that this proposal which has been put before the House of

Assembly is pure politics. I have to say, as a new member sitting over here and

watching it all, I find it awful funny when the Liberal Party across the way are

asking us to form an all-party committee to talk and to put pressure on their

federal cousins up in Ottawa.

I want to say a couple of other things too because, you know, as I sit over

here and listen to the Leader of the Opposition throwing barbs across the House

here and making fun and all the things that he does in the House of Assembly -

or he feels they are anyway. I want to say that we have shown great leadership

here. This is not about party politics. This is about what is best for the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you, we are not going to be

part of a charade because there is absolutely no communication between the

provincial Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: When was the last time you called the

Prime Minister? When was the last time you talked to Mr. Efford? When was the

last time you talked to the other Liberal MPs about this issue? I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, there was no call because there is no relationship between the

provincial Liberals and the federal Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, this is about an issue that goes to the very heart of our

Province. It is about fairness. I want to talk, for a couple of minutes, about

the letters that we did get from the NDP and we did get from the Conservative

Party of Canada. I have to say, when I looked at the correspondence - Stephen

Harper writes, "Dear, Mr. Williams, Thank you for your letter of February

24, 2004...". Over three months ago, and we still have not received

anything from the federal party. We still have not received anything from the

Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I look at Jack Layton - and I have to say, I have known Jack

Layton a long time. Him and I served with the Federation of Canadian

Municipalities. He was president of the organization and I was a director from

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to say, myself and Mr. Layton

have been on different sides of the issues over the years, but I want to say, I

was glad to hear some of his comments in the letter, particularly when it comes

to the issue of oil and gas. "The NDP supports Newfoundland and Labrador

receiving 100% of its offshore oil and gas revenues to make it the principal

beneficiary' of these resources based on the principles set forth in the

Atlantic Accord."

I was pleased to see that, "The NDP supports the principle that the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador must have greater say in the fisheries

management and the future of the fishery." I was particularly proud

recently to have been able to attend a meeting with the European Union

Commission with the Premier, where he very clearly and firmly laid out this

Province's issues with regards to the overfishing off the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks. I want to say, I was very proud when our Premier told them that

this is not about politics, this is about this Province's survival. Mr.

Speaker, this is the type of leadership that we plan to bring to this particular

issue.

I want to talk about Stephen Harper's response, because I think it is very

important that the people of the Province understand the response that we got

from this particular letter, which was sent by the Premier to Stephen Harper on

February 24, 2004. When it comes to the oil and gas - and I want to cover this

because this is important. The question went very simply, "Will you support

Newfoundland and Labrador's claim to 100 percent of our offshore oil and gas

provincial revenues, making the province the true "principal

beneficiary" as intended under the Atlantic Accord?" His answer,

"Yes. I would support the exclusion of non-renewable resource revenues from

the Equalization formula."

When he was asked, "Will you support giving Newfoundland and Labrador

jurisdictional control and ownership over petroleum and other economic resources

in the offshore as a means to achieve greater prosperity for our province and

more opportunity for our people?" His answer, "I favour giving

Atlantic Canada (as well as British Columbia) greater control over offshore

resources such as fish and non-renewable resources."

When he was asked about equalization, "Will you support calculating

equalization entitlement based on ten-province standard?" His answer,

"Yes, in concert with removing non-renewable resources from the

formula."

Hydro power, and this is something that is very, very important to me and to

my district, Mr. Speaker. When he was asked, "Will you as leader of the

Conservative Party of Canada support efforts to develop the hydro power

resources of the Lower Churchill River system for the primary benefit of

Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of Federal Government

guarantee if necessary to proceed with the project on a stand-alone basis?"

His answer was, "I support the further development of hydro power resources

in Newfoundland and Labrador."

There are a couple of other ones which I thought were very interesting. It is

something that, again, really affects me in Labrador and really affects the

people of Labrador, and, indeed, the people of the whole Province, Mr. Speaker,

and that is regarding highways. "Will you as leader of the Conservative

Party of Canada support the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway and raise

it to an acceptable standard?" His answer, "I would transfer control

over 3 to 5 cents of the federal gas tax to provinces and municipalities so that

they have the necessary funds to make infrastructure investments. These gas tax

revenues would enter the equalization formula to ensure that the distribution is

fair across Canada. I also support continued federal investment in national

highways."

Mr. Speaker, we have been, this government has been - I do know that the

Minister of Transportation, the Member for Lewisporte has had discussions with

our federal colleagues regarding paving programs and upgrades to the

Trans-Labrador Highway. We are still looking for answers. We are still looking

for the commitment to paving the Trans-Labrador Highway. I can tell you, as a

Member for Lake Melville and a member from Labrador, I continue to press that

particular issue. This is a very important issue for this government and,

indeed, this Province.

When we talk about military training - again, I was very happy to be able to

go and meet with some of the allies, particularly the Germans, the Dutch and the

Italians when we were recently in Europe. The door is not closed on military

training in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It is very much open. But, having said that,

we got to make sure that we have the right product, we have the right investment

can tell you, we are going to ensure that this particular issue stays in the

forefront.

Mr. Speaker, as we sit here today and we ponder this, I must say that I will

not be supporting this particular resolution. I see no point in us becoming

involved in the all-party committee. If it was going to do us any good, we would

be involved in it; but, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, when was the last

time you called the Prime Minister and your federal cousins in Ottawa? Because I

believe it is time for you to make that call, Sir, and the sooner you make it

the better.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this private member's

motion. I must say how terribly disappointed I am with the representation of it

made by the government; the complete misrepresentation of it, I should say, Mr.

Speaker. Either that or their misunderstanding of it, this being a serious

effort to show again to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that in this House of

Assembly, right here, where the forty-eight of us have chosen to run for office

in Newfoundland and Labrador to try to make a difference, that we would at least

meet together as an all-party group and make sure that we had asked all the

questions that we wanted to ask on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

and take partisan politics out of it. Unlike the Member for Lake Melville just

saying it is time for you to call your leader. It is not a matter of me calling

my leader, or the Leader of the NDP calling his leader, or the Premier calling

his - they are not my leaders. We happen to run for the same party, for

different purposes, at different times, in different places. I can tell you that

I am the Leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the

commitments I would like to see made for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by

every single candidate running for any party, to represent us in Ottawa in this

election, and it is not what I see in the letter from Stephen Harper, for

example.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify it, because I would like to see if there is an

undertaking from the Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and

Works - because I believe that he was misinformed and I am glad to be corrected,

glad to have new information - he said that all the leaders were written at the

same time and that we have gotten a response from Mr. Harper from the

Conservative Party, and from Mr. Layton from the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, the history of it, as I understand it, is this: that Mr. Harper

was written by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador on February 24, 2004,

when he was contesting the leadership of the new party along with Mr. Mackay and

others - Ms Stronach, and Mr. Clements. There was a competition on the go. Mr.

Mackay had already won the other leadership. The three leaders were vying for

the leadership of the party, and he wrote to them asking their position on

certain items, and I will get to a couple because, again, the minister, speaking

on behalf of the government, a Minister of the Crown today, said: I would assume

this is the contract and I am happy with it. This is in writing and I am happy

with it.

I will point out a couple of things that none of us should be happy with,

because if we are happy with this then we have sold ourselves out, Mr. Speaker,

and I will point out a couple of those in the next few minutes.

He said in the same letter - now the history of it, as I understand it, was

this, because it made the national news - he said our Premier wrote to the three

candidates for Leadership of the Conservative Party and by accident - because it

became a bit of a joke, it became an embarrassment - he also sent a copy to Jack

Layton, and thought that he was a candidate for the Leader of the Conservative

Party.

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

MR. GRIMES: That was reported in the national press, Mr. Speaker. Now

they are suggesting: Don't be so foolish. Mr. Layton was not written, to my

understanding, on February 24, on the same day as the minister said, by the

Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, asking for his position. I will be glad to

be proven wrong, if they can table the letters. Let's now table the letters

that were sent to Mr. Layton, Prime Minister Martin, and Mr. Harper, and see if

they actually exist for starters, because I do not believe that there was ever a

letter written to Prime Minister Martin asking the same questions that were

asked of Mr. Stephen Harper when he was running for Leader of the Conservative

Party. Those are the answers that we have right here, tabled today. These

answers from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, he said: I know I was not

supposed to get the letter because I am not running for Leader of the

Conservative Party, but I will answer them anyway because I want to.

So, there is a letter. There is a letter to Mr. Stephen Harper on February

24. There is a letter to the Leader of the New Democratic Party on February 24,

sent by mistake, assuming that he was a candidate for the leadership of the

Conservative Party of Canada. That is what he answered.

I would expect, unless again - the Minister of Environment and Conservation

seems to be getting a bit agitated. Maybe he will stand up and make an offer to

table the letter that was sent to Prime Minister Martin on February 24, because,

Mr. Speaker, it does not exist. The letter on February 24 to the Prime Minister

of Canada does not exist, and I will gladly have him prove me wrong. He can send

someone out now, get a copy of the letter and table it right in this Legislature

if it exists, because it does not, Mr. Speaker.

You have a Minister of the Crown who stated something as if it were a fact,

in speaking to this motion, that is not a fact. You have another minister over

there now suggesting - because he is a little bit disturbed by what I am saying

- that he thinks there is such a letter. Well, prove it, Mr. Speaker. There is

an easy way to do that. Put it before the Legislature and there will be no

doubt. There will be absolutely no doubt.

Mr. Speaker, let me look at the issue of, we do not need to do anything else

because we have the answers. Let me look at a couple of the answers from Mr.

Harper. Let me look at a couple of the answers, Mr. Speaker, from Mr. Harper. A

question is, "Will you as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

support transferring at no cost to Newfoundland and Labrador the 8.5 percent

Hibernia shares...." It is an important question, Mr. Speaker. It is one of

the ones that is in the private member's motion today. As a matter of fact, it

is one of the ones they agreed to an amendment. When we voted on a private

member's motion presented by the government, presented by the Premier, asking

for 100 per cent share of the offshore, Mr. Speaker, they agreed to an amendment

that said: Let's also ask them for the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia.

The Minister of Transportation and Works, speaking on behalf of the

government today in this debate, said: We have a contract here from Mr. Harper.

He said: I am satisfied with it, I am assuming this is what he lived to. We don't

need to ask anymore questions, we are satisfied.

Here is what he is satisfied with, Mr. Speaker. Important! Members, again, of

the government caucus are hearing this for the first time, because they have

never seen these letters, you see, Mr. Speaker. Let me repeat the question. Will

you, as Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, support transferring, at no

cost, to Newfoundland and Labrador the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia? Good

question. That is one I think all of us want answered, and all of us hope for an

answer. Guess what the answer is from the Leader of the Conservative Party of

Canada, in writing? It says: On behalf of the people of Canada, the Government

of Canada is the shareholder of these shares. I support the eventual disposition

of these shares that maintains the value to - now, what are we hoping the answer

will be? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What does it say: The value to

Canadians, maximizes the value to Canadians. Now, is that the answer? The

Minister of Transportation and Works got up and said: I am satisfied with that

answer. We don't need to go to anybody else, we don't need to talk to

anybody else, that is fine with me.

You have the Conservative Party Leader, in writing, and the Minister of

Transportation and Works, who is a Minister of the Crown who spoke on behalf of

the government today, saying, this is fine by me. We don't need to ask anymore

questions. We don't need to get together ourselves, as elected

Parliamentarians here, and say: Well, are all forty-eight of us satisfied with

that answer. I am not satisfied with that answer, I don't think the members of

the NDP are satisfied with that answer, and I don't believe the minister

himself, who said that, is satisfied with that answer. It was placed in his hand

when he jumped up to make his speech, to try to pooh-pooh the whole notion, and

he didn't even read it.

I would like for him to stand up again. We would give him leave on this side,

to stand up again and say if he personally agrees that the 8.5 per cent share is

not important and it is okay for a federal leader, who might be the Prime

Minister after June 28, to say, in writing, that the 8.5 per cent share is going

to be disposed of to maximize the value for all Canadians. I believe that the

answer, and the position he thought was here had he read it, because he didn't

see it until today, was that he thought it said - it was given to him by their

House Leader, who said: Here is the letter, this is perfect. Just get up and

wave around this letter. Well, you should look at it first.

I don't believe there is anybody here, Mr. Speaker - I don't believe the

Premier is satisfied with that answer. I don't believe that for a minute. I

refuse to believe that. As much as we have disagreements on many issues, I am

convinced that I know in my heart and soul that is not an answer that satisfies

the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador today; but, his Minister of

Transportation and Works got up and said: We do not need to ask about anything

else.

Let me point out one more example that the Minister of Transportation and

Works did not read, and maybe some of the others might ask to get a copy of the

letter because they are seeing it for the first time, like happens with

everything in that caucus, Mr. Speaker, like happens with just about everything.

We saw them today passing around a letter that they have never seen before and

we have a Minister of the Crown who gets sucked into jumping up and saying: I

agree with it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, not because the Leader of the Opposition says

something it is right but, just in case - because when he was over here as

leader of the government he used to take very great pains in making sure the

record was correct, just in case somebody might look at the record some time in

the future.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this letter was hand-delivered to our

caucus, at a caucus meeting, by Mr. Harper himself when he was campaigning for

the leadership, so we have all seen the letter. We all have the letter. We have

all read the letter.

For the Leader of the Opposition to get up and say anything else, and try to

make people believe it, Mr. Speaker, and get on with this nonsense about people

over here not knowing things until months and months after, it is just total

nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and I just wanted, like himself, to correct the record.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad he made the clarification because it makes it even worse. It makes

it even worse, because now he is standing as a Minister of the Crown saying that

I have seen this letter, I have read it in detail. We have all seen it and the

Progressive Conservative Party, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

agrees that the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia should be disposed of to maximize

the benefit for Canadians, all Canadians.

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

MR. GRIMES: That is what it says in the letter, Mr. Speaker. That is what

it says in the letter, and the minister got up and said: This is a contract. I

am glad to sign this. This is what we will hold them to if they ever get

elected.

Let me talk about health care, Mr. Speaker. Let me talk about health care for

a second, something else that they are satisfied with. Now, if the minister

wants to get up and say he made a mistake when he said he was satisfied with the

answers, that is something else. Transfers for health care, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody in this Legislature and everybody in the Province knows one of the

greatest difficulties is that transfers for health care, post-secondary

education and social services, are done on a per capita basis. A change made, by

the way, by a federal Liberal government with Jean Chrtien as the Prime

Minister, with Paul Martin as the Finance Minister, with Brian Tobin as a

minister in the government, who later became Premier of this Province, and they

changed it to per capita transfers. As a result, today in Newfoundland and

Labrador, the government that our Premier leads, the new government, is

receiving today, for health care alone, $100 million less than we did in 1996,

and it is not right. It works for Ontario. It works for big population centres.

It does not work for us, so guess what happened?

The Member for Lake Melville is having a great laugh because he does not

understand the point, Mr. Speaker. The question was asked to Mr. Harper,

"Will you support the allocation of future transfers on the basis of

need..." instead of on the basis of per capita? A good question. I am glad

the question was asked, Mr. Speaker. The minister said: I am satisfied with the

response. Guess what the response is? The r