December 6, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 28


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers


MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce to this House, Chief Superintendent Richard Deering, as the new Chief of Police for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: He is joined in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon by his wife, Laurie, along with retired Chief Len Power, Acting Chief Gary Brown and Constable Robert St. Croix, president of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We also have in the gallery today, other officers and members of the executive of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Chief Superintendent Deering, who is currently the Regional Commander with the Eastern Division of the Ontario Provincial Police, has an exemplary record, bringing over thirty years of policing experience to his new position. His detailed career has provided him with a broad range of skill and ability. He has guided the Eastern Division of the Ontario Provincial Police in the transition from a reactive enforcement service to a community oriented police service.

He currently provides senior executive leadership and direction to approximately 1,000 uniformed members and 200 full-time civilian employees, in one of the largest and most diverse regions in the Province of Ontario. He is responsible for the safety of the motoring public on 160,000 kilometers of roadway, and manages a fleet of 325 vehicles, as well as 15 marine units and 30 snow and all-terrain vehicles.

Chief Superintendent Deering also has an interesting connection with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, in that he both designed and delivered the training program for the force's Tactical Response Unit.

He will assume the role of Chief of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary on February 12, 2001.

The policing world is continually evolving, and the new Chief will face the challenges of leading the force into the Twenty-First Century.

Having said this, I am pleased to announce also that legislation has been drafted to amend the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, that will give the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association binding arbitration in the form of final offer selection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: This new legislation will be in place for the upcoming round of collective bargaining negotiations, and the amendment will become effective on July 1, 2001.

Before I conclude, I would also like to announce that government will be providing to the RNC a further $600,000 for new vehicles and related equipment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: This money will be spent during the current fiscal year and is in addition to money already budgeted for the operation of the force for this year. The senior officers of the force have stressed the issue of upgrading vehicles and equipment with my department and we are extremely pleased to be able to provide a positive response.

I offer my appreciation, on behalf of the government, to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary for their hard work, dedication and co-operation. We have a chance to build on this work and to make real progress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of members on this side of the Legislature we, too, would like to both welcome and congratulate Chief Superintendent Deering and Mrs. Deering. Congratulations to you, Sir, on your new appointment. We also welcome the present and former senior administration of this very proud force.

I think it is safe to say that this is an important day. When there are these sorts of positive announcements being made, hopefully it shows a very growing and a very strong and continuing relationship between the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the government of this Province; because that relationship is essential, as we see it, to ensure that morale is high and to ensure that the interests of the public of this Province are protected at all time.

It is indeed a positive day. I welcome the new Superintendent to his new position and I wish you well, Sir, in this position. This force is a very proud force and we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are very proud of the work that this force has done throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is announcements of this nature, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that will allow us to have this very positive relationship continue.

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.

I would like to join with the Minister of Justice in expressing our appreciation for the work of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, their dedication and cooperation, and to welcome the new Chief to the Province and congratulate him on his appointment.

Also, it is a worthy time to announce the fact that we have binding arbitration, not only on the police force which was there in the past; as we found out binding on the police but not on the government. I am happy to see that government has now recognized that if we are going to have true binding arbitration, then it must be binding on the government as well. So I am pleased to see that happen, and also that the government has seen fit to make funds available for new equipment.

I would have to say to the new chief though, and to the House, that there are new challenges in the police force and the public has certain concerns. Without prejudging any investigations that are going on now, the public does have concerns about certain police actions, particularly with respect to the handling of very delicate situations. I wish the new chief well in dealing with these concerns -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and ensuring that the public has the kind of assurance that it needs from its police force.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and I recently met with Mother's Against Drunk Driving to discuss this Province's role in decreasing impaired driving.

I wish to inform hon. members that the Department of Government Services and Lands and the Department of Justice are commited to working closely with the Mothers Against Drunk Driving to address this extremely important issue.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2000, my department established a committee which is currently examining this matter in detail. The committee has representatives from our Motor Vehicle Registration Division, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Community Services, the Newfoundland and Labrador Safety Council and the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The committee is considering a number of issues including driver licence suspension periods; vehicle seizure and impoundment; alcohol ignition interlock, education, and treatment.

As members are aware, the House of Assembly passed a private members' resolution in the spring session which urged the provincial government to implement the use of the alcohol ignition interlock device in this Province.

We continue to act while awaiting the report of this Impaired Driving Committee. Yesterday, in the House, I spoke to a bill which, when passed, will enable us to amend the Highway Traffic Act and to impose longer suspension periods for repeated drinking and driving offences.

Impaired driving is a criminal offence and it applies to all types of motor vehicles. The Canada Safety Council has estimated that every day, four people in Canada die due to impaired driving and that every five minutes someone is injured.

I commend Mothers Against Drunk Driving for their efforts and assure them that this government will continue to work with them to reduce these alarming statistics.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia and St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for forwarding me a copy of his ministerial statement before the House opened. We, on this side of the House, certainly applaud the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers also. It is certainly a cause that is not only important to the people in this House but, indeed, to all the people across the Province. Many people, as the stats have shown, have died because of impaired drivers and many families have been destroyed because of it.

The minister spoke about a private member's resolution that was brought before the House last spring. It was a private member's resolution that was brought forward by this side of the House, I would like to say, and it was unanimously agreed to by all members. We, on this side, await for government legislation in regard to alcohol ignition interlock devices. Certainly, any way that we can support in the cause of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers - indeed, this is not sociably accepted in the world today, especially in our Province. Any way that we can help to alleviate any concern or certainly any pain that many people have endured because of that, we would be more than happy to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, support any initiative that would eliminate the practice of impaired driving in the Province. I would also like to acknowledge the work that has been done continuously by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, because I fear that at many times over the years there probably would have been silence, but by their actions they have kept this issue alive and making sure that people deal with the situation that we have in the country today with drinking and driving. Many family's lives have been devastated. Many people have lost their lives, innocent people, that should not have had it happen to them. I think that this not only applies to what we see first as the most common when it comes to motor vehicles, cars and trucks on the highways, but certainly boats and skidoos involve their share of tragedies over impaired driving as well.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we support any initiative that will eliminate this problem.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, eleven years ago, on December 6, 1989, fourteen young women were killed in Montreal because of their gender and because they studied engineering, a field traditionally dominated by men. Their lives were extinguished by an act of violence that has forever changed our country. The Montreal Massacre was the first time that a mass act of violence, directed so specifically and so deliberately against women was carried through with such devastating results.

Mr. Speaker, today, December 6th, 2000, I ask that you join with me in remembering these women and recognizing Newfoundland and Labrador's role in the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This day is marked across Canada as a time to remember and recommit ourselves and our resources to ending violence against women. And today, as a memorial to these fourteen, and to all women who have lost their lives to violence, we have lowered the flags of the Confederation Building to half mast.

Mr. Speaker, in the eleven years that have passed since the Montreal Massacre, much has been said about the nature of violence against women across Canada. There have been numerous initiatives and actions to help stop violence against women both in this Province and across the country. In our own Province, we have completed the five year Strategy Against Violence and have used the lessons learned during the process to implement a new Violence Prevention Initiative.

The Initiative is a five-year, multi-departmental, government-community partnership to find long-term solutions to the problem of violence against women, children, the elderly and other vulnerable groups. Its two main goals are: to improve the coordination and quality of services and programs by government departments and agencies which have violence related mandates, and to enhance the community's and government's capacity to coordinate prevention activities and service delivery in the regions.

The Violence Prevention Initiative is an example of government's continued commitment to ensure safer communities and to address the inequalities that cause women to become targets of violent crime.

Data released by Statistics Canada in 1993 denotes that some 51 per cent of Canadian women, that's half of all the women in Canada, have been victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence since the age of sixteen. In the same data breakdown, it was revealed that in our own Province, some 33 per cent of women have suffered the same fate.

Mr. Speaker, these are frightening numbers and as women and men who are concerned for the future of all women, we must commit to raising awareness and working towards a future where women no longer have to worry about personal safety when they go for a walk, a jog or on a date with someone they should be able to trust. We must ensure that the Montreal Massacre never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, today is a time to reflect on the lives of the fourteen women killed in Montreal and on violence against women in our society. It is also time to remember all the women who live daily with the threat of violence or who have died as the result of deliberate acts of gender-based violence. Last but not least, it is a day for communities to reflect on concrete actions that each person in this Province can take to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone here today to join with me in dedicating this day to the fourteen women who died in Montreal, and toward ending violence against women in this Province and across Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement.

I join with the minister in marking an event that has become a symbol for the violence so many women in our society have faced in the past and continue to face. By remembering the fourteen young women who are no longer with us, we bring to mind the many things that women have lost and continue to lose due to violence.

Again this year, let me remind members of the fourteen women who died in Montreal eleven years ago today. I suggest that most people here can remember the name of the person who committed the violent act but not many people can bring to mind the name of even one of those women.

I would like to mention their names again today, and their ages, so that you can visualize where they were then and where they would be today: Michele Richard, age 21; Helen Colgan, age 23; Nathalie Croteau, age 23; Maryse Leclair, age 23; Sonia Pelletier, age 23; Annie Turcotte, age 21; Maryse Laganiere, age 25; Barbara Daigneault, age 22; Anne-Marie Lemy, age 27; Anne-Marie Edward, age 21; Maud Haviernick, age 29; Anne Saint-Arneault, age 23; Genevieve Bergeron, age 21; and Barbara Maria Kleuznick, age 31.

Because of one act of senseless violence, those women are gone. Who knows what the past eleven years would have brought to them. The students would probably have graduated and moved on to careers in engineering. Many might today have young families of their own. That is very personal to me. I have a daughter who was twenty-two on December 6, eleven years ago, and today she is expecting her first child; so many of these women were robbed of that opportunity. Some may have traveled the world and lived out childhood dreams. This is what was stolen from them, and they were stolen from their families, their friends, their communities, and a society that would surely have benefitted from the richness of their individual contributions over a lifetime.

Violence did not begin, nor did it end, in Montreal eleven years ago. It continues today right here in our own Province. Even as I am speaking, there are women living in fear of violence.

As I said last year, this Legislature is the place to which many women look for protection and it is our job not to fail them; so, once again, we must remember those who were taken so we will be spurred to do what needs to be done.

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.

In 1990, the House of Commons adopted a resolution put forth by NDP Member of Parliament, Dawn Black, to declare today, December 6, as Canada's National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It is to honour their memory and it is a call to action.

The Montreal massacre, as it was known, was a wake-up call to the horrendous acts of violence against women in our society. The slogan used by many was, "First we grieve and then we work for change".

We all grieve, and many work for change. From the first denials that this was an act of violence towards women to the understanding that yes, women face incredible violence in our society and that these fourteen women were killed because they were women. In fact, in a recent court hearing on the West Coast of this Province, of two convicted murderers, one of the convicted murderers of a woman in this Province acknowledged that the murder was motivated in large measure because of a hatred of women in general.

Today, I join with others in this Province to say that this violence has to end and to applaud all of the women and men who have worked tirelessly to change the system. There is much work ahead. Even though sexual assaults, for example, are reported twice as frequently in this Province, we are the only Province that does not have a fully funded centre to work to carry out crisis intervention and public education on a large scale. We must place a priority on where we place our dollars, and eradicating violence against women must be part of this priority.

I urge everyone to remember the fourteen women, and all women who died from acts of violence. Ending the violence will only be brought about by ending the inequality in our society. We must all work to ensure that this Province is a safe place for women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

My question is for the Premier of the Province. This morning, government representatives on the Public Accounts Committee voted down a formal request to have the Auditor General examine the Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract and the shareholders agreement signed between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Quebec in March of 1998. Government members voted on instructions from the Premier.

On Monday, and again yesterday, the Premier and his ministers stood in their places and claimed to stand for openness and transparency in government; yet, you even prevent the Auditor General from looking at the agreements and reporting her findings to the House.

Will the Premier make it clear to government members on the PAC that he does not want anyone to hide this information and that they should not stand in the way of having the contracts reviewed by the Auditor General?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: As Vice-Chair, and Member for the Bay of Islands, I take exception to your remarks that the Premier instructed me, as Vice-Chair, and the committee members. I have never spoken to the Premier on these issues.

I ask that you withdraw your remarks, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Are you going to stand and apologize to him?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the government members on the PAC are appointed by the Premier and the Cabinet. They do his bidding and they take direction from him and Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, as usual, has made a statement which is not factual: that I instructed or the Cabinet instructed the people on the Public Accounts Committee to vote against a resolution. You should, in honor of being a Parliamentarian, withdraw the statement.

The second part of your question, in my opinion, would be perfectly in order if you were gentleman enough to withdraw what you just said about the Vice-Chair and the other three members of the committee.

The truth of the matter is that this government has written Newfoundland Hydro and CF(L)Co and said to them: if there is nothing in here that is commercially sensitive in carrying on the day-to-day business of this Province, and carrying on the day-to-day business of Newfoundland Hydro then you should feel free to release the documents so that anybody can study them - any accountant can study them - and there is no effort on the part of this government to hide those reports.

As a matter of fact, we have said to Newfoundland Hydro, as I said to you before: if you want to release the reports, if you see nothing in there that is commercially sensitive to carrying on the day-to-day business, then feel free to do so.

I think they are meeting on Friday, and we have asked them to put that on their agenda for Friday.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter here is that the Opposition is trying to use the Public Accounts Committee for its own political reasons. That is the real problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TULK: They are trying to use the Public Accounts Committee to stir up the fears of Newfoundlanders about a ghost that comes from 1969 when a bad deal was signed on the Churchill Falls deal, when that side of the House voted for it. Every person in this Legislature at the time voted for it. All of us now have 20/20 vision. We all look back now and say, oh, that was a bad deal; and it was. Now we have the benefit of 20/20 vision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman again that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and CF(L)Co - we would encourage them, if there is nothing commercially sensitive in those documents, to make a decision to release the reports and let the public have a view of them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to now conclude his answer.

PREMIER TULK: - because, I say to the hon. gentleman, there is nothing there to hide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's office and the Public Accounts Committee are put in place by this House of Assembly to get to the truth, and when that side of the House refuses to give us the truth and the proper information as requested, certainly I will use them.

MR. SWEENEY: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of privilege, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the hon. member across the way. I was elected by the people of the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace, to come in here and serve them fairly, which I did this morning. I went there this morning without any pre-advice or any direction. I sat there weighing the knowledge that I had received here yesterday in this hon. House, that the report would be made public, and that is good enough for me.

I feel that the Auditor General has enough work to do without going witch-hunting for the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the member speaking to the point of privilege?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of privilege, the Chair will take the comments made by the hon. member under advisement.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: If the government members are so adamant that there is nothing to hide, if the government genuinely supports the public release of those documents, what possible reason could you have for opposing a request to have the Auditor General do a review and look at the contracts?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I want to remind hon. members that we are in Question Period, and points of privilege and points of order ought to be taken up after Question Period. Unless somebody has an urgent point of order to raise, I think we should continue with Question Period.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that, as usual, he is half baked and half cooked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked a question. I ask that he give the Premier an opportunity to answer it.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Accounts Committee, and I would remind him of this - he is the Chairman, and he is the Chairman for a very good reason - the Public Accounts Committee is put in place to investigate matters that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TULK: Listen now, you might learn something.

The Public Accounts Committee is put in place to investigate matters that the Auditor General brings forward to the House to be investigated. That is its primary concern. The second thing I want to point out in this Legislature is that the Public Accounts Committee in this Province - until today when he chose to scrub it around, the way he is scrubbing around for his own political reasons - is the best Public Accounts Committee in this country; not under your Chairmanship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: It has always been.

PREMIER TULK: It has always been the best Public Accounts Committee in this country.

I would remind him that if he is going to use it for his own small-minded, political games, that this Public Accounts Committee, under his chairmanship, will probably end up being the worst in the country!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to thank the Premier for his compliment. I have been the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee for two years now and have been on it for three, so thank you very much for your compliment.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy has told us, in his view, of what is in those contracts, and the CEO of Newfoundland Hydro held a news conference and explained the contracts, complete with overheads. Why would the government object to having the Auditor General look at the contracts and present a description of them in this House? If the minister and the CEO of Hydro have made a full disclosure, why would they object to the Auditor General doing the same thing? They have nothing to lose, do they, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, again, is not even half-baked or half-cooked with the second supplementary. The truth of the matter is, the Minister of Mines and Energy and myself - I wrote the letter yesterday and said to Newfoundland Hydro: Yes, he is right. The president and CEO of the Newfoundland Hydro and CF(L)Co got out and explained the deal. The feeling is that there are negotiations ongoing with Quebec. There is some stuff in here that might be commercially sensitive, and we don't want, at this point - I think he said that in his statement - to release the documents.

We are saying to him and we will keep saying to him, and if at that point those seven or eight Newfoundlanders - which includes people from his own party, as I understand it - who negotiated this deal on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador feels there is nothing commercially sensitive here to put out, they will feel free to do so. If they want to ask the Auditor General if the Newfoundland Government has done something wrong here and sold Newfoundland down the tubes, or if they want to ask any other chartered accountant or anybody else in this country, that they signed a bad deal and recommended it to us, then feel free to do so. This government is not hiding a thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman, if Newfoundland Hydro and CF(L)Co. - he can have the documents in triplicate. They then can go and ask the Auditor General to see if we did something wrong, if we misspent funds.

The truth of the matter is, that he has wronged the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee to its lowest ebb in the history of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member of Cape St. Francis.

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

I will say to the Premier that ifs and ifs, and maybes and might's don't cut it. The government is saying they want to release the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am getting to it.

The government is saying they want to release the contracts but Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will not, and will not let them do it. You were just talking about: if, they might, they may be. Isn't that problem solved? If the Auditor General, an official of this House, examines the documents and reports back her findings to this House, that problem is solved. They do not need permission from Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: The truth of the matter is: I have never said that Newfoundland Hydro and CF(L)Co will not release the documents. He is wrong again.

I have asked them, and I have said to them: If you consider there is nothing in here commercially sensitive, please feel free -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TULK: It is their decision. They run the company. They signed the deal on behalf... They are negotiating with Quebec Hydro on Churchill Falls. Would the hon. gentleman have something out in public that might, in some way, mess up those negotiations? Yes, Mr. Speaker, after what I have seen today, I believe he would. If the gentleman were an honourable gentleman today, after what he has accused his colleagues in this House of doing, he would submit his resignation as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Wouldn't it be difficult, I say to the Premier, for anyone to continue to press for full release of the contracts if the Auditor General finds no fault in them and confirms the government and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's description of them? Why do you have members on the PAC who oppose it? What are you really hiding here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Does he know what the purpose of the Auditor General is?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he doesn't know why he is here.

PREMIER TULK: The Auditor General is the watchdog of this Assembly, put in place to see if there is any misspending of government funds. That is what the Auditor General is about. That is what the Auditor General does. She is not the political pawn in this case; it is a woman. She is not the political pawn of the Opposition. The truth of the matter is, Newfoundland Hydro and CF(L)Co can put out the report, can put out any report they wish, and then if this Assembly or if the Public Accounts - once those reports are out, if there is some misspending of public dollars, the Auditor General, I am sure, will step into the breach without the hon. gentleman asking her.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Doesn't he agree that the Auditor General takes direction from this House of Assembly; and isn't the PAC a Standing Committee of this House of Assembly?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Well, there you go, that is your answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am not sure if there was a question.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, I spent ten years over there and it is the first time that I ever saw the Premier of the Province get up and ask the questions and the other side provide the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TULK: I have to say to the hon. gentleman that it is absolutely amazing how he can twist his position around. I would remind them, in spite of the attack - I do not know where all the rest of them are, they are probably out to lunch with Danny, or like Danny - and I would suggest to him that under his new leader, come January 31, he had better have a better performance than that. If he does not, he is going to find himself up in the nosebleed section, as the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's would say.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TULK: Yes I will, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you have lunch with Clyde Wells?

PREMIER TULK: Yes. Let me just say to the hon. gentleman, if I could.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TULK: If I could, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that he is perfectly right. If CF(L)Co releases those documents and there is some inappropriate spending by this Legislature, then this Legislature will instruct the Auditor General to look at the books. If, CF(L)Co - if and when. If this company decides on Friday to release the documents this Legislature will do that; but this Legislature should not be - I want to say this morning that the people on the Public Accounts Committee acted in the right fashion; it is my belief. I did not instruct them to act that way but I believe that they did. What the hon. gentleman has been trying to do, in his past three or four months in office, is use the PAC as a political tool for the Opposition. He should today, and I challenge him to do it, tender his resignation to the Clerk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our time is coming to start giving the answers, I say to the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment. Minister, you have in your possession a water quality report, a report that you have refused to release, even through the Freedom of Information request. We now see a number of high-ranking Liberal Cabinet ministers talking about creating a more open government. In fact, you are endorsing one of those for the leadership of your party.

I am asking you today, Minister, to become more open yourself and release the report that contains vital information on the health and safety of this Province's water supply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I told the hon. member last year at the sitting of the House, that was a draft report that was done in 1988. It is twelve years old. The information that was in that report, whatever connection to the municipalities, is now on the Province's department website. All the THM results and every test that has been done is there for the media to see, and for the Opposition critic to see as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, I am asking for the same report that has been requested by various people for the Freedom of Information Request. You are responsible for your department, you are responsible for the health and safety of the water supply in this Province, and I am asking you to table this report in the House of Assembly. When are you going to do that?

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

MR. LANGDON: I will repeat again, for the critic opposite, that report is twelve years old. It was only a draft report done by one of the people who worked in the department. Talking about the THM results of the communities, on the department's Web site, every THM result from every community was in there - I think there were thirty communities at that time; today, there are 250-plus communities on the Web site - and all the testing that has been done. In fact, this year we have seen 1,100 tests done from the different municipalities. All of these scores are there also on the Web site for the people to see.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Minister, there is far more information in that report than just information on THMs. You are not releasing that information. In fact, there are some 200 communities in this Province which have boil orders in place. Some of those communities are showing signs of fecal coli-form. I am asking you, Minister: What has your department done and what are you doing to correct the problems within the water supplies in this Province?

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

MR. LANGDON: That is a very good question.

I want to say, first of all, that there is a interdepartmental committee that is made up of the Department of Health; the Department of Environment and Labour; the Department of Government Services; and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that is looking at the policy and the standards for water in this Province. That report will be due very shortly.

We hired a person also to work with the department on THMs. That is his sole responsibility. Up until this particular time, he has met with over thirty communities and dealt with many of the people in the small communities who do not have the staff to be able to do all of the work on their own. He has been able to explain to them the chlorination system, how it works, and how to improve the situation.

I can also say that there have been two pilot projects. One was announced only recently, from Gander. They are going to be having that pilot project set up very shortly, by the end of December. There is another one for Grand Bank that is going to be done very shortly.

I can also say to him that my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, at the annual conference, said to the communities out there: if you do no have chlorinated systems, then come to us and we will provide the funding for you.

We have done a lot, and will continue to do so. We know that it is an important aspect of people's lives - the water that they drink - and we want to make sure that the standard we set is the top, not only for this Province but for the country as a whole.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Acting Minister of Education.

MR. MANNING: Whoever that may be.

MR. HEDDERSON: Whoever that might be.

The question to you today, Minister, is: Why has this government hidden, ignored, disregarded, recommendations of air quality reports in schools last year, such as St. Pius X here in St. John's, Helen Tulk Elementary in Bishops Falls; this year, St. Thomas of Villanova in Manuels and, most recently, even as I speak, in Green Bay South Academy in Robert's Arm. Why has this government ignored and continue to expose teachers, students and support staff to continued health risks?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the hon. member would acknowledge, if he were entirely objective in his question, that over the past three years at least, we have probably put more money into the issue of air quality control testing and maintenance with respect to ensuring that the quality of air in our schools is at the proper standard than has ever been put into that type of budget before, ever in our history.

We have put about $12 million over the last three years into the area of addressing air quality problems in our schools. In addition to that, we have committed $125 million to the education corporation for the construction of new schools to ensure that our students and our teachers have the maximum level of professional ability in good facilities to deliver educational programs.

If the hon. member is suggesting in any way, in his mind, that we are at any point or that we have in any way turned a blind eye or a deaf ear to the issue of air quality, he really has not been in the real world for the last three years; because there has been more attention paid to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - there has been more money invested in and there has been more remediation action taken as a result of the work we have done over the last three years than has ever been done before. We continue to monitor the situation, address and respond immediately to every suggestion that is even out there with respect to the questionable quality of air. If at any point that becomes an issue, we send the people in, do the examination -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - do the assessment and take the appropriate remedial action.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I hear what the minister is saying and I find it hard to believe. I would want you to tell that to the parents and students of St. Thomas of Villanova who, for three months, since September to November, were in a building that wasn't fit to be in! And you stand in your place and say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. HEDDERSON: I ask you, Minister: When is this government going to live up to its pre-referendum promise to make the schools in this Province safe and clean for the students and staff of this particular Province? I ask you, when?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member there is no need for him to have an air problem as a result of trying to get that question out because he seems to be very animated and very, very exorcized over an issue to which he knows the answer.

The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that from September until October, when the issue of air quality became such that we had to move children out of St. Thomas of Villanova, we had done two, if not three, air quality tests by the best possible, professional people in the Province who know how to do that work. Each time they did the testing, they came back with reports saying that the air quality was fine. As a result - they tell us, on the third or fourth test - of 700 or so kids moving into the facility, as a result of that type of activity, and as a result of weather, there was, on the third or fourth test, a standard not quite met in terms of quality of air. Immediately that was reported to us and the school board moved - and appropriately so - every child out of the school, and transferred them to other facilities. We have approved a budget to build a brand new school in that area, since October.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: We have put in place the budget to build a school. We have appointed the engineers and the consultants to draw the plans, and we are ready to move the moment the school board can do so on the construction of a new facility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

In 1998, government approved funding for four new drug therapies for treating Multiple Sclerosis. These drugs can cost upwards of $1,700 to $3,500 per month. In this Province, assistance for the cost of drugs falls under the Social Assistance Program. In other provinces, help with the high cost of these drugs is seen as medical assistance rather than social assistance.

I ask the minister: Will this Province review its policies for coverage of these high-cost drugs and bring them in line with other provinces?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question because this is a very serious issue in the whole range of different diseases and illnesses in Newfoundland and Labrador that require expensive drug therapies and treatments. The program has been in place in Newfoundland and Labrador for some time, always on a needs-tested basis. It is understood - and the people of the Province do understand, I believe - that the provision of medication has never, ever been a part of the MCP program in the country. It was never, ever a part of it. The only time that drugs and medications are ever provided free to people, anywhere in Canada, is when they are actually hospitalized, when they are in an institution, and then the medication and drugs, while in the facility, are covered completely and totally, under the Canada Health Act and under the Medical Care Plan.

When its is outside, when there are treatments that are needed and continued outside of hospitals and institutions, and people need these drug therapies, there has always been a cost-sharing by the government. The standard in Newfoundland and Labrador, ever since the program has been in place, has been for a cost-sharing and assistance to those who do not have a health care plan themselves from some other source that might help them with it, or for those who are in such a financial situation that they cannot make a contribution themselves.

Knowing that still leaves some hardships with some very expensive drugs, we are presently reviewing, exactly as the member points out, the notion of going towards a system that is in place in other provinces whereby there is some cost-sharing even if the person is a person in receipt of social assistance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister is well aware that in this Province we are the only jurisdiction in the country that requires people to disperse of any savings they have for their children's education, any monies they have in RRSPs, before help is provided.

I ask the minister if he does not think it is more appropriate, because eventually if these people spend the money they have this government will pay. I ask the minister, isn't it better to spend money up front to alleviate their pain and suffering than spend it in the long run after the families who are afflicted by these diseases expend every penny they have over and above what is required, regardless of social services income?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I did indicate, we are aware of the fact that if, in a family, there is someone unfortunately stricken with a disease or illness that requires a very expensive and cost-prohibitive drug therapy, that the standard today is that they do have to expend from their own resources to the greatest extent possible. That is why, in fact, as the hon. member suggested in his first question, we are reviewing the policies that exist in other jurisdictions to see if there cannot be a circumstance where we can have a cost-sharing with the government and the individual or the family without having to deplete their resources, as has been the case in Newfoundland ever since the inception of these drug programs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MS JONES: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on a point of privilege.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise on comments that were made by the member opposite, the Member for Cape St. Francis, regarding the Public Accounts Committee, and accusations affecting myself and my colleagues on this side of the House.

I want to let the member know that I take great exception to the insinuation and the comments that he made here today. I feel that an apology is owed to myself, to the Member for Bay of Islands, to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and to the Member for Trinity North. All of us walk into that committee with a great deal of certainty in deciding the decisions that are being made at that level. We do so not being coerced by anyone. We go there of our own will, of our own mind.

Obviously, the member needs to be informed that no one needs to tell us how to approach an issue, how to determine the outcome of an issue, and we are more than capable of doing that ourselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the member rise and apologize to us, as members of this committee, or I ask that he resign as Chair if those are the feelings he has towards the rest of the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or both.

MS JONES: Or both, Mr. Speaker..

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is wishful thinking on the part of those people over there, to think that I am going to resign as Chair. Those people on that side of the House accuse me of playing politics with this situation here. This Public Accounts Committee, as a committee of the House of Assembly, can request the Auditor General - she can take direction from the Public Accounts Committee. That is what we did.

I believe those people were instructed, and I will make no apologies and I will make no withdrawals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, to the point of privilege.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that I have been in this Legislature for twenty years and I have served on the Public Accounts Committee under a former Administration that was on this side of the House, but I have never witnessed the behaviour of the hon. gentleman today when he stood in this House and - and we had all kinds of cause, as politicians, if we wanted. I have never witnessed the type of behaviour that I saw of this gentleman today when he stood in this House and accused his colleagues, the people who sit on a committee that is independent of anybody's direction, that travels the Province, that goes into committee, makes decisions, and he stands in this House and accuses them of being under the thumb of the Premier of the Province. I am not sure if it was the Premier or the Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Whatever it was, Mr. Speaker, I tell him that it is shameful. Those people have a right to go into that committee and exercise their own minds as to whether they believe something is legitimate; a matter that he brought forward - I presume he brought forward because those people wouldn't have brought it up. They voted against it, obviously. He obviously, or somebody on his side who sits on that committee with him, brought forward something that he wanted to use for political gain. I have to say to him, I sat on the Public Accounts Committee and I would have done the exact same thing that they did, because in doing it they were protecting the integrity of that committee for this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TULK: He knows it. He is not that stunned. He knows it, but he knows too, that if he wants to he can probably -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all disagree with the Premier on that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TULK: He can probably use a committee of this House to twist it so that the press in this Province - certain press anyway - will report this now as a matter that tries to show the government from covering up. That is what he is up to; I have seen that action from him before.

Mr. Speaker, I say to him that he should do the honorable thing today. First of all, stand in this House - either one or the other - because he has put the committee in the place where it is going to be very difficult for it to function.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has jeopardized the integrity of the committee.

PREMIER TULK: He is the Chairman of the Committee, he has a leadership role, and the people on that committee, he has questioned their integrity. Mr. Speaker, he has a choice - but maybe he is out to destroy the committee anyway. Maybe that is another move that he is up to. I tell him, it will not work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear the hon. member and then I will take the question.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

We see happening in this House today what we see happening so very often with the present Premier and other ministers on that side of the fence. What is happening here is that they are trying to deflect from the real issue that I brought up in this House of Assembly today with respect to Hydro and Churchill Falls. They are trying to deflect the real issue here and what they are hoping the media will pick up on, and not the real issue that they are trying to hide in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The point of privilege that had been raised by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is similar to the one that had been raised by the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. The Chair has already indicated that it will take the point raised by the member under advisement and report back to the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member raising a new point of order, or a new point of privilege?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, there is a far greater issue here today regarding how this House works and the subcommittee of the House, the Public Accounts Committee. If I am given the impression right now that everytime I go to that meeting and I don't vote the way the Chairman wants me to vote, he is going to come back down here in the House and accuse me of partisan politics, being led or guided by the Premier or by the Government House Leader.

I object very seriously -

MS JONES: We think for ourselves on this side, Jack.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I think the member owes us an apology. From this moment onwards I will have great difficulty in accepting the confidence of the member as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The Chair has already indicated that he will take this question under advisement.

It being 3:00 p.m. on -

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I had an understanding with the Opposition that if we got to this point, before we got out of the routine proceedings, that the Opposition would give time for the hon. the Minister of Justice to give motion of a resolution or a bill that he plans to introduce in the future.

Does the Opposition agree?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

Notices of Motion


MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992." (Bill 31)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I could ask the concurrence of the House to revert to presenting of reports?

MR. SPEAKER: Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

MR. MATTHEWS: In the kerfuffle of the shuffle of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I missed when you called that; and with the concurrence of the House, as Minister of Finance, I have the honor of tabling the Public Accounts of the Province for the financial year ended March 31 as required by the Financial Administration Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Are you tabling a report?

MR. J. BYRNE: I have a report I wish to table.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee which is known -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: - and which has been confirmed by the Premier here today as the best Public Accounts Committee in the country; I, as Chair, wish to present the report of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts on a hearing which was held on February 7, on the Newfoundland Government Fund.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee, and in particular, the previous members who were there: Mr. Mercer for Humber East, Mr. Lush for Terra Nova, and Ms Hodder for Burin-Placentia West. I would also like to thank the representatives or the witnesses from the Auditor General's Office: Elizabeth Marshall, Julie Mullaly and John Noseworthy; also, the Department of Industry Trade and Technology: Harry Bishop, Bruce Hollett; and the Department of Finance: Earl Saunders, Director of Debt Management.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present that here today for information to the members here.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: We will now go to Orders of the Day. It is Wednesday, it is a private member's motion.

Orders of the Day


Private Members' Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to move:

WHEREAS the equalization program provides substantial benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador and contributes greatly to funding provincial programs such as health, education and social assistance;

AND WHEREAS changes to the equalization program are necessary to ensure a greater share of the revenues from resource developments is used directly to enhance our economic prospects and provide quality programs for our residents;

AND WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to ensure that they benefit to the greatest extend possible from their rich resources;

AND WHEREAS we want to ensure that the disparities that exist between this Province and the rest of Canada are reduced as quickly as possible.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorse efforts by the Premier and Minister of Finance to seek changes to the equalization program which will strengthen and enhance the program to make it work better and be more responsive to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of equalization reflects the spirit of generosity, tolerance and the milk of human kindness that is Canada. Fifty years ago, Joseph R. Smallwood would have likened it to a treasure ship that would transport Newfoundland and Labrador from nineteenth century colonialization into a twentieth century partnership with the rest of Canada.

Equalization has indeed closed that gap, that we, I guess refer to over the years, as the have and have-not provinces. The growth over the last half century in terms of basic health care, education and the social safety net has indeed been commendable. Yet, in all honesty we have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of equalization has not been the be-all and end-all for all our economic doldrums.

As we prepare to launch ourselves into the twenty-first century, we find that the very thing that liberated us from poverty and destitution in the beginning, now shackles us to an economic backwater of mediocrity and underdevelopment.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called clawback provision that seventy cents out of every dollar going back to Ottawa when we achieve actual growth is mind numbing. It guarantees that full partnership with the rest of Canada remains for us an illusive dream. The dream of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is for our Province to become wealthy enough to help other Canadians less fortunate than ourselves.

The clawback formula and the principle of equalization must now be renegotiated. The sooner Newfoundland and Labrador reaches that blissful shore of economic self sufficiency the better off all Canada will be.

Every Newfoundlander and Labradorians, including the hon. member's opposite, knows that changing the equalization formula is a prerequisite to our future development. It is also vital for many of our sister provinces to have this change occur as well.

We sincerely thank the people of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia for their great contribution to the economic well-being of Canada. Nevertheless, we invite the people of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan to join with us in a single voice of solidarity. If our resolve is strong, we too, can achieve economic prosperity. I must say in recent weeks I have been hardened by the renewed interest of the premiers and finance ministers of our four Atlantic Provinces to treat this as a joint effort, and their willingness to give it their highest priority.

In the recent federal election I believe we were shown just how fragmented Canada is becoming. Is it not enough to have Quebec separatism and western alienation tugging at the mainstays of our ship of state without having a third wave of discontent erupting from an increasing disillusioned underclass of provinces. There are those who will point fingers and tell us the solution to our problem lies in the great pilgrimage or trail of tears towards a few mega cities of this country.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau's respond to this solution, as an alternative to the regional economic expansion, was to ask the question: Would this be Canada?

Mr. Speaker, only when we unite in a single vision of what a just society should be, will we be serving the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the interests of the rest of Canada.

Equalization, as it now stands, is a stifling archaic mechanism that meets no one's real needs. If adjustments are made to benefit this Province as soon as possible, then we will not have to go to Ottawa anymore with our cap in hand to sustain ourselves. We will, instead, be sharing our future prosperity with all Canadians.

Past governments, in Newfoundland and Labrador, knew too well the restrictive nature of the equalization formula. The Hibernia Development become synonymous with job creation as, I guess, the government of today saw better to have high paying jobs than a developed project that would sustain us later; because 70 per cent of its revenue would end up in Ottawa. Voisey's Bay, without the job creating smelter in this Province, really only benefits Inco and Revenue Canada. Seen in this light, equalization is the social safety net that keeps us from going into the free-fall of total economic collapse and despair. At the same time, it is a woven web that binds and entangles our aspirations and ambitions. This is not to suggest that Mr. Chrétien is some malevolent spider and that Premier Tulk is some innocent fly because - I guess Beaton is certainly not a fly weight.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that equalization is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. The solution lies in retaining the positive aspects of the arrangement while eliminating the negative effects it has on the future development of this Province. We have only to look to Ireland and its arrangements with the European Union to realize that economic miracles can occur, and no nation or province should just throw up its arms in despair.

The most famous dates in Newfoundland history are 1497 and 1949. If, in the next while, we can renegotiate an improvement to the equalization formula, then 2001 will be regarded by future historians as the greatest year of all; that was the year that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians stood on the deck together and demanded - and I mean demanded - that our rightful place was no longer down in steerage.

Yes, we insist that our rightful place is in first class all the way. Our quest will not be an easy one. Nothing that is worth attaining ever is. Our first efforts must be directed at the naysayers right in our own midst, I guess. We must rise above the partisan bickering and squabbling. We must convince the faint of hear that our cause is just. We must also, more than anything else, as Members of this great House of Assembly, show leadership, perseverance, and unwavering dedication to do what is right. Then, above everything else, we must stay the course. Our resolve must never slacken. Only by sailing into the face of the storm shall be achieve success.

In the recent federal election, much was made of how the surplus should be spent. Everything from tax reduction to social spending was offered up from across the ideological spectrum. The only mention of change in the claw-back formula came from the former Premier and now the present Minister of Industry, the Right Honourable Brian Tobin, Member of Parliament for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I cannot help it if you were dreaming.

Mr. Speaker, this issue must now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the issue must now be moved from the back burner to front stage centre. All of us must work together to make it part of a national debate. Using part of the surplus to help underdeveloped provinces make a real and lasting contribution to Canada would be a great investment. I can think of no better way to spend the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Martin, helping those who want to help themselves will pay dividends beyond you wildest dreams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Martin, at the same time when you do that, you will help Newfoundland and Labrador come on to its own.

Fabian, for you, to make you feel better, we will use the words of one of your past Prime Ministers. In the words of Brian Mulroney: we will have prosperity inflicted upon us.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if I can respond after that body blow from the hon. member opposite, but certainly I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on the private member's resolution put forward today by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. We, on this side of the House, support any effort to lift this Province up to a level economic playing field with the rest of Canada. You will have no argument from this side of the House on that particular topic.

I want to say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, to try to convince me, or to try to convince this side of the House of Assembly, that the person to bring this to the forefront over the past little while was the former Premier, the present Minister of Industry for Canada, certainly I am not the only person who may have missed a few things.

The Member for St. John's West, the hon. Loyola Hearn, just won a resounding victory in St. John's West with somewhere around a 9,000 vote majority, when there was supposed to be a possibility of being defeated. Mr. Loyola Hearn spent five weeks in the House of Commons after the by-election in May, and one of the topics he brought to the floor of the House of Commons was the equalization formula for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is certainly something that we are all concerned about.

After Mr. Hearn brought that to the floor of the House of Commons and it became an issue here in the Province, then the former Premier decided to jump on the bandwagon, make it an issue in the federal election, and stand up to cousins in Ottawa in an attempt to bring this forward.

I am very concerned that, according to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the person we have now sent to Ottawa, who is the regional minister for Atlantic Canada, Mr. Tobin, that person now is going to be up there negotiating a new equalization formula for Newfoundland and Labrador. That concerns me greatly, I say in all sincerity.

Why it concerns me greatly is, that is the same minister who was in Ottawa and negotiated the new EI system that was brought in and that has caused havoc in Atlantic Canada, in parts of the Province and on many families. The same minister now is up trying to get a good deal for us on equalization when he could not get a good deal for us on the EI system. Now he is going to bring us a new formula on equalization. Well, I fear that.

Just in the recent federal election, we had the Prime Minister stand up in Nova Scotia, after renegotiating and changing the EI system, and say to the people of Atlantic Canada, I am sorry. The Prime Minister was sorry for the trouble and the havoc he inflicted on this Province with the EI system. Now we have a situation where the same minister is going to be up there deciding what is going to happen with the equalization.

I ask the same question when it comes to the health care. Just prior to the federal election, we had the Prime Minister and the Premiers throughout the country, including the former Premier himself, we had those people stand up and say that over the next five years we are going to put $700 million back into the health care system in this country. That is going to be our portion of that money over the next five years. It is based on the health care funds to a province. It is based on population.

We all know the record of this government over the past ten years in regard to out-migration. We can add it up. Over 50,000 people - 50,790 to be exact, according to Statistics Canada - have left this Province since 1990. Fifty-thousand people have left here and now we are going to have a new health care system that is based on your population. We have an aging population, we have massive out-migration, and therefore our dollars that are going to come in through the new health care system are going to be greatly diminished because of a formula they have put in place in Ottawa that once again is going to cause havoc on Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have the health care system that the former Premier was at the table and negotiated. We had the EI system that the former Premier was at the table and negotiated. Then we talk about how now we are going to send him up and ask him to negotiate a new equalization formula for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I say that concerns me a greatly.

We have, within this Province, the former Premier, who was Premier for almost five years, who had an opportunity. We have a billion dollar industry in the fishery of this Province now, a new industry in many parts, a new diversified industry of fishery that is a billion dollar industry in this Province, where we still see thousands of jobs being lost because most of the products leave here unprocessed and therefore we have a problem with that.

Mr. Speaker, we go back to 1497, as the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace talked about, and 1949. He said they were two very important dates, and I agree; but I look back on 1949 and I think about what we had in this Province in 1949. Sure, because of equalization, because of the generosity that we have received from elsewhere - no, I take that back, not because of generosity, because of what they owe us, I say to the member for Carbonear, because of what they owe us.

You stood up and thanked the other provinces in Canada for what they have given us. I have never heard, in all my time following politics, anybody on the mainland thank us. I have never heard any government on the mainland thank us, I have never heard any Member of the House of Commons thank us, or any member of legislative assemblies across this country thank us for what we have put into the country or Canada.

In the Quebec deal alone, I would say that we put in upwards of $1 billion, that we sent up along, and we get a piddly amount back; but nobody ever stands up in Quebec or in Ottawa and thanks Newfoundland for what we send up to them.

The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace talked about naysayers. I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, it is hard not to be a naysayer when there is no opportunity in rural Newfoundland now for people to get work; when people are trying to get hospital beds and cannot get in there; when people are trying to get surgeries and cannot get in there; when aging parents have trouble with the health care system. When people out there are finding it very, very difficult just to keep food on the table and heat in the home, it is hard not to be a naysayer. It is hard to be positive all the time.

I do not believe for one minute that we are a have-not Province. I believe we are a have Province in our own hearts and souls. The problem is that we have an equalization formula here that needs to be addressed, and hopefully we will get that addressed over the next little while.

The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace had to finish up his comments with a few comments on the former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, and inflicting prosperity on Newfoundland and Labrador. I say, Mr. Speaker, if we were to look across this Province today, look across this city that we are in today, and ask ourselves: What is the one industry in this Province today that is causing us to have one of the largest GDP growths in history? What is the one industry in this Province today that is causing us to have people working in this Province? What is the one industry today in this Province that is causing an upsurge in building in this city? What is the one industry in this Province that is causing prosperity? It is the oil development, the oil and gas development that was brought forward in this Province under our former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, and the former minister who sat at the table and had the guts to say: We want Newfoundland first - John Crosbie! That is the problem now!

Do you think for a minute, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, if Crosbie were sitting at the table, that the EI system would be like it is today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Do you think for a minute that the health care system would be based on population when we have 50,000 people who have left this Province in ten years? No, Sir, he wouldn't allow it to happen then and he wouldn't allow it to happen now!

You have a bunch who are told what to do in Ottawa, the same way they are told what to do over there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is pretty riled up there, but in the heat of the debate he talked about Brian Mulroney and he talked about inflicting prosperity on this Province. I want to remind him that in 1993, when the Liberals took office in this country, Brian Mulroney was running a deficit of $43 billion per year, the EI fund was in a deficit position, and if the Liberal Government of Canada had not taken the steps it did back in 1993, we wouldn't be talking about inflicting prosperity on Newfoundland and Labrador; this country would have been bankrupt.

Before the hon. member gets up and starts talking about that foolishness, I think he needs to be honest in this House and say it the way it was in 1993, when John Crosbie and Brian Mulroney nearly bankrupt the country of Canada. I am sick of listening to these people out there talking about what John Crosbie and everybody else did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: They inflicted poverty on this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members are reminded that they can be heard by speaking gently as well as by shouting. That applies to both sides of the House.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good ruling, I say.

I say to the Member for Bellevue, I know why you are upset. I know why the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is upset. Ever since I stood in this House yesterday -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I ask for protection, Mr. Speaker, from the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. He is upset because I told him he was going to be the Minister of Health and he wants to be the Minister of Tourism, and it is not going to happen. The Member for Bellevue is upset because he is going to be the minister of nothing.

Lets get back to what we were talking about. We are talking about the equalization that comes to Newfoundland and Labrador from Ottawa, an equalization formula that we desperately need an improvement to. There is no argument from this side of the House with that. What I am saying here is that I have a concern, as a member in the House of Assembly, with the fact that the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace stands in his place and applauds the fact that the former Premier, now the present Minister of Industry, is going to be up there negotiating that agreement. That concerns me when I look at what he said at the table and what he negotiated for the EI system in this Province.

I say to the member for Bellevue, if you think that the EI system is so grand and has done so much for Newfoundland and Labrador - are you going to tell me that everybody in Bellevue who could qualify for EI eight years ago are qualifying now? No, sir. You be honest.

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

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

MR. BARRETT: I do not want the hon. member getting up and misrepresenting what I said. We are debating today, talking about equalization and equalization payments to this Province. I want to make sure that the record is straight, that we would not be talking about an EI fund or any budget surplus if Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie had stayed as leaders in this country. This country would have been bankrupt at the rate that they were going. At $43 billion a year, the EI fund was in a bankruptcy situation. There would not have been an EI fund.

MR. MATTHEWS: We were bankrupt.

MR. BARRETT: We were bankrupt. There wouldn't have been an EI fund in this country if Brian Mulroney had stayed in office. It is a pure fact.

I am sick of listening to the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's getting up and talking about what Brian Tobin did and did not do. Brian Tobin, John Chrétien and the people in this country straightened this country out in 1993.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I listen to it everyday, I listen to it on the airwaves, I listen to the Open Line host talking about the great things that Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie did. We would not have had a program of EI in this country if these people had stayed in office. I am sick of listening to it.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the point of order?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has to do with, again, an abuse, and in this case by the member opposite who is not speaking to a point of order. A point of order deals with either an allegation of misconduct or miss wording or if a rule is being breached or if a particular precedent is being breached.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is doing, he is entitled to do during debate, and particularly on a private member's resolution the debate goes back and forth. That is perfectly acceptable, but there has to be a point to a point of order. In the case of the hon. Member for Bellevue, in most cases, never a point, today in particular never a point of order, and he should reserve his comments for debate which are appropriate and timely under these circumstances.

MR. J. BYRNE: He is taking an example from the Premier, that is what he is doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I am sorry; the member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the people of Trinity North for giving me the opportunity to be able to stand in this House today and to be able to support the motion by my colleague, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Earlier this week this House was advised by the Minister of Finance that the economy of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has been among the leaders in the country in the past three years. This year has been no exception to that.

Madam Speaker, as a Province we are not achieving the maximum benefit from that strong economic performance. The intent and the thrust of the honorable member's motion is not to ask the rest of Canada to provide some additional financial support for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador but rather to provide an opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador to re-invest its newly found revenue sources from the natural resources back into improving the levels of critical public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Equalization is a critical component of federal transfers which allow provinces to deliver comparable levels of service at comparable levels of taxation, wherever you live in Canada, and Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the seven qualifying provinces. If we were given the opportunity, we could become much more financially independent and make a greater contribution to the Canadian economy. By definition, the constitutionally enshrined program was intended to support the less wealthy provinces.

Madam Speaker, it would appear that at the time of its inception, it was envisaged that six or seven provinces in this country would always be poor and less wealthy than the others. The governments of that day did not envisage at all that either of the existing seven provinces who were receiving transfer payments or equalization payments would become rich enough in resources to be able to climb out of the cellar and achieve the kind of economic growth that this Province has experienced in the last three years. Madam Speaker, had such a situation been envisaged, the current equalization formula would have been structured in a fashion so as to allow the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit from the significant revenue potential from our rich natural resources.

It is expected, for example, that the Hibernia royalties will be almost $12 million higher than forecast in this budget year. However, through the equalization formula, there will be a clawback of 70 per cent of the increased royalties. A more equitable equalization formula would eliminate or reduce the tax back rate on resource developments.

Madam Speaker, it should be the intent of this Province to be less dependent on transfer payments. This Province should reap a greater benefit from our natural resources. This Province should be provided with opportunity to eliminate the disparities that exist between Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of the country or some of the more prosperous parts of the country. Particularly given how rich we are in natural resources, this Province should be provided with the opportunity to improve the quality of life of our residents and become an equal partner with some of the more prosperous provinces in this country and make a greater contribution to the national economy.

Madam Speaker, this House should be encouraged by the comments of the Hon. the Minister of Finance. As he suggested, he is committed to working with his provincial colleagues in Atlantic Canada and across this country to provide changes that will strengthen the equalization program and make it better and more responsive to the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The fairness and equity that should be, and should get built into the equalization program, will reflect the strength of a country, a country that, as a whole, supports regions within that country that do not have the means to provide a level of service and to maintain a reasonable level of taxation consistent with the more prosperous regions of the country, but it also should reflect a desire to help regions of the country to take full advantage of the opportunities that exist to help them realize their full potential from their own natural resources.

Madam Speaker, this House should be encouraging the hon. Minister of Finance, in his discussions with other finance ministers, to pursue discussions around several key elements that would see improvements in the current equalization system.

Firstly, Madam Speaker, the minister should advance the notion of the removal of the ceiling that was introduced in 1982 which was to constrain the growth of a program. While it is important to acknowledge that constraint may sometimes be necessary, given the fiscal position of a particular country, to place a constraint on this particular program is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of having it established in the first place;.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, we should encourage the Minister of Finance to advance a position to have the country move from the existing five-province standard to a ten-province standard. A ten-province national average standard would more appropriately fulfill the constitutional commitment to equalization.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, we should suggest he advocate for a more comprehensive revenue coverage. A more comprehensive revenue coverage ensures that a full range of provincial revenues generating capacity is included in the equalization formula; but

Fourthly, Madam Speaker, and probably the most important, we should push for the elimination of or at least the reduction of the tax-back rate on resource developments; high tax-back rates on resource developments which have increased the Province's revenue generating capacity but also decreases the equalization entitlements.

Obviously, this clawback provision is of critical concern at this time and at this stage of our Province's development, with the rapid expansion of our oil industry and a tremendous revenue potential associated with all future developments in and around our natural resources.

It is extremely critical for this Province to maximize the full economic potential from that natural resource; an economic benefit that can position our Province to discontinue, to not continue to be a recipient of equalization payments. To not aggressively pursue this position with both the national and other provincial governments would be considered to be negligent on our part because what it will do is destine future generations of Newfoundlanders to be a part of a province that continues to receive equalization payments from the rest of Canada.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on the equalization program as it exists today as well. Under the present situation, I might add, that puts us in a position where we cannot really win. We are in no-win position no matter what happens or what developments take place in this Province under the current system that we have today, and it certainly prevents our becoming a have province. The resources that we have in this Province today are abundant enough that we should not be having workers or young people leave this Province. We should be sufficient and efficient enough, if things were done properly over the years, that we would require workers to come to this Province to fill the gaps that would be there. With 70 cents of every dollar that we generate being clawed back, there is no way that we can ever escape from the debt that puts us into.

We have one country and ten provinces and for that country to be strong, each province has to be strong as well and contribute in their own way. Other provinces have helped in the past and we acknowledge that. As part of being part of this Confederation we call Canada, we have certainly benefitted from other provinces over the years, but other provinces throughout our history have also benefitted from Atlantic Canada.

I go back to the time during the Depression when they used to have what was called poor boxes in the schools in Atlantic Canada where pennies would be put into it and sent to children and families in Alberta who, at that point in time in our history, were suffering greatly from the Depression and the dust-bowl conditions that were created during those years. Being a country, I guess, it is like the old saying: What goes around comes around. One time you may be at the bottom receiving help, while at other times you may be at the top and be able to offer help.

With the industries that we have in this Province, the natural resources that we have, have to be developed with our best interest at heart. If you look around at the resources that we have in this Province, if we look at the mining industry and the contribution that makes, and the pellet plant that went to Seven Islands - that should have been in Labrador - that would have offered thousands of jobs in construction, and full-time jobs in operation.

If we look at Voisey's Bay and the revenues that will be generated - and we see the revenues that will flow to the Government of Canada compared to what will flow to this Province under the existing rules, then we are not really the beneficiaries of that great resource.

We need more secondary processing in our fishing industry so that we ship final products out of this Province. This is where the jobs are in secondary processing and in the industries that are created.

The Voisey's Bay smelter has to be located in this Province. Certainly, we prefer it to be located in the Labrador portion, but, at any event, it has to be located somewhere in the Province. I think if we listen to statements that have been made recently by some of the advisors to the former Premier, Peter Woodward from Goose Bay, and the statements in The Telegram last week when he talked about: If the equalization formula were changed maybe we would not need a smelter in this Province. Then I totally disagree with that. I think that most people of this Province would disagree as well. We do not just need a change in the equalization formula, we need a change of attitude. We don't just need a change in the equalization formula, we need a change of attitude and we need a change that will bring jobs to this Province in secondary processing; not the way it was before, shipping out raw products and other people being the beneficiaries of our resources.

If we look at the oil refinery -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: You worry about your deal with the hospital and get that one straightened out first, I say to the Member for Twillingate.

If we look at the oil refinery in Come By Chance. The oil refinery is not allowed to sell one litre of oil in the rest of this country. At the same time, we have a great resource offshore, Hibernia, to be followed by others, that brings the oil to shore, in some cases, stores it for a while and ships it to other places to be processed. What is wrong with another refinery in this Province? What would be wrong with a petrochemical industry that will provide thousands of well-paying jobs to the people of this Province who need it, and keep the people who finished their education, at home, in the Province, where they want to be working at meaningful paying jobs?

So, Madame Speaker, there is a lot to be looked at when we consider equalization and clawback. It is not just a pure simple answer as reducing the rate. Although, that will help tremendously. We also have to look at being able to be masters of our own destiny in creating industries and being able to develop our resources to a degree that will provide the maximum potential benefits to the people of this Province in terms of royalties, employment and good paying jobs that will give people the satisfaction of being able to work and stay in the province were they were born, and where they would choose to live if they had a choice.

Madam Speaker, I encourage the federal government and the Province to continue to reduce the clawback and the equalization program. Anything that we can do to assist that, we would certainly - as the New Democratic Party - be willing to help.

I wish the Province luck. It is something that has to happen. It is not something that should happen, it is something that has to happen if we are ever going to be able to charter our own course and be masters of our own faith.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to rise today to support the resolution put forward by my colleague from Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Madam Speaker, the equalization program has been good for Newfoundland and Labrador. It has served us well in the past as we looked to develop resources, as we have looked to meet the daily programs and services that we must provide, and want to provide, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The program is shared by seven provinces across the country; not only ourselves here in Newfoundland and Labrador, but also by Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. This program is there to ensure that our provinces, and that the people who reside in these provinces, have the revenues that are necessary to provide them with quality of living, and quality of public services that are comparable to other people and other provinces within the country.

We have a good problem in Newfoundland and Labrador today, Madam Speaker. We are at a point in our history where we have made decisions to foster wealth from our resources, and it is paying off for us. We are at a time in our history where we are earning revenues from resource development. We are at a time when we need to be able to reinvest those revenues into infrastructure for our communities and for our people. Madam Speaker, the only way that we can do that is to balance the formula of equalization so that we have a reinvestment period in Newfoundland and Labrador, so that we have the opportunity to take those revenues that we accumulate and invest them into our communities, our districts, and our people around the Province.

The Member for Labrador West talked about the developments of Voisey's Bay. Voisey's Bay is a development that, yes, can provide a great deal of wealth for our people and for our Province, but we can no longer develop resources for the jobs of today. We have to be able to develop for the jobs of tomorrow so that we have a fund that we can reinvest for decades to come. We have to ensure that there is a cushion, there is protection, for the future generations. As a government, that is what we are doing. That is why it is so important today to make changes to the equalization formula so that we have that period of grace whereby we can reinvest; so that we can reinvest into the roads within our rural municipalities, so that we can upgrade the services to the people who need it, so that we can look at water and sewer plans, so that we can look at investing into small business and industry. That is what this is all about. It is about having a period in our history where we do deals to generate resources where we have a time frame in which we can us that development and those revenues to reinvest so that we catch up as well.

Now, I can see the day - and we are working towards that day, Madam Speaker - when we, as a Province, will no longer need equalization; when we, as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with the right choices for the future, will be able to stand in this House without asking for changes to formulas, without asking for a period of grace, that we will be able to do so using our own development funds; and I see that in the not too distant future because that is the agenda that we have set forward as a government. We have set out an agenda whereby we can maximize the development potential of all of our resources for today, tomorrow and for many generations to come.

When we look at the Voisey's Bay project, we have to look at what is there to be gained for us. If we are going to lose seventy cents on every dollar in revenue that we generate, is that a tremendous gain for us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? It is not. We have to look at where we can maximize 50 per cent, 100 per cent of that resource; where we are be able to do a deal that will provide the investment that is necessary to look at investing in other areas, in other sectors, whether it be in the shipyard, whether it be in the Port au Port Peninsula, whether it be in the Coast of Labrador, or in the Northern Peninsula. All areas of this Province need that, and we, as a government, have a responsibility to provide it. We are lobbying to change the equalization formula so that we can do just that; so that becomes the focus of our investment.

Madam Speaker, there are a number of options that have been proposed today, both by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and also by the Member for Trinity North who spoke, in terms of changes that can be made. I think they are good suggestion and good ideas.

I would hope that the minister, our minister, and I know that he will - we have tremendous confidence in him as he sits at the table with the finance ministers from across the country, from the seven provinces that are afflicted. While he sits and lobbies, discusses and puts forward a position on equalization that is to the benefit of Canada and to the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec, all of these provinces need the break as well as we do.

We, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, contribute now to the federal coffers. We contribute as individuals, as taxpayers, as people who invest. What we are asking the federal government, because of their prudent and fiscal management in Ottawa, we are now asking them to look at giving us a break as well. We have given them a break as provinces around the country. We have given them a break when they tried to get their fiscal operations in order, when they have paid down the tremendous debt that was passed along to them. We have been tolerant with them while they carried on their business. Today, they are a government that holds a surplus. They are a government that has made good, wise decisions. They have made good investments, and they are in a position to provide for the future of Canadians. What we are asking is that as a Province, that we have that option as well. That we be given the opportunity to use our resource development dollars to invest in our people, in our communities, so that we too can make decisions that are going to be to the benefit for future generations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I have said, and I have to reiterate because this is very important. It is important not only for us who sit here in the Legislature today, but it is important to the many others who will follow. The best thing that we can do as any member who sits here, is to ensure that the fiscal management and financial abilities of any government are good, strong and sustainable. In order to do that, we need to be able to accumulate the revenues that we earn. Whether it is from the Voisey's Bay project, whether it is from the oil and gas industry, whether it is from forestry development, whether it is from our waterways, or whatever the case may be, it is all revenue.

Today, we, as a government, have set the agenda whereby we have earned these revenues. We are not looking at what we can earn from Voisey's Bay and that we are afraid to lose it. We are not looking at what we can earn from oil and gas and being afraid to use it, but we have already earned it. We have earned good revenues from our resource development and that is the agenda we have set. We are going to continue that agenda, but this time we are going to continue with asking the federal government to give us some leeway here, to give us the opportunity that they have had as a national government to rebuild their revenues. We are asking that they give us that opportunity as well, so that we can make the proper investments as well.

I look at my own district, on the Coast of Labrador, and whereby we may not benefit directly from a development at Voisey's Bay - sure there will be jobs, but we need jobs for tomorrow as well, not just jobs for today. I see my district benefitting from equalization, because I see us being relieved of the social welfare and the social pressures that have been embarked upon us because of our commitments and our ties to this fund.

What I see happening is a lot of communities like those in my district being able to say to a government - our government, of course, at that time - that we need to have investment, we need to have infrastructure. We want to have some money invested in water and sewerage. We want to have some money invested into our roads. We have to have money invested into our health care system.

This is how we do it. We are generating the revenues, and now we need to have the mechanism to maintain them so that we are not losing 70 per cent of every dollar that we earn, so that we are not having to transfer our profits to the Government of Canada to redistribute. We want to distribute those monies directly ourselves. We want to have the opportunity to catch up to the rest of the country and to be able to surpass that, so that we reach a point in our history where we will not be dependent upon equalization whatsoever. Many think that it cannot happen; but it can, you know, and I think the Liberal Government of Canada has proven that. They have proven it through their fiscal management, through how they have paid down their debt, through how they have managed their surplus. Today we ask - you are in a position now to assist us - that you come on board. You give us the same opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador that we, as Canadians, have allowed you to have.

It is my pleasure today to speak to this motion, to support the points that have been put forward by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, whom I know does this in all sincerity because he believes that this Province is moving forward. He believes that we can have a better tomorrow and we are working towards making that happen.

I want to commend the member for his thought and foresight in putting together a resolution of this magnitude so that when our Minister of Finance goes back to sit at the table with the other Finance Ministers across the country, he is doing so knowing that he has the support of the people of this Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador behind him, that we wish him well, that we know he is up to the challenge, and that he will deliver this for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador!

Thank you.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wish to thank all the hon. members of the House today for unanimously supporting this resolution.

MR. J. BYRNE: We didn't vote yet.

MR. SWEENEY: You never spoke against it.

I wish the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's were here so I could respond to the comments he made.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is listening upstairs.

MR. SWEENEY: He is listening upstairs? Well, I am glad that he pointed out that the hon. Member for St. John's West spoke fives time in Ottawa regarding the equalization payments. I am glad that he has gone back to the party of twelve. It is unfortunate that they cannot even get together to make a few extra dollars by doing a sitting for a painting of The Last Supper. They do not have enough for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are no Judases, like with your crowd.

MR. SWEENEY: No, we took care of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. SWEENEY: No Judases.

Mr. Speaker, I move closure of this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn, I have sought leave of hon. members, and ask leave of the House, so that first reading be given to a motion introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992. (Bill 31)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992," carried. (Bill 31)

On motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, and the debate on the motion concluded, I declare the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.