Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Calgary West. I was not at all disturbed with the premise that we should be having this debate because there is a byelection occurring in Labrador. It is quite proper to bring issues from ridings to the floor when a byelection is about to take place. This may be the Reform Party's motive for bringing the motion forward, but in something like this when we are facing a byelection, we should be very honest with the voters and not attempt to raise false hopes.
I say that because I have listened to the debate very carefully. It is very clear that the existing contract is one which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and cannot be broken. I believe every member on the Liberal side would agree with me that it has been a most inequitable contract and that Newfoundland and Labrador is not getting its fair share in this.
However, the Reform Party is also a party which argues very strongly for provincial rights as opposed to federal power: decentralization and more sovereignty to the provinces. Therefore, we get into a contradiction because even though it is an inequitable contract, I do not think we can ever realistically believe that the current Quebec government or even its predecessors would ever agree to the reopening of the contract at a cost to the province of Quebec of $200 million to $300 million annually if the contract were to be renegotiated in a fair manner.
The motion states that "this House condemn the government for refusing to resolve the injustice of the Churchill Falls hydro contract". If, heaven forbid, the member for Calgary West actually were the leader of a party that had the majority in this House, if the Reform Party ever arrived at that happy state, what would he do to resolve this injustice without actually breaking the contract that exists or without actually applying great federal power on the province? It seems to me he would have great difficulty.