December

13, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 53

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin routine proceedings, the Chair would like to

welcome to the House of Assembly today, in the galleries, forty grade IX

students from St. Peter's Elementary School in Upper Island Cove in the District

of Port de Grave, accompanied by their instructors, Mr. Wade Reid and Mr. Calvin

Peddle. As well, there are sixteen journalist students from Lawrence College

here in St. John's, accompanied by their instructor, Mr. William Callahan, who

is also a former member of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, most consumers considering purchasing a car or

truck may be inclined to wait for the rate reduction which will come from tax

harmonization in the Spring. I am pleased to announce today that we have chosen

to lower the provincial sales tax on vehicle sales now to encourage consumers to

continue their normal buying habits, rather than delay purchases until April 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The good news is compounded for the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, effective midnight tonight, government will

reduce the amount of Retail Sales Tax applied to sales of cars and trucks by

registered dealers in the Province from 12 per cent to 8 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: The rate decrease for these automobile sales

comes almost four months before the effective tax harmonization date which will

see an overall rate reduction for most goods and services from almost 20 per

cent to 15 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: To illustrate, on a $20,000 vehicle purchased

from a registered dealer consumers will save $856 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Order, please, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: - with a rate reduction from 12 per cent to 8

per cent. This is a significant amount of money which normally may have

influenced a consumer to defer a purchase until harmonization is in place. Now,

effective tonight, consumers will be able to take advantage of these significant

savings.

The sales tax rate reduction will apply only to the purchase

of automobiles from registered dealers. Private sales of motor vehicles will

continue at 12 per cent until April 1, 1997 since they currently are not subject

to the GST. New and existing leased vehicles will not be eligible for the

reduced RST rate, however, effective April 1, 1997, these lease payments will be

lower as they will be subject to a reduced federal/provincial Harmonized Sales

Tax (HST) of 15 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, we have considered whether this reduction should

be offered on other categories of goods and services. However, we were not

convinced that it was necessary to offer a similar reduction on other goods and

services to avoid a substantial shift in consumer spending during the first

quarter of 1997.

We are delighted to offer this tax decrease on automobile

purchases and view it as a positive and constructive one for consumers in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Merry Christmas to all, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This statement shows the government's confidence in the

legislation by bringing it in on Friday 13. Its shows their faith, I say, in

harmonization. Now, this is the same government who cheered here two weeks ago,

and pounded their desks, when a minister rose and told us that jobs went down by

4.2 per cent. This is the same government that told us GDP went down by 2.9 per

cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are starting to implement HST before

this Legislature has had a chance to even speak on it once, before the public of

the Province have any opportunity for public consultation. It is an admission,

Mr. Speaker, it is an admission that we have a big problem with this HST, and I

say to the minister, what we will see is a piecemeal amendment by amendment.

Where, I ask, is the decrease on gas to put in that car, where it is now

doubled? Where is the break on children's clothing and school supplies, I ask

the minister? Where are the basic services that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick

have indicated they are going to give to their people, I ask the minister? It is

not acceptable to start implementing legislation before we have an opportunity

for this Legislature to even debate the issue, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, scrapping the GST and hiding it under

an HST is what they are doing, but we will see the real problem. The real

problem will arise, I say, in less than four years time when that chunk of money

runs out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I hear good news from the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, I am always waiting for the other shoe to drop, so I am

wondering what is the bad news that is going to follow this good news; but

unless you are a person who bought a car last week, it is obviously good news.

I would, however, think it would be also incumbent to give a

break to people who are buying used cars on the used car private market. These

are people who need the break more perhaps than those who are able to buy new

cars through a dealer, and if the true spirit of Christmas would allow the

minister, to extend this release to other people who happen not to be able to

buy new cars, but in fact are forced to buy used cars because of financial

circumstances. So I am pleased with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I do say: Beware of `geeks' bearing gifts,

but -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House today of two

more reports on student performance, firstly, a report of primary mathematics

achievement and secondly, a report of basic skills upon entering the high school

level. These results, Mr. Speaker, are very promising. These reports, like the

results of the Third International Assessment of Mathematics and Science

released recently, show that the students in our schools are slowly but surely

moving towards our explicit goal of reaching world class standards in our

education system.

The results of the mathematics testing done at the end of

Grade 3 in the last school year, Mr. Speaker, show that the students of primary

school have achieved most of the objectives of the mathematics program. The

provincial average for the total test is 81.6 per cent and this score, Mr.

Speaker, indicates improvement over the last testing done in 1993 when the

provincial average was 74.3 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The results of the high school assessment of

basic skills in reading, vocabulary, language skills, mathematics and work study

skills showed that our provincial composite score was equal to the Canadian

average. The Canadian Test of Basic Skills is a regular testing program of the

Department of Education which measures achievement of our students at the

beginning of Grades 4, 7 and 10 and at the end of high school on an annual

rotating basis. It shows how approximately 8,000 Grade 10 students who wrote the

test performed in a number of basic skills compared to that of the Canadian

average.

The results of both assessments showed a considerable range

of achievement between school districts and schools. For the Grade 3 Mathematics

test there was no difference in the performance of boys and girls. On the

Canadian Test of Basic Skills, girls tended to perform better than boys with the

greatest difference in language arts skills at the Grade 10 level. Urban

students, Mr. Speaker, scored consistently higher than rural students on these

tests, but these differences were much more pronounced at the Grade 10 level.

Mr. Speaker, accountability to the public of this Province is

a top priority of the Government, and we will continue to monitor achievement

with the intent of determining where resources need to be targeted to improve

learning of all students.

Copies of the two reports, Mr. Speaker, are available upon

request from the Department of Education. 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. The teacher in

the hon. minister shines through once again. He always has something to give us

and here we are on Friday morning with more things to be given to the people

surrounding him. The teacher shines through with another good news story but in

all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, this is a good news story. It is a good news story

because there appears to be certainly an improvement with respect to the

achievement levels of the students here in our Province with respect to primary

mathematics and the report on basis skills upon entering high school. However,

Mr. Speaker, there is still some concern and the concern is addressed and

noticed in the ministerial statement itself when it says there is a considerable

range of achievement between school districts and schools. It points out as well

that urban students scored consistently higher than rural students, and that is

an area of concern. That is why we must always ensure that all students in this

Province, regardless of which community they live, which community they attend

school, that they have the facilities, they have the personnel, they have the

resources, to ensure not that they reach equality with one another in this

Province, or equality throughout this country -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - or that they even surpass the

standards throughout this country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that the school results are as promising

as the minister points out. It proves that we are certainly as smart as the

average Canadian student. I think this is good news, but I am surprised to hear

this given the reports that we had a couple of years ago from Dr. Bob Crocker,

that the previous minister was waving around. I do not know what has happened in

the last two years. Maybe students are studying harder, or maybe they are given

different tests, or maybe it is a change of government philosophy in what test

results they put out, but it seems a bit suspicious that this is the situation.

I have the same concerns as expressed by the Member for St.

John's East about the variety of results, and something has to be done to ensure

that every student has an equal opportunity to perform well in tests and get a

good education.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions

today for the Minister of Finance.

I ask the minister if he has the commitment from the federal

Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, guaranteeing participation of other provinces

in the harmonized tax deal.

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

MR. DICKS: Yes we do, Mr. Speaker. We are guaranteed that

Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the federal

government will participate in the combined sales tax.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe the minister is not aware that these

other provinces did sign the deal already - guarantees of other provinces

besides those who signed the deal.

Anyway, I will move on and ask him: Have you given the

federal Minister of Finance a deadline with respect to having the other seven

provinces join in?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has

admitted that low income families will suffer because tax is more than double on

children's clothing, on school supplies, on oil, gas and electricity. I ask the

minister, how will he help those low income families when they are faced with

this problem come April 1?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, the government has never said

that. What we said consistently, based on the analysis by the officials of the

Department of Finance, is that incomes as low as $10,000 per family per year

will show a net tax reduction of $183 per annum. As it increases the tax gross

saving, or the gross saving goes up, but the percentage compared with income

goes down, because of consumer spending habits. So there will be no impact on

low income families as we see it. What I've said is that we are concerned. We

are going to monitor it, and should it prove necessary to offer some form of

relief because individuals are unfairly affected. The government is prepared to

consider that. At this stage we have no evidence, and in fact all the evidence

is to the contrary.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe to the

Premier. The Premier says he has only been here for eight months. Well, I guess

my calculations, January to December, sounds more like eleven months to me. He

asked people to be patient. Why doesn't he give the same due consideration to

the people of this Province? Will the Premier hold public meetings in the new

year and let people discuss this harmonized tax deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

has just stood and said to the government opposite that he does not want to see

the sales tax rate for new vehicles in the Province being reduced as of midnight

tonight. We think it is appropriate to proceed with that reduction, and we think

it is appropriate because we have confidence, the majority of members in this

House, in the positive impacts of harmonization to proceed without delay. That

is why we are putting forward a bill, that is why we will seek passage of the

bill, and that is why we look forward with anticipation to the benefits of the

first real tax decrease since 1949 in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

on April 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier's

listening skills are no better than his math skills in adding up how long he has

been in office, I say to the Premier. Will the Premier tell me why his friend

the Minister of Finance in Ottawa had original plans to implement his HST or the

BST throughout the entire country, but now it is being pushed on only three

Atlantic provinces? Can the Premier confirm that this is the initial stage of

unionizing Atlantic Canada and fulfilling his dream of selling this to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, obviously the impact of the

last election has left the Leader of the Opposition shell-shocked. Because my

math skills are just fine. The election was February 22. The Cabinet was sworn

in, and the government was sworn in, on March 15. I stand by my claim of how

long we have been in office.

Now the Leader of the Opposition may be reeling from the

dates, but I assure him we are very good at adding up the numbers over on this

side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition: If

the Leader of the Opposition wants to continue to pay 20 per cent sales tax, we

will make a special exemption for him, but the rest of the people of the

Province want to go down by five points to 15 per cent, and it is time we showed

a little confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador, a little confidence in our

ability to build a better Province, and we invite the Leader of the Opposition

to step out from this continuous forecast. He is like the weatherman, always

forecasting rain, drizzle and fog. Well, there is a little sunshine out there as

well, and it is time he saw some of it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be delighted to step out and debate the Premier in

public on this matter at any time, any date, at your invitation, I say to the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, since this is free-for-all Friday, I

ask the Minister of Mines and Energy one question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have been waiting for the Minister of

Mines and Energy to ask him: Earlier this week we learned of government

interference in a dispute between Hydro and the Come By Chance refinery. It

seems, Minister, that this interference is continuing. I ask the minister: Can

he confirm that Hydro officials were able to negotiate a wage increase for their

union employees but were prevented from offering the same to management

positions until government told them it was okay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

says he wants to debate this in public any time, any place. This is the time and

place, and this is public. This is the public House, the people's House, and if

he has something to say, say it here if it is substantive.

Mr. Speaker, as for the Minister of Mines and Energy, the

assertion that there has been any undue interference or improper representations

with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is absolutely false, and the

Leader of the Opposition should go to bed every night giving thanks for the kind

of leadership we are getting from this minister. That is why we have an offshore

oil and gas industry that is growing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: That is why Hibernia is moving, and Terra

Nova is moving, transshipment terminals being built, Amoco is coming back for

the first time next year to drill wells in the offshore. That is why we have the

largest smelter/refinery complex in all of the world being built in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: That is why we have 270 million pounds of

nickel annually going to be produced in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is sounding like Scrooge, and he ought to be thanking Santa Claus for his good

work!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just say to the Premier: Does that mean you are afraid or

not prepared to debate me on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am shaking in my boots!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier started his

own church, or his own religion, I would be the first to join.

Mr. Speaker, in May of 1995, I brought a bill to this House

that would greatly boost the donation of food by supermarkets and other

companies to this Province's food banks. Even though similar legislation had a

tremendous and positive impact in Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,

Ontario, and all fifty states, the government here, in its wisdom, sent the bill

to a committee composed of agrifoods, health, and social services ministers to

study it and report back to the House at an early time.

Can either one of those ministers, or the Premier, tell me

where this bill or this piece of legislation sits today, eighteen months later?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.

member for his very good question. It is the best question we have had today, a

question concerned about the welfare of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

and in particular, at this time of year, concerned about those who have least

amongst us. I want to say to the member, I don't know the answer to the question

because obviously the initiative predates my time here but I am going to find

out where the bill has gone. We are going to investigate, as a government, what

we can do in the upcoming budget to give a greater measure of comfort and

security and particularly in the area of food to those who need it most and I

thank him for his question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Premier, children are going to school

hungry and it is undermining their education, as the Special Education Report

clearly tells us. Food banks are stretched to breaking point especially with

Christmas approaching. Why is it so difficult for this government to follow in

the successful path of all those other provinces and states and pass legislation

this fall making it easier for supermarkets and other companies to donate food

to needy families, especially at this time of Christmas?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will note

that the government has just recently provided for an additional $225,000 to

ensure that up to 5,000 children in fact can have a meal in this Province. I say

to the hon. member, that if he has a suggestion as to how - and I think he is

putting one - how that kind of program, that kind of initiative can be expanded,

how it can involve the private sector and involve other volunteer agencies, I

say to him, putting aside the normal partisanship of the House, that this side

of the House would be happy to sit and work with him and all members to see that

we give the greatest amount of relief, the greatest amount of help to those who

need it most in this society and I welcome his contribution to that discussion

and debate.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Premier, this piece of legislation will

not cost the government one red cent. I have in my possession a copy of the

legislation, Bill 100, that came before this House in 1995. I ask the Premier if

the government is prepared to allow me to bring back to the House for debate and

to give notice of it here today, that the government this time, will support

early passage of this piece of legislation for the sake of hungry children in

this Province today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to say to the

member that the House Leader on this side of the House with the agreement of the

House Leader on that side of the House should sit and have a discussion about

this bill today and we will consider whether we will give it passage in the next

day or two. Is that the hon. members intention?

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I would like to say that it is very positive that our hotels

are now starting to get booked for major events for the Cabot 500 celebrations.

Hopefully, they will also start to get booked up for those periods next summer

when there are not major events planned. Yesterday I asked the minister what she

intended to do concerning the shortage of rooms during major events next summer,

during the Cabot 500 celebrations? She told me that everything was under

control. There is no need to panic, no need for fearmongering, she was

implementing a home-stay program. I ask the minister why the hotels in Corner

Brook are unaware of the home-stay program? I called these hotels last night,

they told me that they were unaware of the program, it was the first they heard

of it. Doesn't the minister feel that the hotels should be informed of this

program so that instead of turning needed tourist and needed tourist dollars

away during the major events next summer, they can offer an alternative

accommodations program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would be most pleased to answer

that question. Obviously when you placed your telephone calls last night you did

not speak to the right people. We have been working very closely with he owners

of the hotels in Corner Brook through Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador. If

you would so wish, I can supply the names of the people we have been working

with through Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and the hotel owners to

provide you the details of our backup plan. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

minister unless she is going to have the owners of the hotels sit on the

reservation desks and tell people of the home-stay program, maybe it should be

the people that are on the desks that are offering the home-stay program. These

people were unaware of the program. The hotel operator in Twillingate last night

told me that he has turned dozens and dozens of people away that he has been

booked up for quite some time. He is unable to take extra reservations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would love nothing

more than to see as many tourists as possible stay here next summer. I am not

trying to create a problem here or fearmongering. I am trying to suggest an

alternative so that we don't drive tourists away. Would it not be better, I ask

the minister, for the community and the economy to have an alternative

arrangement in place today so that front desk operators can offer tourists help

instead of turning them away?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, we have been working very closely

with the hotel industry. It is at their request that they have asked us to work

with them about a home-stay program. They will in fact be administering the

home-stay program when it becomes necessary. It is not necessary at this stage.

If we have hotel owners who are turning people away would you please give me the

names so that I can address this matter, because I am being told by Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador, and the hotel owners, that it is not necessary at

this time to put the home-stay program in place until the rooms are full. If

this is in fact happening right now I will expect a report on my desk by Monday

morning and we will be starting to implement a home-stay program.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: I am most happy to give you an example. The

Anchor Hotel in Twillingate is already booked and they are sending people away:

no, I am sorry we cannot take anymore tourists. That is a good example there.

Will you act on that today, and can you table in the House today a copy of your

report showing that there is a home-stay program being put in place? The Cabot

Year starts only nineteen days from now and serious tourists are already making

reservations and plans for next summer. I ask the minister, should she not have

plans in place that she can offer us today, and offer the hotel operator in

Twillingate today, and offer the hotel operators in Corner Brook today, that

will give them the opportunity to provide alternate accommodations and keep the

tourists in their communities where the tourists will spend much needed tourist

dollars starting now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hotel owner in

Twillingate or the hotel owner in Corner Brook rooms for next year. We cannot

build hundreds of rooms by next year, but I have been out just as recently as

two weeks ago, to speak to the Tourism Association in Twillingate. As a matter

of fact I spoke in the Anchor Hotel and met with the owner of that hotel, and at

that time he did not have a concern. I will call the owner of that hotel today

and speak to the Tourism Association in Twillingate today to ensure that a

home-stay program that we have discussed with them can be implemented quite

quickly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: My question today is for the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the acting Government House Leader who

last night in five minutes broke a gridlock that was going on for hours and

hours, so I want to compliment the minister on that.

MR. TULK: Some man, what?

MR. J. BYRNE: He is some man. When the minister confirmed

that the main stumbling block in his regionalization plan, and the main thing

making towns wary about embracing the scheme is their fear that the Province

will use it as an excuse to download even more financial responsibility to the

municipal governments which do not have the tax base or the financial resources

to carry these costs, and is the minister prepared to admit that it makes no

sense to download more costs to municipalities when in most areas the industrial

tax base and employment income has shrunk so badly that the towns cannot cover

the costs they now have?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, what a disappointing statement

to hear from the Opposition this morning. For the past two months I have been

travelling around the Province and with the exception of three areas now I have

held meetings everywhere in the Province. Municipalities are basically telling

me, mayor and councillors around the Province, that regionalization could be a

salvation for some communities.

To think that we as a government are suggesting to

municipalities the concept of regionalization, because that is all we are doing,

suggesting the concept to them. We are not going to impose it. We have no

intention of imposing it, and if town councils in the Province wish to pursue

that idea it is entirely up to themselves. I have problems answering the

question because I am shocked to think that the Opposition are indicating here

this morning that they are against helping municipalities through the

regionalization process. That sort of throws me and that is why I am having

difficulty answering the question. To suggest that we are proposing to download

further on municipalities, through the regionalization concept, Mr. Speaker, is

totally unwarranted. It really would not have anything to do with government

funding to municipalities because right from the outset, and we will continue to

offer the regionalization approach on a volunteer basis so towns themselves

would decide whether they want to take

part in the regionalization concept so

the answer has to be no, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

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

The minister is using the tactics of the Premier by twisting

the question. We are not suggesting that we are against regionalization, we are

only asking questions to try to get some answers, Mr. Speaker.

Regionalization means roads in local service districts and

connected roads between municipalities, in other words, the responsibility of

the government will become the responsibility of the municipal or regional

governments.

How much does the minister anticipate saving by downloading

these costs to this lower form of government and, where are these lower orders

of government going to find the money, from an already overtaxed public to cover

the cost of these major, new responsibilities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, that is not what

regionalization means. I can't go any further than that in answer other than the

fact to tell the hon. member that he does not know, apparently what

regionalization means, to ask a question like that.

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

supplementary.

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

The minister knows full-well that if regionalization comes in

place that the next step in the process is the downloading of roads to these

regional governments.

Can the minister answer this question: How many requests does

the minister have in his department from towns and communities that wish to turn

back the clock to a simpler time, to reduce their municipal services, eliminate

some of the infrastructure, cut their costs and chalk their tax rates down to

the bare minimum which is all the people can afford? Now we know we have a bill

going through the House that is going to disallow the disestablishment of town

councils back to communities and, is the minister open to any requests?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague and

critic from across the way must have read Eugene Conway's, the defeated PC

candidate's letter in The Compass , just last week.

Mr. Conway is the Mayor of Conception Harbour and he wrote an

article some time ago not knowing anything about what he was talking about, not

one thing. He did not have one iota of a clue or an inkling of what he was

talking about in the paper and it seems to me, that the hon. member is repeating

almost verbatim, what Mr. Conway said.

So I say to the hon. member: If you want time, on Monday

morning, come over in my office and I will sit you down and I will go through

the regionalization process with you. Because those questions you are asking me

today are totally off the wall! You do not know what you are talking about, Sir,

and I challenge you to prove some of the things that you are saying.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a couple of questions this morning for the minister

responsible for forestry. As we all know, we have concerns about the overall

state of the forestry. As with our fishery, there is a - we did not listen. I

guess a lot of governments have learned that over the years. We did not listen

to fishermen. Of course, loggers and other people have many concerns with the

forestry.

So in that respect, the wood supply analysis is a very

important part of the analysis of the entire state of the forestry in this

Province. I understand that the amendment was made and that in 1997 the wood

supply analysis should be released. That is the deadline date. I would like to

ask the minister today for the record in the House if the wood supply analysis

is indeed ready, or if it is not ready, when will it be ready?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. member

that I thank him for his question, it is very important. As he has heard me say

a number of times in the media in the Province, the wood supply analysis is now

in the Cabinet process at a certain stage. As soon as Cabinet has dealt with it,

which should be in the short term as opposed to the long term, long before March

1997, we will then make a decision as to when and where and if it is going to be

made public.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I thank the minister for his answer, Mr.

Speaker. On a more local scene, but of course it reflects other parts of the

Province. In my district of Baie Verte there are some 200 loggers who work in

private sawmills on that peninsula. Also in the White Bay area, the Hampden

area, there are also many private sawmill operators in that area. I am not sure

exactly of the numbers in that area. But just on the Baie Verte peninsula there

are some 200 loggers in the woods.

They are waiting on an answer on what the TAC for them will

be next year. There is talk of a 50 per cent reduction, which would basically

wipe out half of those loggers. I ask the minister if he would tell the House

today and tell those loggers when they can expect an answer, not just for next

year but for a longer term.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I

have had conversations with him outside of this House, as the Member for Baie

Verte. I have committed myself to the people of that area, both of the Baie

Verte Peninsula and of the Hampden area, that I would come and sit down with

them and discuss the issue. The problem is simple. It is that the salvage wood

operation that went on there for fifteen to twenty years has now come to an end.

There is another problem, of course, and that is the woods is becoming far more

mechanized than it was. There is another problem with union contracts. I have

committed to those people, as the hon. member knows, to come down either the

last part of January or early February to sit down and discuss the problem with

them and hopefully give them some sort of hope and solutions to their problems.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As an MHA for a district within the city of St. John's, I am

always concerned when I hear the Southlands issue being raised, and it does

raise itself as an issue from time to time publicly, and from time to time here

in this hon. House. My question is for the hon. Minister of Social Services, who

is a city MHA, what her position is with respect to the Southlands development.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's question is out of order. The hon. minister

can only answer questions for the department for which she is responsible, and

not as a private member of the House.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the hon. Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs if he could give some guidance to members of this House with

respect to the Southlands issue. What is this government doing with respect to

finalizing and determining a conclusion to this somewhat troublesome issue for

many people in this region of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider it a

troublesome issue for people living in this area of the Province. I do not

consider Southlands to be troublesome or a liability to anyone. Whoever has the

honour of having Southlands in the next ten or twenty years, it will certainly

be an asset to them.

I answered the same question here some three weeks ago. We

are now reviewing a number of areas which are included in the portfolio of

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. When we get through that process - it is

coinciding with the total review process - we will have a better idea of where

we are going.

I ask the hon. member to sit tight. I have told the City of

St. John's that they have to assume right now, for planning reasons and for

election reasons next year, that Southlands will stay for the time being where

it is. The question is being reviewed, and when the answers are forthcoming I

will provide the answers to this House and the hon. member, and to the City of

St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl, but I cannot answer his question

directly today because of the fact that we are reviewing this. Please give us

the time to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this morning is for the Minister of Health.

Over the last couple of days -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) rowdy man.

MR. FRENCH: Well, it is a good thing you were not here;

it might have been rowdier. But this is a more serious thing than really paying

attention to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Over the last several days, Mr. Minister, a gentleman has

died in the community of St. Lawrence because of a health care problem. He had

waited for over a year to come into the Health Sciences Centre to have very

serious surgery performed. He apparently had waited a year. He went up to number

twenty-five on the waiting list, and after his death the family found out that

he had been moved down to number twenty-nine. Can the minister tell us today if

he has investigated this very serious tragedy and, if so, what measures he has

put in place to make sure that this never happens again?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the discussion on CBC Radio this morning with respect

to a certain situation, and I gather that is the one to which the hon. member is

referring. It is always unfortunate, and it is one of the difficulties that I

frankly find, in being Minister of Health, to become more acutely aware on a

daily basis of people who unfortunately pass away as a result of illnesses, for

whatever reason. It is difficult particularly when people are younger in life

and they find themselves ill and needing medical treatment.

The situation to which he refers is not one that I am going

to discuss publicly in this Chamber or outside. I have not had representation

from anybody to suggest that there has been a difficulty with the health care

system, other than what I have heard on the radio, of course, vis--vis this

situation. I can tell the hon. member, though, two or three things.

Number one, last year, I would remind him, we did generally

put an extra $1.5 million in our budget to help address the waiting lists we

have for cardiac surgery at the Health Sciences Centre.

I can tell him also that over the past short time we have

increased the number of angioplasty procedures that we do at the Health Sciences

Centre by about 20 per cent. We have upped and increased our capacity to perform

that procedure.

I can tell him, thirdly, that as a result of the generosity

of the unions of this Province, particularly those at the Hibernia site -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - we now have a Cath lab at the Health

Sciences that is second-to-none in terms of its quality, its capability, and its

efficiency.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: And that will only further add to our

ability to get the job done in the area of health care, vis--vis cardiac

problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for one quick supplementary. The hon. the Member

for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Health that I certainly hope he will

investigate this very serious incident. I also heard one of the doctors from the

Health Sciences Centre on this morning who said that he really didn't wait a

year; he only waited six months. I guess that is very cold comfort to the

family.

I ask the minister, now that he has had the report of the

Burin Peninsula Hospital Corporation for probably a week or more: Has the

minister had time to review it? And has he made a decision as to what happens to

the chairman of the health care board on the Burin Peninsula?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have already answered that question on previous occasions.

I have a copy of the report that was done for the Peninsula's Health Care

Corporation Board of Directors. They are acting on full implementation of all of

the twelve recommendations that are in that report, and the one that deals with

the peer review of the CEO, I understand, is in progress and will be done in a

timely fashion so as to ensure that every recommendation, including that one, is

in fact acted upon appropriately.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to report to the House that pursuant to Standing Order

54.1, the Standing Committee on Social Services has reviewed and approved Bill

44, "An Act Respecting Judgement Enforcement," for passage through the remaining

stages of this House, with an amendment to provide for the striking of the

Committee to review the legislation within three years of the proclamation of

the bill. Specifically, the amendment reads: After the expiration of not greater

than three years and after the coming into force of this act, the minister shall

refer the act to a Committee for the purpose of undertaking a comprehensive

review of the provisions and operation of this act.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on

a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Premier, now that he has had a chance to review Bill 100, and after a brief

explanatory statement from me, I ask the Premier if he is now prepared to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not a point of order. Is the hon. member asking leave?

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask if he is now willing to introduce

this bill for first reading and if he has problems with some of the wording

there, then maybe this wording can be changed when the bill goes to Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the

member for drawing to the attention of the House and the attention of the

government, the draft bill. The bill, Mr. Speaker, as you would know, has not

been printed for introduction to the House at this time, therefore technically,

it cannot be introduced at this time but I want to undertake to the hon. member,

that we will take the weekend and arrange consultations with both House Leaders

from both parties, analyze the bill and do precisely what the member has just

said, make sure that technically we have it right and that we are facilitating a

bill that will allow for good food, quality food, to be made available to the

food banks of the Province, to be made available to those who can use it.

We all want to ensure that we are not setting a standard of

one quality of food for those who are able to purchase it and a lesser quality

of food for those who have to depend upon donations. Well, we want to make sure

we are not and that we are doing the right thing and, Mr. Speaker, indeed I have

had quick consultations around the House. This was a concern raised by the

Leader of the NDP and I think it is a fair concern so we will take the weekend

to do consultations.

Mr. Speaker, we undertake, if we can have proper

consultations and we can craft the right kind of bill that achieves the right

intent and purpose, that by next week, as we come back for a number of days next

week, that we can deal with this bill, facilitate the provision of good food

which now is going to waste in this Province, to make it available to food

banks, and I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this to our attention.

This is what Parliament should be able to do from time to time, to respond to

good ideas and pressing needs in a timely fashion. So I thank the member for

bringing this to our attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition by 277 Newfoundlanders

from St. John's, Mount Pearl and areas of Conception Bay who are concerned about

the issue of school bus safety. The undersigned residents of the Province of

Newfoundland petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of

Education to legislate a paid, adult bus monitor program for all school buses in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The petitioners say they find that students are presently

unsupervised and are at risk in their safety going to and from schools on school

buses and the safety of children is being compromised.

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are part of a very large and

significant group of Newfoundland and Labrador parents who have reason to be

concerned about the safety of their children on school buses. Now, Mr. Speaker,

this is not something that just arises out of the recent death by a student in

Holy Family School, who was a primary school student, who in October, died as a

result of a school bus accident. This may have prompted the investigation and

the concern that was raised but this is not, I say, just a knee-jerk reaction to

that. This is the result of a serious look at the issue of school bus safety as

it affects students in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when you think that up to seventy-two students

can be travelling in a school bus, supervised in theory by one person whose real

attention ought to be and is directed to driving the school bus, concerning him

or herself with traffic and with the operation of a school bus, with road safety

and with other hazards of the road that the supervision of up to seventy-two

children ranging in age perhaps from five and six in kindergarten to teenagers

who can be a little bit rambunctious. The details of supervising these students

both on the bus and as they alight from the bus or get on the bus is not

something that can seriously be undertaken by a single person who is actually

driving the bus.

The petitioners have also from Holy Family School organized a

school bus safety committee which has put together a very decent brief, Mr.

Speaker, dated December 10 and I am sure the minister has already received a

copy of this brief. It is signed by the principal of Holy Family School and the

chairperson of the Holy Family School bus safety committee. It is a very

comprehensive brief, very well thought out and puts the argument quite squarely

to the minister. It talks about the statistics and they are surprising

statistics, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I was not aware of the school bus safety

record until it was pointed out by these individuals. The statistics provided by

government itself tells the story that between 1985 and 1995 there have been 591

bus accidents, 591 accidents with school buses with 155 bus related injuries and

up until 1995, five fatalities. The sixth one being in October of this year.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a dismal record and speaks for itself of the need for

school bus safety. If we have had 591 school bus accidents in a ten year period

- with the addition of this recent fatality - six fatalities related to school

buses and the operation of school buses, it certainly speaks to the need for a

great deal of supervision and a great deal of care.

As was pointed out by the petitioners and in the brief, the

need is for a paid adult monitoring program because the kind of commitment that

will be required to ensure school bus safety is a serious one. Up to four hours

a day would be required to provide proper supervision. That is not something

that one can expect of a volunteer on an ongoing basis, if we are going to

ensure proper and adequate school bus safety. It is not something that

volunteers ought to be doing. It ought to be done by properly trained,

adequately insured, careful, consistent and therefore professional and paid

care. Something that should be done, Mr. Speaker, we do spend a terrific amount

of money on school buses, there is no question about that but that is going to

be reduced significantly by the efforts of the changes in government policy,

going to be reduced significantly, $2 million or $3 million this year I think is

the figure that the Minister of Education has put about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: The previous Minister of Education has

claimed that he could save up to $8 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - or more in a new program and some of that -

if I may for a few seconds continue - some of that should be used -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. HARRIS: - some of that should be used to provide -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. HARRIS: - a paid adult school bus monitoring program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise again today

to support the petition put forward by my colleague from Signal Hill -Quidi

Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is the same type of petition which

has been coming to members of this House on a regular basis. Petitions have been

presented to all members or just about all members on both sides of the House in

the last little while. We want to note again this morning the fact that this

petition is about value. It is about the value we place on children and the

value that we place on children's safety. We feel that there cannot be any

compromises.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have said here in this House on a

previous occasion, I have had the sad experience of being at a school and

knowing that something has happened on the parking lot, and being called to the

parking lot. Then to find that the rear wheels of a school bus had run over a

twelve-year-old boy. I can tell you that it is a traumatic experience that will

stay with one for the rest of one's life. I can say to you today that when we

know that from this report that has been presented by the principal and the

teachers and staff of Holy Family School in Paradise, and we know that since

1985 there have been 591 bus accidents recorded, and there have been 155

bus-related injuries. We assume that this is a tremendous expense on the health

care system. When you have 155 injuries that means that some children will

suffer long-term problems as a result of the accident that occurred in the

school bus. We have had five fatalities, six if we include the young child who

was killed there a few weeks ago.

I can only tell you that a report done by the Janeway a

couple of years ago told us that one-quarter of the health care budget in this

Province is spent on accident-related problems. In fact, the report that was

done, which was done by a national group, found that in 1994, I think it was,

over $200 million in this Province was spent in accident-related injuries. This

wasn't all children. This wasn't all in the Janeway. This was the total bill

(inaudible) Workers Compensation, it covers the whole gamut of injuries. We have

to do something about prevention.

If we have learned one thing from the bicycle safety helmet

program it is that you can look at the stats at the Janeway today, and look at

the stats at the Janeway shall we say ten years ago. If you compare those

statistics you will come to the very obvious conclusion that prevention is

working very well when it comes to bicycle helmet safety. In fact, we have lots

of stats that show that that was a very good program, and still is.

I say to the hon. the minister, look at the fact of we are

spending over $200 million in health care a year in this Province to help to

address the issue and the consequences of injuries in total. That is a stat that

is available to the government. I say to the minister as well, look at the

tremendous success and the savings that have come from the bicycle helmet safety

program. Be proactive. Because every dollar that you spend in trying to prevent

injury is saved in the health care budget. Therefore we aren't talking about new

dollars. We are going to spend them anyway. We are going to spend the money.

Either we are going to spend it at the Janeway and spend it at the hospitals, or

we are going to spend it in trying to be more proactive and more preventative in

our philosophy.

Therefore it is called let's do the right thing, let's be on

the side of safety, let's put greater value on prevention, let's put greater

value on the safety and the lives of our children, and let's do it in a concrete

manner -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - and you don't have to find any new

dollars to do it. It can be done in a proactive way by transferring money from

one department's budget -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - into another one in a positive manner.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly again

with respect to this issue, because I don't want to prolong a debate on the

petition. I understand clearly that the parents who signed the petition are

serious about the issues of school bus safety. Again though, I've already

signalled to the parents when we met them that they should not expect the

government, from taxpayers dollars, to pay salaries for adult paid bus monitors.

Maybe the members opposite might get the tape from one of the

radio stations this morning on the morning show where some parents from another

part of the Province - as a matter of fact, they made a presentation at one of

the public consultation meetings, parents from Bonavista North, who were on the

radio this morning encouraging the government not to pay for adult monitors

because they firmly believe that if we are going to spend money in education, or

other areas, that there are other areas and needs where we should spent the

money. They described a circumstance which is available to any parents today who

feel this is a priority, to volunteer two hours of their time a day, two hours

in the morning or two hours in the afternoon. If they think that is the number

one priority they can get on the buses now anytime, as those parents in

Bonavista North explained, and be volunteer adult monitors.

The legislation that we have before the House provides for

school boards and schools to charge a fee. We described yesterday in response to

the petition that for the government it is a $4.5 million item, because we could

not say we are going to put monitors on your bus but we are not going to put

them on yours. We are going to use them in Conception Bay South but we are not

going to use them in Labrador. If you are going to put in a general policy it is

a $4.5 million bill if you accept that the wage is going to be only $6.00 an

hour, which is just above the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to that, the whole point is that

parents elsewhere are saying, volunteer or do what the people in St. John's are

doing who were not offered busing and decided to spent $10.00 a month themselves

to get busing. If adult monitoring paid is the priority for any parents today,

they can organize themselves, and pay a small fee of $5.00 or $10.00 a month. If

they are so concerned that the safety of their children is absolutely being

jeopardized, they can fix the problem now themselves without need of any input

from the government or anyone else.

The parents on the radio this morning were encouraging other

parents in other parts of the Province to take that kind of action rather than

say, let us go to the government, because every time we have something of

concern with us and our children we will run to the government. Here it is

clearly an instance where, if this is a priority, and I know it is for some

parents, they can fix it themselves.

There are many other issues with respect to two-way radios on

buses, whether or not we can install seat belts, proper signalling devices,

proper back up alarms, first aid kits, proper training for the drivers, proper

licensing, and reducing the age of the buses themselves. All of those issues are

being looked at and any or all of them might require some money but, from the

government purse itself, the issue of safety, if it is going to be better served

by an adult monitor, does not need any money from government. The parents can

volunteer like they have done in the past, and are going today, or if they feel

a paid monitor should be there, they can collect the money themselves, and not a

great amount, $5 to $10 a month maximum from the parents of the students on the

buses would put paid monitors on the buses today with a minimal contribution

from any parent, if that is where they think the greatest priority is. If the

government brings in a policy it is a $4.5 million minimum program because we

would not be able to be selective and that is the difficulty.

We have discussed the issue with the parents. We are looking

at the whole range of safety issues for school bus transportation, but nobody

should really expect that the government is going to bring in a Province-wide

adult paid monitor system. I regret to have to say that, Mr. Speaker, and I know

that members opposite will continue to present the petitions as they are bound

to do, but I certainly expect them to understand the broader range of the debate

rather than sign and present petitions that do not address the whole range of

issues. The petition says only that there have to be paid adult monitors, and

regretfully, that will not happen.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, on the topic that was just

raised, the subject matter raised in a petition by the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi, and responded to by the Minister of Education, I, too, have been

asked to present a petition on behalf of residents of Newfoundland and Labrador

to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the

following petition: We, the undersigned residents of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct

the Department of Education to legislate a paid adult bus monitor program for

all school buses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We find that

students are presently being unsupervised and are at risk in their safety going

to and from school on school buses. The safety of our children is being

compromised. We ask the hon. minister and his government to show compassion,

leadership, and understanding to ensure the safe transportation of our children.

Mr. Speaker, there are many residents in this Province who

will repeatedly ask this government to review this policy to ensure that the

safety and security of students is uppermost in the minds of the department at

all times.

This is not just an arbitrary request. There has been a

review done by many parents in this Province, specifically the parents and

students of Holy Family School in Paradise, who undertook a review of this whole

situation and were able to identify a number of areas of concern and then make

recommendations to the hon. minister.

The areas of concern include the following: The proper and

adequate supervision of students on buses, as well as boarding and leaving;

driver selection and training; proper school bus maintenance and vehicle

communication; safety education programs for students and parents, teachers and

drivers; a bus safety awareness program for the public; scheduled bus routes.

These are the areas of concern that have been brought to the fore by the parents

and the students of this particular school.

On the issue of proper and adequate supervision of students

on the buses, as well as boarding and leaving buses, the recommendation by this

group is that the government begin a process to implement paid adult bus

monitors to assist bus drivers to provide adequate and proper supervision and

safe transportation of students within the Province.

On the issue of driver selection and training, the

recommendations were that government establish and regulate criteria for the

selection of bus drivers, that the government develop an in-depth and

comprehensive training program for bus drivers, which would include education

and training in the areas of defensive driving, first aid, CPR, student

behaviour management, public and human relations, and that school bus driver

training and education be continuous and under constant review and regulated by

government standards.

On the equally important issue of school bus maintenance and

safety regulations, the recommendations are that the government establish

recommendations to ensure that school buses are inspected daily by bus drivers

who are then asked to submit a written report each day to a regulatory body;

also that school buses are inspected on a regular basis, that they be equipped

with two-way radios, and that buses be equipped with safety features such as

front bumper guards, side safety arms, back-up alarms, exterior side sensors,

and back-up mirrors. These recommendations are being made so that these buses

are equipped to ensure that children are protected while on the buses in our

Province.

On the issue of the education programs on bus safety, this

same group is asking and is recommending that the government, in conjunction

with the boards, develop school bus safety educational programs to educate the

students, parents and teachers on school bus safety; and, secondly, that

government establish the position of Director of School Bus Safety at the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation level, to work with the boards

and the schools to ensure continuing safety for our students.

On the issue of a bus safety awareness program for the

public, this same group has forwarded a recommendation that the government, in

conjunction with school boards and schools, conduct annually a public awareness

campaign on school bus safety, and that the government establish a provincial

school bus safety slogan.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of scheduling -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad today to rise and support this petition, for very

good reasons. Like the hon. the Member for St. John's East said, the first day

after the incident he made comments about the possibility of volunteers as one

option. Then, of course, we met with more parents. We met with the group that

organized these petitions, and they gave us their views.

Really, what we heard that day - and I believe the government

side also heard the same group and listened to their concerns - once you sit

down and listen to them, really what they have been doing is bringing home the

point that a lot of us have been thinking about for years with respect to school

bus safety.

I, being a former teacher and a former coach - not just once

for an experience - I have been on bus trips many, many times. I have coached

many teams. I have travelled with a lot of school groups and so on.

The Member for Waterford Valley talks about his very

traumatic experience some years ago, Mr. Speaker, luckily mine was not that bad

but I always remember the situation. I was looking out a school window, just the

first or second year in my teaching career and seen a kid slip on ice behind a

bus while the other kids got away. I watched that child get up and luckily get

away from a bus that was moving backward, Mr. Speaker. I could not even get near

him, I could not say anything but luckily he got away from that. All I could

think about was what a dangerous situation it was. All over this Province we

have different parking facilities, they are on grades, of course in different

weather conditions you get ice and snow and so on. So every parking lot is

different and there is so much danger, Mr. Speaker, in that parking lot. When

you get kids all rushing out the same time on a Friday evening waiting to go

home or they are excited about this and that, there is very little control.

If anybody in this House has had experience with kids, being

a teacher, a coach or whatever, you know how excited they can get and you know

when you have a crowd of thirty, forty or seventy students or 200 students in a

parking lot ranging from ages 6 to 18, Mr. Speaker, that it is very hard to

control them. I have seen it first hand. Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to this

group talk, I said to myself, all these things I have thought about too but I

never did say much about them. That is the reality of it and I don't expect -

and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs brought it up a couple of

days ago about spending and spending.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like for the government to look

into this possibility of a bus monitor but also the rest of the education about

bus safety because if there are five or six - I don't have the statistics in

front of me now but if there were five or six fatalities over the years and so

many accidents, that was too many. Maybe for a small amount of money, it may not

be a great amount of money, I say to the government, that would put a program in

place. We are not talking about hiring somebody for eight hours a day to go on a

bus. We are talking about a program that could be adequate, Mr. Speaker, that at

least can move in the right direction for bus safety because I am sure there is

not a member in this House, on a very serious issue like that, would like to see

another fatality or more accidents or anything else.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all have children going to school and I

can just imagine, if you want to make it strike home, just think about your own

child. That is all you have to think about and getting a call from a principal

some day or an RCMP officer that there was an accident in the school where your

child was or just imagine this, you get a rumour that there was an accident at a

school that morning and you are out somewhere in town and you get a rumour that

there was an accident and some child was hurt. For a minute you are going to

panic and say I hope that's not my child.

So, Mr. Speaker, the point is very sincere and very

straightforward that the government and the minister - I say look at this option

of a paid bus monitor. Also look at the options of bus safety in respect to

training the drivers, having a first aid kit on board the bus, making sure the

buses are safe. All of those things, Mr. Speaker, cut down on the possibilities

of any child in this Province being injured or worse, to be killed in this

Province. So that is what it is all about. We are not asking that the government

spend millions of dollars and put somebody on a bus eight hours a day and pay

them or anything like that. As a matter of fact, the government has that

leverage to build a manoeuvrability to look at those different situations but

the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, for the amount of money it would be money well

spent to make sure - as much as we can because you can never be 100 per cent

sure - but to make sure as much as we can that another child is not hurt in this

Province or especially a fatality in this Province because of bus safety in this

Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, the government should take a very, very

serious look at it to make sure that we cover all angles. The bus monitor, the

safety of the bus itself, the bus driver, how he is trained and basically I

guess what I am saying, is the education of bus safety throughout. I am sure

there are other ways that the staff and the teachers can help out. I am sure

they would lend a hand as much as they could but I think it is very important

that this petition be paid attention to with respect to a paid bus monitor

which, like we say, Mr. Speaker, there are so many on the bus they have that

particular job which is more specific to what they are doing and I think it is

something that has to be looked at seriously -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - and considered by the government and the

minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do have other petitions but in view of the

hour and the Government House Leader wishing to pursue with the Orders of the

Day, we will wait until Monday to present further petitions.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we move into Orders of the

Day, just so that we make sure that everybody gets an opportunity to debate this

bill and it is an important bill, just so we make sure that everybody gets an

opportunity to debate it, to say all that needs to be said about it, I spoke to

the Opposition House Leader this morning and advised him that we would not be

closing the House at noon, but we would probably be closing it somewhere between

2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I would move that the House not adjourn at noon.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn at noon.

All those in favour, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against, `nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the Orders of the Day,

An Act To

Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Implement The

Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of

Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador". (Bill No. 45)

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

Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will come to that

shortly. Let me say first of all it is a pleasure to introduce this bill. This

is, as the Premier said this morning, the first time in recorded history in this

Province, that I'm aware of, that we have actually ever reduced taxes for any

protracted period of time. The retail sales tax burden in Newfoundland has been

well above the national average for quite some time. In fact, at one point it

was as much as 150 per cent above the national average. There are a number of

essential ingredients about this harmonization, which makes a lot of sense for

the Province.

First of all, it is a tremendous rate reduction from an

express rate of 12 per cent down to 8 per cent, but the 12 per cent rate as we

know in this Province, because it is on top of the GST, is actually an effective

rate of 12.84 per cent. We admit that what is happening in order to make this

possible are a number of things. The first is that the base of application of

what has been the RST is expanded, so it will include some goods and services

that are not now covered, but the vast majority of goods were already included

in the RST anyway. The major impact, of course, is the rate reduction itself. It

is a very substantial reduction of almost $200 million, but we are adding some

things back to make it more manageable so that the total tax loss to government

is only $105 million.

We see this as being very progressive. We believe that what

is needed in this country, and this Province in particular, are not additional

tax measures that place additional burdens on our population and our people who

are trying, in often difficult circumstances, to survive and prosper, but what

we need to do as a matter of public policy is reduce the tax burden and allow

people to make conscious and deliberate decisions about where they want to spend

their money, and how they can best utilize the monies in their hands to help the

economy grow and to help themselves prosper. We don't believe that government

should keep taxing people and adding to our programs to create situations and

try to run other people's lives for them. I believe this is the first, for the

reason I've said, progressive tax measure we have seen in some time in our

Province.

The bill is detailed and it sets out the agreement between

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government, and in

fact it mirrors the other agreement with the other Atlantic provinces as well.

The hon. member across said a few moments ago: Will I explain the - I think he

said on page 45. Mr. Speaker, I don't pretend to - or I shouldn't say I don't

pretend to understand, but I certainly wouldn't take the House's time to try to

elaborate on the rather difficult and complicated formulas given in the appendix

to the agreement. It is something that people in taxation make a habit of

concocting and trying to put in formulas what are often simple things. But when

you get to put them in formulae that echo the sort of taxation laws we have, it

becomes somewhat difficult for lay people to understand. I include myself in

that group. Nevertheless, I think it is fairly straightforward on the basis of

the bill what the impact is, and that is a reduction from, as I said, close to

20 per cent down to 15 per cent.

There are only two or three things I think that need be added

at this point. We have had a long, protracted public consideration of this, not

just this year, but going back to 1990 when the whole idea of the GST came into

being. That debate has been ongoing in this country, and it was very

controversial at the time. I'm among those people who would have preferred never

to see a GST. I believe at the time it was an unwarranted intrusion into a

provincial area of taxation that had always been left to the provinces to raise

revenue. However, having said that, and the federal government having done it

and become dependent on the revenue, and of course needing it to balance its

books and to reduce the deficit, we are in a situation where what does one do?

I'm one of those who would prefer if the federal government

had stayed away from it entirely and gotten rid of the GST. But knowing that it

isn't going to be case, we as a province had to decide, with an offer of a very

substantial amount of money from Ottawa, $348 million, which we have in the

bank, by the way, Mr. Speaker, and which we will invest wisely in one form or

another, and I will be delighted to advise my colleagues opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, it won't be in his Christmas stocking but

it will eventually come to all the people in the Province in one form or

another. That amount of money is on hand and that made it possible for us to do

this. There are some people who perhaps want to create some uncertainty and

suspicion about the bill, but the real truth is how everyone slices it, there is

a very substantial contribution back to the people of this Province who work so

hard to make the place in which we live such a great place, and I can say that

the $105 million will increase consumer spending. We expect that over the course

of the compensation period, that being four years, we will add to our GDP, that

we will see growth in the economy, that we will more than compensate for this

tax loss we are now taking and we are able to do it of course, because we have

the monies at hand to carry us over the next three or four years or so.

There is only one area of concern that we have, Mr. Speaker,

that is with low-income people. I said earlier, that all the analyses we have

done and we have used the Stats Canada data bases to see how people of different

income groups spend their money, shows that even at a $10,000-income level,

there is a tax benefit of almost $180, I think it is $183 to be exact, in tax

savings, nevertheless we are concerned that although that is true across a

broader group of people, there may be certain individuals who are impacted

because of particular circumstances in which they live, and I think particularly

of older people or people in more modest circumstances who live in older homes

that are not as well insulated as many newer homes are, and who may feel a

disproportionate impact from what will be in the near term, an increase in

heating cost for example.

But other than those sorts of unique and individual

circumstances, most other people who may pay a modestly larger amount of money

for domestic heating oil or in fuel oil or gas for their cars, will be more than

offset by the tax savings they are going to make across a broad range of goods

that they now purchase and on which they pay a 20 per cent taxation. We are

going to reduce that to 15 per cent and by far and away, that will moderate the

tax increase. To give an example: For people who are in between $75,000 and

$100,000, the tax burden will decrease by over $1,100, so even though they pay a

little more -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Well there are a lot of people sitting

opposite me who are in that income category, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Well, that is not entirely true. There are a

lot of people in the middle income category, but we tend to think about

low-income people and that is a fair consideration but we cannot forget that

there are a lot of people in the middle income category $30,000, $40,000,

$50,000 who, in many cases find it very difficult to make ends meet. They still

have to have cars to go to work, they still have to get their children to and

from school and a lot of these -

AN HON. MEMBER: Heat their homes.

MR. DICKS: Heat their homes, exactly and these are the

people for whom we have a lot of concern and part of the reason that we are

doing this, is to try to assist people at all income levels but particularly our

lower and middle income groups who are finding it very difficult to survive in

this Province, and indeed not only here but across this country because there

are many factors in Newfoundland that reduce the cost of living beyond what it

would be in other parts of the country, particularly if one looks at the cost

for housing and purchasing a home, it is a lot different from living in Toronto

or Montreal, although Montreal is moderating as well, but Vancouver and the

cities to the west of us. So, Mr. Speaker, we view this very positively. I know

my colleagues opposite have expressed a concern that we have indicated that we

do wish to address and that is with low-income people in particular because

there may be unique circumstances.

I do want to say that what we have done is, adopted the GST

system in doing this and there are several results of that. One is that the GST

credits do continue for low-income people. The $30,000 threshold which business

has to meet before the need to remit will also apply. As it stands right now, we

have businesses that still have to remit the RST, our provincial sales tax but

do not have to remit the GST. Now with this integrated tax structure, all

businesses, if they are below $30,000 in gross revenue do not have to collect

any sales tax to remit to government. We do have a substantial savings as a

result of the integration. We expect that we will save approximately $3 million;

we also are in a position where most of our staff, virtually all of them will

find positions with the federal government and most of those will be at higher

rates of pay and they will also be on a higher pay scale.

We are currently working through the dynamics and the

problems that come about as a result of moving people from our system into the

federal system but we have been very successful. Some issues remain to be

resolved but I am very confident that, that will be resolved to the satisfaction

of our employees. In particular I can say that there are some pension issues

that we have recently resolved, there are issues of location that are being

addressed, and the sense I have from the employees is there is some degree of

uncertainty, but in the long run, I think most of them realize that it is going

to have a tremendous opportunity to move into an area of the Federal Government

which has 43,000 employees. It is going to mean a lot of jobs in this Province

being retained and it will mean that a lot of our people who have been doing

very good work will receive greater pay in the long run and will have an

opportunity for lateral and vertical promotions as well.

The impact on the business community will be very

substantial. What will happen is that businesses which now remit to us

approximately $170,000 in our current RST formula, will now be able to pass

those savings on to consumers in the form of reduced prices. The cascading

effect of the GST input tax credits will make our businesses more competitive,

not only locally where we expect to see a degree of decline in retail prices,

but also nationally and internationally. One of the interesting aspects of this

legislation is that a lot of goods are shipped into our Province from outside.

The Federal Government will now collect the tax on them for us, and they will

remit it to us in the eventual course of settlements over the course of this

agreement and onward as long as we chose to remain in that system. What that

does resolve for business as well, the problem we have often had with people

outside our Province competing unfairly, shipping goods in here and people

ordering them so they can avoid the tax. Now, what happens with this new system,

is the tax will be collected and we will even out that aspect of goods sales and

services.

The other thing is that the Federal Government will collect,

on an allocation basis, GST on services of major corporations in accordance with

the Income Tax Act so that monies we do not now receive, for instance, in large

corporations like legal services done in Toronto, we will receive an allocation

of HST on that to the Province in accordance with the allocation formulas under

the Income Tax Act.

The other aspect of it that is more apparent, and I think

very beneficial, is, what we have done is neutralize purchasing decisions. Up to

this point, people, if they were in another province where the retail sales tax

burden was less, were inclined, I believe, to purchase there so that they could

either not pay the tax or pay it at a reduced rate. With this system we are now

at the level. In fact, the taxation in Newfoundland and Labrador following this

will be the same as it is in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and about the same as

it is in Ontario, in fact, perhaps slightly less. It will less than it is in

Manitoba, about the same as in Saskatchewan and B.C. Alberta, of course, is the

exception, not having any sales tax.

What we have done in one fell swoop is, we have equalized the

sales tax system in Newfoundland and Labrador with virtually the tax system

across this country. I believe this is a very progressive piece of legislation.

I commend it to my colleagues on this side of the House and opposite. I know we

have raised some issues about tax-inclusive pricing and about the cost of tuning

up, and I can say with frankness that our assessment, not my personal assessment

but the assessment of my officials, both of Revenue Canada who are working on

this, and the Department of Finance have come to the conclusion, and from my

consultations with the business community, they have validated that the cost of

changing in most retail stores is marginal compared to the positive impact from

across the board sales tax reduction and the effect of income tax credits.

All I can say to hon. members opposite, and in reply

particularly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is that notwithstanding

some concern in this sector, the business community is not only supportive but

tremendously enthusiastic about this, and I believe for obvious and good

reasons. I see our manufacturing sector and all our vital industries, whether it

is the forestry industry, the mining industry, all being much more competitive,

our oil and gas sector, and I think we are in for a period of very substantial

growth, Mr. Speaker.

I think, and as people in this House have acknowledged, and

we have said on many occasions, we have a couple of difficult years to get

through, but I can tell you that looking up to 1999, Newfoundland will have

unprecedented growth. We will see growth rates that we have not seen since

perhaps the 1960s when things were proceeding at a frenetic pace in this

Province. We see a return of some very substantial growth, and we see the

benefits being spread throughout this Province. We are delighted, that in order

to get this off the ground, we are able to offer a very substantial tax

reduction to the people of our Province. We believe it will be good for

business. We see new growth, new opportunities, new jobs, and I can only commend

it to my colleagues.

I understand that it is the duty and obligation of my

colleagues opposite to raise questions and concerns, and I hope to address them.

I know at the end of the day they will be supportive of this because they will

see the positive nature of it, and I know that they are as interested as we are

in the growth of our Province, in all the sectors, and I am sure they will be as

committed as we are to reducing the sales tax burden and the other taxes we hope

to get to in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to make one statement before I get into

some other areas, and there are many areas here that I would certainly like the

minister to respond to in due course. I do have a series of questions.

The St. John's Board of Trade said a hidden tax would make

our prices appear to tourists as far higher than they would pay at home, and

that this first glance shock will discourage buying. I do not know if the

minister is familiar with that statement, but anyway, I just want to go through

with the minister, based on the facts and figures that his department has

provided. I did releases on this back in April and I can tell you I am familiar

with the system to a fair extent. I have followed financial matters for some

time and observed budgets of governments long before I got into politics, the

financial end of it, and subscribe to numerous financial magazines.

This does not make sense. Maybe the minister can tell us.

These are facts from his own estimates. The provincial sales tax this year is

$565 million, projected. Last year, of course, it was $570-some million. We have

a projected decrease in RST in general sales in the Province. Because the value

of the general retail trade in the Province would be about $3.3 billion. Now,

let's look at what was collected in GST, I say to the Minister of Finance.

In GST we collected last year in this Province - and the

minister said my figures are outdated. I have the most recent figures, Stats

Canada, I talked to federal people, and I talked to your department, Minister.

The average amount, not counting what isn't collected - the average amount

collected has hovered from $279 million to $283 million. That is the range of

dollars that GST has been collected in this Province. I stand and I certainly

don't refute my three different sources that have followed this, and they are

very much in line there.

When you take that figure, I say to the minister, let us take

the same GST base - and this is mathematical. When you look at - assuming the

business this year and next year under the harmonized tax, assuming sales are

the same, I say to the minister, assuming they are the same - the minister said

they will increase, and we will allow for that then - take the $283 million

using the GST base and change that 7 per cent, I say to the minister, to 15 per

cent just on the GST base and let's forget the RST. That would amount to, when

you convert that, $606 million total. The Federal Government will keep their

$283 million, and the difference, I say to the Minister of Finance, is $323

million. I am sure the minister is following the mathematics of what I am

saying. The difference is $323 million. That would be Newfoundland's share of

the value-added tax or the VST, they call it in Nova Scotia, or the HST.

We are now taking in, in revenue in RST, $565 million. If you

subtract what we are going to take in with the same base of $323 million, we are

left with a $242 million shortfall. The Minister of Finance has told us in this

House that the $240 million shortfall, he said: We are going to bring in an

insurance tax, we are going to bring in the private sale of vehicles tax, and we

are going to keep the liquor and tobacco tax where it is. All that will add up

to $90 million, I think the minister said, all these other measures that we are

going to keep in place. In other words, the part of the RST base we are going to

keep - maybe the minister can nod and confirm it - we are going to hang on to

about $90 million extra because of the insurance tax, the private sale of

vehicles, by keeping the liquor and tobacco tax the same, and some other minor

adjustments he wouldn't tell me, basically, or maybe didn't have at his

fingertips. It would be $90 million.

Subtract that from the $242 million I just pointed out and we

are left with $150 million shortfall. The minister said $105 million. I disputed

his figures last Spring, I dispute them today. We are still going to be $150

million short in revenues. Even if it is $105 million, let us go with what the

minister's own department and the minister are saying, and take a $348 million

pot, that runs out in a little over three years. So after three years, in the

year 2000, we are going to be short $105 million, if you listen to the minister

- if you listen to me it will be $150 million - on revenues in this Province.

What do we do when we are short those revenues in the

Province? If the minister really thinks the price of goods is going down - and I

will give an example. Let us take a $100 item that you pay both taxes on now;

that is $119.84 that you would pay. Under the new tax-in pricing, the base price

of that $100 item is going to increase. When you put your 15 per cent on top, we

are going to be up where we are now.

Economists will tell you, that is called inflation. This HST

would be an inflationary tax that is going to increase the cost of goods and

services, and when you put on your sales tax, even thought it will be lower, the

total amount the consumer will pay will still be just as much on items on which

we are supposed to be getting a tax decrease. So the consumer pays the same

amount, and the Province gets $100-and-some million less in revenue. Now, that

is short-term thinking. If all provinces bought into this deal, and we did not

have the tax inclusive pricing, we would not have that built-in cost because it

would be consistent across the country.

The minister did make a good point, and I agree with the

minister. The minister said, if all the provinces have the same tax base, that

is acceptable. If every province in the country went in on this deal, the

tax-inclusive pricing could be eliminated, and that would be positive, I say to

the minister. But it has not happened, and it is unlikely to happen. Even the

Liberal Government in New Brunswick, before the election in P.E.I., said they

were not going along with it because it was not good. The government after has

said it, they are not going on with it because it is not good. Nova Scotia is

now going to a public forum on this tax. There is only one government in Canada

that is moving rapidly to close the books on this right now, and that is here in

this Province.

We have a $348 million pot that is going to dry up in the

year 2000, and I ask, what then? What do we do in the year 2,000, when people in

this Province are going to be paying an increased price and some other taxation,

or a further cutback in services of a social nature in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable, when there are people

out there today paying a substantial amount of money on goods and services right

now. It is not a good deal. If it was a good deal, I would say so. If there were

several amendments and changes made in this bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you vote for it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would, I say to the minister.

Education reform, I say to the minister, was just one recent

example of a major issue that we supported moving quickly in dealing with it. We

took a matter of minutes - I think less than an hour in this House - to deal

with it in July, at each reading of that bill. In fact, I think we put a speaker

or two up on certain parts of it. We support positive ventures, things that are

positive for the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I just explained it before the minister

came in. He did not understand at all.

Over all, there are numerous aspects of this deal that are

bad. The compensation package is too little. The compensation package will run

out, and I ask: What next, when the compensation runs out?

Tax harmonization, way back in January or February, was not

an election issue. The Premier never campaigned and never debated this as an

election issue. In fact, as soon as the election was over he came out with a

deal on harmonization. He had to know it was happening; still, to come out and

sign one so fast. Before the ink was even dry on the writ, he was out with a

deal on harmonization that he never brought to the people.

Not only given to the people - we have called for, and I have

called for, public debate. I said before, in public debate in the House, and I

have said outside that I would debate the minister any time on this bill. I

challenge the Premier today. I will debate this in any forum that he wants, at

his time and convenience, on the merits and demerits of this particular bill.

They are not prepared to do that, because they know it is not good.

People want to be here in this Province for a long time. I

have an interest in the future of this Province, and I do not want bad decisions

made, like the Churchill Falls decision, and others. We want to avoid decisions

that are negative.

This Province does not have the contingency plan, what is

going to happen if this deal does not fly. We are not prepared. We have not

built that in. There are no basic `outs' without eighteen months notice, when we

have already changed the system over, and then come back and reconvert again if

the deal gets scrapped. More cost on business means more cost to consumers,

because when businesses incur costs, the consumers pay for it out of their

pockets. Businesses are going to maintain a certain profit margin, and in this

day and age, it is pretty tough trying to do that, and they pass it on to

consumers. If not, they are not going to be in business. That is the nature of

how it works and this is not going to be positive, I can assure you.

Now, all they could find were the three Liberal premiers, the

fourth one would not touch it and we see where he is today. In Prince Edward

Island they would not touch it, it was bad. Of course, in Nova Scotia now they

have even acknowledged that there are areas that are bad. They have committed,

even after this time, an extra $8 million which is not sufficient to put into

the pot to help the low-income people who are going to be adversely affected by

it. New Brunswick has made reference to it, even though they have not called it

to their Legislature yet.

This government is trying to rush something through before

Christmas, before the public can fully understand what is in it. Now, what is

wrong with taking a discussion on such a major item, to the people, out to the

public? There are intelligent, informed people in the public. The people want an

opportunity to understand it, to be able to pass their opinions on it, instead

of having to try to smoke it through the House, try to pull the wool over

people's eyes before they - give the people the facts and let them make their

own decisions. Let them hear the minister and the Premier. Let them hear what we

have to say and hear what everybody else has to say. They are informed and give

them the opportunity -they did not have that opportunity. I have been calling

since last Spring for the people of the Province to be able to have an

opportunity to debate this particular issue here. It is important. It is an

issue of great importance. We have sent committees around this Province on many

things, many different aspects but we cannot even put it into a public forum or

a committee here in the House to look further at the effects of harmonization on

this Province.

As I said, we are going to run into costs. Who do you think

is going to pay for the cost of changing the pricing with the tax-in pricing?

Who do you think is ultimately going to pay to change over the cash registers

and the computerized process? Who is going to pay for that cost?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know who is going to pay for it. The

consumer is going to pay for it, that's who is going to pay. I think the

minister should pay for it. The minister seems to be -

MR. EFFORD: Don't ask me why you're not in government.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think you have to start realizing you are

the government, that is what you have to do. You have to start realizing you are

the government, I say to the minister, and start looking at the people who

elected you to do a job. That is where we differ, I say to the minister - that

is where we differ.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, if we had some

photographs from the night before when he made a late night appearance at the PC

Christmas Party, I can tell you his colleagues would not be very happy. I say,

the Minister of Government Services and Lands can be an eyewitness to some of

this. He was there to witness you and one other of your colleagues there. It was

a different Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture than we see every single day,

I can assure the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was there anything fishy about it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, there was something very fishy about

it, very fishy. The aquaculture he had in the glass, I tell you was a very

interesting mix. I think you would sow the seeds of a new species here and a new

thriving industry in the Province.

MR. EFFORD: We had to go there to brighten up the party.

You didn't have a party until we walked in.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you minister, you accomplished

that task, you certainly did. You succeeded in one thing, you succeeded there,

and I am telling you, it was the most entertaining hour or two hours we had all

night. I was wondering, I said where is the Member for Port de Grave, the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he has not come up to liven up the PC

party. I can tell you, he is okay for a visitor but we don't want him to be a

member of this party on a regular basis. No, we are happy with having him where

he is.

Now, to get back from that little diversion, I think I

silenced the minister there. If he does resurface I may have to go into greater

detail of what went on. But I say to the minister, it is going to be passed back

to the consumers, any cost incurred on prices. It is the same as any particular

business operates. I mean, businesses operate to make money. If a business is

not operating to make money, they will not be in it very long, and you have to

respect that. That is vital, that is important to the health of an economy. The

your businesses are, the healthier the Province will be, more employees would be

out there, more people earning money and it is fantastic but, what concerns me

is, when we give away over $100 million in revenue to cause an inflationary

price in the cost of goods and services. It is not productive, it is not healthy

for our economy I will tell you, it does not put extra spending in the pockets

of consumers and improve consumer spending, and any expert or economist will

tell you that. When the percentage of dollars that are saved in taxes, when it

does not go back to consumer pockets but goes into inflationary prices on cost

of goods and services, it has a negative impact on economies and that is a very

important thing that this government is not looking at and I will just use one

example.

I will say again: an item which costs $100 now and you go

into a store and buy it, and ring up the 7 per cent and 12 per cent, that comes

to $119.84, that is what it costs. Under this taxed-in pricing now that probably

came in from Ontario, and a lot of goods come in from other parts of the

country, those major chains and there is more movement in the malls in shopping,

when you go in to buy that item now, that was $100, they have to have different

regulations of taxing in this Province and other parts of the county. That price

of goods is not going to be $100 now, that price of goods could be $103 or $104,

when you put your 15 per cent on it, you are up to $119.84 and the consumer is

paying the same basic price of what you have built in, increased costs and we

have lost revenues in the process and that is not good and that is basically

what is going to happen with tax-inclusive pricing.

I could give reference, examples the impacts of tax-inclusive

pricing. I made reference in Question Period in the House; there are letters

that went to the Finance Minister of Canada by businesses that said just alone

and there are references - I am sure the minister must be aware but he said he

is not aware of anybody. Well I can tell him his federal colleague, Mr. Paul

Martin, the Minister of Finance, has information that tells him that and they do

a breakdown. They gave him confidence figures to their parent body that showed

in Atlantic Canada alone, the costs are going to be $34 million and the

advantages from input tax credits are going to be $6 million and there is going

to be a net difference of $28 million just in firms that represent a portion of

those costs in Atlantic Canada.

I mean, we have to realized, we have to listen to people who

understand where the costs should go in the system. I mean, I have just read an

article that said: No savings with the new taxes, says a coalition from New

Brunswick, they have not brought it to the House yet: Suspicions confirmed, it

said. Business representatives in Atlantic Canada made it crystal clear

Thursday, the new blended sales tax or HST, with tax-included pricing won't save

consumers any money. According to officials, with regional boards of trade and

Chambers of Commerce, companies will not be able to pass along savings for the

new tax as promised by the Premiers of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and

Newfoundland. They cannot do it, that is what those Chambers of Commerce and

companies are saying.

They say the three provinces that would merge this tax, come

April to give the impression that the GST is gone. When the Prime Minister and

Sheila Copps and the Premier here were going to scrap it, the GST. Now, they are

trying to hide it in an area that represents only 6.6 per cent of the population

in this country. 93.33 per cent of the population of this country did not buy

into this agreement and here we are, down in Newfoundland, with a $340-odd

million cheque, we take it and we run to the bank and we pay the price for it

forever. When are they going to start realizing that long-term decisions are

needed to ensure we maintain an appropriate revenue base in our Province? When

are we going to stop making short-term decisions to get us by an election and we

all pay the price?

We will never be a `have' Province with a `have not'

mentality. We must have a `have' mentality not a `have not' mentality if we want

to be a `have' Province and it is not going to be easy to do it because we are

locked into such atrocious deals but we have to do our best to negate the

effects of those deals and to do something that is going to have some

significance and to be able to enhance opportunities of people here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The three governments are out saying there are going to be

significant savings. That is what this

article is saying, the Premier is saying

that there are going to be significant savings at the cash register. That is

because business will realize big savings in their tax bills and that is

supposed to translate into lower prices.

Well, when did you ever see that happen before? It did not

happen with GST. It became largely inflationary. The business coalition said, as

chambers of commerce and boards in New Brunswick: If businesses are faced with

increased costs, who will bear the brunt of those increased costs? The

President, the Chairperson, of the St. John's Board of Trade in New Brunswick

said: There is no question, it will be the consumer.

It will be the ordinary people around Newfoundland and

Labrador who will bear the brunt of this negative taxation here, that people do

not realize what this government is forcing them into.

It goes on to say: The business representatives stressed they

are not opposed to a blended tax, which they think is a good thing, and I do

think a blended tax is a good thing. I think a harmonized tax is a good thing,

but not the type of deal that we have now that is only bought into by 6.66 per

cent of Canadians, because the bulk of goods, many things, are coming from

outside this Province. They are coming from non-harmonized areas into a

harmonized area. There is increased cost with tax inclusive pricing that is

going to be detrimental, and a small majority of Canadians is not going to

control the large majority of Canadians. The tail was never designed to wag the

dog; it is the other way around. We cannot have a fraction of the population, 2

million people in those provinces out of 30 million in Canada, controlling and

basically setting the price and standards. There are going to be too many built

in costs inherent in a system like that.

Their anger is focused on the government's decision to hide

the 15 per cent in the cost of products, so-called tax-in pricing. That is what

it is. They are hiding it. They are trying to build it into the price, and to

give people the perception they are saving money. The only argument I hear the

minister and the Premier using is: Don't you want to go from 20 per cent down to

15 per cent? They do not tell the people the real truth, that the cost of the

goods is going up, taxes is going down, the total price is the same, and we are

going to pay for it. Every time they get in a car and drive, the taxes on that

gasoline that is fairly enormous is going to go, along with our own provincial

gasoline tax, from 7 per cent to 15 per cent, more than double. Every time you

burn fuel in your home, or electricity in your home, the price is going from 7

per cent taxes to 15 per cent under this new one. To buy clothing for children,

it is going from 7 per cent to 15 per cent. School supplies are going from 7 per

cent to 15 per cent. Every time you get a haircut, or go to a hairdresser, an

accountant, a lawyer, go to any professional people - engineers - these fees are

more than doubled.

I tell you, there is something wrong with a system when an

expensive mink coat does not go up in price, may go down marginally, and you

more than double the costs that you are piling on the people who can least

afford to pay it. Isn't there something wrong with people's principles and

values and philosophies if that is happening? There is something radically

wrong, and we have to look at an equitable distribution of our revenues and our

tax base and programs.

On that topic we have rendered, we have given up, our

Province's autonomy to deal with those social issues and other issues in the

Province because the federal government, in this deal, can unilaterally have two

tax increases on their 7 per cent, and we have no influence over it. They can

put it up twice, 1 per cent, without any province agreeing with it. They have

the autonomy to do that.

If this Province is going to be as prosperous as the Premier

and the Minister of Finance tell us, we might want to give a break or reduce the

tax to people. If we wanted to do that, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would have

to say, yes. If one province tells us we cannot do it, there has to be unanimous

to consent to put it down.

We have given the federal government power to unilaterally do

something, and we ourselves have to get 100 per cent approval from the provinces

if we want a reduction. That is not consistency.

Here is an interesting point by the federal government. The

federal government realizes that the tax inclusive pricing is detrimental. They

are not going to put it on the postage stamps. It is too expensive. It is too

cumbersome. It is too expensive, they said, to have tax inclusive pricing in

postage. Then they turn around and make Newfoundland and Labrador - make this

Province - and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have tax inclusive pricing. They

said it is too expensive, but it is not too expensive for the Province. They

have set a double standard. They have set two different standards here: one for

the federal government, and another one for the provinces.

That consistency is not there in this particular legislation

to do that. They have admitted it is expensive and costly. What I have been

saying the federal government has endorsed. It has endorsed the increased costs

on tax inclusive pricing, and the minister and the Premier just ignore it and

skirt it off and use it. The only argument they have is the public perception of

19.84 per cent down to 15 per cent. That is the only thing they have to cling

to, a perception, and they haven't got a fact to back it up.

They haven't an analysis done that they will table. They

either haven't got one done or they have one done and won't tell us what it is

because it is detrimental to their position. Other governments have done

analyses. Quebec did one three years ago. Quebec did another one this past year.

The Quebec government decided tax inclusive pricing is not an option. The Quebec

government said it isn't an option. This government gets bought out with $348

million? Bought out with a chunk of money dangled up front so the Premier of

this Province can cave in to his former buddy the Prime Minister, and Sheila

Copps, and say they got rid of the GST, and to try to fool Canadians. People who

saw that public forum on the Prime Minister know that they haven't fooled the

Canadian people.

John Nunziata today in The Globe and Mail challenges

Chrtien over GST. Prepared to resign and fight a by-election to settle who is

telling the truth. That is what John Nunziata said. He had the gall and the guts

to tell what happened. When we talk about other misconceptions - it is related

to finances I guess. The Premier of this Province - and it really irks me - went

to Ottawa, and I will get back a little earlier. The former Minister of

Education, the Member for The Straits and White Bay North, told us how bad

things are in this Province when he wanted education legislation. How bad their

performance was. We have to put the dollars back in the system to improve it.

Then when he got the results and got through it he was out reading statements

praising how good our students are. Then the Premier goes to Ottawa, and what he

told that Liberal caucus is an insult to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

He told them about the educational level of students. We are

practically illiterate. People can't learn - the dollars in the system. He gave

a picture in Ottawa that ran down the education system in our Province, the

Premier, to try to sell education reform in Ottawa. You ask members in the

Liberal caucus what was said up there. I can tell you, it would be enough to

make one shiver what he told. And a very heated thing, one I wasn't allowed to

go into, that lasted all night long, and we weren't allowed to meet with the

caucus. We - not allowed. Went to Ottawa to try to sell an agreement to people

and we weren't allowed to go in. It went on until midnight. He was so exhausted

he changed an appointment then in the morning again and ran down the education

system in this Province, and then comes back and tells us how great it is now

that we got what we want. In other words, isn't that perpetrating a fraud on the

people?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, he ran them down in Ottawa, I just told

you. Read Hansard and I will tell you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said in the Liberal caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: With great respect, you ask him. You ask

members of the Liberal caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We weren't allowed. We were told we would.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know what he said in the

caucus (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: We were told. How do you know what he

didn't say? Do you know, I ask the minister? Do you know that he didn't say it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, the onus (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I ask the minister, do you know that

he didn't say it? Were you there, I ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: So we are even now. I wasn't there and you

weren't there.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, you can't say things about people

which are untrue in the House. The hon. member just said that the Premier of

this Province said certain things in a Liberal caucus meeting in Ottawa. I asked

him was he there. He said no, he wasn't there. How can you make allegations

about somebody or what they said when you weren't there to listen or see it?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: No point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: I wasn't there when the Austrian prince was

killed which started off a world war. I wasn't there when the Austrian prince

was killed which triggered off a world war, but I believe the historians. I was

not there when Einstein said E=mc but I believe it and I believe in the

fundamental purpose of it.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, not seeing a

Liberal Caucus in Ottawa, to say that he was not in the Liberal Caucus in Ottawa

I don't know if he has been in a Liberal Caucus in Newfoundland and Labrador, I

say to the minister. What would he know about Liberal Caucuses, I say to him?

Maybe the Chilean Caucus, the Government of Chile, maybe the cellular phone

conversation as he is driving up the coast and the beautiful Atlantic Ocean on

one side of the country and the Pacific on the other side. Very relevant, a

tremendous cost to the people of this Province, tremendous cost. I wish the

Minister of Education was as relevan