December

16, 1996 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 54

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues

in the House today that government has engaged the services of Mr. Morgan Cooper

to begin a consultation process between all interested stakeholders in

developing a working relationship on offshore production platforms. Mr. Cooper

has a long and extensive experience as an arbitrator in the Province, as well as

a strong academic and vocational background. He is well qualified to take on

this responsibility and I have included this curriculum vitae for hon. member's

information.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this process is to obtain the

observations of stakeholders with a view to developing a world class labour

relations framework for offshore production platforms. We have asked Mr. Cooper

to meet with labour, management, and other interested parties to discuss their

views and suggestions as to how workers and management can work together in

partnership to build Newfoundland and Labrador's reputation as a major player in

the offshore oil industry. We expect the results from these consultations will

provide government with the information it needs to development a labour

relations process that will ensure a safe, stable, and productive workplace for

offshore production platforms.

When this process has been completed Mr. Cooper will then

review all submissions and presentations and offer a recommendation to

government as to the best means to advance employee/employer relations during

the production phase of the offshore oil industry.

Mr. Speaker, we hope and trust that all stakeholders will

support our efforts in this regard, because a working partnership at the

offshore platform workplace is absolutely critical if this Province is to

ultimately secure its position as a world class producer of oil and be

competitive in the market.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: We certainly have no doubt that Mr.

Cooper's qualifications will hold him in good stead to enable him to consult

with people in the field, with interested parties, labour and management. I do

not see any reference as to whether there is a committee with labour and

management representation. I gather from the minister's statement that it is

strictly consultation and there is no committee as such. We, in the Opposition,

would certainly be very eager and looking forward to seeing the recommendations

when they come from that consultation, and those recommendations being released

to the public or tabled here in the House.

Thank you.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has a Ministerial

Statement which he wishes to make. He is going to be a couple of minutes late

and I think the Leader of the Opposition and his people will agree that we could

revert back to it when he gets here, or maybe do it under Notices of Motion. No,

let's revert when he gets here. He is a couple of minutes late.

Oral Questions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the

Premier but in his absence I will redirect my questions to the hon. the Minister

of Education.

Last week we were told that the monies saved through the

education reform process would not be redirected back to the classrooms of this

Province, and I submit that this was a broken promise. The parents are now being

told that they will not have the final say in the schooling of their children. I

will ask the Minister of Education: Why is this government retracting the stated

commitments to these objectives?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the first issue that the hon. member raised

in leading to his question, with respect to finances, the government said no

such thing as he described in his

preamble to the question.

We indicated clearly that if people are portraying it as a

promise, and suggesting that every single cent that was in education this year

or the previous year has to stay, and that is the only way people would

recognize that as being a commitment to education, that is without any kind of

foundation at all and makes no kind of sense, and that is not what the

government ever, ever said. We will make a commitment to education that matches

the need in the system that can be justified in the budget.

Again, I am really pleased that the hon. member is reading

the newspapers and so on, and keeping up to date on things that are happening

with respect to the education issues because they will be important. The

clarification in the story that is in the paper, if the hon. member wanted to

read more of it, was simply stating that we wanted to make sure - and I

appreciate The Evening Telegram carrying a story to make sure - that

there is no confusion on the issue because again some people, like the member

opposite, would try to characterize that as a commitment with the kind of

question we are being asked now, that when we say - and I will say again, on

behalf of the government - that parents have a real say in terms of telling the

boards what kinds of school they want to run.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that because the

members opposite are having difficulty understanding that, apparently. Parents

will have a real say in telling the school boards of the Province, through a

designation registration process, what kinds of schools they would prefer the

school boards to run and operate on their behalf, but, Mr. Speaker, we thought

and we assumed and we hope now that the clarification -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to bring his answer to a conclusion

quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we hope now with the

clarification in this story in The Evening Telegram that everyone will

understand that it is not practical for a parent to go out and say this school

next to my house must be a certain kind of school. The school board makes those

decisions and that is all that that story in the paper clarifies, Mr. Speaker.

There is no breaking of a commitment, there is no breaking of a promise, there

is none of that political foolishness that the member picks at in his question,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: There is a straightforward clarification that

the parents tell the boards what they want and the boards make the decisions.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only call it what it is, Mr. Speaker, and we are

talking about commitments by the former Minister of Education. We are talking

about documentation which refers specifically to the fact that funds will be

redirected. We are talking about Hansard comments by the Premier. So I ask the

hon. minister: How is this government going to improve teaching and learning in

our schools when they remove and not replace these much needed funds?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I can say is, that the people of the Province, to my

knowledge, have every confidence that the changes occurring to date, which is

moving from twenty-seven separate denominational school boards to ten shared

interdenominational school boards, and the change moving from doing capital

construction on a per capita denominational basis rather than the basis of

needs, are positive, worthwhile changes; they are delighted that they supported

it through a referendum and in the change of Term 17, and in the legislation

that is before us now. Mr. Speaker, we have every confidence that they will

believe at the end of the process when they see the reforms work their way

through to the actual school system beginning in September of 1997, that the

system itself will be better meeting the needs of their students, their children

and they will have every confidence in the government to see it through

appropriately.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next supplementary is to the hon. the Premier.

When the referendum was being held, Mr. Speaker, the

government knew the state of health care in this Province. The government knew

that there were funds that were needed in social services, they were fully aware

of the declining enrolment. How can these be excuses now?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, will he do what is honourable

and call upon him in these circumstances and redirect these savings back into

education and give the parents the final say in the schooling and in the

education of their children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the member

that while I appreciate the seriousness of the question and the seriousness of

the issue, I really question the intent of the member putting the question as he

has.

The member knows that the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador has a $9 billion deficit, if one takes into account the unfunded

pension liabilities of the Province, Mr. Speaker. And the member knows that the

purpose of the budget process is to see that fiscal integrity, on the one hand,

is maintained, and the greatest sensitivity brought to bear in providing for

dollars for goods and services that are deemed necessary by the people of the

Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, through the course of the budget process, we

will take a look at both the fiscal capacity of the Province, the expected

trends over the next three or four years, and the needs of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen as recently as a few days ago, for

example, an editorial in The Evening Telegram pointing out to the

legislators in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that it would be

foolhardy in the face of declining enrolments in this Province today, to say

that for today and forever there will never be any adjustment in the budget of

the Department of Education. That kind of statement, Mr. Speaker, is not

responsible, certainly not being advocated by this side of the House and I would

wonder whether it is being advocated by that side of the House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

I ask the Premier: What is he going to do for families who

are on social assistance, low-income families in general and those who are on

fixed incomes, when their electricity and heating bill increases with the

harmonized or the blended sales tax? What will the Premier do for these same

people who could not afford a similar increase from Newfoundland Power?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we just point out that

with respect to power rates, it was this government that appointed a Consumer

Advocate, and may I say to Mr. Dennis Browne and to his team that they did a

superb job representing the consumer interests of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that representation which was

provided for by this government resulted in a much lower rate of increase for

electrical costs in the Province than otherwise may have been the case. I can

tell the Leader of the Opposition that if it is necessary to take that kind of

action again in the future, indeed, the government will consider similar action

in future.

With respect to the broad question on the impact of GST, PST

harmonization, the Minister of Finance has, I think quite well in the last

number of days in the House, explained to the Leader of the Opposition that

overall we see a benefit for all families in the Province, including low-income

families. If there is a need to take further measures, we will monitor the

situation closely and then, further measures will be contemplated.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Currently, people who are on social assistance receive an

extra $51 a month for winter heating. Now, due to a more than doubling of the

tax on many essentials, such as their heating fuel and their electricity, will

that amount now be increased?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the logic of the position of

the Leader of the Opposition is that due to a lowering of taxes on many other

essential items, that amount ought to be decreased. We are not going to take the

position that because there is going to be a lowering of taxes overall on many

consumer items that we are going to lower the amount of money paid to social

services recipients.

We are going to look at the matter in a balanced fashion. We

expect that all families in this Province at all income levels $10,000 and above

will receive a net benefit from a harmonized GST-PST. And, Mr. Speaker, we will

monitor the situation. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition, if there

is further action required we will indeed take further action. In fact, I can

tell the Leader of the Opposition, I would anticipate when the next budget is

brought forth, the Leader of the Opposition will see a number of innovative new

approaches to the provision of social policy in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have not seen, I say to the Premier,

where the savings for the person on social assistance are going to be. He did

not answer my question.

Currently, we have a problem with hunger in our schools. In

1992 the Royal Commission indicated that, and recently Dr. Patricia Canning in

Special Matters highlighted that. I am sure it is an area that the

Premier is going to have to revisit. Now we are going to have children who

cannot afford clothing. A new pair of jeans may not mean much to the Premier but

it does mean very much to a lot of children in our schools today. What will the

Premier do to assist those families that are hardest hit by these basic

necessities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a new pair of jeans means as

much to me as it does to the Leader of the Opposition or any other member of the

House. The fact is, for children in this Province those jeans are a necessity,

an essential element of the make-up of their clothing.

As I just said, if we find that there is an undue hardship on

the lowest income families in the Province, those who have least amongst us, we

will bring forward the proper adjustments to provide for that. It is the

analysis of the officials in the Department of Finance, those who do the

budgeting for the Province, that in fact all families at all income levels with

a harmonized tax regime will benefit in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That analysis is not being done by people who say they are members of

one party or another party, those who are for or against a particular tax

proposal. That analysis is being done by independent civil servants and, Mr.

Speaker, I have to take that analysis at face value.

I have a sufficient concern, as do members of this caucus and

this party, as to the situation of those who have least amongst us, that we are

going to monitor the situation closely, and if further measures are required

those further measures will be taken.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In six of the last seven years our forecasts were off. I

wonder: Is it the same analysis, or is it the political twist that is put on

those analyses, I say to the Premier.

Premier, the items I mentioned here are necessities. They are

non-discretionary consumables. Now, somebody who buys a $30,000 or $40,000 car

every couple of years may save enough to offset those increased costs in those

necessities but, I ask the Premier, if a family is not even able to buy a car,

how does he think they are going to save from this increase on children's

clothing, on heat, and on electricity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people who did the

forecast this year, notably under the leadership of the Minister of Finance,

forecast that we would come in this year spot on in terms of our revenues and

expenditures, and this year there was no mini-Budget. This year there was no

announcement before Christmas. This year our finances, our revenues and

expenditures, are right on target, and we think the forecast with respect to the

benefits of a harmonized tax system are also on target.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, there is $105 million

going to be left in the economy for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. Why would the Leader of the Opposition continue to cling to the

notion that the way to bring about tax policy in the Province, or to bring about

economic policy in the Province, is to continue to raise taxes, to continue to

borrow more money, when there is an option called `harmonization' which

simplifies the tax regime, is attractive for small business in the Province, and

at the same time gives a break to consumers. What can be wrong with lowering the

overall tax bill from 20 per cent to 15 per cent - the first time it has been

done since 1949?

We think we have a good plan and, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition, we are going to test it because we are confident in it. If there are

any problems that need to be adjusted we will make those adjustments; but why is

the Leader of the Opposition saying to the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador today: Keep taxes at 20 per cent. I don't understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is all about telling the truth. I am sure the Premier

recalls a famous story about a puppet who was wooden and controlled by a master.

I say to the Premier: Geppetto is in St. John's today. I ask the Premier: Will

he grow up? Will he cut those strings? Will he do what is right, act like a real

person, and scrap this BS tax that he brought on this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

obviously has a quipster writing his questions. He nearly delivered it smoothly,

but not quite. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that public posturing

is no substitute for public policy. We are about putting forward public policy

on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier should

know all about political posturing, I say to him. I have one last question for

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

Figures provided by his department and the federal government

have indicated to me that GST revenues collected in this past year, depending on

what calendar month you would follow, are from $279 million to $283 million in

this Province. When you convert that to the 15 per cent, our Province's 8 per

cent share, it comes to a $240 million shortfall. The minister indicated to me

in the House we are going to have new taxes to get us back $90 million of that,

leaving a shortfall I say of $150 million, not the $105 million the minister

talks about. Can the minister explain the difference in the $45 million to this

House?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know where the

hon. member gets his figures. The figure done by the Department of Finance was

$380 million to be realized as of the next fiscal year beginning April 1. Where

he gets the other figures I honestly don't know. So I don't quarrel with him, I

differ with him. I have no knowledge as to the basis on which these assumptions

are made. But clearly, in all of the assumptions done by the officials there is

approximately $380 million to be obtained as a result of the application of our

8 per cent integrated with the GST, and I've indicated in the House on numerous

other occasions that we would make up approximately another $90 million in other

measures. That will yield a shortfall of $105 million from the approximate $570

million we have been collecting on an annual basis, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Premier. I would like to ask the Premier if he would inform the House as to

his thoughts on the increased foreign activity of fishing on the Grands Banks,

according to the latest reports which were on CBC radio this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the

Canada-EU enforcement agreement is still in place and is working. There are

still monitors aboard all of the vessels out there. Unless the member has a

report that I don't yet have - and I must confess, I haven't talked to anybody

directly at DFO in recent days - the most recent conversation I had was with

Peter Gullage at CBC. He was doing some research. So I don't know whether his

numbers are more up to date than those I've seen.

All I can say to the hon. member is this is a subject which

is very near and dear to my heart. I can say to the hon. member that the kind of

fishing activity that took place prior to the spring of 1995, that is, prior to

the so-called turbot dispute, should never occur again. I can say to the hon.

member that if such activity ever occurs again this government will be the first

to stand and say it is unacceptable and must be brought to a stop, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, at one time you could go to

the library at DFO down at White Hills or you could call and get an immediate

update of the fishing activity on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. When the

Premier was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa he did away with

access to those reports. I wonder if he could inform the House as to why?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member just

said is wrong. When I was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans we used to have

on Sundays hourly reports on how many vessels were on the Nose and Tail, and we

used to have reports hourly on how many vessels we drove off the Nose and Tail

of the Grand Banks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if it becomes necessary to

take such action again, I'm absolutely confident that Admiral Fred Mifflin will

not hesitate for one second to send out the boats and ensure that the Nose and

Tail are properly looked after. The member should have equal confidence in the

Admiral who comes from his own constituency.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that he

may have had access on an hourly basis to those reports, but I can assure you

that the public didn't have access to them. The reports were taken out of the

system for the public.

Premier, in a ministerial statement on November 26 1996 the

Premier said: Fewer than half the number of Spanish vessels have come to fish

this year in 1996 than fished in the same region in 1995. Premier, there are now

five times the Spanish and Portuguese vessels raking the floor of the Grand

Banks. The Nose on the Grand Banks is extending -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - faster than the nose on the Premier's

face.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and I ask him to get to

his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the Premier: When he will reach out

and stop this activity on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks while our own

fishermen sit at home waiting for the stocks to replenish so that they might be

able to go out to feed and support their families?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand by my statement that

the level of fishing activity on the Grand Banks -

MR. FITZGERALD: Five times, Premier, five times.

PREMIER TOBIN: If the member will let me finish. I stand

by my statement that the level of fishing activity today on the Nose and Tail of

the Grand Banks, and the level of fishing activity after the turbot war is

dramatically reduced. I stand by my statement that the amount of enforcement and

regulation of that fishery is dramatically increased. To my knowledge, Mr.

Speaker, the incidence of violations in the area in question is down

dramatically after the turbot war. The turbot war took place, as the member will

know, in the Spring of 1995.

Now, let me just say this: this party, the Liberal Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Liberal Party of Canada, have no lessons to

take from the Conservative Party of this Province, or the Conservative Party of

Canada about finding the backbone to go out and do the job that needed to be

done on the Nose and Tail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election,

it was the Conservative Leader, Mr. Jean Charst, who came to St. John's and

stood beside the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada and said: You

cannot go beyond 200 miles - you would be breaking international law and it

cannot be done. The same kind of lack of backbone we have seen on the Churchill

Falls renegotiation from this party we are now hearing on the issue of foreign

overfishing. Mr. Speaker, we have no lessons to take from members opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a final

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, reports will show there are five

times, and I repeat that again, five times as much activity out there today as

there was this time last year, and that is certainly contrary to what the

minister stated two weeks ago. I ask the minister once again what he plans on

doing? Show time is over. It is time for him now to react and reach out and help

those individuals out there who need to be helped the most, and that is

Newfoundlanders and not Portuguese and Spanish.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that

if there is a level of activity happening on the Nose and Trail that shows an

increase in fishing activity, that shows that the fleet in question is fishing

beyond the turbot quota assigned to them, or that the fleet in question is

fishing outside of the rules contained within the Canada-EU Agreement, I can

assure him if that is happening, I have confidence that the Minister of

Fisheries, Admiral Fred Mifflin, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrtien

will act to put a stop to that activity, if indeed that is happening, and the

member should have confidence as well.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. The

minister keeps sitting on the report of the Burin Peninsula Health Care Board

and pretending it has nothing to do with him as the Province's Health Minister.

Now, we have yet another crisis that, I suppose, has nothing to do with him. Has

the head of the Western Regional Health Care Board been relieved of duty pending

the outcome of an investigation into the running of that board?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was, I believe, has the CEO of the Western

Health Care Corporation been placed on suspension? The answer to that is, yes,

he has been suspended with pay along with the assistant chief CEO. And that

suspension with pay will stay in place until the Western Health Care Corporation

has had further opportunity to deal with the information that gave rise to that

decision and a fuller review of matters that we will be undertaking shortly as

government with the Health Care Corporation on the West Coast.

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

on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Does the minister know the details of the

problems in administering the Western Health Care Board, and if not when will he

commission an investigation into getting to the bottom of this?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am aware of the basis, in a general sense, of the

issues that have come to the attention of the Western Health Care Corporation's

Board and that have led them to, upon reflection, make the decisions they took

in a meeting of the full board on Friday.

So the work of pursuing further investigative and analytical

work with respect to the operations on the West Coast will be going forward in a

timely fashion. I would point out to the hon. member that obviously the

references to the work of the Auditor General reflects substantially to the

business that was being carried out on the West Coast under the auspices of the

old Western Memorial Hospital Board. Because, obviously, the period that the

Auditor General was doing some work on, covers a period prior to the beginning

of the mandate of this new board. However, the new board has assumed full

responsibility for the activities that have gone on in the region heretofore,

not only at Western Memorial, but at all facilities, as have all of the new

boards taken responsibility for the old board's activities as the mergers took

place and as the new entities came into existence. I cannot say much more other

than that I am aware of the basis for the decision. The board has the full

support of the government and has my personal support in terms of the actions

they have seen fit to take.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when will this minister stop washing his hands

when public confidence and the transfer to the new board structure is being

shattered? Does he not realize that maybe now this is a good time to commission

a review of the entire health care system that he has imposed on the Province to

find out what is wrong, why it is going wrong and what he should be doing to fix

it?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of any lack of confidence the public has in

the current way that we have administered and governed health care in the

Province. I would say, on the contrary, the level of confidence of the public

has probably been enhanced as a result of the swift, decisive and appropriate

action that at least two health care boards have taken as a result of incidents

in their region in the last couple of months. So that does not bespeak to me of

a situation where the health care system is not being properly managed, rather

it says that the volunteer board of trustees that are managing health care

throughout the Province are prepared to deal with issues as they arrive in an

appropriate, timely and expeditious fashion. I believe that will only serve to

enhance the level of public confidence that the people of the Province will and

should and I believe do have in our health care system.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Mr. Minister, has this government had any discussions

recently with the Federal Government regarding the provision of a cost-shared

infrastructure works program for 1997? Can the minister tell us whether the

government is actively working now to develop such a program? Is the Province

willing to commit new funds next year to an infrastructure works program to

provide some badly needed infrastructure?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I believe all the questions

were financial so I am going to refer them to my colleague, the Minister of

Finance. He has been doing the negotiating, he is the one who has to provide the

dollars, so if I may I will refer the question to my hon. colleague, the

Minister of Finance.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I am asking the Minister of Finance now,

since the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs cannot answer it: Has the

government had any discussions with the Federal Government with respect to a

Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure program for 1997? Are you actively working on

it now and will there be any new funds for the municipalities this year if there

is such a program?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the Province has indicated its

willingness to the Federal Government to enter into an arrangement, but no

details have been negotiated at this point.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Auditor General, in her 1995 report,

faulted the government for improperly planning and evaluating the last

infrastructure works program. Does the Municipal Affairs minister recall the

Auditor General found the allocation of monies under the last program did not

appear consistent with the Strategic Economic Plan in the Province? What will

the government do this time to ensure the program, if indeed there is such a

program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General - maybe I

should not make a comment about the Auditor General.

Based on our reports from the Canadian Federation of

Municipalities, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities and

the communities around the Province, most were quite satisfied with the

direction that the funding went in or was directed towards. We did have some

complaints with regard to the government actually directing some monies towards

roads and forestry infrastructure programs, but if you go back and look at those

programs and you see the amount of employment that the forestry program - the

money that we spent on forestry and the number of jobs that were created there,

from a Newfoundland perspective, it certainly has been a benefit to us.

Mr. Speaker, if there is going to be a new infrastructure

program, there will be new guidelines drawn up next time. I am not sure where

money will go from the infrastructure program but it will be something that we

will discuss, I guess, at the time when it is approved. And, quite honestly, I

take exception to the Auditor General making comments like that because she is

doing a job that maybe, she does not hear from all people concerned. And in this

particular case, with regards to the infrastructure program, I think most of us

on this side, and I am certain that most of you on that side who were in the

House when the infrastructure program was announced, took great consolation in

the fact that a lot of us got a lot of necessary work done in our districts, and

hopefully -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: - let us pray over Christmas that we have

another infrastructure program to announce early in the new year.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

I believe we agreed to revert to Ministerial Statements.

The hon. the Premier, a Ministerial Statement.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that effective today,

and by agreement of all parties, and after consultation with all parties in the

House of Assembly, Mr. Robert Jenkins will become the Province's Chief Electoral

Officer and, with the House's approval, the Commissioner of Members' Interests.

Mr. Jenkins is a former Clerk of the Executive Council, and a

Senior Deputy Minister. He succeeds Mr. Wayne Mitchell, who will take up new

duties as Secretary to His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Mitchell will replace Brigadier-General Gordon Barnes,

the current Secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor. For practical purposes,

Brigadier-General Barnes will continue to serve His Honour, Mr. Frederick

Russell, to the end of his term. Mr. Mitchell will fully assume his duties when

the incoming Lieutenant-Governor, Dr. Max House assumes his duties as

Lieutenant-Governor in earl February.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to join with all

of my colleagues on all sides of the House, to thank Mr. Wayne Mitchell for his

service in the important role of Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of

Members' Interests. It is a role which is central to the exercise of the

democratic process and it is a role that Mr. Mitchell has fulfilled with great

diligence. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it will be said that the course of electoral

reform has been well navigated by Mr. Mitchell.

I want as well, to congratulate him on his new appointment

which will be a key one in the service of His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor in

1997, the year of our 500th anniversary celebrations, and the year in which we

will host Her Majesty, The Queen. I also want to thank Brigadier-General Barnes

for his loyal service and finally, I want to congratulate Mr. Jenkins on his new

appointment and pledge him, I am sure, the support and the collaboration of all

parties in the Chamber in fulfilling his very important duties.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible), may I move that Robert

Jenkins be appointed as the Commissioner of Members' Interests under subsection

34 (2) of the House of Assembly Act.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too, pass on my thanks on behalf of the Official Opposition

here to Mr. Mitchell, who has served in the capacity here since his inception as

the Commissioner of Members' Interests and who has also served as Chief

Electoral Officer for the Province and I certainly wish him well in his new

position as Secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor.

I also thank too, Brigadier-General Barnes who has served in

a very honourable and professional manner in his capacity, and also, I am quite

confident that Mr. Jenkins, who has had a very distinguished record here, in the

Province, went into public service here, will serve and fulfill his duties in

his new capacity in a very efficient and professional manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too, would like to recognize and thank Mr. Wayne Mitchell

for the valuable contribution that he has made in his role as Chief Electoral

Officer with the new Elections Act, and as the first Commissioner of Members'

Interests for this House. He has set a course which I think is worthy of his

efforts and talents and commend his contribution to members of the House and I

would also wish him well in his new and important post as Secretary to the

Lieutenant-Governor, particularly in the forthcoming 500th anniversary year.

I would also like to join in endorsing the appointment of Bob

Jenkins as the new Commissioner for Members' Interests and the Chief Electoral

Officer and support the motion of the Premier to have that appointment confirmed

by the House today, and also, to join with the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition and to thank Brigadier-General Gordon Barnes for his long and

diligent service to the Lieutenant-Governor in his position.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, `aye".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Motion, carried.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The

Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Service Medal."

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in line with a discussion that we

had with the Member for Bonavista South, I give notice, that I will on tomorrow

ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith

Donation And Distribution Of Food," and that will be known as Bill 30, Mr.

Speaker.

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Heritage

Animals, The Newfoundland Pony And The Labrador Horse", (Bill No. 32).

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call Petitions, the Chair would

like to recognize in the gallery today a former Member of the House of Assembly,

the former member for the District of Green Bay, Mr. Alvin Hewlett.

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 signed by 9,069

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians concerning the development of the oil on the

Grand Banks. These petitioners, and I am told by the organizers that in addition

to the 9,069 we present today there are a number of thousands of other petitions

signed to the same effect that have not yet been brought together for

presentation to the House. These residents of Newfoundland and Labrador resolve

that the Terra Nova oil field be developed by Canadian industry for the benefit

of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the burden of their petition is that throughout

this process, in particular the development of the Terra Nova project, the

position taken by the proponents has been that this ought to be an

internationally competitive position, that there ought to be no special

arrangements for special preferences for Canadians or Newfoundlanders, that it

should be internationally competitive because this is not a project which the

government is putting money into. Well, the petitioners differ from that view

and support this with the evidence of the public support for the PIP grants

which caused the exploration and discovery of this oil in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government figures show that between

1981 and 1987 Petro Canada was paid $1.55 billion in PIP grants for oil

exploration off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, Husky Oil operations nearly

$500 million, a total of approximately $2 billion of taxpayers' money in PIP

grants for oil exploration which led to the discovery of the Terra Nova oil,

amongst other discoveries. That is a considerable amount of public dollars, in

over the years.

The petitioners believe - and, as indicated, there are

thousands of them and they represent a significant amount of public opinion in

this Province - that the development of the Terra Nova oil and future oil, the

offshore of Newfoundland, ought to be done primarily - not exclusively, but

primarily - for the benefit of Canadians in particular, and Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians in the first instance, for this work.

Mr. Speaker, competitiveness sometimes means competing with

international companies and corporations who have the protection of operating in

their country without the benefit of proper labour laws, without the benefit of

proper payments for their workers, without the benefit of safety legislation

that Canadian companies are required - and rightfully so - to undertake on

behalf of their workers.

Mr. Speaker, we believe, along with the petitioners, that

Canadian industry is fully capable of doing the work that needs to be done to

bring this oil on stream, and that the Terra Nova oil field, and all other oil

fields, ought to be developed with Canadian content, Canadian corporations, and

Canadian workers in particular, workers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition presented on behalf of

workers, small business people who have worked to gather this petition,

community leaders throughout the Province who have an interest in ensuring that

the development of our offshore resources ought to take place for the benefit of

all Canadians, and in particular Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who own the

resource and whose tax dollars have provided the exploration dollars to find

this resource.

The companies cannot take the position that this is a private

enterprise development. It is not. It is financed by public dollars. The

exploration and the finding of this oil was financed by public dollars, and the

return to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular Canadians,

ought to be far greater than what is now envisaged by the Terra Nova proponents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I stand to support the petition presented by the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. There have been many instances over the last number of

months, and indeed over the last couple of years, where the benefits from oil

exploration, a resource that is owned, that is operated, or that should be owned

totally, that should be operated by the people of this Province, where the

benefits from such resource development, such exploitation in the emerging oil

and gas industry, Mr. Speaker, where all the benefits have not come to the

people of this Province first and foremost.

I support the goal of the petition as presented by the member

where it calls for, specifically, that the Terra Nova project should be

completely developed by Canadian content, Canadian contractors, Canadian workers

where qualified personnel exist. There is no reason to believe, and there

certainly is no reason that has been demonstrated from one end of this country

to another, that qualified personnel, both from an employer point of view and

from an employee point of view, do not exist in this country to develop our

industries such as the oil and gas industry.

We have seen recently presented in this House other petitions

whereby the full impact of oil exploration, the full impact of benefits accruing

to the people of Canada and in particular the people of this Province, have not

been realized. This government, and indeed this House of Assembly, should move

and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that where Canadian contractors

can become involved in the oil and gas industry, particularly with Terra Nova

and any other (inaudible) resource developments, they should be encouraged to do

so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The member also articulates loudly and

clearly that other countries where development has occurred with respect to the

exploration of our industry have avoided certain labour laws, certain

environmental assessment practices. We have seen it clearly in the MS-20 module

at the Hibernia site, for example those modules that were done in Italy and

Korea. When their work came back here it took Canadian workers, it took workers

from Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - to fix the problems with that module. The

module came over from other parts of the world and it was not up to standard,

Mr. Speaker. It took workers from this Province and this country to ensure that

it was done.

I support the petition and encourage those who have taken up

those petitions to keep up the work, keep up the pressure, keep the petitions

coming. Maybe, just maybe, government, not only this House of Assembly but the

Parliament of Canada, can move to ensure that all future resource developments,

each and every one of them, that to the fullest extent possible people in this

country and in this Province gain their rightful share from it. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the words on the

petition so I'm not sure exactly what it was. I didn't hear the initial words as

the member was introducing the particular petition. In principle I would say

that we too work to maximize the benefits from offshore oil and gas development.

We follow the principles of the Atlantic Accord, but we go beyond the Atlantic

Accord wherever possible in trying to maximize the benefits.

Hibernia is one example of that. We negotiated benefits'

agreements, we negotiated a financial package, and as a matter of fact, in terms

of the benefits, they have all been exceeded to date in the first six years

since September 14 1990. We are way above the Newfoundland content expectations

since the signing of the agreement six years ago. We are above the Canadian

projections for this country, and we are well ahead of what Norway got for its

first construction project in the offshore. We are well ahead of what the United

Kingdom got for its first project, and we are going to continue to work on

maximizing the benefits for future projects.

In terms of the employment, for example the number of people.

Six years ago we projected that at Bull Arm we might reach 3,500 people at peak

employment. Well, at Bull Arm and in the Province of Newfoundland the peak

exceeded 6,000 people in the Province of Newfoundland. Almost double what the

projection was six years ago, and the numbers have increased in other areas as

well of financial expenditures.

In terms of PIPs, we acknowledge the money that was spent out

of the federal coffers in support of exploration back in the 1970s and the

1980s. There is no doubt a lot of that was done. In negotiating the financial

package with Terra Nova over the last few years we have considered that. It has

already been said in this Assembly that we are going to get about twice as much

in financial return from Terra Nova with a field that is only two-thirds as big

as we are getting from Hibernia. Because we are acknowledging what was spent and

saying: You do not get credit for what was spent. We are going to get the

maximum that we can get in terms of our financial package.

In terms of the contracting, in selecting international

alliance partners, it was required that they have Canadian partners as part of

the three alliance partners that are bidding on the projects, that there be

Newfoundland components to that. No question about it, that there will be

Newfoundland components. We required it, Mr. Speaker, that in bidding on the

mode of development for Terra Nova they not just bid the steel mono-hole type

but they also bid concrete and fully assess all the alternatives to try to

maximize (inaudible) to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I acknowledge what the hon. member opposite said about the

M-20 module, the best quality work was done by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador at Bull Arm, absolutely the best quality work. They have proven that

they can compete with anybody in the world. When the module from Korea came over

and had deficiencies we got - I am not sure of the exact number but probably

pushing an extra million hours of person work in Newfoundland and Labrador

because of that. They have done a great job and they will continue to do a great

job and we, as a government, are going to do everything in our power to get the

maximum amount of work done here. In our negotiations with Terra Nova, we have a

benefits agreement. We have a financial agreement and in future, we are going to

maximize whatever we can in our offshore.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition 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 asking 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 students.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of a series of petitions which have

been brought forward in the past and will continue to be brought forward with

respect to the issue of school transportation and the security of children

aboard buses here in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in the past my colleagues and myself have

raised, in particular, a school bus safety proposal which was presented by the

concerned parents of the Holy Family School Bus Safety Committee dealing with

the proper and adequate supervision of students on buses as well as boarding and

leaving buses, driver selection and training, proper school bus maintenance and

vehicle communication, safety education programs for students and parents,

teachers and drivers, bus safety awareness programs for the public and scheduled

bus routes. These have been identified, Mr. Speaker, as the primary areas of

concern with recommendations. I have to add that this parent's committee did in

fact, in addition to recognizing the areas of concern, also make, in my view,

what are sound recommendations to the minister for him to consider with respect

to the incorporation of these recommendations in student transportation policy.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue and when we look at the

news media in the past few days we saw some very interesting articles. We hear

some interesting news stories with respect to this whole topic of bus monitoring

and school transportation in general. Mr. Speaker, my guess is that the hon.

minister will respond to this petition and if in fact he chooses to do so, I

would be interested in his reaction to what was considered to have been a very

favourable report with respect to a volunteer student bus monitoring program. I

ask the minister, if he so wishes to respond, what is his comment with respect

to legal liability in the event of an occurrence and how would that impact upon

the status and the legal status of young student monitors? Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition as presented by my hon.

colleague. I guess over the last little while, Mr. Speaker, there has been quite

an amount of concern considering bus monitoring in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I

had the opportunity to speak to the gentleman who drove the school bus when the

child was killed at Holy Family and it was a very sad conversation. I would like

to relay a conversation to this House, a conversation where this gentleman was

certainly very upset by what had transpired. He gave me a very vivid description

of what had taken place on that very tragic day, and the shape this gentleman

was in because of this very serious accident. If one could only have been there

to have the conversation that I had with this particular gentleman, then I do

not think there would be anybody in this Province who would have anything

against bus monitoring on any buses in the Province.

The story was relayed to me, of how the child crossed in

front of the bus, and how he, the driver, lost sight of him, and then moved on

several feet, only to look in the rear view mirror to find that something very

tragic had happened, and the problems he had, and was still having about two

days later, trying to cope with himself even though this accident certainly was

not his fault, but just coping with himself, coping with his own family, and

certainly, coping with his own children.

It was a very tragic and very sad event, Mr. Speaker, and I

think we should give all due consideration to bus monitoring so that this never

happens again in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I also had the opportunity to attend a meeting in Foxtrap

where once again the same discussions were held about a bus monitor, and again

to have relayed to me by a lady of how she watched her own son, several years

ago, being run over by a school bus and the child subsequently died.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is no dollar value we can put on

the life of a child, but anything we can do to prevent such an occurrence, we

should do. If somebody had talked to the lady who had a child killed, and also

as I did, the opportunity to talk to the gentleman who drove the school bus on

that tragic day, I think, maybe in this House and everywhere else we would

certainly have a different outlook as to putting paid bus monitors on school

buses.

Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to just briefly make a comment in acknowledging the

receipt of the presentation of the petition. There are a whole range of safety

issues with respect to school busing that are under review, but unfortunately

paid adult monitors will not be part of the solution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have an agreement

that we will do first reading on Bills No. 30, 29, and 32:

Bill No. 30, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And

Distribution Of Food", the one asked for by the Member for Bonavista South, and

one from the Premier, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Volunteer

Service Medal", and "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Heritage Animals".

I believe there is no problem with doing first reading on

those, by leave.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By agreement prior to the House opening, we, on this side,

gave leave for the first reading of these said bills today in order that they

may be able to appear for second reading if the government should call them on

tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And

Distribution of Goods", carried. (Bill No. 30); and

a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Heritage

Animals", carried. (Bill No. 32)

Motion, the hon the Premier to introduce an bill, "An Act

Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Volunteer Service Medal", carried.

(Bill No. 29)

On motion, Bills No. 30, 32 and 29 read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 3, first reading of Bill

No. 51.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Dealers Act, The

Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Companies Act, The

Real Estate Trading Act And The Trust And Loan Corporations Licensing Act,"

carried. (Bill No. 51)

On motion, Bill No. 51 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act

To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The

45)

MR. SPEAKER: As he adjourned debated, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to offer some comments on this particular bill.

I do believe that the position of this caucus has been made quite clear by the

Leader of the Progressive Conservative caucus.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we had a conversation across the

House that come 5:00 p.m. we would stop the clock until about 5:30 p.m. I would

like to make sure that we have that agreement now, and that we would adjourn at

5:30 p.m. as opposed to 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand it is in agreement between

the House Leaders and all members of the House to close at 5:30 p.m.?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, as much as this caucus is

quite prepared to stay later - we are most anxious to stay later - we agree with

the hon. the Government House Leader, by unanimous consent on this side, that we

stop the clock at 5:00 p.m. and continue on until 5:30 p.m. for today.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, relative to the bill that is

now before the House, Bill No. 45, "An Act To Implement The Comprehensive

Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador", there is much that can be said about

this bill. It is a case in which the Leader of the Progressive Conservative

Party has made it quite clear that the bill, as it is now written, does not meet

with the approval of the members of this caucus.

Mr. Speaker, we refer all members back to the government's

red book. As members of this House have now become familiar, I have the book

that was presented to the population of Newfoundland and Labrador prior to the

last election. I have looked through here, and I have read it through backwards

and forwards, and all the rest of it, I say to my Leader of the Party, and I

looked for places where it refers to this particular change of taxation in this

Province. I looked through all the different headings. I looked through the

fiscal policy. There was not a word about the HST, not a word about the

possibility of its even being introduced.

Mr. Speaker, it says on page 75: The new Liberal Government

will maintain a sound fiscal position in 1996 and 1997, and continue to move

towards a balanced budget during its term of office.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) hold on to the red book. Put that

down.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of

Education would want me to put down the red book. I say, for the sake of Hansard

and for posterity, that the Minister of Education shouted across the House:

Would you put down the red book.

Mr. Speaker, I know what the Minister of Education wants me

to do. He wants me throw this book on the floor. He wants me to just discard it,

because the Minister of Education doesn't want me to remind him that when he

talks about `ready for a better tomorrow' he did not talk about a harmonized

sales tax. I think the time has come for me to look through this book to see

what I can find about the Harmonized Sales Tax. I have looked through it. It

talks about "A Strong Canada for a Strong Newfoundland and Labrador" on page 79.

Turn the page. This must be the page in which the GST and the PST - this is the

page. The Harmonized Sales Tax is referenced on page 80. I am holding the page

up for all my colleagues to read. Because page 80 was written in disappearing

ink. Because page 80 is absolutely blank, other than it says on the top of the

page, "Ready for a Better Tomorrow," and at the bottom of the page it says

"Liberal."

Something has happened since the time this book got written.

Because page 80 should be referring to the Harmonized Sales Tax, but it isn't.

It must have been written there in disappearing ink by Winst Baker and company,

because we know that the former Minister of Finance was, of course, one of the

architects of this particular document. I have great respect for Mr. Winst

Baker. However, I always thought that he wrote in ink that would be preserved

for posterity and we could see what he had written.

On page 80 we have the comments about the Harmonized Sales

Tax in the Liberal red book, a blank page. I think it is time for me to just

throw that book down on the floor because it obviously has no relevance

whatsoever - time to throw it down. It has been discarded, and the Liberal

Administration opposite have distanced themselves from the red book completely.

MR. SULLIVAN: It says, for ten more little white ones,

see page 52.

MR. H. HODDER: For ten more little white ones, see page

52?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, there is page 52, written in the same

kind of disappearing ink.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to all hon. members that in 1993

we had the federal Liberal Government, they campaigned on a promise of

consultation. Right after the election we all remember the federal Minister of

Finance going across this country with his charts and his maps and his

documentation, with an Air Canada load of public servants. Going from coast to

coast and saying; We are going to consult with you. One of the things that the

hon. the Premier, who was a candidate at that time, he went around and he said:

We will have a public consultation on taxation. So the hon. the Minister of

Finance federally went and said: Let us go around and talk to the business

people. I remember Paul Martin being on television, being on CBC, being on

Newsworld, being on all of these public media stations, saying: We are going to

have a consultation with you. We are going to talk about taxation, we are going

to talk about revenues, we are going to talk about budgets. We are going to have

you involved. We want you as participants. You are going to be full participants

in all this policy development.

We looked at that and we said: That's a good idea. Last year,

in 1995, towards the end of the year, in December, when it became known that the

Prime Minister was not too happy with the then-Premier of Newfoundland and

Labrador over Quebec matters, and some statements that the Premier of the day

had made relative to the Province of Quebec during the referendum in that

Province, and his hard-nosed stand going back as far as Meech Lake and that kind

of thing, and the Prime Minister called up the Premier and said: We take great

exception to what you are saying. There was pushing and shoving, and there was

coaxing, and towards the end of December the Premier of the day said, `I have

decided to throw in the towel. I am going to quit.' So about this time last

year, just after the House closed, we got this big announcement that the Premier

was going to quit. Now, it was supposed to be big news and it was supposed to

have happened quite suddenly but we know the difference of that. We know that

there was a plan afoot as far back as October of last year for - now the Premier

of the Province - at that time, the Minister of Fisheries, to come back to

Newfoundland and to get in the lineup for the leadership of the party, and that

happened. We were not surprised. We were a bit surprised at how quickly it

happened, but we were not surprised. Because I was told by a member opposite

last October, I suppose, about how the universe would unfold. The only question

was, I did not know exactly when it would happen. But the process of the

Minister of Fisheries coming back to Newfoundland to take on the leadership of

the Liberal Party and take over from then Premier Wells, was well known to

members of this House long before it happened.

Now, when the Premier came back and ran the election, he got

elected and did quite well - the numbers in the House show that - but one of the

first things he said was, `I am going to begin a process of consultation.' With

that in mind, right after the election he had to use the red book and talked

about consultation - in fact, you read through here all kinds of talk about

consultation. I say to hon. members, I have taken up the book again here because

I am looking for the sections on consultation and there are lots of sections

there. He talked about consultation. However, when the election was on, people

bought into that particular promise, and right after the election the

Newfoundland Minister of Finance looked to the federal minister and said, `What

did you do to get started on your budgetary process?' The federal Minister of

Finance told him what he had done and the Premier then told him what had

happened federally, and he said: That's a good idea.

So the Newfoundland Minister of Finance went across the

Province with his entourage, with his flip charts, with his overhead projectors,

with his civil servants, and he said, `I want you to tell me what you think are

priorities for this Province.' Now, Mr. Speaker, there was not one whimper at

that time, not one iota, not one smidgen of a thought that said that we were

going to have a harmonized sales tax and that, therefore, was not part of the

consultation. It was not part of the election. It was not part of the

consultations that the Minister of Finance did last Spring. However, about three

weeks after these consultations had gotten started, we heard that the Premier

had signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the House, there has been no public

consultation. There was promise of consultation on education, promise of

consultation on fiscal policy but on the specifics of the harmonized sales tax,

there was no consultation whatsoever. So, Mr. Speaker, we say on this side that

the lack of consultation means that there was no mention of it in the election

last winter, last February, therefore, the Premier really does not have a

specific mandate other than a general mandate to proceed with this kind of

initiative at this stage. However, we also know that other things were happening

last year.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to switch a little bit to the

federal issue for a moment, because last year there was talk that, well maybe,

did the Liberals federally promise to get rid of the GST in 1993? Now, Mr.

Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister appeared on a radio station in Montreal

in which he said, in answer to a question, `Would you scrap the GST?' He said,

`Yes, we will abolish it.' Sheila Copps, the member for the Hamilton area, when

she was campaigning - what did she say to her constituents? `We will scrap the

GST.' We know that John Nunziata said he would scrap the GST. We know that

everybody who campaigned for the Liberal Party in 1993 said they would scrap the

GST.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not the issue; my colleague, the

Member for the District of Twillingate and Fogo shouts across the House asking:

Who brought it in?

Mr. Speaker, if he wants to get up and take

part in this

debate, we would welcome his participation; but he is not allowed to take

part

in the debate, no, no, he is only allowed to take his seat. We are still waiting

for him to give his introductory speech but one of those days he will give some

kind of a statement which he will distribute in thousands of copies throughout

that great District of Twillingate and Fogo. We are waiting for him to give that

speech but I know it will not be on the HST because his leader will not let him

get up and have anything to say. But he shouts across the House, and I am

pleased to hear him shouting because we at least know now that he has the

ability to get up and speak up and that kind of thing. All we need now is a

willingness for him to get up and speak up; but on this issue, he is not going

to get up, we know that.

Mr. Speaker, let me return for a moment to the commitments

made in 1993. Now, we know that around this time last year, the Member for

Hamilton, Sheila Copps, the Deputy Prime Minister, found herself in a very

difficult position. She said to her staff: `I made a commitment; I said that we

would scrap the GST.' And at this time last year, the federal Minister of

Finance, went and apologized. He said to the people of Canada: `I apologize that

we cannot scrap the GST.' The Prime Minister said: `No, no no, I am not going to

apologize, because we never said it' - in spite of the fact, you know, that the

Prime Minister, in the last few days has had tapes played back to him, he has

had interviews played back to him, the Prime Minister who was here today, on

this day, in St. John's for the big fund raiser, the Liberal party tonight,

said: `No, I did not say we would scrap the GST, you did not understand what I

said.'

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a new one on me. It puts me in

mind of everybody marching down the street with one little boy out of step, and

the mother of the little boy wonders how come everybody is not in step with

Johnny. Well, right now, we know who is not in step with Johnny, and in this

particular case, the Johnny I talk about is the Prime Minister of Canada,

because all Canadians know what was said. All members of the Liberal caucus

federally, know what was said, and all of the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador know what was said. John Nunziata knows what was said and John Nunziata

dared to say: I am going to tell the truth. John Nunziata was kicked out of the

Liberal caucus. It is the only caucus in the country where you can be kicked out

for telling the truth; therefore, I think this makes political history in

Canada. The only caucus in Canada where one can be kicked out for telling the

truth, is the Liberal caucus federally.

Mr. Speaker, we know what John Nunziata said. In fact, a few

days ago, on Friday, December 13, in the Globe and Mail there is quite an

extensive

article about John Nunziata. The headlines read: Nunziata challenges

Chrtien over GST, and he said that he is prepared to resign and call a

by-election to settle who is telling the truth. Now these are very powerful

words. Reading from the article, it says: Former Liberal MP, John Nunziata

challenges John Chrtien, as the Prime Minister yesterday to call a by-election

in his riding of York Southwest and to settle who Canadians believe is telling

the truth on the Goods and Services Tax, he or the Prime Minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that John Nunziata is an honourable

person, and what we need in this county is people who are willing to stand up

for what they believe in and to be always very truthful. He said in the

article

here: I am prepared to resign my seat today if the Prime Minister were to call

an immediate by-election just as he did for Sheila Copps. Now Sheila Copps, when

she got in trouble, went to the Prime Minister and said: I am going to resign; I

want to go back and get a new mandate and by doing that, she said what she had

done by her actions, she had said: We committed to scrap the GST. I told my

people in my riding that was my commitment. Now, we can't deliver on that, so I

am now going to go back and say I need a new mandate. What Sheila Copps said

was: I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You should say `Sheila Flops' not Sheila

Copps.

MR. SULLIVAN: She did a poll first.

MR. H. HODDER: She did a poll first and then she changed

her name from Sheila Copps to `Sheila Flops.' Therefore, she went flip-flop, and

she just changed it around. So we have the Deputy Prime Minister who says: I am

sorry. She said: Mr. Prime Minister, I find I have to resign. But would you

promise me, now that I have a poll done which shows I can win the seat, would

you call a by-election? He said: Oh Sheila, yes Sheila, I will gladly do that.

You go ahead and resign. In fact, the very same day that she announced her

resignation, the Prime Minister called the quickest by-election ever, perhaps,

in Canadian history. He said: We are going to have a by-election. What was the

purpose of the by-election? To try to get the Liberals federally out of their

commitment on the GST.

But one member of the Rat Pack federally, of which our

Premier was a member of that Rat Pack group as well, John Nunziata, said: No, I

can't do that because I know we made that promise. As it says here in the

article, he made reference to the fact that he said what the Prime Minister had

said publicly, which he now denies, he had said many times in caucus. Of course,

John Nunziata broke caucus confidentially in doing that. There are some times,

you know, when it is more honourable to be absolutely truthful than to take any

other position. John Nunziata is to be credited because when the going got tough

John Nunziata said: Well, I am going to stand up for what I believe in.

Of course, you know what happened to him. For standing up for

the truth, John Nunziata was booted out of caucus. He was told: Away you go,

there is no room for you - got booted out of caucus, booted out of the Liberal

Party, and was told: No, you can't do that. When we as a group of Liberals

decide that the truth is not the truth, we will decide what is right and what is

wrong, we will determine when the truth is not the truth. I suppose you could do

as Churchill said one time. You can't use certain words in the Legislature, but

what Churchill said was, I guess, he would accuse the prime minister of being a

purveyor of terminological inexactitudes.

In that kind of a way we cannot accuse anybody here of being

Pinocchio by nature, but I can imagine that the Prime Minister's nose by this

time must be stretched halfway across the floor of the Parliament of Canada.

Because he is displaying certain characteristics. I would just say to my hon.

colleagues across the way that the truth is the truth. What the Liberal

strategists are now telling the federal party is that - to quote the

article

here, it says: Privately, Liberal strategists agreed they still have a heavy GST

toll to pay. If anybody thinks this is going to go away before the next

election, they are sadly mistaken. It says here: This is our Achilles' heel.

I just want to say to hon. members that this particular

issue, this particular Harmonized Sales Tax, called the BS Tax in Nova Scotia -I

do understand the Speaker in New Brunswick has made a ruling, in spite of the

fact that in Nova Scotia it is called the BS Tax, you have to say the whole word

- you have to call it the Blended Sales Tax. So I will call it the Blended Sales

Tax here in order not to run the possibility of any wrath from the Speaker,

because I don't want to use any words that are not proper.

We know that the three Liberal Premiers last Spring got

together. We know that there was a call put out to the Premier of Newfoundland

and Labrador, a call put out to the Premier of Nova Scotia, John Savage, and a

call put out to the Premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna. They were asked:

`What can you do for us?' The Prime Minister made the call. He asked: `What is

it you can do for us? We have a problem. Sheila resigned and ran again to get

rid of this.' The federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, apologized on

national television, and the Prime Minister says, `No, it was not an apology.'

That is what happened, so the Prime Minister called in his

troops. He made four calls actually, because he also called the Premier of

Prince Edward Island. From the three Premiers - Nova Scotia's Premier,

Newfoundland and Labrador's Premier, and the Premier of New Brunswick - he got a

very positive response. The request was, `Brian, what can you do for us?'

Therefore, the Newfoundland and Labrador Premier said, `Anything you want, Sir.

What is it you want?' He said, `I want you to introduce a harmonized sales tax.

I want you to do it right away.' It was a case of where immediately, then, the

Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador asked, `What is it you want me to do?'

Mr. Speaker, this tax has been introduced without any public

consultation, and because of that, because of the commitments made by the

government towards consultation, which have not been delivered, we find

ourselves asking: How can we, as a party today, give approval for this HST? We

find we cannot do it because there has been no public consultation. All we are

doing here - this tax should be renamed. In New Brunswick they call it the BS

tax, which is what it was called. Then, because of the initiatives of the Leader

of the New Democratic Party in New Brunswick, that has now been declared

unparliamentary.

In Nova Scotia they changed it around a bit. In Newfoundland

they call it the Harmonized Sales Tax. What it really is, is a `make Chrtien

look good' tax. So we can call it the MCLG tax. A make Chrtien look good tax is

what it is. Therefore, it is an attempt by Ottawa to control the agenda of the

four Atlantic Provinces regarding taxation.

So, Mr. Chrtien calls down to the four Premiers and asks,

`What can you do for me? I will make it good for you. I will put a carrot out

for you. I will make this very, very positive for you. I am going to give you a

carrot that you cannot deny, or you cannot say no to.' So he developed a package

and came down with it. Of course, it was delivered here after consultation

between the federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, and the Newfoundland and

Labrador Premier. What we have before us now is the result of that particular

initiative so that we can all make the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime

Minister look good.

Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of consultation - I find

that I am running rapidly out of time here. I have a lot more that I wanted to

say and, because I have so much more I want to say, I want now to move an

amendment, seconded by my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis. I move the

following amendment.

The purpose of the amendment is to guarantee an opportunity

for this government to give consultation. We feel that consultation should be

given. People should have an opportunity to be able to give input. So we want

today to give the opportunity to the government. We know the government is going

to be very sensitive to the amendment, because they have a commitment towards

consultation. We know from the red book that there are all kinds of commitments

to consultation, so the purpose of my amendment is that we will give all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a chance to have the consultation that is

necessary. Because of that, I will move the following amendment, seconded by my

colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Not until I read the amendment, I say to

the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: It is not moved yet.

MR. H. HODDER: I move that the motion for second reading

of Bill No. 45, which is now before the House of Assembly, be amended by

deleting all the words after the word `that' and substituting the following

`therefore', that Bill 45, "An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax

Newfoundland And Labrador," be not now read a second time but that the order be

discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject matter therefore referred to the

Government Services Committee of the House for further study and consultation.

Mr. Speaker, if I could have the Pages pass a copy to my

colleague across the way.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is any

doubt whether it is in order so why do we not move on?

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Chair have a copy of the

amendment, please?

The amendment is in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the House has found the amendment to be

in order. In my concluding comments I just want to again remind members of a

couple of things I have already reminded them of. This gives the government the

opportunity to make a wrong correct. It gives them a chance to go out and have

consultation with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I just want to remind all hon. members that what we have

before us now is an opportunity for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to demonstrate that they are indeed true Liberals and when they talk about

consultation they will really deliver on it. The amendment says that we will

take the bill back and return it to government. I notice that hon. members are

now getting very interested in this possibility. I can see members over there

now listening very attentively. They have been asked to take this bill back, in

other words, withdraw the bill and refer the whole subject of the Harmonized

Sales Tax to the Government Services Committee for further study and

consultation.

Now, what would that permit, Mr. Speaker? That would permit

consultation with the business community, consultation with the various interest

groups in the Province, with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and with

the people who are going to lose their jobs because of this tax. This gives the

government of today an opportunity to take the amendment I have just read - what

they could do is take page 80 of the Liberal book and get a piece of scotch tape

and say that page 80 is now filled up. You see, page 80 was blank. This was the

page that was going to promise consultation. It is blank in the red book. So now

you can take the amendment that I just made here on HST, put in on page 80 and

show that really, really, you did mean to have consultation on the introduction

of the HST. That would mean that in Newfoundland and Labrador we would not have

to have this tax introduced with agreements made three weeks after an election

without any consultation. It would mean that the government could deliver on its

commitment for harmonization of the GST, and only do it after they have had

adequate consultation with the public of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague across the

way, the real danger in this tax - all of the members on the other side are all

my colleagues - I say to the member for the Chilean contingent, I say to the

ambassador for Chile and, Mr. Speaker, I say to all hon. members that there is a

need to delay this. There is a need to delay it and the real danger here is that

we, in this Province, are operating on an Ottawa agenda. Mr. Speaker, I say to

the minister of wealth that in this particular case he would not understand what

this tax means to ordinary poor Newfoundlanders, the people who cannot buy food

and people who need to have subsidies from all over the place in order to make

ends meets. So the Minister of Health and wealth would not understand the

negative impacts of the HST, the harmonized sales tax. Mr. Speaker, the -

MR. E. BYRNE: It is the same way the Liberals live with

you, a PC, in their Cabinet.

MR. J. BYRNE: And the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: When the only member in the Liberal

Caucus, who was a member of the PC 500 Club and ran for us for nominations and

all the rest of it, when he starts heckling you know, I really begin to wonder

how sincere they really are.

Mr. Speaker, one of the real problems we have is that we are

not convinced that this Province would not lose millions of dollars. Under the

Memorandum of Agreement that was signed in April, which formed the basis of the

agreement, federal compensation for our enormous revenue shortfalls will be

phased out and would expire after four years. Mr. Speaker, that causes a great

concern because on this side we cannot subscribe to the financial information

put out by the Minister of Finance. It is not the same Minister of Finance who

knowingly does not communicate what he believes to be true. In fact, I certainly

believe that he thinks his analyses are correct. However, the finance minister

of Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated the annual revenue shortfall will be

between $100 million and $185 million. Only in the first and second years will

Ottawa compensate us for 100 per cent of that shortfall, except for the 5 per

cent which is not taken into account when they are calculating. In year three

they will make up 50 per cent of the shortfall and in year four, make up 25 per

cent. Mr. Speaker, even by year four the Province could find itself as much as

$184 million a year in revenue sales tax declines based on the 1995 tax revenue

figures and they will have no help whatsoever after year four from Ottawa to

make up the difference. By Year 2001, in other words, we could be $240 million

or well over $200 million short in our provincial budget.

Mr. Speaker, the other problem that we want to identify is

the loss of jobs. We know that the Province did a study on the job impact that

this will have. We understand the jobs of about 100 of the tax auditing and

compliance professionals in the Province's finance department will be maintained

through a transition to a joint sales tax regime and forty of those jobs,

clerical workers, have been given absolutely no guarantees whatsoever. We have

concerns about the loss of jobs because we know that this cannot happen without

some jobs being affected and if it is introduced, which it will be according to

the Government House Leader, we want to say to all hon. members in this House,

whatever you do, look at the human side. Look at the human cost when you talk

about reducing jobs, you are talking about impacts on families and impacts on

children and impacts that will be long-lasting and we are going to end up again

forcing more of our young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to move out of this

Province, move to Ottawa or move to Ontario or move to British Columbia,

wherever, in order that they might be able to get a job.

The other thing that we mentioned in our discussions was the

Province losing taxing autonomy, because what happens here, once you get into a

sales tax harmonization agreement, the provincial government will have no

autonomy in adjusting sales tax rates or providing exemptions. Even if we find

ourselves in difficult financial situations as often happened before, we will

not have the option of making adjustments that will affect our single, greatest

social revenue without breaking the agreement and of course, once you put it

into place, the real difficulty you have if, you for some reason, wanted to

decrease your taxes, you have to go and get the agreement of all the other

partners, so really, what it means, is that, we will have gone and given some of

our autonomy over taxation over to other parts of Canada, and in particular what

it means is that we seem to be getting of the province called Atlantica and we

will end up with really, the capital will be in Nova Scotia, the capital will be

in Halifax, therefore we say to all hon. members that, that is not what we want

as a Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, again we say to members opposite, whose

agenda are you really following? Is it the agenda of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador? It is not the agenda of the people as you communicated in your red

book, so whose agenda is it? It is not the agenda of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, it is the agenda only of the people in Ottawa, and so, this makes

Chrtien look good, a harmonized tax and that is all it is, it is Mr. Chrtien

to quote one of the hymns of the church, he calls down and he says: Rescue the

Perishing. He said: Care for the dying. I am in trouble Brian, would you help me

out here and get me through this. I need help so he says, rescue me, I am in

over my head. We went out and campaigned on scrap the GST and Sheila

flip-flopped and had to go out and be re-elected, and she said she was sorry.

Paul Martin said: I am sorry, John Nunziata told the truth and he was kicked out

of caucus for telling the truth, so he said: what can we do? So the three

Atlantic Premiers said: Well, what can you do for us, let us make a deal, so

with the wheeler-dealer kind of atmosphere that prevailed last spring, the

federal Prime Minister said: Let us make a deal, so the three Atlantic Premiers,

Premier Tobin from Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier John Savage from Nova

Scotia and Premier Frank McKenna from New Brunswick said: Come down and talk to

us and so after a series of meetings, a memorandum of agreement was reached.

Mr. Speaker, this memorandum of agreement does not meet with

the approval of Newfoundland businesses. Businesses are fearful of the impact of

converting their registers and the kind of practices to a new system and in fact

there have been news reports of the tens of thousands of millions of dollars it

is going to cost to have a different taxation regime in Atlantic Canada than

there is in other parts of the country, and then we have to ask ourselves the

question: What was the reaction of the other premiers of Canada? What did Quebec

say? Quebec, which already has a harmonized sales tax, what did Premier Bouchard

of Quebec say about this particular proposal? What he said was: It was a recipe

for disaster. He said: It will not work.

What was the reaction of the Premier of Ontario? He said: Not

on your life. This is not good for Ontario; it is not good for the business

community; it is not good for ordinary people in Ontario. Therefore, he said,

stay away.

What was the reaction out West? Well, out West, right from

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, all said: Sorry, we do not

want to buy into this.

Now, how can this be so good for Newfoundland and Labrador if

it is not accepted in Quebec, which is a have-not province; it is not accepted

in Ontario; it is not accepted in Saskatchewan and Manitoba; it is not accepted

anywhere else. We have three provinces saying yes. In particular, Prince Edward

Island said: No, thank you. They do not want it. But in Newfoundland we find

ourselves having to play to the Ottawa agenda. We find ourselves committed, come

hell or high water, to making Mr. Chrtien look good. That is what this is all

about. This is a strategy that began last spring. It is a strategy to make the

Prime Minister look good in the country.

Mr. Speaker, that is not a bad idea if you are a Liberal,

except that to do this you have to be party to the Prime Minister breaking his

word. That is the sad part about it. I am not against Liberals making the Prime

Minister look good. They are all in the same party. Ask yourself the moral

question, though: Can I do this and do it in a way that really exonerates the

Prime Minister from a commitment that he gave on radio and television in 1993?

Mr. Speaker, that is the question. So we say to all hon.

members, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want the Harmonized

Sales Tax. The people of Nova Scotia, by their demonstrations in the last few

days, have said that they do not want the Harmonized Sales Tax. There are a lot

of problems in New Brunswick; they do not want it. Prince Edward Island said

that they do not want it for sure. Even the Liberal Premier of Prince Edward

Island said that she did not want it. All the other provinces said they do not

want it. So why are we forcing this tax harmonization scheme on Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, and why is it done by this government? For no other reason

than to make the Prime Minister look good. That is the reason we are doing it.

It is a show. It is

an act of loyalty. It shows what a government will do to

simply make their party look good, when you find yourself willing to do this

kind of thing so that you can play to an Ottawa agenda.

What we want in this Province is a Premier who has

Newfoundland and Labrador as his focus. We do not want a Premier who has Ottawa

as his focus. We want the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to distance

himself from Ottawa, not play to the Ottawa agenda. We want a Premier who is

going to be focused on the agenda of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What we

want in this Province are a few more Nunziatas. We want a few more people who

are going to say - if the price for telling the truth is that you get kicked out

of caucus - I will put the truth before my long-term position in the party.

John Nunziata today could have been a prominent member of the

Liberal Party. He was one of the core people in the Liberal rat pack days;

however, John Nunziata stood up for that in which he believed.

I just say to members again, when the Prime Minister appeared

in August of 1993 on a Toronto radio show, on station CFRV, and he was asked a

question about the GST: So you will abolish it? The Prime Minister said: Yes, I

will abolish it.

He did not say maybe. He did not say: I will do it after

consultation. He did not say that he might do it, or that kind of thing. He

said: I will abolish it. Mr. Speaker, what does the word abolish mean? Abolish

means to do away with totally, to completely destroy it, to throw it out. To

cast it to the great beyond. To put it behind your back. Mr. Chrtien's

definition of I will do away with it, I will abolish it, we know that Mr

Chrtien said: I didn't really mean that. I didn't understand the word abolish,

because all I meant was we will think about it. I didn't understand the word.

The other word that gets used is the word scrap. The Prime

Minister said: I'm going to scrap the GST. What does the word scrap mean? Scrap

means, according to the dictionary, to get rid of something as being no longer

of enough worth or effectiveness to retain. When the Prime Minister said he was

going to scrap it, we all know what he meant. He said he was going to do away

with it.

Now, I just want to, in the last few minutes I have left

here, to note that in the last few days we have seen members of the government

opposite say one thing one week and say another thing the next week. I remember

the Minister of Education talking about monies saved on education. He said; We

are going to channel them back to the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Remember when the former leader of the party said: We are going to put all the

money back in education. In fact he said: We can't afford four competing school

systems. But now we find the Minister of Education saying: No, that isn't what

we said. We didn't mean that. All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they are now

telling a different story.

What we have again here is a Minister of Education who

differs greatly from the former Minister of Education. I can only conclude that

Mr. Chrtien has had all of the Liberal caucus to Ottawa to tell them: You can

say one thing today, say something else tomorrow, and claim that both statements

are true. We know that the Minister of Education's statements now are

inconsistent with the Minister of Education's statement a couple of years ago.

We know what the government a couple of years ago was saying: We are going to go

and make sure that all savings that come from educational reform are going to be

channelled to the school children of Newfoundland and Labrador. We now know that

isn't the case.

I wanted to again say a little bit about the impact of tax

harmonization on ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Because the bottom

line is we have to ask: What is the impact on ordinary people? We have got great

concerns about tax harmonization on the poor. Personally, I have a great

interest in this particular matter, as I believe all hon. members have. Because

we don't want to do something that is going to make the lives of the working

poor any more difficult in this Province. When we are talking about higher taxes

on heating fuel, higher taxes on electricity, higher taxes on children's

clothing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: I just want to say that it is the season

for wise men to be on the move. The only trouble is, they can't find three on

that side.

Mr. Speaker, the impact on ordinary Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians is something we mustn't miss. When we talk about heating fuels, we

talk about electricity, we talk about children's clothing, we talk about books,

we talk about all of these things, we are talking about lives of ordinary

people. We say to all hon. members opposite, when you are dealing with this -

and I know the Premier today, and I was very happy to hear the Premier say today

that he is going to be monitoring the negative impacts on the poor of this

Province of the harmonization proposals, so we say to all hon. members when you

are making this deal make sure that it does not negatively impact on the

ordinary people. As Steve Neary would call them, make sure that you do not

negatively impact on the raggedy arsed artillery of this Province. So we say to

members opposite, to use an expression that a former leader of his party would

use when talking about ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, he would talk

about the impact on the ordinary folk. We on this side believe, that unless

there is close monitoring, we will end up with a situation where there will be a

great deal of negative impact on ordinary people, particularly the working poor.

So, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate a little bit, to repeat, and

then to draw a conclusion, which I have to do in the next six minutes, I want to

say again that there has been no consultation in spite of the promises. This

whole exercise is an Ottawa agenda, and this whole exercise is designed to

exonerate the Liberal federal party and the federal Prime Minister from

commitments that were made. We know that the day to day expenses of ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not going to be helped by this particular

tax initiative, in spite of the commitments made today by the hon. the Premier

to keep a review and close monitoring of the tax implications for ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So, when we talk about people who are trying

to make ends meet, people who are trying to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: There has never been such a deficit in the

average intelligence over on this side of the House for a long time.

So, Mr. Speaker, with these things in mind I want to commend

again to the House, that this matter be referred to the Government Services

Committee of the House for further study and consultation, and I ask all hon.

members to support the amendment and trust that we will have the full

endorsement of the House when the time comes for the question of the amendment

put forward by myself today on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the

House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 45, the

long title; "An

Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between

Speaker, the

short title is schemozzle, nothing less than schemozzle. When you

get into the bill itself, which I will get into in due course, you will see why

it is a schemozzle.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Jack, you may get your picture in that

one.

MR. J. BYRNE: There are no pictures of me in it, that's

for sure. There are no pictures of me in it I can guarantee you that I say to

the speaker. I have all kinds of notes made here. I remember the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology in the last sitting of the House always talking

about Page 52.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I want nothing to do with that. Would

someone take that off my desk? That is what I think of that, Mr. Speaker. My

hand will disintegrate if I touch that book I say to you.

MR. TULK: Jack, I think you are a PC.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am a Progressive Conservative and proud

of it I say to the minister. Mr. Speaker, with respect to this HST -

MR. E. BYRNE: Don't mind them Jack they are just trying

to derail you.

MR. FUREY: Did you vote for or against Confederation?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well I say to the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology if I voted for or against Confederation it was not possible

for me, I was born in 1951.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Prove it? Where's my wallet? 1951.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious bill and they are trying

to deflect me but they are talking about the HST. Now what does HST stand for?

The harmonization sales tax? That is what they want us to believe, Mr. Speaker.

They want us to believe it is the harmonization sales tax or the BST which is

the Blended Sales Tax. In some other provinces they are not too fussy about the

terminology or the initials, BST or it could be the horrible sales tax. When the

people in this Province find out how this is going to affect them, especially

people on the lower income side of the scale, Mr. Speaker, they will realize it

is the horrible sales tax. It could be the horrific sales tax. It could be the

hidden sales tax.

Now the whole intent of this Blended Sales Tax, Mr. Speaker,

was to hide the sales tax, the federal government's portion, the GST. It was to

hide the GST. If you remember back during the election of the fall of '93, I

think it was, the last federal election and the Prime Minister of the country,

Mr. Chrtien, went around this Province and went around all the provinces, Mr.

Speaker, and said that there would be no more GST. He would abolish the GST.

What do we see here now? We see the HST, the harmonization sales tax which has

only three provinces taking

part in this. Now a strange thing that there would

be only three provinces and not the whole ten. What is the common factor, Mr.

Speaker, in all three provinces? The common factor of course is that there is a

Liberal administration in all three provinces that are going along with the

Blended Sales Tax.

Now in this Province in particular, Mr. Speaker, of course we

have the Premier who is a former member of Cabinet of Prime Minister Chrtien

and he came back here last winter - the present Premier who is a former member

of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Chrtien and there have been people insinuating

and saying that the present day Premier is a puppet for the Prime Minister of

the country. That is a yes man for Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, and that is a point I

want to address with respect to the yes man for Ottawa. Now how many things has

this Premier agreed upon for Ottawa? There was no opposition from the government

of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and of course there were the changes to the UI

system, actually the present Premier was sitting at the Cabinet table when the

changes to the UI were being made and he wholeheartedly condoned the changes to

the UI system. The people in this Province are yet to find the real affects that

the changes to the UI system is going to have on them, that they are going to

have to work longer, pay more higher premiums and to draw less money for shorter

periods of time. That is only one, Mr. Speaker, that this Premier agreed upon.

MR. E. BYRNE: In the '93-'94 Budget and '94-'95 federal

budget in excess of $600 million was hauled out of UI in this Province alone.

MR. J. BYRNE: $600 million? Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker?

And how much was spent out?

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh no, that was what was clawed back from

the federal government.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what is going

to happen when the full effects of this -

MR. E. BYRNE: 500,000 people.

MR. J. BYRNE: In the Province, 500,000. Can you imagine

what is going to happen when the people in this Province really understand what

the UI system is going to do to them?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) as a Province, 30 per cent of

the reductions are national, 30 per cent of the reductions in UI in this

Province (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Let Jack get back to it. Ed, save that

for your speech.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, we will let him alone because I have

too much to talk about. There is no way I can get into all of this, Mr. Speaker.

We have changes to the UI system coming down the tubes.

We had the change to the EI system that is coming down. We

had Marine Atlantic pulling out of here, Mr. Speaker - Well, the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology said a few words now and then when he was forced

into it by the Opposition, that is what happened there, Mr. Speaker, a few

things there. We have the Harmonized Sales Tax coming down in April. Again, this

government is wholeheartedly condoning it, promoting it, working for it, when

the people of this Province are only now starting to realize what is going on.

Now, I must speak on an amendment to this bill. The

amendment, of course, is to be referred to Committee which is a good, legitimate

amendment or a motion to make by the Opposition House Leader and we should refer

it to Committee. We have now, Christmas coming upon us. This government called

the House late, for a late sitting this Fall - it was a very late sitting. We

have something like thirty pieces of legislation before this House and it was

only last Thursday night that the Government House Leader wanted to get

something like fifteen or twenty pieces of legislation through in one day - half

the legislation in one day, and had us here until 11:30 in the night. Mr.

Speaker, we were prepared to go all night, let me tell you, no ifs, ands or buts

about it; we were prepared to go on late on that on. It was only because we had

some reasonable intervention by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, that we managed to get out of here by 11:30 in the evening.

Now, we have this bill, Bill 45, which, when it was

introduced, according to the Government House Leader, who introduced it, I

believe, or announced that it was to be brought in the next day, said a very

important piece of legislation is coming through the House. Then, when the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board got up, he talked about some of the

concerns that the low-income people would have. He said, the low-income people

were in a unique circumstance and they may give - they are looking at giving

back credits in their income tax each year. That is the way I understood it. And

here we are, trying to put a piece of legislation like this through the House of

Assembly a few days before Christmas. And I can tell you what is coming down in

this House of Assembly. They are going to bring in all these other bills in due

course and then we are going to be stuck with this, they are going to be forcing

it down our throats, forcing it down the throats of the people of the Province,

Mr. Speaker.

We have other very important legislation before the House

that is not dealt with either at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, and we are

talking about getting out of here this week. To me, I would be here until

Christmas eve, with a red cap on, down over my head like Santa Claus, talking

about this.

The Education Bill, Mr. Speaker - the Minister of Education

has been flip-flopping on the Education bill since day one. The previous

Minister of Education, now Minister of Justice, was the man who was going around

the Province saying there were going to be major changes in Education and the

money that would be saved in Education reform would be put back into the

classroom. They said it, the previous Premier said it, the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board said it and the present Minister of Education said it, as far

as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker. They talked about the money they would save in

busing, they talked about the money they would in the construction end of it,

they talked about the money they would save in reform itself. They talked about

the money they would save through the boards coming down from twenty-seven to

ten, and millions and millions of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, if the Speaker is asleep, it is the

first time I have seen him go to sleep. Once, I did see a Speaker fall asleep

but it was not the present Speaker - and that was when the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology was up talking about one of his trips abroad, Mr. Speaker.

That Speaker fell asleep, and I don't know why he would fall asleep in such a

debate as that, I tell you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Did the hon. member say the present Speaker?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, not the present Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, no, no. I qualified that and Hansard

will prove it, Mr. Speaker.

Now, back to the debate on the HST. Mr. Speaker, we are going

to be into a fair bit of debate here. Now, I was talking about the different

types of HST or what HST could mean or refer to. Of course, we would have the

hidden sales tax, we talked about that, in that, the GST now, the Federal

Government want to hide it - that is what they are doing, they are trying to

hide it now in one Blended Sales Tax, which would be 15 per cent in the

Province, Mr. Speaker, but, the 15 per cent will be on more items. It will be on

many more items that it is on now. It was only the other day, I think, Thursday

or Friday morning, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board brought down,

effective immediately, that sales tax on automobiles would be 8 per cent down

from 12 per cent on the provincial sales tax.

Mr. Speaker, that would have me believe there is something

wrong with this tax. They are trying to sell it already. They are trying to

backtrack on it already. They are trying to legitimize it already by bringing in

that 4 per cent on cars. If they brought it in on that, why not bring it in on

other items? There could be other items such as ATVs, skiddoos, all these types

of equipment, but they just stuck to reducing the provincial sales tax from 12

per cent down to 8 per cent on automobiles. That, in itself, leads to numerous

questions.

Also, we can look at this, refer to it as the `high sales

tax,' HST. It could be a `hard sales tax,' HST. We all know what we talk about

when talk about it being a hard sales tax. It could be a hard sales tax, hard on

the low-income people, the people on social services. It could be a hard sales

tax to sell in due course, I say to the government side of the House, when the

people of this Province realize the impact it is going to have on them. It is

only recently since we started debating this in this House that the people are

starting to realize what this tax is going to do to them.

It could be a `hara-kiri sales tax.' We could be doing a job

on ourselves with this sales tax, this Blended Sales Tax, this Harmonized Sales

Tax. We could be doing a job on ourselves with it in due course. They may change

it down the road, but it might be too late then. How much money is it going to

cost the people of this Province to change? I don't know. I wouldn't even be

able to venture a guess at it. There are all kinds of ways to describe this

sales tax.

It could be a `hapless sales tax.' For anyone who doesn't

know, hapless means unlucky. It could be an unlucky sales tax. Most people would

consider any tax is unlucky, but to do what they are planning on doing with this

sales tax, there is no way in the world I could support it.

The Premier gets on his feet every now and then and says: Oh,

you don't want the tax to drop from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent. Well, for a

start, it is not 20 per cent, it 19.8 when you work it all out and you charge

the GST on top of the RST, or vice versa, whatever way it works out, but it is

19 point something per cent, not 20 per cent. But I mean, how foolish to say

that we don't want the sales tax to drop from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent.

That is not the point. What we are saying is that it is going to be on more

items. In the long haul they are going to take in more revenues. I estimate they

will take in more revenues than what they are planning on taking in. Because

when the GST was brought in, the government of the day figured there was going

to be X amount of dollars brought in. I actually cannot quote the figures now,

but I do know that they took in a lot more money than they had thought they were

going to take in when they brought in the GST.

Now, when people go into a store and pay taxes on things on

which they do not have to pay taxes now - for instance, haircuts, having to go

in and pay tax on haircuts. Can you imagine me having to go in and pay a tax on

a haircut? I can't imagine it. And there are others. Children going to school,

school clothing, you will have to pay taxes on that. You will have to pay taxes

on school supplies. Can you imagine now having to go pay more taxes on school

supplies than what you are paying now? I don't think that is right by any

stretch of the imagination.

Here is one I really am afraid to throw out there because of

the comments I might get back. But it could be the `halfwit sales tax.' We

aren't giving enough thought, time and planning to this tax. People in the

Province are being asked through us now to approve this bill a few days before

Christmas when there are so many issues and items to be addressed. In a

half-hour it is almost impossible to get into all of the debate from one

individual that is required I suppose to get into with respect to this bill

itself.

The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island was up the

other day speaking on this bill and supporting it. I hope the people will

remember that he was on his feet supporting this bill. He talked about $105

million that was going to go back into the economy. Yet, at this point in time,

we have the Federal Government giving the Province $348 million, I believe it

was, to offset our losses. So what are they doing? What is the government doing

here? Are we being bought off by Ottawa so we can help set the agenda for the

Federal Government and help appease Prime Minister Chrtien, and only three

other Premiers going along with it? We are getting $348 million, and over a

period of three years apparently it is reduced down, and we get it in one lump

sum - I could be corrected on that. So, at the end of the term, we are going to

be out something like $150 million I think was quoted here today. Now, where are

we going to make up that money?

There are only two or three things we can do. We can

certainly cut services, which the Minister of Health has certainly been doing

over the past few years. Every minister here in the House has been doing it over

the past few years. So they can cut services more now. We have been cut to the

bone already. We have gone beyond the point of diminishing returns with respect

to the cuts.

I suppose we could increase taxes. I wonder is that going to

be a possibility three or four years down the road? Now the Minister of Finance

will stand in his place and say the economy is going to boom and, God bless him,

I hope he is right. I sincerely and honestly and truthfully hope he is right,

because to make up this kind of money he is going to have to be right. The

economy is going to have to boom in this Province to pick up the lost revenues

that we would have. The government openly admits that there will be less

revenues when they bring in the HST. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, a few minutes yet.

Hopefully, the Minister of Finance will be right in that the

economy will boom.

Mr. Speaker, we have a few potentially great, positive,

possibilities in this Province, of course. We have the smelter in Argentia, and

we could go on and on about that, and the effects and the spin-offs that may

have, and hopefully that will come to pass, that the plans and the aspirations

and the expectations, I suppose, of the people in the Province with respect to

the smelter will come to fruition and it will generate some positive activity

within the economy itself.

We have the trans-shipment site, another positive situation

happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, the smelter is being put

there because of the great mineral find in Voisey's Bay. Are