The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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.

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 Charést, 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 Chrétien 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.

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!

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 addition to the financial support of Petro Canada by the Government of Canada 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.

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 Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador." (Bill No. 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 Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The 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 Chrétien 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 Chrétien, 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 Chrétien look good' tax. So we can call it the MCLG tax. A make Chrétien 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. Chrétien 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 Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of 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 Chrétien look good, a harmonized tax and that is all it is, it is Mr. Chrétien 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. Chrétien 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. Chrétien's definition of I will do away with it, I will abolish it, we know that Mr Chrétien 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. Chrétien 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 The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador'. Mr. 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. Chrétien, 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 Chrétien and he came back here last winter - the present Premier who is a former member of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Chrétien 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 Chrétien, 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 we going to get our fair share out of Voisey's Bay, I wonder?

The Premier will stand in his place day-in and day-out and rant and roar, and put on the big show that he puts on that everybody is getting used to. Everybody is getting used to the show that he puts on. Hopefully, we will get our fair share of out Voisey's Bay, and we will get it out of the royalties, but if I were a betting man I would not put all of my money on it; I tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this bill itself, the legislation, I was just skimming through some of this. If you just want to get into it and look at it, if you look at some of the formulas, just the formulas alone, it is unreal. They introduced this bill on Friday the 13th, just this past Friday, and when I opened up the book and looked at one formula, the very thing I opened up on, was NUMDAYS, and that was part of the formula on Friday the 13th. I think it is going to make a few people numb in this Province in due course. There are going to be a few people going numb when they find out the impact this is going to have on them.

You talk about the PROVBASE -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) gas in them.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say.

To me, more than likely what they should have had there is the PROVBASH, the Province bash, because in due course when the people of this Province have to go in and buy a pair of shoes for their child going to school, or they have to pay their heat bill and it is gone up by 7 per cent - now, just think about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight.

MR. J. BYRNE: Gone up by 8 per cent for heat bills. In this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where most people now who can afford it at all have their houses heated by electricity - some are actually switching back to oil. Granted, sobeit. I have my house electrically heated, and I am on the monthly averaging because I had to go on the monthly averaging to survive, to get some kind of a budget to work on but there are people in this Province who are not going to be able to go on the monthly averaging to do a provincial budget, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to be paying 8 per cent more. Now these people are going to be in hard shape if their heating bill each month is gone up by - if it is $200 or $16 more a month, Mr. Speaker, in winter months it can go as much as $300 to $400 a month. That is a big increase per month, Mr. Speaker. What about the people on social services? What about the working poor, the people who are working that are borderline with respect to the minimum wage? Now to these people I am telling you $16, $32, $48 a month, Mr. Speaker, is a lot of money.

Now we start to see that what is actually happening here, Mr. Speaker, is that people are understanding that this harmonization sales tax is actually going to hurt them. What else is going to happen, Mr. Speaker? People are now saying that we are going to have a short term gain for long term pain. We are getting $350 million now, Mr. Speaker, $350 million upfront but in the long haul, when it is all said and done, how much are we going to pay? If this system does not work out and we have to revert back, how much is it going to cost the people in this Province? How much is it going to cost the people in the country? I would not even be able to venture to guess at it but there are some people who are certainly willing to risk it.

Now as I said, Mr. Speaker, we had the Prime Minister of the country going all over the country talking about, during the election, how he was going to cut out, abolish the GST. What have we seen since then? We heard the deputy Prime Minister say that if the Liberal government did not abolish the GST she would resign. What happened then, Mr. Speaker? She did not resign. Pressure was put on her, right, left and centre and when she found out - she had a poll done - that she could possibly win her seat again, she decided to resign, showing the crocodile tears and what have you. She resigned and ran and got re-elected. Everything is hunky-dory now because of that one district. Now, Mr. Speaker, what a farce.

Now we have another Liberal member in Ottawa, federally, saying that the government and the Prime Minister definitely promised to scrap the GST. Now the Member for Waterford Valley was on his feet and talked about scrap, abolish and definitions of what each one of these words are, Mr. Speaker, and basically it is to get rid of the GST. Now what they are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, and it is going to come back to haunt them, it is coming back to haunt them now with all the broken promises but the GST, to scrap it, to get rid of it, Mr. Speaker, is not happening. They are trying to say they did something with it. They attempted to do something with it and the provinces would not go along with it but they managed to suck in, as far as I am concerned, three provinces. Three provinces they managed to suck in and our Province happens to be one of them, up to this point in time. Now I don't know what kind of opposition can build and build but it is going to be fairly impossible to build the opposition - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I said, John Nunziata, he decided, a member of the Liberal Government in Ottawa is willing to resign his seat, have a by-election on the issue of the GST and what was promised and what was not promised, Mr. Speaker, and of course we hope that will come to pass. We shall see then what the end result is and what the people really believe the situation is with the GST and the HST.

MR. TULK: I would say that we can't lose on that.

MR. J. BYRNE: You can't lose on it. The Government House Leader says that he can't lose on it. Very well, that could very well be the case. Maybe he is a very smart politician.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how many more issues are there here in this with respect to the HST? Now according to some of our notes here, what Newfoundland is short in year one will be $12 million, year two $12 million, year three $127 million, year four $184 million and year five and thereafter, $242 million. The only way the government will find it can hope to make up for the shortfall will be to increase other taxes as I already addressed, Mr. Speaker, create new taxes. Now, create new taxes, that is something I did not think about or I didn't address. I remember in the last budget the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stood and introduced his Budget: No new taxes.

What did we see, Mr. Speaker? Only every permit, licence, fee, anything that had to do with government, either went double, treble, quadruple or what have you. Crown lands issue? The farce of the Crown lands issue. The minister stands in his place over there and says it was a good deal because we had so many people apply for a (inaudible) certain percentage. I daresay they did apply. They had no choice. The gun was put to their heads. They had to or they would have ended up paying more in the long haul.

I know people who had to go out and get loans to buy the Crown lands, or to convert from a cottage lease to a grant. They had to go out and get loans. The government put a gun to their heads. The minister can stand in his place and say it was a good plan. All it was was a tax grab, a money grab. The first day I heard of it in the House of Assembly I stood and said it was a tax grab, it was a money grab. The minister said they were going to take in $6 million. Six million dollars? I've already proven it in this House that it is going to be closer to $20 million, and that isn't even giving me the accurate figures on the commercial leases. That is just to do with residential and cottage. I've only taken a very basic minimum amount for commercial leases and it has gone from $6 million up to $20 million, and there are no tax increases this year. If those are the kind of tactics that are being utilized with respect to this Harmonized Sales Tax, it doesn't say much for what is going to happen and what kind of a fright the people of this Province are going to get.

The other way I suppose to make up for the lost money when this tax harmonization situation comes to an end and we stop getting the subsidization from the federal government, of course, as I said is to cut expenditures. I already mentioned that, so I don't want to beat a dead horse. But I tell you now, I can't see any more hospital beds closing, I can tell you that. I can't see any more nurses being let go, I can't see any more civil servants being let go, although the Minister has been appointed to look at reform right in all departments.

God knows that is frightening to think of that. Because he was the man who was the one who addressed the education reform in this Province, and look at the schemozzle of the education reform. No one getting what they expected, no one getting what they thought they were going to. One person is saying one thing, another person is saying another thing. The Premier is saying something, the Minister of Education disagreeing, the former Minister of Education saying something different.

So, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can go on. I'm keeping going. I will go by leave now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm doing a grand job, Mr. Speaker. What happens when they talk about the economy recovering? I hope it does, as I said before. But to have people pay taxes in this Province to get the revenues that they are getting today, what is going to happen if the out-migration continues? If the out-migration in this Province continues at the rate that has been happening over the past few years, God help us. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board's figures are going to be drastically wrong. As I said, less workers, less revenue. If we have less people paying income tax, less people paying retail sales tax, less people paying all kinds of taxes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. TULK: No leave!

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TULK: Totally unexpected. That the debate on Bill No. 45, entitled An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador, standing in the name of the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and any amendments to that motion for second reading of Bill No. 45, shall not be further adjourned, and that further consideration of any amendments relating to second reading of Bill No. 45 shall not be further postponed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give thanks to the member I shadow so effectively for giving me such applause. He told me that he was going to stay and listen to what I have to say because he knows that we on this side of the House take great pride in our arguments against the HST, the horrible sales tax. In Nova Scotia they call it the BS tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: New Brunswick.

MR. OSBORNE: New Brunswick. No, Nova Scotia as well. In Nova Scotia they call it the BS tax.

One of the points I would like to make on the tax harmonization is the fact that the compensation package that we are receiving from Ottawa is too little and will soon run out. The amount that we have been granted, I guess, as a signing bonus for signing the tax harmonization deal will only cover 100 per cent of the cost for the first two years, 75 per cent of the cost of what we are losing in the third year, 25 per cent in the fourth year, and after that Newfoundland will be out approximately $105 million a year as a result of tax harmonization.

The tax harmonization was not an election issue. It was not mentioned in the red book. The hon. the Premier did not make mention of it during any of his tours across the Province. It was signed in principle shortly after the election by three Liberal Premiers in Atlantic Canada, and the Prime Minister. The fourth Atlantic Province, Prince Edward Island, refused to sign the deal.

The three Liberal Premiers gave a pre-election gift to Prime Minister Chrétien, who is nervous as people continuously remind him of his broken promise to get clear of the GST, to scrap the GST.

We hear time and time again, over the past number of weeks, during Mr. Chrétien's so-called town hall meeting, when he was reminded of his promise to scrap the GST by so many of the people at the town hall meeting. He was reminded through the media over the past number of weeks of his promise to scrap the GST, and his colleague, Paul Martin, apologized for not being able to scrap the GST. Sheila Copps resigned her seat and ran again in a by-election as a sign that she was aware of the fact that they were not able to keep their promise to eliminate the GST, and the Prime Minister himself continues to refuse to apologize, or refuse to admit that he promised to abolish the GST.

The Prime Minister is in town now today for a $500-a-plate dinner. Many people in our Province would love to have $500 a month to spend on groceries. It is $500 a plate for this dinner; yet, he will stand at the dinner tonight, I am sure, and tell people that he made no promise to scrap or abolish the GST, that he simply said that he would replace it. And he will stand in his place tonight and say that by harmonizing the taxes in Atlantic Canada he is well under way to fulfilling his promise, but that is not a promise kept. He did promise, on radio and in the media, in speeches, that he would scrap the GST, abolish the GST, and he has not come through with that promise. This tax harmonization deal is simply a cover-up. It is a way of telling Canadians that he is working on replacing the GST. This is not a good deal for Newfoundland.

The Premier stood in his place, and many other members of the government here in the House of Assembly, and told us that it will be a good deal for Newfoundland, that there is $105 million being put back into the economy because that is what the provinces are not going to be collecting in Retail Sales Tax. Well, my suggestion would be that if the Province comes short, they have to face a shortfall on their Retail Sales Tax income by $105 million that will only be taxed back to the people through other taxes such as, I guess, by charging it on the insurance and charging it on used cars and so on as a levy as the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board here, puts it.

The Retail Council of Canada said that the cost of converting will exceed the savings from harmonization to retailers. Most businesses cannot absorb the cost without increasing prices or laying off employees. Unfortunately, that is another stark reality of what this HST deal is going to do. It is another example of what is going to happen as a result of this HST. There will be people in the retail sector laid off, retail businesses will increase their prices and again, not through government but through the avenues of retailers who will be charging this tax back to the people because of their loss on conversion, and without more provinces entering the deal, the cost of administering the HST will become too great a burden.

Neither PEI nor Ontario nor Alberta want to have any part of a Blended Sales Tax or a harmonized sales tax and Quebec, which already has a form of a harmonized tax wants no part of the new harmonized tax scheme. They say that it is a recipe for failure and many people in Canada believe that. The three Liberal Premiers in Atlantic Canada are adamant on putting through this Blended Sales Tax basically to help Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to fulfil his campaign promises to abolish the tax.

The St. John's Board of Trade say that the hidden tax will make our prices appear to tourists far higher than they would appear in their own homes, and this first glance shock will discourage them from buying, and I would suggest that, that is true, that when we get tourists here from other provinces and especially from the United States, that when they look at items that they can buy here to bring home as souvenirs and so on, that their purchases would be limited because of the fact they look at the sticker price and realize that in some cases it is 25 per cent, 50 per cent higher than what they would pay for it at home, and they will not be willing to pay the extra price to buy these items to bring them home.

I cannot believe neither can a number of people in our Province, especially the people on social assistance, that you are now going to be able to pay less tax on a fur coat for example, than you will on children's clothing. But the reality of the matter is, that now, instead of paying 7 per cent on children's clothing, you will be paying 15 per cent on children's clothing. You are going to be paying 15 per cent on home heating fuel, you will be paying 15 per cent on electricity and unfortunately, the people on social assistance and the working poor are unable to cope with this extra burden. They are unable to pay this extra tax on children's clothing and so on, and while the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board can stand in his place and the Premier can stand in his place and tell us that this is going to put more money in the pockets of Newfoundlanders, it may put more money in the pockets of people in the higher income brackets but it will not put more money in the pockets of the working poor and people on social assistance. These classes of people will be extra burdened by the harmonized sales tax.

The poor will spend a greater percentage of their income on essentials that will cease to be tax exempt. Even haircuts, books and so on will cost more and this extra money that is going to have to be paid out by the working poor and people on social assistance is a reality. The tax rate on basic necessities will more than double because of the HST.

There is a fear that the GST rebates may not be re-implemented under the new tax scheme, and they very well may be, but the reality is, even if they are, it is only giving back what people were previously receiving in any event under the rebates, and the fact that they are paying out more in HST, the fact that they are going to be paying out more for home fuels and electricity, books, haircuts and so on, will not be taken away, and the promise that there will be more money in the pockets of Newfoundlanders will not be a reality to the working poor and the people on social assistance.

Most people in Atlantic Canada do not want the blended sales tax. Nova Scotians do not want it and they have made that very clear. The HST will drive up the price of electricity when thousands of consumers just finished voicing their opinion and their opposition to an electricity rate hike. We will lose our autonomy to set tax rates under this new deal. Ottawa can choose to raise their tax unilaterally and Newfoundland cannot. Any province can veto a tax decrease. If our revenue needs increase what we will not be able to do is raise our tax rate, not without the consent of every other province that is partnered in the HST deal. If our revenue needs decrease we will not be able to give a tax break, and this is very unfortunate. We are giving up our autonomy here and leaving it in the hands of each and every partner under the HST program, the HST deal.

The Minister of Finance tells glowing stories about the economy growing to make up for the loss of revenue under the HST, but the government Social Advisory Committee document says the next few years will bring an economic downturn because of fewer workers, fewer people paying taxes, more seniors with needs, a smaller population, and declining transfers. Both cannot be true. The Minister of Finance is painting a rosy picture just to sell people on tax harmonization.

The Minister of Finance tells us that things are going to be wonderful and the Premier tells us that things are going to be wonderful, but with people moving out of the Province in droves, throngs of people leaving our Province, how can he paint this picture? The stories told by the Premier and by the Minister of Finance are not accurate stories. The government is breaking its own promise to put education reform savings back into education, and part of the reason they say the HST deal is leaving us with a revenue crisis. If they are telling us on the one hand that the HST deal is leaving us with a revenue crisis, how then can they tell us on the other hand that the economy is going to prosper, that the HST deal is great, and that it is putting $105 million back into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and that this will bring greater retail sales and greater retail trade to shop owners, to stores and so on?

The deal is for the federal government, for the Prime Minister, not for the Province. It is not for the people of the Province. It is for the Liberal Party of Canada. The Prime Minister wants this deal more than anybody so he can campaign and put forth a platform in the next election saying that he is living up to his promise to replace the GST. Little does he realize that that was not the promise he made. The promise he made was to abolish and eliminate the GST.

To make up for lost revenue the government will introduce new taxes on insurance rates and on the private sale of vehicles with higher rates than people have paid up until now. The fact here is that they say they are giving $105 million, giving it back to the people of Newfoundland, under the HST, and that that is going to increase retail trade, it is going to increase spending, and generate the economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Then on the other hand they are saying that they are going to put a levy on insurance. So they want some of that $105 million back through taxes right off the bat. They are going to put a levy on the private sale of used cars. So they are taking some of that $105 million back.

I think the government is painting a picture here that it wants to be seen from both sides, and we all know that can't be done. It wants people to see that the HST is going to be great, there is money going back into the economy, that retail trade is going to be spurred, that it is going to generate a better economy, but yet it is putting levies in place on insurance and on used cars to take back some of that $105 million. This deal is not a good deal for Newfoundland. The cost of these extra jobs that are going to be lost through the HST will be borne by the Province alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I say to the Government House Leader that we all know and we can all read in Hansard what I said, and unfortunately that was not what was portrayed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: It was the only stand I could take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: We will lose tax processing jobs because of tax harmonization.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: At least I had the guts to stand up and apologize, even though it wasn't truly my mistake.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I say to the members on the other side of the House, I welcome you all to read Hansard. What I said in this House is actually a fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: What I said in this House was actually a fact. There are certain areas of the Province where there will be a shortage of hotel rooms.

Back to the HST issue. There is no contingency plan in place in case the economy and revenue growth that are promised by the finance minister and the Premier do not occur to the levels projected, and blind faith does not open hospital beds. Blind faith does not improve our education system. Blind faith does not bring extra money back into the retail sector of our Province. I say that the finance minister federally, Paul Martin, apologized for the GST mistake. Sheila Copps actually resigned and ran again as an apology to the people for not being able to fulfil their promise to abolish the GST. John Nunziata has come out and told the truth, and as a result has been kicked out of the Liberal caucus federally as an effort to keep him quiet for telling the truth, as an effort to keep him quiet so he would not damage the crystal reputation of the federal Liberal Party.

We can all see that this crystal reputation is being shattered. We can see that through Jean Chrétien's inability himself to apologize for mistakes, for Jean Chrétien's inability to come out and come clean on this issue, and tell the people of Canada that he made a mistake and that he is willing and able to apologize. That he was not able to abolish the GST because that tax revenue base is much needed federally. That tax revenue base is needed by the federal government to keep up social programs and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Is that a promise? Famous promises by the famous Liberals. Jean Chrétien's inability to apologize for his mistakes is actually causing damage to the federal Liberal Party. The media have been having a field day with it. Town hall meetings that are attended by Jean Chrétien are blowing up in his face. As a matter of fact, Jean Chrétien has even admitted to lying in the fact that he goes out and speaks to homeless people but he cannot admit to making a mistake on the GST. He is unable to get clear of the GST. He also promised to abolish free trade but after getting into the Prime Minister's chair he realized that free trade was probably good for Canada and not only did he not abolish it but he expanded it to come up with the North American Free Trade Agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: So I will say again, the thing here is that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is unable to apologize for making a mistake on the GST and he wants his Liberal Premiers throughout Canada to help him hide this mistake by harmonizing a sales tax. There were only three premiers in Canada that were gullible enough to fall for it and they were three Atlantic premiers. I can tell you right now that Premier Savage in Nova Scotia will pay the price pretty soon in the next provincial election in Nova Scotia. He is doing very poorly in the polls and the people of Nova Scotia are coming out and telling him that they don't want a HST. They do not want a Blended Sales Tax and that will be fresh in their minds during the next provincial election in Nova Scotia. I am telling you that John Savage will not be premier after the next provincial election.

John Nunziata has come out again and said that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in Caucus meetings had promised to abolish the GST and he has been rapped on the knuckles for that. Jean Chrétien was asked about the GST on a radio station and the question was: So will you abolish the GST? The response was: Yes, I will abolish it. Liberals say the quote was taken out of context. Now with such a small quote: Yes, I will abolish it, how can that be taken out of context? He will abolish the GST, that seems pretty clear to me. That seems pretty clear to most Canadians. It seemed pretty clear to the people that attended the town hall meeting a couple of weeks ago and the fact is, that he broke his promise. Jean Chrétien lied, I will say to the House and that is going to come back to haunt him in the next federal election. Now granted, he is still high in the polls and nobody is predicting that he is going to lose the election based on the fact that he promised to abolish the GST and had not but he is going to lose seats over it. He is already losing popularity over it and that is very easily seen. People can see that it is very clear.

The HST or the horrible sales tax, as I call it, the horrible sales tax is something that is not going to be accepted. The HST is not going to be readily accepted by the people of this Province once they realize that the economy is going to suffer as a result of it, that retail trade is going to suffer as a result of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: My understanding is we are here until 5:30?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that's changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: As soon as you finish we are going to –

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will adjourn debate.

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

MR. TULK: I understand that the hon. gentleman for St. John's South has adjourned the debate. Mr. Speaker, a number of us, we were thinking about going until 5:30 p.m. but there are a number of us who have to go to some very important meeting and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, 2:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I should have done this before. I want to inform the House that the first order of business tomorrow will be committee on the two education bills. I forget the numbers on them but it will be committee on the two education bills and then we will see what happens with that. We have to introduce the closure motion and get it over by 1:00 p.m.

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

MR. H. HODDER: I want to inform the House that on Wednesday the Private Member's bill to be called will stand in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.