December 19, 1996          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLIII  No. 57

 


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, on a point of order.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask leave today to rise in the House to send condolences to the family and pay tribute to a person who has contributed greatly to our Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: Born in 1912 in Bay Roberts, Mr. Speaker, Oscar Hierlihy was Newfoundland's pioneer in Radio and Television Broadcasting. Oscar began his career with Ayre & Sons in 1927 when he built a radio transmitter which revolutionized the sales strategy for his company.

In the 1930s, Oscar was in the forefront of development of what was later to become known as the CBC. From 1951, the year CJON began broadcasting to his retirement in 1977, he was employed with the company. In 1991, he was awarded Canada's highest honour to a civilian, that being the Order of Canada. His book entitled: Memories of Newfoundland Pioneer in Radio and Television was published in 1994.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour and the privilege of growing up next to the Hierlihy family and I knew them quite well. I would like to ask that this House send condolences to his wife of fifty-seven years, Joan, and to his children Marilyn, Jim, Jo-anne and John and to pay tribute to this wonderful pioneer and Newfoundlander, Oscar Hierlihy.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House would also like to join the hon. member in expressing our condolences to the wife and family of Oscar.

This gentleman goes back to the days when Newfoundland was a little country and, Mr. Speaker, we made tremendous strides in various areas and in the area of radio and communication where we can stand proud, and it is because of men such as this, the contribution that they made to radio in the early days of radio and in the latter days of Newfoundland as a country, it is certainly an honour to pay tribute to such a man and we would be pleased to join with the hon. member to extend condolences to the family.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Member for Conception Bay South and the Minister of Justice in recognizing the contribution of Oscar Hierlihy to the Province as a true pioneer in the area of broadcast and radio when we were a separate country as the minister indicated, and offer my condolences along with that of my Party to the family of the late Oscar Hierlihy.

Statements by Ministers

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

 

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the good news continues. This has been a great day so far and I have another little bit of good news right now for the people of Westport and Purbeck's Cove.

I am pleased to inform the House today that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has completed the connection of the communities of Westport and Purbeck's Cove to the main island electrical transmission system. These communities had been supplied by diesel since the 1960's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The $1,225,000 project involved the construction of 40 km of distribution lines and associated equipment and after forty years they are finally on the grid.

This connection will generally result in electrical rates decreasing by 7 per cent for residential customers and 25 per cent for business customers in that area. Meter readings taken after November 30, 1996 will be billed at the island interconnected electrical rates even though there may be a portion of the month when customers were still being supplied by diesel-generation. Meetings were held with community leaders on November 18, 1996 to advise them of these changes.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. Good news for Christmas at Purbeck's Cove and Westport.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the minister first of all for the three copies actually of the statement. One at the office and two since I arrived at the House, to make sure that I did get the good news, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted and we got a great charge out of what I said to the minister but I am delighted for the people in Westport and Purbeck's Cove of course and any time you see a decrease in taxes everybody is delighted to see that. Hopefully there will not be increases in taxes in electricity rates across the Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh they will April 1st. April 1st, they will.

MR. SHELLEY: There will be lots of Christmas tree lights in Westport and Purbeck's Cove this year, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I will ask the minister if he will table in this House the Province's energy plan for the next decade?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him the plan Rex, we are going to light it up.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, we are going to light it all up, that's right.

The Province does not do a plan on its own. Electrical planning is done by Hydro Corporation for its customers, by Newfoundland Light and Power for its customers, and under the Public Utilities Board and the Electrical Power Control Act there is a role for the Public Utilities Board now in reviewing these plans as they are done, and that is the way it will be done in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have a big problem if there is no energy plan for this Province. I think we have severe problems. There are new requirements for energy, especially today with the announcement of a smelter and refinery complex, and I think that we have great potential there and it makes the plan all the more important I say to the minister. Where do you plan to get the energy to supply the nickel smelter and refinery at Argentia?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I did not say there was no plan. l said government does not prepare such plans. Hydro has its plans, Light and Power has it plans, and they do continuous planning for their electrical customers and their needs for the future. They are always doing that and maintaining their plans.

But let us get to the point, your question is really directed at where will the power come from to satisfy the needs for the smelter and refinery? There are several options and Hydro right now is addressing that. The company sent a letter to Hydro some weeks ago saying they needed 170 megawatts of firm power, and it may be up to 200 megawatts at peak capacity. The Hydro Corporation is now reviewing the options for that power and expects to make some representations and decisions relative to that in the near future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if he feels it should be done - Yes - if it should be done by Hydro on behalf of the people so we can benefit from the resource or whether it should be provided by private individuals?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the electrical power policy of this Province is that we must work on leased cost power. That was an amendment we put into the Electrical Power Control Act a year ago, implemented last January, and that is our power policy for the Province as a government, leased cost power.

Now, it does not matter who provides it as long as it is leased cost power. At this time Hydro is evaluating the possibilities, the opportunities, and Hydro will determine which is the best way to get the lowest cost power.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the standpoint of the environment and future tourism development we cannot continue to dam rivers for minimal electrical supply if it is not going to benefit the people of the province. The electrical consumers will pay for it. It is our resource.

I ask the minister: Will the minister admit that damming all the small hydro potential here in the Province is negatively impacting the development of the Lower Churchill?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Absolutely zero effect of anything that is done on the Island on the Lower Churchill, absolutely zero effect, because anything that is being done at this time for incremental additions to the grid has no effect on that particular development at all.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It will have a tremendous impact depending on where the future facilities will go, future smelters or other facilities. It will have a tremendous impact, I say to the minister.

I ask the minister: What will it mean to the people of Labrador who are now depending on thermal energy for the supply of power on this project?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador who are depending on thermal energy, and I assume you mean generation from diesel, will not be affected either by the Lower Churchill because you cannot justify the cost of a line, frankly, to small, tiny, remote towns from the Lower Churchill to serve that need. You would address that by other means than the Lower Churchill, not the Lower Churchill power to go to long distance lines like that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say it does have an effect because it limits the locations where you can put future development in the Province, I say to the minister. That is how it affects it.

Will the minister table in this House all the feasibility studies carried out by Hydro on the costs related to the development of the small hydro sites around the Province, like Star Lake for example?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro did not carry out a feasibility study on Star Lake, not at all. Several years ago Hydro had a consultant look at the hydro potential on the Island of Newfoundland, though, and I believe that report is public. I have certainly distributed it to a number of people outside of government sources, and given them copies so they can look at it. It looked at many rivers around the Island of Newfoundland, and it assessed their economic hydro development potential, rated them as to what it would cost to get power from many of them. I think the report was done by Acres. It might have been ShawMont. There have been a number of reports, but there is one that I have certainly made public that was done on the Island of Newfoundland. But specifically Star Lake? No, there was nothing done specifically on Star Lake.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly look forward to getting a copy from your office, I say to the minister.

I ask the minister, what royalties will the Province receive on our resources by developing such projects as Star Lake?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we don't get royalties from a Star Lake development. In case the hon. member is not familiar with what was done, Hydro needed by its estimate up to 50 megawatts of power to add to the grid as an incremental load because of our growth load. It put out a call for proposals, a tender call in effect. A call for proposals to get the least cost power that would come available.

Several companies replied. Over thirty replied in the first round. Over thirty sites. In the final round I think the number was thirteen or twelve that replied. Of these, four were accepted and they were the four with the lowest cost power rates. That is how they were selected. We, the people who pay electrical bills, pay for the power. If we charge a royalty on top of that we the people will pay that royalty as well. We want least cost power for our people.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I differ from the minister on royalties on resources. I feel that we should get royalties on resources. It is unfortunate the minister doesn't feel that way. Look at the Upper Churchill, I say to the minister, if you feel royalties. Do we forego royalties there and affect rates? I ask the minister, and we have recently heard numerous comments on the potential development of the Upper Humber - it has been in the media for the past few days. Will the minister confirm that a water resources study indicated that it is relatively expensive and has environmental problems and will probably not be studied further?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I believe in royalties on resources too. I certainly do. We have substantial royalties on our mineral resources, we have substantial royalties on our oil and gas resources. You are right, on the Upper Churchill we do charge a royalty. I wish it was higher. Because that is primarily power for export. But when we are developing power here to get the lowest cost power on the grid, and it's you and it's your neighbour and it's your other neighbour and all of us in the Province who are paying these rates, I'm not interested in increasing the rates of electricity by charging $0.50 a horsepower or some other amount on the horsepower rate for royalty on water.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final question to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Will the minister -

MR. E. BYRNE: They have just driven up electricity rates (inaudible) HST.

MR. SULLIVAN: We know what they have done. We are well aware of what they have done. Will the minister confirm that on the recent announcement on Whiterose, 10,000 barrels a day will fall far short of the 100 million barrels that are needed to kick in the royalty scheme he announced on June 13?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should stop confusing water and hydroelectricity and royalty rates on water with what is now happening with the development of our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Offshore oil and gas is a major industrial development for this Province. It is going to be with us for the next half century, and we are going to get major benefits. This morning we had a good news story with Terra Nova, number two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: It is likely, Mr. Speaker, that Whiterose will be number three, but nothing guarantees it. There are others out there that could be ahead of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The story that just happened to get reported in the newspaper before we got an opportunity to report it properly –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what he asked!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: I will get to what he asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) what he asked.

DR. GIBBONS: Do you want an answer, or do you not?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. They do not want to hear it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister read a statement in the House on June 13 indicating that the royalty regime, other than Terra Nova and Hibernia - I will spell it out for the minister - will not start to kick in until 100 million barrels of cumulative production occurs. That means the 10,000 barrels a day for 365 days, 3.65 million, is considerably short of the 100 million, which means we will not get royalties on this production. Will the minister confirm that?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should go and do a little bit of research about what is happening and what is being proposed with Whiterose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: It was his own statement, his own words!

DR. GIBBONS: There has never been an oil development done yet that did not have - I know my statement. There has never been an oil development yet that did not have some production testing. With regard to Whiterose, as they do their delineation drilling on Whiterose, when that gets started - and I personally would love to see it get started in 1998 as is being proposed, I would love to see it happen. They need to do a considerable amount of delineation drilling. They need to test the wells that they drill to see what the flow rates are, to determine the characteristics of that field. And eventually you will get into the full-blown development of Whiterose, like we announced this morning for the full-blown development of Terra Nova, when you are going to put a production system on stream, and it will be done the way we all expect it to be done. But do not go complaining about a little bit of testing to bring Number 3 on stream. I would love to see Number 3 on stream now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

As I pointed out in questions on December 5, a 1993 financial audit of the Town of Pouch Cove revealed $18,000 was misspent, and a 1995 audit showed $16,000 was unaccounted for. Does the minister have any new information on what may have happened to the public funds, and who may or may not be responsible?

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

MR. A. REID: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

As suspected.

When I asked the minister on December 5 whether he would support sending the Auditor General into Pouch Cove to get to the bottom of the disappearance of public funds, the minister said he would not support such an investigation because it would cost too much money. But the Auditor General already has her own budget; all she has to do is add Pouch Cove to her agenda for investigations.

Will the minister acknowledge that such an investigation by the Auditor General would cost much less than the $150,000 to $200,000 he suggested in the House at that time, and that it would not cost taxpayers extra money, as he suggested? Will he change his mind and request an Auditor General's investigation into the Town of Pouch Cove from November, 1993, to September, 1996?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest that it would cost $150,000 to $200,000. At the time I said it cost that much to do Conception Bay South, and I would not want to spend that much in the smaller community of Pouch Cove. Since then, the Auditor General has told me that it would cost somewhere in the range of $40,000 to do an audit in Pouch Cove.

The position of the department, and my position, is that if Pouch Cove wants an audit, then Pouch Cove should pay for an audit. Even though the Auditor General has a budget, it will still cost the taxpayers of this Province, if I send in the Auditor General, at $40,000.

I have no intention of doing that. My department has met with the town council and the mayor, and as of yesterday, the decision was that we will not interfere with what is going on in Pouch Cove. If the people of Pouch Cove, or the Town Council of Pouch Cove, want to call in a firm to audit their books, they are welcome to do so, but if they do, then the people of Pouch Cove have to pay for it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Hansard, December 5, 1996, Mr. A. Reid: `No, we would have to pay for it, the government themselves, so you would be looking at $150,000 to $200,000 if they went to do that type' of investigation.

Those are his words, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: It is hard to put a price on truth, or on its value to people, or having their names cleared. Does the minister not believe the Auditor General, through an audit, could uncover valuable pieces that are missing from the puzzle and perhaps clear the names of those now suffering under a cloud of innuendo and suspicion? Why is the minister so wary about having her look into the affairs of Pouch Cove? Would the minister not agree that a clean slate for the Town of Pouch Cove would be most encouraging to attract candidates for the September, 1997, municipal election?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, you, as a former town councillor in your community, must realize - and anyone here, I suppose, who has had any dealings with councils over the years - that if at the whim of a politician, in this case, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, or of a mayor - if they find something going on in their town, or hear tell of something, then they are going to be rushing in to me, as the minister, and say: Send us the Auditor General.

In the case that we had to deal with in Conception Bay South, which I think was a much more extreme case than what Pouch Cove is, by the way - and I can argue that with you, too, if you want me to - we found ourselves in an entirely different situation in Conception Bay South. We felt that we needed to send in someone like the Auditor General.

If I start sending the Auditor General into communities around this Province because there are residents in the communities who feel there is something wrong going on in the town, can you imagine? The Auditor General would probably want a staff of 300 or 400 people. The answer has been, from the very beginning, no, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of sending the Auditor General into Pouch Cove. My own staff are at present, even today, helping the town council, doing some investigations, making some suggestions for a better way to operate the community more efficiently. Most importantly, I suppose, I, as a minister, have taken the approach -and I have been this way with one exception, I suppose, in the last couple of years - that communities have to be left alone. Councils, elected people have to be left alone in this Province to run their own affairs. And I am saying to the council in Pouch Cove, clean up your act. The RCMP have been in there, the Newfoundland Constabulary have been in there and they cannot find anything. What in the name of heavens will the Auditor General find if she goes in there? So the answer is again, categorically, the Auditor General is not going into Pouch Cove. If they want an audit, let them hire an independent company and let them pay for the cost of the audit that would be performed.

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

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

Mr. Minister, you say that you sent the Auditor General into the town of Conception Bay South to do an investigation. As you know yourself, Pouch Cove has had two police investigations. Both the RCMP and the RNC have done investigations within the town of Pouch Cove. Two different audits have been done in the town of Pouch Cove. They both show that there was $18,000, and $16,000 in the second one that - a minimum of $16,000, it could be more, and you say all that is going on there is that the people in the town are requesting the Auditor General's investigation, and there has been nothing proven in the town of Pouch Cove?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Again I ask the minister: Will you not - I mean, you are saying that you will not send in the Auditor General, but do you not you see the seriousness of the situation in Pouch Cove? It is a special case. There have been two police investigations and again, I plead with you to send them in to give it a clean slate and to clear people's names.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming there must be somebody living in Pouch Cove that has as much knowledge or as much commonsense as I do, someone from Carbonear. So if there is somebody in Pouch Cove that has as much commonsense as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: They all do? Well there is your answer. If they all do then they do not need me. They have enough commonsense down there to make their own decisions on whether or not they want an audited report. Now, somebody down in the area - why should the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have -

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, 841 people requested it!

MR. A. REID: I do not care if it was 8,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: It does not make one bit of difference to me. I am not sending the Auditor General in and have the government of this Province to take taxpayers' dollars and pay $40,000 or $50,000 for an audit. If the people of Pouch Cove, the mayor or the council, want an audit, let them do the audit themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance tell us what method of hiring was used when hiring key people at the Marble Mountain Development Corporation and the Marble Mountain Management Corporation?

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

MR. DICKS: Ability, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Ability or lack thereof.

Can the minister tell us what ability or expertise the general manager, the chair of the development corporation, the chair of the management corporation and the person in charge of marketing have in the skiing industry?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not get all the positions that he asked about. I will be pleased to comment on them all. There is a development corporation itself which remains as it was. That selection has been in place for some years, or they are Cabinet appointments. When we looked at the fact that the ski hill had come off a very bad year last year because there was no snow, we did not think it was an appropriate time to privatize it. The offers we had were not substantial enough to warrant divesting of a $30 million asset investment by government. What we decided to do to make the process a little simpler was to separate the operations of the ski hill from the long-term development prospects, so we decided to incorporate a management corporation and the person who was selected to that was Mr. Greg White, a Corner Brook accountant who is a long-time skier, who knows it quite well who is also on the Marble Mountain Development Corporation Board, he was there as interim chairman for a period of time and the best person whom we knew to fulfil that function. The other people - I think the previous chairman was there in place, Dr. Bob Sexton who is also a long-time skier as well and if the member wants me to comment on the other positions, I will do so but I just forget which they were now.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, he said he did not get all the positions but his friends did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: Will the minister confirm that the government's prerequisite in hiring for these key positions as well as other key positions at Marble Mountain were that the people hired had to have very strong Liberal ties?

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

MR. DICKS: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party do not have the problem that I do in Corner Brook. It is very difficult when I choose someone in Corner Brook to do so who is not my friend. I am sure the hon. member has the opposite problem and his party given the numbers on that side of the House and this side of the House.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that since the people were appointed at Marble Mountain, there has been an awful lot of community support. One of the things that happened for a variety of unfortunate reasons over the last number of years, was that, the support of the local community was (inaudible) in local ski community. Since we have appointed Mr. White and he selected the management team they have done two things. One is that they focus on operations, they have gotten down the cost of running the hill and for instance, last year, approximately $200,000 was spent before December 15 trying to make snow in roughly similar conditions to the ones we have now.

The people who are selected in running the hill are doing it on a very, very sound management basis. They are being very prudent, they are watching the costs there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: - and I can tell the hon. member that we look forward to a successful year, God willing, we may even have God-given snow on the ski hill, but I can assure the hon. member, that whatever the results of the operations this year, the cost (inaudible) Marble Mountain has been very substantially reduced, we put privatization and expansion on hold until we are able to put it on a sound footing and to have some confidence that God willing in sending us a little snow, we will have a good year and I just want to say one other thing.

One of the most important things in supporting the ski hill in Corner Brook is that you have the constant local skiing community coming off a bad year, a disastrous year last year, I am pleased to say that the number of season passes sold in Corner Brook was actually greater than they were last year, when people had not -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: - which tells you something about the confidence of the people of Corner Brook in the management team in place at Marble Mountain and, I invite the hon. member to come and have a look this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

My question today is for the Minister of Employment and Labour.

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, first aid training in the Province is mandatory in all industrial workplaces. Why is it, that in Newfoundland and Labrador, the only accredited agency eligible to provide first aid training is the St. John Ambulance?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: I thank the member for his question, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to indicate to him that during the past number of years, the decision by government has been that the St. John Ambulance be the agency that delivers occupational health and safety training, first aid training for government and certified by government, that has been the case for a number of years and we are undertaking a review of that at this point in time. The Red Cross has been in and made a presentation to the department and we are looking at that issue as we speak. During the next number of weeks we will conduct a review and then a further decision will be made.

Basically, in the past, it has been felt that the market for those services could only be supported by one agency but to the government it is open-minded and we will consider new information as we receive it and we are, at this point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in the country that has not accredited the Canadian Red Cross to provide first aid training. Even Prince Edward Island finds it has a sufficient marketplace to be able to accredit the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance. This will make a fair market approach and it will provide a fair market basis for both the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance. I want to ask the minister if he will give assurances today, that after the review he is doing now, he will be looking at extending that accreditation to the Red Cross as is done in all other Canadian provinces?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member that we are conducting a review, but I cannot give a commitment as to what the final decision will be because that will be made by the caucus and the Cabinet. Once we have the information and we have evaluated fully the information, because it is an issue that has been brought to our attention, as we go forward we will look at all the information, we will bring forth a recommendation to government for a final decision and we will do so with all of the information that has been provided to us, both by St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross.

We are sensitive to the fact that we are the only Province, but it is also a big Province to deliver the programs in, and we are looking at the markets and so on for the future. We are looking at all the information and I undertake to ensure that the House of Assembly will know in due course what decision will be made by the Cabinet and by government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister but not necessarily a supplementary. A few weeks ago the minister said in this House that he was looking at workers' compensation benefits for home care workers, and in particular in connection with the workers on the Southern Shore. The minister said he was talking to the Workers' Compensation Commission, and I am wondering if today he might be able to tell us that he will be able on tomorrow to announce more good news, make a Ministerial Statement, and tell the home care workers of this Province that they are going to be covered under workers' compensation benefits?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Opposition is acknowledging all of the good news that government has been announcing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We really, sincerely appreciate the Opposition House Leader giving a compliment to the government before Christmas. We really appreciate that.

Specifically, on that issue we are looking carefully at the coverage of workers' compensation for home care workers. I must point out that home care workers in the Province can apply for coverage on an individual basis, or an employer can apply for coverage. They can be covered under the act. What we are talking about here is having the government, or the department and so on, that is perceived as the employer, depending on whether they are the employer as designated by the Labour Relations Board.

I am just letting the House know the information because I have looked into the matter, and we are looking into the matter further, along with the rest of Cabinet. We are looking at it and see where it goes in the very short course.

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one quick question, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a question for the Minister of Education.

In the last couple of months I have dealt with close to forty-two students who have had trouble receiving HRD funding because of the criteria at HRD. They are finding out that on one hand students in the same classes are getting HRD funding and on the other hand are not getting it. Is the minister aware of the situation, has he received any representation from people across the Province or in his district, and if so, what action has he taken to correct the situation?

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

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

I certainly appreciate the question in bringing attention again to this matter as it is very important for a group of people in the Province. We did have quite a number of representations some time ago, months ago actually, when this first became an issue in Newfoundland and Labrador as we began to experience the changes in the federal system with the HRD and how they are going to go into the future to provide opportunities for people who need training and re-training to access some level of income support.

We understand that there are those who got caught in midstream in terms of a mechanism that has been in place and that was being discontinued, and while new mechanisms that were being discussed and ready for implementation had not yet come on stream. Recently, we haven't had many representations at all because when it was dealt with before it was made quite clear that because the federal government through a mechanism it was funding through HRD had changed the plans, and that the provincial government did not have any means or wherewithall, fiscally, financially, or otherwise to step in and continue their funding in between.

Mr. Speaker, a new system in coming in place on April 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. GRIMES: The discussion as to exactly how students will be dealt with in that area will be finalized before then.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the House the report of the Public Accounts of the Province, volumes one to four, for the fiscal year ended March 31 1996. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the report of the Public Tender Act exemptions for the month of October 1996.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. WISEMAN: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I didn't expect to cause so much excitement on the other side of the House. I guess with all the good news we have been announcing lately I can understand their desperation.

Anyway, I rise today on behalf of some 500 residents of the Province who have some concerns with bus safety. As the member for the area I have an obligation to present to the House the petition they have given me. It isn't a new petition, It was presented by the Opposition. I suppose when you are in a situation like this -

MR. E. BYRNE: Does the member support his constituents in their request?

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is always a question I suppose when somebody presents a petition whether they support it or not, but I think the Standing Orders on petitions are very clear. You don't have to be clear whether you support something or not. I have an obligation, as I have said, to present a petition. The petition is calling for paid adult monitors on school buses.

I applaud the committee for its work in pursuing the paid adult monitor situation. In doing so the committee also expressed a number of concerns it has with school busing, its main goal of course being paid adult bus monitors. It was concerned about educational programs on bus safety, driver training, bus regulation and maintenance, double runs.

I must tell you I was impressed with the hon. Minister of Education who took the time out of his busy schedule to go to my district and meet with residents of the area who had concerns about school reform. As it turned out -

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WISEMAN: - at that particular meeting, the biggest concern they had was school busing.

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

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not quite clear. The member is presenting a petition. Under Standing Order No. 90 it clearly states that "...every Member offering a petition to the House shall sign it with his or her own hand," indicating that he or she therefore supports the petition. In this particular case the member is not clear. If he isn't supporting it he has no right to present it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, if I could?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova to the point of order.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) comment on that particular statement. Signing with his or her own hand does not indicate support. It indicates that the member is telling the House of Assembly this is a valid petition, that it meets the requirements of the House in every way, shape and form, and has nothing to do with the member's agreement. Simply that he is authorizing, validating this as a proper petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair again is not aware whether or not the hon. member has signed the petition. I assume that he was presenting it to the House, that he has signed it

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. WISEMAN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with the hon. Minister of Education who took the time out of his busy schedule to go to my area and listen to the concerns of the people in my area. At that particular meeting, as I have said, the greatest concern was the safety of school busing. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that all of us on this side of the House are always concerned about the safety of our children and all the children in Newfoundland and Labrador. I, along with the Minister of Education and the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, met with the safety committee of Holy Family School and had a great discussion about their concerns. An honest upfront discussion, that they fully understand the situation. They fully understand the whole busing situation. As the minister said, looking at putting in paid bus monitors would cost the Province in excess of $4 million.

I had the pleasure of meeting with the school in the district of Conception Bay South, All Saints School. The parents there put together a group of adult monitors who would monitor the busing of children. They were not looking for paid adult bus monitors but nevertheless it is a concern that the committee of Holy Family School want brought to this House - the Opposition Leader has done it, unfortunately he got, I think 10,000 names and myself and the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island was given 500 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, by leave.

MR. WISEMAN: Did I get leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. WISEMAN: One of the other concerns, Mr. Speaker, was also with the educational program on bus safety. The minister has covered all the concerns that has been brought out. He has made it possible now in the new reform of education that school boards can collect monies from parents who so desire to have adult paid bus monitors, to pay these bus monitors. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government will pursue all of these issues. They will work in the best interest of the people that we serve and I know that they will be honest and upfront in their deliberations. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I too stand to present a petition today on behalf of the residents of Paradise. The same petition as presented by my colleague from Topsail and indeed the same petition as presented by a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition some days ago. The prayer of the petition has already been read into record, Mr. Speaker, and I want to assure all members of the House of Assembly that in order to present this petition I too have signed it.

Mr. Speaker, part of the petition and indeed part of the letter that was sent to us basically says that we ask the hon. minister and his government to show compassion, leadership and understanding to ensure the safe transportation of our children. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that was exactly what the minister showed to the residents and the parents in Paradise area when he met with them some two weeks ago and listened to their concerns on many aspects with respect to education and in particular bus transportation. I fully believe that the some thirty-odd people who attended that meeting went away with a feeling that, without a doubt, they had received a fair and impartial hearing, that the minister indeed heard their message and throughout the meeting some ideas evolved that could meet the needs of bus monitors for the children in the Paradise area and indeed for across the Province.

I want to commend the organizers of the petition and indeed the parents who came to meet with my colleague from Topsail and the Minister of Education some three or four weeks ago. I wanted to commend them for the presentation that they made, for the homework that they had carried out themselves to ensure that all aspects of their concerns were not simply being verbalized at a meeting but indeed were being covered in a solid, safe and I guess indeed in a matter of fact kind of way. So my compliments to those people who are involved in that.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Paradise I too present a petition to the House of Assembly today.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would move that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Motion No. 3, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Motion No. 3. That is the adjourned debate on Bill No. 48.

It has been moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing Order 50 that the debate on Bill No. 48 entitled An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province in the name of the hon. the Minister of Education shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, Schedule or Schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to debate in Committee of the Whole House respecting Bill No. 48 shall be the first business of the Committee when next called by the House, and shall not be further postponed.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 13, Mr. Chairman, Bill No. 48.

CHAIR: Okay. The adjourned debate on Bill No. 48.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Before we begin the debate this afternoon, I wonder if I could have leave to inform the House that we on this side will not be using the usual Thursday afternoon, the Late Show at 4:30 p.m. today. So we can all govern ourselves according. It might be of some help to some of the ministers or to our side and this side (inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, if a motion is necessary, I would move that the House not adjourn in its normal fashion at 4:30 p.m. but that we continue past 5:00 p.m., past 4:30 p.m, and whatever is necessary to conclude the business of the House. I would so move.

CHAIR: Okay. Today being Thursday, automatically at 4:30 p.m. there is an adjournment debate. It has been moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: (Inaudible) Orders of the Day.

Shall clause 1 carry?

Sorry. The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the limited time that is available, what I propose to do - there are a number of amendments which we didn't have an opportunity to deal with up to this point. What I would like to do is just deal with a number of amendments at this time at this particular stage of the proceedings. I have provided a copy of the draft wording to the hon. minister, and perhaps the best way to deal with this is if we just immediately get into this. Any commentary with respect to any of the particular clauses or the particular amendments will be done by my colleagues in a continuation of this debate.

CHAIR: For the benefit of the -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would like to begin, Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Yes, but for the benefit of the hon. member, and to ensure the smooth flow, probably what we can do is look at each clause and pass each clause before we start proceeding and have a whole slew of amendments. If you have amendments to clause 1 we will consider these, or any other member of the House, if they have amendments to clause 1, and then we will go on to clause 2.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, obviously in this particular piece of legislation there are some 120 clauses, I believe. We have approximately nine or ten amendments. With the approval of the House, one other possibility perhaps is if we could just deal with these amendments, with these specific clauses, and then perhaps revert to the traditional way of clause-by-clause. Is that an option that may be considered?

CHAIR: No, we have to consider the amendments for each particular clause. If not, we are going to get really confused. Actually, they are out of order because right now we are debating clause 1 of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clause 1 only.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Are you just standing or do you want to speak?

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, I guess, Mr. Chairman.

I am wondering if we could, in the interest of facilitating some of the commentary that my colleague wants to make on this bill, knowing the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I am trying to listen to the hon. the Opposition House Leader. He is debating a procedure, and if I cannot him, the Chair is unable to direct the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: I am wondering if I could make a proposal to my hon. colleague across the way - and we have not had a chance to discuss this. My colleague, the critic for education, has a number of things he would like to say relative to this particular piece of legislation. He may go beyond his normal twenty-minute allocation on the closure. I am wondering if we could have an arrangement whereby any time that he might go beyond that we would merely deduct it from any other speaker, so the total number of minutes taken would not exceed the maximum allocated to this side of the House on the closure motion?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that. The truth is, nine, or ten, or eleven times, twenty minutes is allowed in this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that `Jack', eleven times twenty?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind hon. members -

MR. TULK: When that time is used, the vote is called, so I give the people leave, Mr. Chairman, to use up their time however they see fit. It is Opposition time, basically, and if we want any more than that we will have to use it from our time.

CHAIR: We will look at the different clauses. It is a lot easier for the Chair, and it is in order that we look at the amendments to each clause rather than going all over the place.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is fine, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: In other words, you are starting now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: With clause 1.

On motion, clause 1, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

Probably the hon. Member for St. John's East can tell us which clauses he has amendments for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Number 5 is the first one.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4, inclusive, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

An amendment being presented is with respect to clause 5. As indicated, I believe the hon. the minister has a copy of this before him. The proposal is that clause 5.(a) of the bill be deleted and the following substituted with respect to excuse from attendance.

Section 5.(a) states: "is unable to attend school by reason of illness or when the parent, after reasonable consideration, determines that it is not safe due to inclement weather or any other avoidable cause."

Paragraph 5.(b) would then become paragraph 5.(c). Paragraph 5.(b) now reads: "is unable to attend school due to illness, but the principal may require by advance notice a medical note in cases where illness is frequent and suspect."

Paragraph 5.(c) would become paragraph 5.(d); (d) would become (e); (e) would become (f); and (f) would become (g).

And the explanatory note there, Mr. Chairman, that these changes reflect parents' rights to decide if weather conditions prevent safe transport to school and the unnecessary use of a medical system for doctors' notes required by principals to certify a child's illness without guidelines as to when such a note should be requested.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. GRIMES: I just want to point out, again having seen the proposed amendment in these last few seconds, it is unfortunate again, I might point out, because we have dealt with a number of amendments over the last week or so, and in dealing with all of the stakeholders, the Home and School Federation which speaks for parents, the school boards which have parents sitting on the board representing their students and the interest of students, the Teachers Association and others -

This could make some sense, Mr. Chairman, but I am not in a position to say that government should support it because every stakeholder in the system has had this legislation for a week or ten days; they brought forward positions that they thought were important and needed improvement or change, and nobody has mentioned this. Nobody sees the current wording of clause 5 as causing any difficulty and does not see the need for any correction.

This would be a fundamental shift, suggesting that parents themselves, without the current 5.(a) of having to notify the teacher if there is going to be an absence, could decide to keep a child at home. It seems to have some merit but it is not consistent with the intent of the bill, the way it has been crafted, and the stakeholders in the system, the parents through the Home and School Federation, the parents through the school trustees, and the teachers themselves have all seen this and have not proposed this kind of amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, on that basis I do not see how we can suggest that the government can vote for this amendment. I would have to recommend to my colleagues that we vote to defeat the amendment.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 5, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 6 through 11 carry?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The next amendment is clause 14, is it not?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Maybe just to help facilitate here - I know the hon. the minister has a copy.

MR. GRIMES: Not unless I am getting them now. I heard they were sent to my office.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: They were sent over to your office this morning, Mr. Minister.

MR. GRIMES: I just got a call saying they just got them. I guess this is these I am receiving here now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: If it is of assistance to the table officers there are about ten, so perhaps if I gave you a copy of each.

On motion, clauses 6 through 11, carried.

The next one, Mr. Chairman, is clause 12, where there are amendments.

MR. TULK: Clause 12.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The amendment being proposed, Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 12 is specifically with reference to 12.(5) of the bill being deleted and the following substituted - and this is with respect to student records: "A student record may be reviewed, by the principal and teachers of the school where the student is registered and with written permission from the parent or a student who is 19 years of age or older may be reviewed by board employees where that board has jurisdiction over the school where the student is registered, to assist in the instruction of the student to whom that student record pertains."

The explanatory note says: "This amendment is to clarify when and by whom a student record may be used for the purpose of assisting instruction to the student."

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Maybe to facilitate matters, too, Mr. Chairman, I just might repeat part of the comment I made with respect to the prior amendment. These amendments again, while they may have merit because of the fact that we have not seen them, they have not come forward from any of the stakeholder in education, all of whom have reviewed this legislation, and all of whom will have some amendments made by virtue of those that will be proposed starting with clause 14. There are seven that we are proposing to change. Some were proposed by the Opposition critic, some by the Teachers Association, some by the denominational authorities, some by parents representatives, and we are proposing some.

I might just add that all I am saying generally is, as the hon. member proposes the amendments, I will be recommending to my colleagues that but we vote no to these amendments they had been proposing and we will be voting yes to the ones that we give notice to starting with clause 14.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendments say `aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 12 and 13, carried.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, the table has the amendment that is being proposed based upon the representation made by the hon. Member for St. John's East and the Opposition critic for Education in his discussion of the bill in second reading. For further clarification, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the ability to charge fees for students who arrive, who are authorized under a Canadian visitor visa and to assure that regardless of where their point of entry into the country is, that they will be able to charge a fee in Newfoundland and Labrador, so we are suggestion the deletion of the phrase in subsection (2) of clause 14, the deletion of the phrase: from outside Canada, so that it would read as the hon. member proposed in his presentation at second reading.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 14 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 15 and 16, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 17, amendment. The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, again as a result of a representation made by the hon. member again at second reading a week or so ago, and upon further review of the language proposed, certainly clarifies the intent of clause 17 so that when a parent has made every reasonable effort that they would not be guilty of any offence under the act, so that clarification, the table again has the wording of the new 17 (1), that the current 17 (1) of the bill be deleted and the following substituted which reads, the new 17 (1): A parent who neglects or refuses to enrol his or her child in school or does not make every reasonable effort to ensure that his or her child attends school, is guilty of an offence under this act. So, Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the addition of the phrase `does not make every reasonable effort' enhances and improves the intent of section 17 (1) as referenced by the Opposition critic in his presentation of second reading.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clauses 17 as amended, carried.

On motion, clause 18 and 19, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 20, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a small change in the amendment, Mr. Chairman. Subsection 20 (1) of the bill, is amended by deleting the phrase `is entitled to' and substituting the word `shall'. The note, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is made to establish consistency respecting parents rights to receive reports on students respecting attendance, behaviour and progress. Obviously, it is clear from this amendment, Mr. Chairman, that there is now an obligation as opposed to a recommendation that parents rights are protected to ensure that all information with respect to their children as students in the school, would be forwarded to them.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 20 through 26, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 27, the hon. Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This amendment, Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 27 would be the deletion of adding the phrase, but such opening shall not be later than September 15 and such closing shall not be later than June 30 of the following year.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment with that there would be certainty with respect to the length of the school year, there would be limits as to when school commences in September and when school would close in June. So obviously, there are limitations being put on the ministerial power respecting the dates of opening and closing and it would provide and assist parents with respect to their expectations concerning the length of the school year, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment proposed by the Member for St. John's East, all in favour?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 27 through 30, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 31, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Section 31, of the bill, Mr. Chairman, would be amended by deleting the phrase "and in the afternoon immediately preceding the time set for the opening of school" and substituting the phrase: Immediately preceding the time set for the opening of school and during a period in the afternoon immediately following the time set for the closing of school.

I would ask the minister to carefully look at this particular wording, Mr. Chairman. It clarifies what I would consider to be somewhat convoluted wording as section 31 now reads, and makes it clear that the presence of a teacher, as required, would be in the morning, prior to, during the day, and again after a school session in the afternoon. It is unclear as I see it in the present wording.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, because he did ask me to take a special look at it, and I did. Not to be unkind in the comment, because it can sound like that, but this is a repeat of the phrase that has been in the act for thirty years. Teachers in the system know exactly what it means. The NLTA looked at it, and has no problem with it. Other wording might be fine, but every person in the system understands what the current 31 means, has used it for over thirty years, and it doesn't need any correction.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

On motion, clauses 31 through 35 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 36.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, understanding wanting to be completely clear with respect to everyone in the Province understanding that this act does in fact ban any reference to and ability to administer corporal punishment to students in the school.

The wording was suggested by the hon. Opposition critic again in his presentation at second reading. (inaudible) some modification of it has been worked upon with the lawyers. I believe everybody agrees that the words now being proposed - that the current 36 could be deleted and a new phrase in 36, the new statement, could be: A person shall not administer corporal punishment to a student in a school. To make it abundantly clear that no person, employee or otherwise, is to administer corporal punishment in a school in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment proposed by the Minister of Education say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Against?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 36 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 37 to 73 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 74.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clause 74(2) of the bill being deleted and the following substituted. This is with respect to by-laws: A board may make by-laws that are necessary to carry out its powers and duties under this Act providing such by-laws are not in contravention of this Act.

Again, it is just an amendment of clarification, largely. The wording simply clarifies what I guess is obviously the intent of the legislation, pursuant to section 74(2).

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: Defeated.

On motion, clause 74 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 75.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Paragraph 75(1)(u), Mr. Chairman. The amendment asks for the deletion and the following be substituted with respect to the duties of boards. Clause 75(1)(u) would now read, in the amendment: Where arrangements are made by it for the transportation of students, ensuring that all vehicles engaged in carrying students to and from school have been mechanically certified and have adequate liability insurance; that an appropriate bus safety program is offered to the students who are transported by bus; and that an adult bus monitoring program is provided.

The explanatory note: These amendments are essential to correct fundamental errors in the wording of this paragraph, and it also assigns the responsibility of school bus safety to the board. This issue has been debated frequently in this House, in various ways, largely being the subject matter of many petitions. In fact, petitions presented by members opposite on today's date. It seeks clarification and it illustrates, by way of this amendment, what the actual responsibility of school boards would be with respect to the issue of school bus safety.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment proposed by the Member for St. John's East say, `aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 75 through 77, carried.

Clause 78, The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, again, as per the amendments that have been provided to the Opposition critic and to the table, the table has them with respect to section 78(1) and 78(2). The suggestion is that 78(3) remain the same but again in consultation with the representatives of the denominational authorities and with our own legal counsel they have agreed that the newly suggested wording for 78(1) and 78(2) better clarify and provide for the rights of the denominational authorities under the Constitution to assure that this membership is made up of people of the appropriate class. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we are moving the deletion of the current 78(1) and (2) and the substitution of the new 78(1) and (2) as per the wording provided to the table. I don't think it is necessary, Mr. Chairman, to make a reading into the record. I think the amendment is well known to the table for the official minutes and the official recording of the final conversion of the bill.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment of clause 78 as proposed by the Minister of Education be carried?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what copy of these amendments that are going around or been on the table of the House but it was my understanding that the minister did not intend to delete clause 78(3) but the amendment as proposed I believe will have that affect.

MR. GRIMES: No, we corrected that. There is a new copy -

MR. HARRIS: Well the table does not seem to have the right copy then I say, Mr. Chairman. I just asked the table for a copy of the latest, latest version of the amendments and I was produced a copy which has the effect of leaving clause 78(3) out of the bill. So I am just wondering if the Chair is in fact possessed of the amendment that the minister is possessed of so that we know what we are voting on.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education, in clarification of this amendment.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, for clarification again. The last copy that was circulated to the Opposition critic and also to the office of the Leader of the New Democratic Party had picked up on that mistake because it was raised with me by the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi last week in the Legislature. As a result we made the corrections with the legal counsel and the legislative drafts people. We changed the wording and the amendment is that subclauses 78(1) and 78(2) are deleted which has the effect of having 78(3) remain. 78(1) and 78(2) only are replaced by new wording, 78(3) in the act stays as is. So the point that the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi is making is correct but the latest version - and I am sure that the Opposition critic as well in following through the list that we have here shows that the fourth point for the fourth amendment reads on the paper, that he has, that subclauses 78(1) and (2) of the bill are deleted. It makes no reference to deleting 78(3) so therefore 78(3) is to stay. We will have a 78(1) new language to clarify it, 78(2) new language to clarify it and 78(3) stays as printed in the bill, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rose to deal with that particular point but I understand that if this is my only time to speak on the closure motion I will enlarge my remarks. I understand from what I was hearing from the speaker that there is agreement as long as the envelope of Opposition time was not used up in terms of the closure motion at the committee stage, then the Government House Leader has no objections and I would be permitted to speak on other occasions during this debate. As long as I don't use more than twenty minutes and as long as he doesn't use my twenty minutes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader on the point of order.

MR. TULK: Let me assure the hon. gentleman that that was done by leave. It was done by leave, let me just tell him that.

CHAIR: By leave of the House we agreed I think to have the exchange in terms of - to go through the clause by clause study of the bill and look after the amendments. Then if the hon. member wanted to speak for the twenty minutes he could speak on the enacting clause or the title of the bill, which is the general discussion of the bill. So we could wait till that time or the hon. member could take advantage of his twenty minutes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, that will be fine. I understood that there was an agreement from the House Leaders which I heard, and I just wanted to ensure that it applied to all members in the Opposition. I know it was done specifically to accommodate the wishes of the Member for St. John's East, but as long as it applies to everyone on this side I have no difficulty with that, and would reserve my remarks for other occasions during the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) done by leave (inaudible)

CHAIR: Yes. I think the agreement was not only for the hon. Member for St. John's East or the Minister of Education. I think the agreement we had was that we would go through clause by clause study so we could deal with the amendments as we come to each clause. If there are other members in the House who -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Yes. If there are other members of the House who have amendments we would let them rise and propose their amendments and we would decide on them and go on again.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that the time we are taking now will be deducted from the 180 minutes for us and the twenty minutes from any other members who are here. Therefore I would say to my colleague for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi that yes, he should participate in the way that all the members of the Opposition are, but at the end of the day he would take his full maximum of twenty minutes. Anything beyond that would have to come from leave from all of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, that is fine.

CHAIR: We are talking about a massive bill here, and the Chair would prefer to have each clause dealt with first.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps I could understand -

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

Would the hon. members to my right, if they want to engage in a conversation with hon. members across the way, could they go behind the Chair?

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

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps I could have it clarified further because I heard two different things, one from the Government House Leader who said that we would go through clause by clause and if people wanted to speak for twenty minutes after that they could. The Opposition House Leader is saying something different. I prefer the version of the Government House Leader and I'm sure it is more acceptable to the other side than the more narrow version.

CHAIR: So we can proceed, the Chair is clear in terms of the deal with the Official Opposition was that the hon. Member for St. John's East would propose amendments, and the time, if he took an hour, that hour would be deducted from the Official Opposition's time of the nine members times the twenty minutes. In the case for the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, he is entitled to twenty minutes in this debate. If he wanted to debate it on a clause or he wanted to debate it on the title, it is fine with the Chair and it is fine with other members. I think we are clear on that. But the situation with regards to the Official Opposition, if the hon. Member for St. John's East was going to speak for an hour and a half, then that would be deducted off the Official Opposition time.

Shall the amendment to clause 78 carry, proposed by the Minister of Education?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried!

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 78 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 79 to 88 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 89.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clause 89(2) of the bill is deleted and the following substituted, with respect to the issue of zoning: Notwithstanding subsection (1), a student who meets the criteria for admission to a uni-denominational, interdenominational or french language school may attend a uni-denominational, interdenominational or french language school respectively outside the attendance zone in which that student resides, but the board shall not incur transportation costs for

that student.

The explanatory note accompanying this amendment was necessary to maintain the integrity of the reform process and to ensure equal rights to all students.

A comment just in passing with respect to this amendment, obviously, as the explanatory note indicates, the purpose of this is that there is an integrity maintained with respect to the issue of which school children will attend, and the implications or consequences of that choice as it affects busing in this Province.

My suspicion is that if the existing wording continues, this will be an issue that certainly the Department of Education may have to deal with from time to time as questions can be asked and explanations requested by parents - and, in fact, parents who were supporters of reform - as to what the rationale would be if the suggested wording in the amendment is, in fact, not followed through.

CHAIR: The amendment proposed to clause 89, as proposed by the hon. Member for St. John's East, all those in favour, `aye'.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I would like to speak to the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister already. The question that arises here as to how the attendance policies and how the selection of appropriate school attendance for each individual student shall occur. I note that in the materials prepared by the department, by the minister, and distributed as part of a package, there is included in the package a ballot.

I have a concern, and I am not sure this amendment addresses it, that I would want to raise about how this choice system is actually going to work, and whether or not the person who is filling out a ballot on behalf of his or her child is actually going to get their choice properly reflected in the ballot.

Now, I know the ballot itself is not a part of the act, that it can be changed by regulations, but in looking at the choices and how they would work, because when you are looking at a piece of legislation for analysis the important thing is to say: Well, how will this really work in practice? And look for problems that might arise.

In looking at this ballot I see that the choice open to parents, the preferences open, are only two. They are only either an interdenominational school or a uni-denominational school of a particular sort.

That may be alright in a community which is only going to end up having one school, because the choice is clear: Do you want that school to be uni-denominational, or do you want that school to be a Roman Catholic or Pentecostal or Seventh-Day Adventist? Uni-denominational school? No problem there.

What about a parent who lives in St. John's, or Corner Brook, or Grand Falls, or an area such as CBS, which is likely, because of the population, to have more than one school? What if the parent - and there are many, many, such parents who supported the notion of education reform for the reason that they wanted neighbourhood schools, and they wanted their child to have the right, as a right, to go to the nearest school.

Mr. Chairman, somehow this legislation has to facilitate that right, because if - and I went through the scenario with the minister the other day - for example, a parent wants to send their child to the nearest school, and as a result of the way the balloting works that school ends up being a Pentecostal school, the right of that parent to send their child to the nearest school could be prevented from being operative, or their vote is not even counted, because if they want their child to go to an interdenominational school they could end up having to go to an interdenominational school, they could end up having to go to an interdenominational school further down the road, or two miles from where they live, because that is the nearest uni-denominational school. What I would prefer to see, something facilitated into the legislation, is the third choice, a third choice on this ballot paper which would then be counted as to whether or not an individual wants their child to attend the nearest school. So the ballot could then say, interdenominational school, uni-denominational school, or nearest school, regardless of how that turns out to be, because I think the preponderance of people who support school reform is they want to have their child able to attend the nearest school.

If you living in the neighbourhood of MacDonald Drive, you would like for your child to go to that school, or if you are living in the neighbourhood of Vanier, Booth Memorial, Prince of Wales, St. Joseph's, or whatever it happens to be, you would like your child to be able to go to that school. If you have that choice as a choice, then the parent who is choosing that particular designation under the ballot would then, presumably, have a first right of attendance to that nearest school, even if it ends up being a catholic school, so that they could be included in the attendance policy, so they would have a priority right to that nearest school over and above others who are not of the denomination, for example.

If it turns out that St. Joseph's ends up being a Roman Catholic uni-denominational school and my child is in that neighbourhood and I chose a nearest school as my option, I get a right to attend St. Joseph's. St. Joseph's could end up being an interdenominational school, and I do not know that when casting my ballot, but my first choice is St. Joseph's whether it is uni or whether it is inter, and that seems to be more in keeping with the spirit of the reform process, of the referendum, and of the desire of people who want to see school reform brought about in such a way that the principle of neighbourhood schools is available to them.

I think, at the end of the day - and I am going to use up a few minutes, perhaps use up my twenty minutes, in speaking on this bill, to say that this whole process of school reform that is contained in this Act, the culmination, if you will, of all the efforts of the last number of years, dozens of years in some cases for some people, to try to see the school system in this Province reformed, if the culminating efforts of that are not so as to provide a basis for children attending the nearest school to them, then perhaps it will all be for naught. Parents, at the end of the day, will be saying: What did we go through all this trouble for, if at the end of the day I am precluded by a series of rules. For example, if a particular parent put uni-denominational down they are excluded by a school attendance policy from attending the nearest school because they chose an interdenominational school and their nearest school turned out to be uni-denominational, and therefore, they have no priority over anybody else for attendance at that school.

Now, obviously one would expect the people who chose a uni-denominational school to have first right, and I have no problem with that, but it is a question of what happens to those who wish to have a child attend the nearest school whether it is uni or whether it is interdenominational? It may well be that the person choosing nearest school is an adherent of that religion. It may well be that a catholic parent would say on this, yes, I have no problem with a catholic school but I want my child to attend the nearest school. If it happens to be catholic, so much the better, or they may say, I am indifferent, and still want to chose the nearest school as of right, so they might, for fear of the school becoming interdenominational, and therefore not having the right to attend because they have chosen a uni-denominational school, end up in the wrong school when they really want their child to go to the nearest school.

I do not know if I have overly complicated it, Mr. Chairman, but I know the minister understands my point because I raised it to him privately the other day. Whether this amendment covers it or not I will leave to the Member for St. John's East's astute legal mind. I would like to hear the minister's comments on that point, that there could be a better ballot that would more likely reflect the wishes of people who want to see their child go to the nearest school and would be happy -

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I would say to the Opposition House Leader, I would suggest that I might use all my time now to speak to this point and elaborate, with the indulgence of members, on the whole issue of school reform. But perhaps the Opposition House Leader, who takes a great interest in educational matters, would also want to comment on that particular point at some point, that in addition to the two choices that are there on the ballot, there could be an additional choice of: I want my child to go to the nearest school, and that would be reflected, then, in the attendance policies that the boards would be carrying out; so that, at the end of the day, once the decision is made, whether a school is uni-denominational or interdenominational, people in that neighbourhood who have chosen the nearest school have some priority of right of attending that particular school. And, as I said, whether the amendment accomplishes that or not, I leave to the Member for St. John's East, but I think the principle is there as part of the spirit of Educational Reform that we should make sure that this legislation at this time, insures that people can have that right.

In terms of the whole process of school reform, there are some people concerned. There are many people concerned that we have done all of this for nought and that the same powers that be are going to exercise those powers against the wishes of the majority in the referendum. I do not believe that is the intention of government, but I think we have to be careful in crafting these amendments in this legislation to insure that parents have the strongest possible say, the strongest possible choice and the strongest possibility of that choice being reflected in the actual ability of their child to attend a school of their choice whether it be a uni-denominational school or an interdenominational school or indeed, as many parents have expressed, the nearest school, whether it is uni-denominational or interdenominational. Because, as all parents will know, the new Term 17 provides that regardless of whether it is an interdenominational school or a uni-denominational school, their children have the right to attend religious classes, religious training in their religion, and that is a greater right than exists in any other province of Canada, in any state of the United States and, I would suspect, in any country of the world. This right that parents have, to have their children taught, to be given religious training in a school system paid for by the public purse, probably only exists in the Province of Newfoundland of all of the jurisdictions that I am aware of in the world.

I think that is probably something that has gone unnoticed to a large extent in the debate over Educational Reform in the debate over the exact wording of Term 17, in the Senate, in the House of Commons; not before the Senate Committee, because I took pains to point out to that Committee, that after Term 17 was passed, that this Province alone, of all the jurisdictions of Canada and the United States and perhaps as I said, every country of the world, the denominations that are protected by Term 17, the adherence of those denominations have the right for their children to be taught religion of their denomination in every single, public school in the Province and that that right is there enshrined in the Constitution.

So many parents, Mr. Chairman, will take the view, even if they are strong adherents of a particular faith, that they want their children to go to the nearest school and have religion taught to them in that school if that is their choice.

So that is the point that I wanted to make on this legislation, Mr. Chairman. I thought it was an appropriate point to make and when we talk about how the zones will operate and how the system will actually operate in practice but it is an important point that I think, at the end of the day, what parents want to know, is whether or not school reform has in fact been achieved in practice, and whether that will result in their being able to send to their children to the school nearest them and whether that will be an effective right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East. Is he speaking on clause 89?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, with respect to the same point.

The Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi raises an issue, and I would be interested in the minister's comments. Because we could have a situation hypothetically, in following on from the comments made by the member, where a school in a particular neighbourhood has been declared to be uni-denominational, and a family living directly across the street from that school which simply wants that child and that family to attend that school, has no particular preference, but a neighbourhood school, and in accordance with the comments, on the assumption and understanding that is what reform meant.

How does the minister envisage a particular board responding to that parent who simply says: I want my child to go to that school across the street, but that school, because of the designation procedures, has been designated as uni-denominational, and therefore perhaps has closed its doors to that family across the street, who may simply be of another denomination - or, because of the population of the school, not in a position to even welcome that particular student? That, I think, is perhaps a fundamental hypothetical situation which could exist. I would be interested in the minister's comments on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe it might be very useful for the record as part of this debate to comment on that issue. Because in tying it into the sections of the Act, the clause-by-clause, while we are looking at 89(2) now and a proposed amendment by the Opposition education critic the hon. the Member for St. John's East, and the commentary on that by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

There are three sections that are tied together with respect to this issue of designation and the ability for a parent to have a student attend a particular school as a result of attendance zones and admission policies. There are three issues: there is a designation issue of the school itself; there is attendance zones, which we are now discussing in section 89 which impact upon that; and there is an admission policy which is controlled by the school board for interdenominational schools and controlled by the denominational sub-committee for a uni-denominational school.

It is not an issue, in our view, that is appropriate for amendment in the Act, because the reference to it in the Act actually is back in section 82, which we have already approved as written. I might remind hon. members with respect to section 82, designation, it says: "Commencing on September 1, 1997, a school shall be an interdenominational school unless the requirements set out in the regulations for designation as a uni-denominational school are satisfied" - so regulations are going to determine the designation process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, we need to deal with the issue, Mr. Chairman.

- "following a registration process to determine parental preference."

We have already agreed that that is going to be standard. There will be regulations laying out the process. Also the form that the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi references is out in its first draft. We are now having people look at actually, the possibility of including on that form a third column which would do exactly as the hon. member proposes, the language being along the lines of saying: The choice for that parent would be the nearest school regardless of designation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: It is the issue we will be looking at in terms of a possibility for including that on the form.

There is an important message in that. It will not be in the Act but, Mr. Chairman, it is an issue that ties in with sections 79, and 89 which we are now discussing. Because section 79 says that for a uni-denominational school the denominational committee directs the student admission policy. I think information collected through the process on a form like that might encourage the sub-committee to have as the second feature of its admission policy, and this is the issue, that its admission policy clearly would be the parents who wanted a school of that designation who have been assigned to it; and secondly, that even if it is a uni-denominational school, as the Member for St. John's East points out, but the parent is not of that denomination and wants to go, that the second tier of the admissions policy would be that neighbourhood children would get access, provided there is still room.

Because there is no guarantee that the uni-denominational committees will have that as their attendance policy. They are given right by the Constitution and by Section 79 to set the attendance policies but I think the information gathered through a registration process would be useful to them. It might encourage them to set that as their attendance policy. I believe what we have heard here in the House today is that members here, everyone involved in the debate would encourage that to be the actual attendance policy. We could not dictate under the act, Mr. Chairman, that the attendance policy says they would have to get priority over the denomination that is running the school because they have a constitutional right to run uni-denominational schools for children of one denomination. You can't displace students of that denomination with an attendance policy that kicks them out even though they have a constitutional right in favour of children who live closer to the school who are not of the denomination. So we hope the balance will be struck and we are seriously looking at using the form that will be prescribed under the regulations with Section 82, Mr. Chairman, to deal with that issue because it is an important one. It will be a critical one and I have been indicating to people that the next major piece that comes in education reform will be addressing that whole designation process and sending signals to the boards and to the subcommittees with respect to the attendance policies, the admission policies and the attendance zones that we are now discussing in Section 89, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment proposed by the Member for St. John's East to clause 89, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 89 - 90, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 91, the hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again the copy that the table has, accurate at this time, that paragraph 91.(1)(0) of the bill be deleted and the following substituted and the new 91.(1)(0), Mr. Chairman, basically just puts in wording that clarifies the fact that there is no misunderstanding that the director here, by virtue of sitting on these committees of the board, is in an ex-official position. So it just further clarifies that the person would be there, the director would be there, could be there but would not be a voting member. This language better clarifies it, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment as proposed by the hon. Minister of Education, paragraph clause 91.(1)(0) carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against, 'nay'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 91 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 92 through 94, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 95, The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, again as per the information provided to the table. Paragraph 95.(4)(a) of the bill, again we had representation suggesting that there be an improvement by deleting the current wording and substituting the wording, "(a) all matters necessary for the board to manage, maintain, use, equip and improve the property while the property is required by the board for the purpose of education; and", and that this wording be substituted as the new 95.(4)(a). So that issue is there mainly to pick up with respect to the whole issue of including the word `maintain' along with the wording that was in the previous 95.(4)(a).

CHAIR: Shall the amendment as proposed by the hon. the Minister of Education carry?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 95 as amended, carried.

Shall clauses 96-119 carry?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment with respect to clause 111.

CHAIR: Clause 111, so probably what we will do is 96-110, carried.

On motion, clauses 96 through 110, carried.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clause 111 has to do with the establishment of a commission scolaire for the Province and indicates that the commission scolaire will be established pursuant to Section 111.

I have received significant representation, Mr. Chairman, by the Provinciale Federacion for francophone parents of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are some real concerns as have been expressed and I am sure the hon. minister has received documentation from the federation as well, who have expressed grave concern having lobbied hard, having worked hard, having communicated at length with the minister and with the department over the course of many months to see that Section 111, Mr. Chairman, deals in a very limited fashion by just simply recognizing the fact that there shall be the establishment of a commission scolaire for the Province.

Mr. Chairman, what is missing according to many proponents and supporters of this concept is the structural foundation I guess or the basis upon which a commission scolaire will be established in our Province. There was a complete lack of guidelines, Mr. Chairman. There is no indication as to what the structural basis will be.

The interest of francophone parents and francophone students, guidelines as to how this board will be established, what the parameters of instruction will be, the details which generally accommodate, particularly when a commission such as the type we are talking about now, which is completely new - there is no tradition; there is no background information which can be of assistance, I suppose - and this is the time and place, I would say to the minister, for lengthy, detailed, and complete legislative wording.

Mr. Chairman, there has been documentation and copies have been forwarded to me by representatives of the Federation des Parents Francophones de Terra-Neuve et Labrador, and it is quite clear that what the parents and what the proponents of this commission scolaire are saying is completely absent. The wording in the present legislation is completely void of clarification, specification, and wording which is such that makes it clear what the purpose of a commission scolaire is all about.

I will not go into any other detail other than to make those few comments. The minister, I am sure, is fully aware of where the parents and supporters of this commission scolaire are coming from, and again I would be interested in the minister's comments in virtue of a commitment which has been made to these parents over, as I say, a series of weeks and months, many months, of lobbying and hard work by many proponents and many interested parties.

I would be interested in the minister's comments with respect to the commitment that this government has made to the francophone community of this Province, whether it be in Labrador, or on the West Coast, in particular the Port au Port Peninsula, or in the City of St. John's, or any other community where there is a francophone population. I would be interested in hearing the minister's comments with respect to this government's commitment to the francophone people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On motion clauses 110 through to 120, inclusive, carried.

CHAIR: The next amendment we have is to section 121, an amendment by the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Section 121 is a repeat of an amendment which was put forward with respect to Bill 27, the Education Act. It is the identical wording, and it has to do with a topic about which this Party is passionate, with respect to resource recovery.

I would like to read the proposed amendment: Resources realized from reductions in duplication of school boards, administrative offices, schools and transportation systems through the enactment of the Schools Act, 1996, shall be devoted to improving the quality of teaching and learning.

It is clear from comments that have been made by members on this side of the House over the past ten days or so that we feel that a significant breach of this government, and a complete absence of relevant wording in the legislation, is that it fails to honour up to its commitment to the people of this Province in terms of its contribution of money saved being redirected to the schools and classrooms in our Province.

Mr. Chairman, there is significant government documentation. We have Hansard in itself. We have the former Minister of Education, and indeed many representatives of government, who have made it clear to parents and the people of our Province throughout the referendum debate how savings were to be redirected and returned to the classrooms of our Province. It is a significant failure of this legislation. Obviously, the thrust of this amendment is to ensure that the resources realized from reductions, from the reductions of school boards, from the refining of administrative offices, and the savings from busing and so on, that these funds be redirected to the children of our Province.

It is clear from government's own studies and assessments, Mr. Chairman, that we have significant weaknesses, and I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why this legislation fails to deal with this crisis situation. It is a significant breach, I would say to the minister, and it is a fundamental failure of this act where it fails to address the fact that the resources realized are not returned to the people and to the children of this Province.

It is an all-encompassing amendment, and we felt, as an opposition party, number one, we have an obligation to raise it, the people voted for reform based on the commitment which was given by government. It was felt that section 121 would be the best place, Mr. Chairman, to have this particular amendment addressed.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, a comment, please. Just for the record again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Understanding the point being made by the Opposition critic and why he feels compelled to make it, but he understands as well, and we can reference back to a previous Hansard where I've explained why the government won't support this amendment.

CHAIR: The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for St. John's East.

All those in favour say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

I declare it defeated.

On motion, clause 121 carried.

CHAIR: We have a schedule by the hon. member to clause 121.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, that the bill be amended by adding immediately after section 121 the following schedule. The schedule actually reads in the new Term 17, the new constitutional provision, which is necessary by virtue of the fact it is referenced in the act itself and needs to be appended to the act as a schedule. It needs to follow section 121, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule as proposed by the hon. Minister of Education carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before we conclude debate on this particular bill I want to take the opportunity to thank my colleague the critic for education the Member for St. John's East who -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: - has done a very commendable job. Also, give recognition to the minister for being open and willing to receive suggestions. We wish that we could get a guarantee for the funding to be spent. However, that is a decision we can bring to the table. We recognize in a parliamentary democracy that it doesn't always work that way. We will come back to that topic I'm sure at a later date. Again I want to recognize the tremendous amount of work that has been done for our caucus and also for the Legislature by the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Very quickly, I would like to commend the Opposition spokesman as well. I'm going to half-commend the Minister of Education. After all, he does get paid for it.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Opposition House Leader wanted to move to Order No. 15.

CHAIR: Order No. 15.

MR. TULK: Committee of the Whole on An Act Respecting Pension Benefits. You didn't want to move Order No. 14 first, (inaudible)? You wanted to leave that one till last, I believe you said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Okay. Order No. 15, Bill No. 46.

CHAIR: Order No. 15.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I do not know whether the Opposition has any amendments or not, but the Minister of Finance wishes to, when we get there, and I read it at the table now, with the concurrence of the House. Harvey?

MR. H. HODDER: Oh, yes.

MR. TULK: Clause 54 of the bill is deleted and the following substituted, `regulations prescribe procedure to divide pension - does the table have a copy of this?

CLERK: Yes.

MR. TULK: So I do not need to read it into the record. It is there, but I would so move the amendments as put forward by the Minister of Finance. You have a copy. I will read it in, okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no, no.

MR. TULK: On motion Clauses 1 to 53, carried.

On motion, Clause 54 as amended, carried.

On motion Clauses 55 to 81, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 16, Bill No. 51.

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". (Bill No. 51)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I am going to call Order 17, but I believe the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Opposition have agreed on a slight amendment to this bill, Bill No. 29, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Volunteer Service Medal".

CHAIR: Order, please!

Did the hon. Government House Leader just call Bill 29?

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Volunteer Service Medal". (Bill No. 29)

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to direct the attention of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for a second to Clause No. 6. I am wondering if I could have the attention of the House Leader and the Law Clerk as well? I do not have this written and I know there is only one word here.

MR. TULK: I think (inaudible) provided that today.

MR. H. HODDER: It is just the one word. In Clause No. 6, and I think the Law Clerk has that now, it says in the third line when talking about posthumous awards, `a medal may be awarded'. The word `awarded' might have a different connotation and perhaps the word could be simply `received' by a relative of the volunteer, or presented to a relative on behalf of the volunteer as prescribed by regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that okay?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. The word `awarded' is an incorrect word here.

MR. A. REID: Maybe presented to -

MR. TULK: I just want to make sure (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Harvey, let us go on to the next one.

MR. H. HODDER: Okay, and maybe the minister and the law clerk could we just defer this one for a moment?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible), Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: We also found out that there is no regulations for this yet, so I am going to omit as prescribed by - we are going to take that out as well because there is none presently written so we are going to take that out -

MR. TULK: That does not matter. Once you prescribe regulation, you have to (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: So I will be taking that out too as well, okay?

MR. H. HODDER: So you and the clerk will work out an arrangement?

MR. A. REID: Good.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I believe, and I will ask the Opposition House Leader to concur or to disagree with me, but I believe that Order No. 19, Heritage Animals, I think the NDP representative would want to speak in third reading. I don't believe he wants to speak in second reading, I think it was third.

AN HON. MEMBER: Third reading, yes.

MR. TULK: Alright. I would call then Order No. 19, Bill 32.

CHAIR: Bill 32, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Heritage Animals".

On motion, clauses 1 through 11, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Motion No.4.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, To Move, pursuant to Standing Order 50 that the debate on Bill 45 entitled, "An Act To Implement the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador" standing in the name of the Hon. the Minster of Finance and Treasury Board shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, schedule or schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to debate in Committee of the Whole House respecting Bill No. 45 shall be first business of the Committee when next called by the House, and shall not be further postponed.

All in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Opposed?

Motion, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 14, Bill 45.

CHAIR: Bill 45, "An Act To Implement the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador."

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a similar agreement that we had to the other bill before us today, Motion No. 3 -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No, we do not have any amendments but if, for example, the Leader of the Opposition wishes to go beyond his twenty minutes, that would be taken from others on this side of the House.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The reason I said I wanted the Minister of Finance here is that if there were proposed amendments then I would want the Minister of Finance here to either concur or disagree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: So you have no amendments?

MR. H. HODDER: We have no amendments.

MR. TULK: I have no problem with that, no problem at all.

CHAIR: The Chair is familiar, and I believe all Members of the House of Assembly are familiar, with the agreement that has been reached by both parties through the respective House leaders, and the agreement will apply to the debate on this bill.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some comments to make on the harmonized bill.

With reference to Bill 45, I feel strongly that taking over $100 million out of the economy and provincial revenues of this Province, and not transferring it back into the pockets of consumers, is not a positive step. We are going to lose, by the minister's admission, $105 million. He has not provided the figures showing how we are going to lose that. I predicted $150 million. The minister said $90 million would be gotten back in new taxes. He said, insurance, liquor and tobacco tax, a tax on the private sale of vehicles, and some other minor ones would bring in $90 million extra taxes by having 15 per cent tax on those items that did not have any Retail Sales Tax on them before, basically.

Now, over all, when you subtract this $90 million from the difference we are taking in now under Retail Sales Tax, and subtract it from what we should take in under the new BS tax, it will be about $240 million minus the $90 million, which gives us $150 million.

I have asked the minister if he could provide specifics as to where the difference is. I have not received specifics as to what the difference is, and I look forward next year to seeing the position on revenues we took in. Then we will be able to see, by the end of the fiscal year 1998, who is right on what we predicted on the difference that we would take in in taxes.

A certain portion of the money that is coming out of the economy, the $150 million, is going on the cost of goods in the Province. A certain amount is, not all. I am not naive enough to think it is. People in the field called me when they heard me bring this out in the media, and on open line discussions. One person in costing, and working in the business end of it for thirty-four years, indicated that when you have to re-ticket items, unpack them, warehousing, when you have to change over your cash registers, your computers, when you have to undergo those costs, it goes on to the price of the goods because companies are going to get a certain amount of profit.

Some hon. members here in the House are certainly familiar with doing business. One person shakes their head, is familiar with doing business. If you pay a 10 per cent higher transportation cost, and you want to maintain your profit, you drive up the cost of goods. The guy who is a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, I think, the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island, says that is not so.

I, too, spent over twenty years in numerous types of businesses, in a variety of businesses, some in manufacturing. I spent time in the retail business too, I say to the member, and other businesses, and when the cost of goods, the cost of services, goes up, you increase the cost to the consumer. That is common sense. You operate on a certain profit, and if the cost goes up the price of the goods out to consumers goes up. That is common sense. If you sell a good for $100 and the cost increases, if the cost goes up by $3, you may increase it to $104.

You may add on your profit margin on the extra cost. That is the normal way of doing business. Now where has this extra money gone? Who has benefitted really? Are people out building a home, the first time they want to start a home, are they going to pay more or less under the harmonized tax? People building a new home are going to pay more under a new harmonized tax on the cost of the home. They are going to pay more, I say to the member. We are going to have numerous increased costs.

The construction association, they have indicated - they had a news conference talking about the increased cost. The cost of a home is going up, they said, by around 4 per cent to 5 per cent. So the person out wanting to build a home is going to have an increase in cost.

What about the people out there with kids, young kids and raising a family? They did not have this tax on children's clothing before. Now we are going to see a tax on children's clothing. We are going to see a 15 per cent tax going on the clothing for kids. Families raising kids today are going to pay more under this tax. If their kid wants to play hockey at the arena, the GST of 7 per cent, now ice rentals will go up to 15 per cent. If they want to take their kid to music lessons or guitar lessons it is going up. If somebody wants to even enroll them in any particular activities or lessons they are going to pay a fee.

If anybody wants to use a taxi, people who don't have a car, seniors and people on fixed incomes, many of them do not have their own automobiles, are going to have to pay an extra fee now, up to 15 per cent. People who do have a few dollars are going to pay extra in certain areas. If people can afford it, well we don't have as much sympathy for people who can afford it but these people are going to be hit hard. Now are seniors going to be better off because of this tax? Let's look - and we have an increasing aging senior population in the Province, so much so that the Minister of Social Services in her Strategic Social Plan told us that by the Year 2016 and over the next twenty years we are going to have an economy in the Province in which the number of seniors are going up, the number of working people are getting less. That is what is in this government document and we have less people paying taxes for more people. So seniors and other people are going to be squeezed on incomes. They are the people who are going to be paying the extra cost to heat their homes. Extra costs for heating a home, extra cost for electricity, whether it is heating fuel, gasoline or increased taxes in gasoline.

People here in the Province, people who depend on snowmobiles as a method of transportation. That is done very much in certain parts, Northern Newfoundland and particularly Labrador. It is the main mode of transportation to many people. It is going to more than double, the basic tax, because of this. So seniors are not going to benefit. Are the working poor going to benefit? Are the poor going to benefit? No. We have a shifting in taxation from people who can afford to buy fur coats and expensive cars and various other luxury items to a shifting to the people who are hardest hit by it.

Even Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, they also went along with this tax for their buddy, the Prime Minister. The only three provinces in Canada that thinks it is good. Somebody said to me yesterday in an interview, `but the Premier thinks, in the Province, it's so good.' I said well it is kind of ironic that only the Premier and two other Liberal premiers in Canada thinks it's good. Ninety-four percent of the Canadian population - Nancy Wilson on CBC News World asked me, `but the Premier said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, yesterday evening I did an interview with News World -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) hon. gentleman, I just want to ensure that we did something. I am absolutely certain, unless I was dreaming it and I was just reminded by the Chair that we had not made a motion to adjourn at 4:30 p.m. and not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. but I am sure I did.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MR. TULK: Yes I did, but I just wanted to confirm with the Opposition that indeed, I had. Okay.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can see these hours are getting to the Government House Leader. He has the early stages of Alzheimer's, I would say.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will not put you in that category yet - not yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is up here at the Table (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not at all, not at all - I would not say that at all. I cannot blame the people at the Table. Sometimes, with the commotion going on here, it is a wonder they can do a job as good as they are doing, I say to the people at the Table and I do not think many people can disagree with that statement.

I was saying, I was asked a question: `But Premier Tobin says it is such a great tax?' I said: How come only Premier Tobin and the Leaders of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the only three Liberal Premiers in Canada, are the only ones who say it is a good tax? when the other seven provinces representing 93.5 per cent of the Canadian population say, it is not; when Quebec said it is not an option. Ontario, other provinces across the country: We are not buying into a deal that is not good, that is going to shift the burden onto low income people, on the seniors, fixed incomes, the working poor in the Province. We are not going to buy into it. It is not practical, it is not a good tax. And we all know why the tax is going ahead - we all know why.

They figured they would try to stymie some of the negative publicity the tax is getting by throwing in a reduction right away to people buying a new car - and that is fine, that is tremendous for the automobile industry and who can knock seeing industry and people working and selling cars? that is fantastic. But there are people out there, in the Member for Torngat Mountains' district and Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, particularly, that depend very heavily on snowmobiles, I say. Also, I have received correspondence and one that just came in this morning, I think it was the most recent one from Grand Falls - Windsor, a person who has been involved in the business of selling ATVs and snowmobiles and cannot avail of this. People who want to buy a skidoo, whether it is in Nain, or Hopedale or in Cartwright or L'Anse au Clair, will pay the full 12 per cent provincial tax instead of 8 per cent, so they did not get the same privilege. And it is a mode of transportation that is essential. They do not have a road, they do not have a public transportation system so they can go out and step on a bus and get to a store - you either walk or get on a snowmobile. And there are many other people who are going to be negatively affected by this tax.

Now, there is nothing wrong with a harmonized tax, as such. I would like to see a single harmonized tax in every province in Canada, and I think there could be positive aspects to it if we did not have numerous things related. We have tax-inclusive pricing that drives up the cost of the goods. Why do you take $150 million out of the Treasury of this Province and transfer it on to poor people, a good portion, not all of it, but a certain amount, and I have named items. Look around this Province. How many people in this Province today, with incomes - and every community has them. In the wintertime, I mean, they look at their light bill, they try to keep their heat down, they try to keep their costs down. Because many people just cannot afford to let their thermostats go out of control, they just cannot do it.

People are trying to get some firewood to keep their heating costs down, they install wood furnaces. They have gone through those methods because the pinch is on and a lot of people are unemployed today and hurting out there, and that little bit of heating fuel, that little lower cost helps these people. And this may end up costing more money in the process. I mean, the Department of Social Services even realizes that they need more money in the wintertime, and they give them an allowance of what, $51 extra, I think, they put on their social assistance amount for winter heating.

Now, here is the cost going up. Do you think they will get it put up to $60-some dollars a month, or $70? We will see on April 1 if Social Services will be making up for those people on social assistance, increasing from $51 up to $61 or $91, whatever the extra cost will be. If not, recipients will have to go into the marginal income they have and take that increase out of their disposable income, when they are at the bottom level of the rung, some of the lowest-paid people in the country on social assistance. I think it is only logical - maybe the Government House Leader would be familiar with that department and with the $51 that goes on winter heating, with an increase from 7 per cent to 15 per cent, that may have to be increased and maybe the department will do it. Because, if it does not, it will have to come out of their other income and we know people on social assistance do not get a very high income. That might be another cost built into the system.

MR. TULK: They might increase their other income.

MR. SULLIVAN: They may do that, yes. They might do that because of this extra burden, but it might be more practical to increase it on the fuel allowance, because even though in the summertime -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They may increase their income, I say to the Government House Leader, because their bills will also go up in the summertime.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I saw that.

Mr. Chairman, the winners in this are not the working poor or the low-income or the fixed-income people. They are not.

Now, the real winners are the people who do have a few dollars and can afford to live now - they will benefit, no doubt about it. People who can afford to buy a car every two or three years are going to benefit; people who can afford to buy that extra furniture or fridge or stove, whatever the case may be, some house furniture or an extra luxury item that they would probably not normally buy. People who have some money to spend will be encouraged to buy and get a little cheaper prices on items, there is no doubt about it. The Government House Leader did not have lunch today, did he?

But I say, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of taking $105 million out of the provincial economy and not putting it to people who need it, that is an unequal distribution or an unfair distribution of dollars in our economy. There are companies out there who have indicated, consumer groups who have concerns, and we do not have to go into the commitment stage of what John Nunziata said or what Jean Chrétien said or Sheila Copps and all that. I will not beat that today, we have talked about that before; but, apart from the politics of this, if somebody can tell me why you would take $150 million out of the Treasury of a province, in badly needed revenues, that we need to balance budgets in tough, economic times, if it were to stimulate spending, to put money in the pockets of people who need it, to enable them to spend it and get items that they might need, or get more for the same dollar value, I could support it if that would happen, but seriously, I just do not see it. I have followed financial aspects for a number of years, I am very interested in it and in the mathematics of things and do fairly extensive reading over a number of years of economic and financial magazines and keep fairly current. And I cannot see the advantage of this harmonized deal today. I do not see the advantage of it. I could read paper after paper, note after note from people, from businesses, from consumer groups indicating, for example, the tax-inclusive pricing.

Now, let us look at a common-sense example. People who have been around business should understand. Let us say you have an item that cost $100 and you sell that in your retail store. And a lot of things come into the store, crafts from Ontario and elsewhere, from the WAL-MARTs and all these chains out there. Just look at a $100 item today: you go in and buy it, they ring up the 7 per cent and the 12 per cent, that is $119.84. That item will cost you in the store, if it is a $100 listed item, $119.84.

Now, when it comes in from outside the Province where these chains are supplying all over the country, by putting in tax-inclusive pricing, when you ship the basic cost of the goods and you ring up the taxes on the cash register, if they are programmed - well, now they are programmed. But when you have to reprogram your computers, reprogram your cash registers, that costs extra money. When you have to unpack material and put the tax-inclusive pricing on it, on the shelf, the tax-inclusive pricing, reticketing, extra warehousing - I have from people correspondence to which I could make reference, and in a few minutes I will get into some of the specific references. But it adds extra money, so much so, that one item, the $100-item we talked about just now, there is either more labour costs - there are extra costs going on that. What do you think the $100-item might be now?

The $100-item now, in some cases, might only be $101; certain items, depending on the item and the nature of it, could be $104. Let us say it is $104, the 4 per cent increase in their costs, the cost of housing between 4 per cent and 5 per cent has been - let us say 4 per cent. Take the $104 now, multiply it by 15 per cent, which is the new tax - instead of 7 per cent and 12 per cent on $100, let us take 15 per cent on 104, that is $119.60, from $119.84. It is almost the same. Putting it up by 4 per cent, now you pay only 15 per cent tax but you pay the same price basically for the goods. Because what the tax-inclusive pricing does, is, it increases the basic cost of that item.

Now, I will just refer to one group: the Retail Council of Canada had a survey in confidence material supplied on their business in Atlantic Canada, representing 30 per cent of all the retails in Atlantic Canada. And they have a table compiled from confidential information referred here. They said it will cost $33,742,000 more just on tax-inclusive pricing in these stores. And they were just ten companies that represent 30 per cent of the retail trade in Atlantic Canada. The savings under harmonization would be, and he mentioned that $6,110,908 for a net loss - a net cost of $27,631,092 that has gone on to the cost of the goods. So, did the $105 million the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board talks about go back into the pockets of consumers so we can spend it? No, and if this were not there -

Look, if the rest of Canada bought into this, it would have merit. There are still areas we would have to address and we could do that by refunding to low-income people, as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia said they were going to do. We could deal with this. But in this instance we have not done it. Now, I will give you another example, MMG Management Group in Quebec. They looked at their stores, and they closed stores in the metropolitan, New Brunswick, The Red Apple and Greenberg. Their companies will pay $695,000 to implement this new tax and the ongoing additional annual costs for those companies are $563,000.

Now, anyone in business knows that these companies get a mark-up on their goods, let us face it, there is a mark-up, the cost of the goods they purchase from the producer, their transportation costs, their overhead operation costs go into that - anybody in business knows that - then they get their profit margin; that is what business is about. When you put on those extra costs you keep your profit margin, and here is a point I did not calculate, which I will add in now. If the cost of the goods goes up four dollars on that hundred - I will just throw this in for your information. If the cost of the goods goes up from $100 to $104, as an example, do you think the cost of the goods only goes up by four? The answer is `no' because you put your percentage on that four, and if your profit margin is 30 per cent, 30 per cent of $4., that is another $1.20. Because you are going to maintain your profit margin on higher cost goods, so you are going to get more profit on it - the same percentage but more profit. I mean, on a $90-item and a $120-item, if they are the same profit margin, you are going to get more profit on the bigger item - that is common sense.

The harmonized tax is in place in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, so the three provinces, representing six - let us see, out of 30 million people we have about 2 million people, one fifteenth of the total population. So that is about six and two-thirds per cent of the Canadian population, or 6.5 as I referred to earlier, which is pretty close. What about the other 93.5 per cent? What do you do if a province is not harmonized and they ship their goods into a province that is harmonized? There are numerous other extra costs and calculations in accounting and work that has to be done. What did the companies say? Here is what they said they had to do. `We do not support it.' He said, `We support a national system of taxing pricing, based on the principle of single rate administration and single base.' And I do, too - I support that. But what they said they are going to have to do is, they are going to be forced to cut employment, limit product selection, close stores, and raise prices. Basically, they are not going to want, in many cases, to close stores unless their business is going down. They might have a margin up but their overheads are absorbing a bigger chunk of their margins and, if that is the case, they may decide to close - if they have five in an area, they might have four.

What do you think is going to happen? Here is what I think is going to happen in most cases. They are out there competing with others who are doing the same thing, so they are going to have to increase prices or lay off people. That is what they are going to do. Does anybody remember fifteen or twenty years ago when you went shopping? You could pretty well go up to a counter, but today in a lot of those stores, if you walk into any of those stores –

We got off unexpectedly on Monday night and I decided I was going shopping. I went to three Canadian Tire stores, to Sears and to WAL-MART stores trying to find a particular item. Sometimes you have to get into a line-up, and trying to find someone to ask a question today in a store - you walk back and forth the aisles, and they are a bit hard to find.

They do not have the same manpower out there because they are cutting their costs in jobs and manpower. They want to have enough staff to keep it operational, but it takes awhile to try to find somebody to get want you want. Sometimes they are not quite as busy because there are always lulls there and during slow periods of the day they do not bring in people anymore. They do not have people around the stores during lull periods. They bring in a lot of casual and short-time staff. Instead of the person coming in nine to five, or the lady who works from nine to five, the same thing basically, employers are looking at the peak hours. The same with restaurants, they ring in for this period of time.

That is impacting on jobs, believe it or not. It is impacting and the squeeze is there, and I agree with many of these statement. They make common sense, there are figures to back it up, and they are specific. The Finance Minister of Canada got this letter on November 29 of this year. It was compiled from confidential information. It does not identify the companies who provided it but it does contain a table that shows the total of these. The Minister of Finance here in this Province told me he did not see it. He was not aware of anybody, he said. He asked could I name anybody who is opposed to this, and there are lists here all over the place. Get into a taxi cab and ask the taxi driver when they go from 7 per cent to 15 per cent, or go into a store and ask the person who is getting a haircut. Take you kid into an arena now and your 15 per cent ice rink. Arenas just lost a $10,000 subsidy a couple of years ago and there is now 15 per cent on an ice rental at an arena instead of 7 per cent. There is 15 per cent on guitar lessons, music, or whatever, if you want to enroll your kid now. Many families with younger kids are the people who are having difficulty because they are more financially leveraged. As they get a bit older and their kids get a bit older and get through school they have a little bit more financial freedom. It is not going to hurt them as much because they have the more disposable income. It is the young families with kids in school, and even post-secondary, who have to dip in their pockets, and it is expensive. They are the people who are hurting in this process of harmonization, and the people have not been getting a break.

The Premier said we will find out in April if we need to do something. Well, I say, show me the analysis, show me what analysis this government has done on it, and I think any prudent Finance Minister should be able to say: `Here is what our analysis shows. Here is what this group is going to do; here is the effect,' and put it out there for public consultation. Let the public see. There are intelligent people out in the public, far more intelligent than anybody here in this House of Assembly, or probably in the entire building. They are out there and they understand. They are smart individuals, a lot smarter than the forty of us who decided to come in here, a heck of a lot smarter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself, I say.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe if we were all that bright we might not be here. But overall, I can tell you, I have a lot of respect for individuals out in the community at large and their ability to understand things, and I am sure every member has.

MR. TULK: If you did not, you should not be a politician.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I should not, but I do. When you are out in the community and you are intermingling and dealing with these people, I mean, there are financial experts out there, mining experts, experts in every area, far more knowledgeable, I can tell you, than probably people you will find in many instances working in jobs in government - because there is a limit on what they will pay you in government - there are, and that is one of the drawbacks. Some people say: Politicians are too highly paid, or this person in government is too highly paid. I guess the down side is if you do not pay people you are not going to get decent people to do the job. You will get what you pay for, basically. That is the way it will happen.

MR. TULK: I think, though, it is also criminal the way some people are paid.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not disagree with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have to be honest with you, I sometimes wonder how some of these (inaudible) how they even survive.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there are people out there - I had a call from a person on social assistance who said they wouldn't give him a fridge. It is not an essential, they said. A diabetic, elderly person not old enough to get a pension - any store where she could get food was about two miles away. She depends on her neighbourhood to be able to get her here or there. The social worker, when they got a new fridge, and I know the family - well, everybody in the area knows people of the area. And I know people who drop off certain things there. The social worker had a fridge that her husband brought down in a truck and dropped it off to the individual to help out people there.

Because people today are hurting, I can tell you, and it is the people in that group who will be hurt in going from 7 per cent to 15 per cent under the HST. A $100 light bill is a big bill for a lot of these people. That $7, I can tell you, on $100 to go to $15, that $8 - people count out every single dollar of it. Many people probably don't really appreciate what people have to go through, and those dollars are difficult to come by. That is why I am saying something has to be done under this tax to get a little shifting of that money, putting it - it is criminal to put it on the cost of a goods and not put it in the pocket of somebody in the Province who is going to benefit.

Because it has not done it. I mean, anybody who thought about it would not do it. We have a reason - we have $348 million now, and that is fantastic. That $348 million can do a lot of things in the short term. It can do a lot of things in the next year, and two, and in the third year, but after year three we do not have any more funds in that pot of money. It has run out. That is when we have to reach down in the till and ask: Is the economy going to grow?

Let us look at it. The economy is not going to grow in 1997 in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Any person out there would tell you that. In 1998 and 1999 to the year 2000, the projection, in the longer term, we are going to see some significant growth. Nineteen ninety-seven is going to be a rough year in our Province, but beyond that there is going to be hope. There is proposed negative growth again. The minister gave an update. We thought the economy was going to shrink this year, the GDP, by 4.2 per cent. It went down by 2.9 per cent. It is still not good news. You can call it what you like, when the GDP goes down by 2.9 per cent that is not good news.

What does that mean? Our debt as a percentage of the GDP has gone up, and we might never have borrowed. That is bad news because a province's fiscal ability to pay down its debt or to control it is based on its ability to be able to grow; its potential in its gross domestic product is one of the facets of it. When we have an employment level in this Province that was projected to be down 5 per cent and it is down to 4.2 per cent this year, employment is down in this Province. We are seeing a lot of perception out there today and not a heck of a lot of reality.

I must say, the government and the Premier do an excellent job of putting the best possible spin on things, no doubt about it. He could take the jobs in Marystown that he knew nothing about that came from another company and take credit for it in a statement when I knew about it from hearing it on radio three days before that. We thought the jobs were coming there. The information came from different sources. Reading The Globe and Mail about Whiterose - that did not come here. That is latched onto something (inaudible) play it and get the mileage out of it. Well, that is a good political thing to do, no doubt about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes he did. Because the Premier made a call, I would say. You ask the Premier if he made a call. I also read his statement that I just received. I went through the statement and this morning - if he was into it I congratulate him, because we need to do more of it. We have to be in there. Because those big companies out there, I can tell you, the Incos of the world, you have to deal with them and you have to squeeze every last bit of return you can get out of them. Do not settle for a smelter and refinery. I said do not settle for a mine and mill. You have to squeeze the bigger companies because they are big corporate businesses out there today, and you have one in your area there. You have to squeeze it for what is worth. The more you squeeze it, the better return you will get. We want royalties. We want jobs, but we want royalties.

Companies out there today are in it for business, for profit. I was a part of it. I would do it again if I were out there, to be honest with you. I would do the same thing. You have to look at it. The resource we have out there. The iron ore down in Labrador, in Labrador City and Wabush, and the Voisey's Bay discovery, and the Churchill Falls, the potential hydro power, and all the power that is used in the Province now, the 1,500 megawatts, and there is another 1,900 megawatts potential in the Province, besides the 1,500 that is being used, every resource that we have out there, the offshore oil, we should get a return, we should get a royalty, on every single one of them, on every single one out there.

It is our resource. Resources give royalties. They give jobs, too, yes. They give jobs and they give visible structures. The Minister of Government Services and Lands said yesterday: We want visible structures. I do not want to settle for just visible structures and jobs. They have only a certain sustainability on a non-renewable resource. The clock runs out in time. What is going to be able to nurture and build other structures within our economy in the meantime is the royalties and the return. They are the types of things that help put revenues back.

I asked a question today of the Minister of Mines and Energy. On June 13 he stood in this House and read out a statement that said: We will start to get a tax - they brought in a two-tier tax, profit-based - when a company reaches 100 million barrels. I just asked a sensible question, I thought it was sensible anyway: Are we going to get anything out of this announcement on Whiterose? He would not answer. And the reason he would not answer it is because they are going to produce 10,000 barrels a day. That figure, times 365 days, it is 3.65 million barrels. To get to 100 million barrels you need twenty-nine years before you would start kicking in that tax.

In other words, I know it is - he said exploratory, they are trying to delineate the fields. But there is a potential in Whiterose of 250 million barrels, as opposed to 400 million or 450 million in Terra Nova and 615 million in Hibernia. But he would not answer if we are going to get a royalty back on it, because according to the statement he read on the regime on June 13, we are not.

Maybe, if it is a short-term thing, they are going to look at the field that might give us a return, but that is why - and because if it gets profitable before the 100 million, what company can pump out 10,000 barrels on a profitable base and they are doing other work? It will not show it. That is why the mining tax - and I know it is a separate tax, I say to the Member for Labrador West. There are two areas in the Province that are exempt from this tax. There is a separate structure on the Labrador one. That is why it is important now that we have this specific tax in place. Because we have to maximize our return.

This Act was changed in 1994. In fact, all the preproduction costs that are being done by Inco now, under the tax structure they can all be deducted from its income as an expense. Who determines what is an expense? It used to be able to be determined by three people: a mining expert, an accountant and a lawyer. Three people who would go out, would sit down and say: Is this a justifiable expense for income tax purposes? Can Inco deduct this expense it spent in Sudbury relating to Voisey's Bay? Can it deduct it, for example? Is this a deductible expense? That was decided.

Now, the power goes back to the minister. The minister can say right now: Okay, we will not count that as an expense. You will get a higher profit. Look, give us a hospital down in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, for example.

Here is what I feel should be done. I feel, revenues and royalties in this Province should be coming in. The government of the day should say: We will spend it then, whether it is going to be in Hopedale, Rigolet, Labrador West, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, or wherever. And people who have a resource close to them should expect to be the prime beneficiary of that resource, that is one basic thing. Secondly, the province of which they are a part should be the second beneficiary of that resource. And there are many, many things before them. My question today is: Where is the cheapest source of electrical power in the future that can be supplied in this country today? the Lower Churchill. The massive 3100 megawatt potential that flows out into the Hamilton Inlet is the same water that flows down from the Upper Churchill, recaptured. It has turned the joint turbines that could turn out 3100 megawatts, more than double what the Province uses today. It would open up Labrador, road structures. To sell it, you could get tremendous return, and that is part of unlocking the whole deal on the Upper Churchill. It has something that the people in the state of New York and elsewhere want. There are pressures, as the pollutants go into the air, the air can only take so much pollutants. It works on a point system. Companies can buy up points from others there.

I went down and met with - I was there with a couple of colleagues of the House. Actually, the Speaker of the House, at the time, now the Minister of Finance and the Member for Trinity North had a conference in Washington two years ago with an environmental protection agency and we met with other environmental groups. They are trying to reduce this fuel fire generation. They want to get cleaner hydroelectric power. There is a demand. There are pressures to shift. There is a potential market out there - do not let anyone kid you, it is there. We need to develop this.

While we are on this topic of revenues here, what Hydro Quebec will do - they are experiencing problems in Quebec with their economy. We read about it every day, the pressures on Lucien Bouchard, on the economy, and I am confident they will give us revenues on the Upper Churchill on a side agreement. How we get it, I said from day one, I don't care how we get $6 billion from Quebec, whether you change the contract -

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but I am just using that as a figure. We are only going to get now, I say to the Member for Labrador West - between now and the year 2041 we will get less than $3 billion. In fact, if you work it out, I think he has an output of about $96 million - and it is going to decrease yearly - going into the coffers of CF(L)Co. and that will go right down to $60-some million by 2015, that is per year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, based on revenues that are coming in. I am saying the millions that go in because of their sale was about $90-some million. They are paying right now 2.72 mils and it is going down to 2.5 mils between 2016 - in fact, it is going down to 2 mils by the last part of the contract, 2016 to 2041.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is what I am talking about, and how I am advocating -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is not what I voted against at all, I say to the member. He is way off base.

The side agreement - winter availability, for example: they were willing to fork over $6.2 billion on winter availability. Now, that is more than double what we are going to get between now and 2041. The reason I used the figure of $6 billion is because that is what we are going to use. It could be $10 billion, $12 billion, who knows? but just look at $6 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, whatever. We should get more than that. We should be getting more than that on the deal, and the more we can get, the better. As long as we get X number of dollars, whether we get it by changing the contract or we get it on side agreements under the contract, as long as we get it to keep that company solvent, give us a return during the life of this contract, then -

AN HON. MEMBER: A fair return.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, a fair return, a full and fair share we call it.

- then we are in the driver's seat. We cannot sell out beyond 2041 in this deal, because the debts under Hydro now, if you look at it, the bonds are due to be paid - there are two sets of bonds - in the year 2007, and it is only in the years 2001 and 2002 that we are going to have to put money in. From 2003 right up through we are not going to have to put money in. So, if we can get a fairly significant return by an agreement, there is potential there that can go into the revenues of this Province to be able to provide the things that are needed.

We need in this Province, and this deal here on harmonization is taking $150 million - or the minister's $105 million, if we follow what the Minister of Finance has indicated - out of the economy, out of the revenues that we need. What do you have to do to get $105 million back in revenues in this Province? What do you have to do?

Well, under the harmonized tax, the minister says we are going to take in $380-some million. I predicted in the lower three hundreds, so we differ by about $40 million. Where are we going to increase? Now, let us look at what the minister said. The minister said the economy will grow because of harmonization, that we will make it up with a growing economy. Now, let us look at what the minister said.

Today, the value of the retail trade in this Province is $3.3 billion. If we are going to get back $105 million, at 8 per cent, our share, you have to sell $1.3 billion-worth of goods at 8 per cent to get $104 million. Let us round it off to $1.3 billion. One point three billion dollars growth on $3.3 billion, that is a 40 per cent growth in retail sales in three years. We just dropped this year. Our GDP went down, our sales went down this year. It has gone down. Next year it is projected to go down. The next two years it is projected to go up. To get 40 per cent increase in three years, it is just not going to happen and we all know it. It cannot happen.

Now, if the economy did grow independent of harmonization, we would have those revenues anyway. That is extra income tax for the Province, extra corporate tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the Member for Bellevue, is it? He does write very humorous prose, I must say. No, I am hoping that by the time I finish, he will be. (Inaudible). Yes, it will be close.

Overall, it is not practical to think our economy is going to grow to make up that income. We are going to have a revenue crisis until we can accelerate the growth of revenue in our Province. After the 1997-1998 fiscal year it will be on the upswing, because just look at the impact in the short term. The economy is going to improve. We hope that the economy, as predicted by the economists, is going to improve in 1998-1999, 1999-2000. It is going to improve. We have Argentia, with a smelter refinery. We are going to start seeing an upward swing in production there, in getting ready, construction and then production. We are going to see the mine and mill in the Province.

Another area I referenced today in terms of revenues, is the Terra Nova field and the Terra Nova announcement today. You know it is very positive to see the oil industry taking off. We have Hibernia, we are going to have Terra Nova, Whiterose, and then hopefully, Hebron and Ben Nevis, and all this sequence that is going to give us steady growth for the next, we hope, at least 100 years out off the coast of our Province.

In the decision announced today, they mentioned a steel floating platform, a steel structure. I had hoped there would be a concrete floater. Now, they said a gravity base is not practical, but a concrete floater is a possibility. Because what would that have meant to our Province? A concrete floater would have meant that we would have the Hibernia site as a hop site for the construction of this concrete floater. It will be built in Europe or the Far East. It will be brought back here, be outfitted in this Province, which I have every hope it will be, and if there are any supply boats, I hope there are conditions in this agreement that indicate they must be built in this Province, not built elsewhere, so the jobs can be obtained here by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in a resource industry that has tremendous potential for our Province.

I mean, the work that is done on offshore is only the beginning. The mining industry is looking great again. Mining has been the largest source of revenue, basically, the largest contributor to our Province since I was born. It has been a tremendous one, and will continue to be. It primarily came from the Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush Mines. They have been the reason why mining has been the biggest net source of revenue to our Province. There are other mines in our Province that have been fair contributors, too. But back again with Voisey's Bay and the Province, the Island portion of the Province has some tremendous potential also.

I am sure we are going to see other new discoveries coming up in the near future, over the next two or three years, that are going to enable Newfoundlanders to train here, to stay here, and to certainly fulfil their expectations of working here, raising families in our Province.

I am going to conclude shortly. My colleague, the Member for Baie Verte, I think, is very eager to make some comments here. To be honest with you, I could go on and talk about this harmonization deal. I have addressed a lot of the specifics of the deal, why I think it is bad. There are many aspects of this deal that are bad for the Province and I do not want to see the people of this Province having to pay a price for that. I certainly regret having to say that it is not a good deal. It is definitely not.

Analyses have been done by other provinces. There are only three in the deal. Does it strike anyone that the only three provinces in Canada that would want to go in on this deal are three provinces that took an up front chunk of money, all Liberal premiers? when even the one in Prince Edward Island would not touch it with a ten-foot pole, going into the election. We saw the results, what happened there. These are things that are caught up with in time. Sometimes people will catch on to it early, sometimes it will be a bit later. This government has not been co-operative in allowing the public to be able to hear the concerns.

We did not call this bill until December 13. This agreement was signed on April 23. It was signed in secret on October 19, the final deal, the Memorandum of Understanding, last Spring. The Premier did not even think enough of this deal to be here for a big news conference. If he had thought much of this deal he would have been at a news conference announcing it when it was signed. Instead, he was out of the Province and had his minister cover it. Were it a good news announcement, I can tell you, he would be there. He had at the announcement on the transshipment facility - and my colleague indicated there were over ten times as many people at the news conference as will be working at that transshipment facility.

Here is a significant announcement, the only one he was not there to announce, and that says something in itself, I can tell you. They do not have confidence in it. He has refused to debate me in public on the issue. At his time and place, I said, I would debate him out in the public on this issue. I have said that to the Premier; I have said it to the Minister of Finance. I have indicated on many occasions that I want the public to get all the facts. Let them hear the Premier on it, and the Minister of Finance. Let them hear what I have to say on it, what others of the public have to say on it, and let people draw their own conclusions. I can assure you, the conclusions will not be good and we will pay a price for harmonization, I can tell you, in the pockets of the people of this Province. It will not happen now because we have a chunk of money, $348 million, that is going to carry us over three years and probably beyond the next election. It is possible it will. The money will run out, I would say, by the end of March in the year 2000. Then we will start to feel the crunch in the upcoming year. That is when we will pay the real price.

Hopefully, we will have other revenues to compensate. I have not had the greatest confidence in seeing those revenues being secured to ensure we are going to have that source of revenue.

Mr. Chairman, I guess by now it is pretty evident that I am not in support of this bill, in case it has not been made abundantly clear. I had the opportunity to speak on it for an hour in second reading, and I think I probably chewed up some of our time here. Some of my colleagues were eager to get up. Hopefully, there are not too many feeling deprived of an opportunity to speak because I stayed here too long. I will now sit down, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to get up today - as a matter of fact, this is the only time I will speak today. I just want to speak on this particular bill, Mr. Chairman, because I still believe this bill should not be debated right now. We should have had more time and a longer session. There should not have been closure on this important bill.

So what I did last night -

MR. TULK: Hobnailed boots.

MR. SHELLEY: Hobnailed boots, Mr. Chairman.

What I have done - and I say to the House, this is why I stood today - what I have done is I have taken Sally's and Jack's family; I will not use the last names, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TULK: Hobnailed boots.

MR. SHELLEY: Hobnailed boots, the Government House Leader says.

What I have done is I have taken a family from my district - and I will say, Mr. Chairman, that it will compare to a lot of families in the districts of the members on the other side of the House; Sally and Jack, I can't use their last name - a family in my district, Mr. Chairman, who have an income of just under 10,000. By the way, a lot of members know that a lot of the social assistance people have somewhere in the area of $7,000 to $8,000 income a year. Imagine, that much. But I took this particular family, although there are people with lower incomes, I have taken one and given them an average yearly income of $10,000. So Sally's family has a $10,000 income and two children going to school. And I have done a little calculation as an example to point out specifically why a low-income family in this Province is going to be the worst affected by this particular bill. It is an example taken of Sally's and Jack's family compared to a lot of the members here in this House.

Mr. Chairman, they make just under $10,000 a year. Now, their oil bill for the year works out to just under $1,500 and that is pretty good. There are many who spend a lot more than that. Their clothes - we gave a conservative estimate and said, for a family of four, $700 a year. We gave the lowest minimum, we gave the minimum number of $700 a year for their clothes. We gave them a minimum again of $1,200 for electricity for a year, that is about average, a minimum figure; then, Mr. Chairman, for gas for a year, $1,500. Now, that is a very low number, but I said a low-income family would not travel so much. For people who travel a lot, it would be much more than $1,500 per year - some at least double that. Then, for miscellaneous things, like haircuts and so on, the things that are going to be taxed with this HST, we said $1,000. We kept that very low. Then for car insurance and house insurance, we all know that is around $1,000 a year. So I took this particular family just to give an example, just facts, Mr. Chairman. Their income for the year is just under $10,000, $9,000-and-something.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, no, I just want five minutes just to give this example that I did last night, I say to the minister, and to point out the negative impact on low-income families. This is factual Mr. Chairman. So, basically, what I did is, I took the necessities, which is fuel oil, their clothes for the year, their electricity bill for a year, their gas for the year, their miscellaneous - like haircuts, a couple of things like that - and then their insurance. These are the things you have to pay. Now, you could add a couple of more things to that but I did not. So, Mr. Chairman, that comes to a grand total -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is toilet paper included?

MR. SHELLEY: Toilet paper is included there, Mr. Chairman. That comes to a grand total of $7,900 a year on necessities, out of $10,000 total income. Mr. Chairman, then I took 8 per cent of what this family spends on necessities that the HST will affect and what it comes out to is that this particular family, Sally and Jack from my district, will now spend an extra $632 out of their disposable income on this HST. That is what it works out to, and do not forget, the numbers I have taken are conservative minimum numbers of what they would use. That is a fact.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Conservative. Smart numbers. Minimum numbers, I say to the member for - your district changed, did it not?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, no, just conservative - they are certainly not liberal numbers. Minimum, I changed that to minimum. I hope the member got it when I was doing this because I think the calculations should be seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Progressive minimum. This is a minimum. I think if the member was listening he would have gotten the conservative minimum numbers, Mr. Chairman.

This particular family on $10,000 a year, because of this HST, because of this bill that is before the House now, are going to give up another $632 to a tax. That is the bottom line, I say to the member from Labrador. He has a lot of people in his district. And I tell you one thing that the member from Labrador can confirm. The $10,000 family I am talking about here, there are a lot more lower-income families in his district. I think that is a safe bet, is it not, I ask the member from Labrador? Yes it is, he nods his head. Yes, he is absolutely right. I know families with $7,000 and $8,000 a year incomes.

So, Mr. Chairman, the point I make today, and not to go on about it, but the low-income family - and it is factual - if you sit down and work out their budget, because of this change in the HST, are going to be most negatively impacted by this change in the tax. Meanwhile, if you are going to buy a new car, or if you are going to buy a fur coat, you are going to get a break. So all it says is that for the richer people, for the higher income, it is more of a break, and for the people on a lower income there is no break. As a matter of fact, they are going to lose. That is the point I wanted to stand and make today, and be on record for saying it.

That is why I oppose this bill, that is why I will fight this bill. Hopefully -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I believe that. It is a good thing they are not going to put GST on those, I say to the member from Labrador, or nobody would be having them, I tell you that right now. The government had better not attempt to put taxes on those coats.

Mr. Chairman, the three points that I wanted to make today and just take a few minutes on, were these. One, the low-income family will be negatively impacted upon, there is no doubt about that. The second point is that this is short-term. What happens if our economy does not boom in two years, if we are $105 million short every year? The third point is this - and it is the blatant politics of it, and is a fact, I say to every member here today - that this was a problem that started with Chrétien's promise, commitment, whatever you want to call it, in the last federal election, and the three Liberal Premiers, the three Liberal Governments in Atlantic Canada, are the only three buying into it, and it is to help him out. An election is just around the corner that he wanted to get out of the way before the Minister of Mines and before the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island run.

They are trying to cover up the GST, but it will not be done. It will not be done, and the member knows it. It is here in the Globe and Mail on December 13, last Friday - Friday the 13th - when Mr. Chrétien did an interview with a radio station in Toronto, 1993. They asked Mr. Chrétien, "Will you abolish the GST?", and the quote is, "Yes, I will abolish it."

Now, there is no mixing of words there. The Prime Minister promised it. Sheila Copps resigned because of it. Paul Martin apologized because of it, and the Prime Minister came down here the other night and sort of apologized. The truth is, this Premier, the Premier of Nova Scotia, and the Premier of New Brunswick, are trying to help Mr. Chrétien before he heads to the polls to cover up the GST, but it will not work.

I will give you another quote from the Globe and Mail. Privately, Liberal strategists agree that they will have a heavy GST toll to pay.

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is getting carried away. He is being totally irrelevant.

I understand that there was this great poll done on him down in his district, and I understand that he must feel moved to speak and try to drive it up a few more points, but I would like for him to clarify for us, before he finishes, who he is going to take on, whether it is going to be "Byrne" or "Baker".

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: There is no point of order. It is not even a point, Mr. Chairman. Maybe what I will do is run in both districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the Southern Post this week: "Hey, brother Chrétien, can you spare a dime?" That is an excellent article. You should read it.

MR. SHELLEY: "Hey, brother Chrétien, can you spare a dime?" in this week's paper - `the big cheese and the little guy from Shawinigan'. Is that where he is from? The Prime Minister of Canada was in town for dinner. The purpose of his visit was not to bring greetings from the land of Oz but to find folks in the Far East. He was not here to renew his friendship with Brian Tobin or to attend a housewarming at the Premier's new abode on Waterford Bridge Road. Oh, no, he was here to raise some big cash for the coffers of the provincial Liberals.'

MR. CANNING: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the Chair if it is appropriate to read from newspapers.

MR. SHELLEY: To that point of order, no (inaudible) here. Something like the point of order yesterday.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair will rule on the point of order.

There is a point of order. It has been ruled many times that it is unparliamentary to quote from newspapers, but we are operating under slightly amended rules here this afternoon, and the rules are considerably more relaxed.

MR. SHELLEY: I thank the Chair for his ruling.

MR. H. HODDER: For his protection from that monster from Labrador West.

MR. SHELLEY: Protection from the Member for Labrador.

Mr. Chair, I will not read it all, but I thank the Chair. I will just finish a couple of comments. Mr. Chrétien's most recent comments, denying that he and his party campaigned in 1993 to eliminate the gouge and scrooge tax. Can I say that? The GST, the gouge and scrooge tax it is called here, does not sit well with John Nunziata -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chairman did not rule that at all. The Chairman ruled, quite clearly, that it is unparliamentary to read, but under the circumstances in which we are engaged in this debate this afternoon, the rules are considerably more relaxed and I will allow him permission to read it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: The article says the Prime Minister is a liar. I will just finish the last part, Mr. Chairman, and then I will put down the paper. `Some of us are starting to lose faith in the Liberal Red Book and are thinking about taking up yogic flying. The thin air of the higher altitudes might be easier to breath.'

Mr. Chair, in the Globe and Mail, `privately, Liberal strategists agreed they will still have a heavy GST toll to pay.' This is a quote from a Liberal strategist getting ready for the federal election. `If anybody thinks this is going away before the next election, they are sadly mistaken,' said one. Then he says, `this is our Achilles' heel,' Mr. Chair. I can tell you, this might go through this House before Christmas, it might go through New Brunswick and it might go through Nova Scotia, but, Mr. Chairman, it is not going to go through a federal election. This will come back to haunt the members who have raised this, it is still an issue. Sheila Copps resigned, thought it would change it: Sheila flops - changes all around, but it did not, Mr. Chairman, and it is not going to change it.

So, Mr. Chairman, what I say is, this is a GST cover-up of any other word and, Mr. Chairman, the toll will be paid and there will come a time - but it is too bad that we have closure on this bill and it cannot be debated in public so that people will really see what the HST is all about. It is a good name for it, it is called `a hidden sales tax' or what they call it in New Brunswick, I say to the Member for Topsail, the BST, the BS tax. That is what they call it in New Brunswick, the BS tax.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a couple of minutes today to go on record to say I strongly oppose this, and I predict here today that a day will come when this government and whoever stands to vote for it will regret voting for the HST.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Thank you, I say to the Member for Labrador West, pounding on his desk over there.

Mr. Chairman, the House of Assembly opened, I think, on November 18, give or take a day. Now, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - I will try to ignore him this evening.

The House opened on November 18 and we have dealt with something like thirty-one pieces of legislation. A few of those pieces of legislation, the Government House Leader referred to as `trash', the other night, Mr. Chairman. He said: We were dealing with `trash legislation' - those were his words. They were his own words, I say to the Government House Leader. But there are a few bills here that I would have to say are very, very important and one of them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Be nice, it is Christmas.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will get to him, do not worry, we will get to him.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about this bill, the harmonization bill that was brought in here recently, and it is a very important bill. It was introduced by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, but when the Government House Leader said that it was going to be brought forward he thought it was the most important piece of legislation that had come before this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Historic is the word he used. I agree. It was an historic piece of legislation. What we see, Mr. Chairman, is that he brought in the hobnailed boots. He was quoted on the radio the other morning direct from the House of Assembly referring to bringing in closure on this piece of legislation, on this bill, as using the hobnailed boots. That is what he is doing, using the hobnailed boots.

This piece of legislation is going to have dramatic effects on the people of this Province. The Member for Baie Verte was up a few minutes ago and he made a comparison of a family on a $10,000 a year income, and percentage-wise, harmonization is going to have a dramatic effect on that family, something close to $500 out of $10,000. That is pretty serious business for that family, and families like them. For the people on social assistance, it is going to be even more dramatic, because I think the total for those people is somewhere around $7,200 a year.

One of the things that a government - when a government is becoming arrogant, it will use these types of tactics, closure, to force legislation through the House of Assembly. As I said, we only opened on November 18, and today it is December 19, and we have closure on a piece of legislation that the Government House Leader said was historic. And what do we see with this government? The previous Administration used and abused the closure motion in this House in the past few years, and this Administration has used closure I think three times in this past week - three times bringing in closure. Mr. Chairman, that is a very serious situation.

Now, we have a House of Assembly here: If the government wishes to bring in legislation, all they have to do is open up the House earlier if they wanted to get out for Christmas, and deal with the legislation, and to properly debate and discuss and give the people of the Province, through the Opposition and through the members of the House of Assembly, time to analyze, to review the legislation, and to bring forward the points of view of the people out there who have questions with respect to the legislation.

I should say the Minister of Education, but the Member for St. John's East, today was up on another piece of legislation with respect to education reform. He put forward a number of amendments. None of them were accepted. This is all within a period probably of twenty, twenty-five days. We have thirty-one pieces of legislation, which works out to be, if you really want to look at it, usually for debate from 3:00 p.m. roughly until 5:00 p.m. Of course, the other night we sat through the night until 6:00 in the morning debating legislation in this House of Assembly because -

MR. A. REID: In order to debate, Sir, you have to have two people talking on a subject. You did not have any debate the other night. You fellows were the only ones in the House (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if he realizes and understands the system in the House of Assembly and the process that we go through, that is the very system that we work with. He has been in the House of Assembly much longer than I have. And he says now we did not debate, because only the Opposition was debating it. How many pieces of legislation go through this House of Assembly with only the Opposition getting up and speaking on the bills? We have begged the people on the other side of the House to come to their feet and speak but very seldom will they speak to the legislation. We have a few on that side of the House who speak to the legislation, but not all that often.

For the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to say that it was not a debate the other night, well, maybe he should - he is on the government side of the House, Mr. Chairman, and he should go to Cabinet and change the regulations, change the format by which the House of Assembly works and get into true debate. Granted, it is a very controlled debate, Mr. Chairman, but to make the statement that it is not a debate, now that says it all, does it not? That says enough.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is one of the ministers of Cabinet who has agreed, I suppose, when they discussed bringing in the closure bill. He is a member of Cabinet, a member of the government that is very arrogant in bringing in closure, and a member of the previous government that brought in closure on many occasions. So what does that say about the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Chairman? It speaks for itself, I suspect. Mr. Chairman, again, as I said, three times this administration has brought in closure in the past week.

Now, as I said earlier when we discussed harmonization, this is not going to go away. The Member for Baie Verte was up and talked about the GST and how it is a bit of a tactic to help the Prime Minister get around it and say that he attempted to do something with respect to the GST. Now, the Prime Minister promised that he would scrap it, get rid of the GST. Did he tell the truth? That is what is being questioned in this country today by thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of people: did he tell the truth? He went on television recently, when he was forced to - just like the deputy Prime Minister who said during the election that she would resign if they did not get rid of the GST. What happened? Mr. Chairman, she made a statement after the election, when the pressure was put on her, that it was a mistake, she was not understood, she did not mean it, and she apologized, Mr. Chairman, for making the statement during the election. That was not sufficient, Mr. Chairman. So then what happened? She resigned after she had a poll done and the poll showed that she could possibly get re-elected - and the tears and what have you, the crocodile tears.

Now, we have this Administration, as a Province, agreeing to try a tactic to help the Prime Minister hide the GST. Three provinces out of seven are going along with this, Mr. Chairman, and those three provinces, of course, have Liberal governments. The Premier of the Province here, Newfoundland and Labrador, was a member of the Cabinet that said they were going to get rid of the GST or campaigned on the promise that they were going to get rid of the GST, and he is here now helping out his buddy, his cousin in Ottawa, the Prime Minister.

Now, finally, the Prime Minister has apologized. He apologized after the federal Minister of Finance came out and tried to make an apology on behalf of the Prime Minister - that did not work. I would imagine their polls showed them that that was not sufficient. But what I am trying to say to you, Mr. Chairman, is, the GST did not go away since the last election; the promise regarding the GST did not go away. This government is agreeing to bring it in here or blend it - the HST, Mr. Chairman. It is going through the House of Assembly this evening with all the work, all the facts and all the figures that we have put forward. The Leader of the Opposition was on his feet, Mr. Chairman, making a number of statements with respect to this, and he is well informed. When he gets up to speak, Mr. Chairman - he has done his research, he has done his study and he knows what he is talking about. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. There are members on the other side of the House, Mr. Chairman, I do not know if they have any idea whatsoever of the impact of this, what this piece of legislation is going to do.

Now, as I was saying, this piece of legislation, the HST, in the three -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, the Premier says there will not be an election until the year 2000 - maybe so. We will give it three years, anyway, we will take him at his word.

This is not going away. When this HST kicks in, Mr. Chairman, and people start forking out money on all the other items that they do not pay taxes on today, such as clothing for children, fuel, electricity, all these items that are necessities of life, they are going to be upset. There are no ifs, ands or buts, Mr. Chairman, people will be upset about this. They are not going to forget it. And they are not going to forget that we did everything in our power, Mr. Chairman, to try to stop this piece of legislation from going through. But, what happened, Mr. Chairman? The Government House Leader brought in closure on this bill, and that is what we are dealing with here tonight; closure, I say to the Government House Leader. And he is over there now, Mr. Chairman, sitting back, relaxed, taking it all in, thinking, I suppose: What is it all for? Nothing is going to happen - once you get this over and done with, it is done, Mr. Chairman.

I do not know if anybody else is planning to speak to this piece of legislation, but I mean, it is like –

MR. TULK: It breaks your heart, now, to see me sitting back like this, not upset or anything.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, if you only knew how pleased I was to see you relaxed. For once, in thirty days, we have come into this House and the Government House Leader is back there with his glasses in his hand, twirling his glasses, quite relaxed. It is nice to see him in that situation because, Mr. Chairman, he is a very tense individual and all I can say to him is, if the Premier were trying to get a clone of the person who previously sat in that chair, he has it. He has it with that man. Now, is that not a compliment? I say to the Government House Leader. The Premier tried to get a clone and he got one.

Mr. Chairman, the day is getting late and, actually, I have someone here waiting outside to see me. But this is a very serious issue. I am going to clue up debate on it now and see if anybody else would like to -

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to clue up my discussion, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, my discussion, my debate on it. If the minister wants to have a debate, maybe he will get up and speak against this piece of legislation. Because he knows deep in his heart, when the people in his district start forking out the extra money to the Province, they are going to be upset.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. A. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to wish the hon. member a Merry Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Is it a Merry Christmas or a point of order?

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a point of order.

CHAIR: A point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is the same type of a point of order that the Government House Leader puts forward so often, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a point of order and I want to return the compliments. I wish the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, a very Merry Christmas also, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

As important as a `Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year is, it is not a point of order.

On motion, clauses 1 through 22, carried.

"A bill, "An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland and Labrador." (Bill No. 45).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. The Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, we have the amendment ready, I think, agreed on by both people, to do Bill 29, Order 17.

CHAIR: A bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Volunteer Service Medal". It is an adjourned debate. We are on the amendment to clause -

CLERK: We have not called the clauses, have we?

AN HON. MEMBER: We have not called the clauses.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 6, an amendment.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, we move the following amendment, in consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: Clause 6 of the bill is amended by striking out the phrase `awarded to a relative of the volunteer as prescribed by the regulations', and substituting the phrase `presented to a relative of the volunteer on behalf of that volunteer'. The explanatory note would be that it clarifies that a volunteer or relative, on his or her behalf, may receive a medal if the award is made posthumously.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 6 as amended, carried.

On motion, clause 7 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report substantial progress, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, wish to report the passing of Bill Nos. 51 and 45 without amendment, and Bill Nos. 48, 46 and 29 with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that they have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report Bill Nos. 51 and 45 without amendment, and Bill Nos. 48, 46 and 29 with amendment.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I believe No. 32 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 32?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: So, without amendment, we have Bill Nos. 51, 45 and 32.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time presently by leave.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, can we call third reading with the exception of Order No. 2 - I am conferring, if you would, Mr. Speaker, for a minute - except for Order Nos. 2, 5 and 19? The rest are all in order? I do not see anybody objecting.

Mr. Speaker, I would call for third reading Order Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and then we will do Nos. 2, 5 and 19.

Did you get that okay?

CLERK: No.

MR. TULK: Just exclude Order Nos. 2, 5 and 19.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act" (Bill No. 22);

A bill, "An Act Respecting Judgement Enforcement" (Bill No. 44);

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act" (Bill No. 26);

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act" (Bill No. 35);

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Freedom Of Information Act And The Privacy Act" (Bill No. 39);

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act (No. 2)" (Bill No. 38);

A bill, "An Act Respecting Education" (Bill No. 27);

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act" (Bill No. 49); and,

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act And The Liquor Corporation Act" (Bill No. 50).

MR. TULK: Order No. 13, Mr. Speaker, is now in third reading, although it says Committee of the Whole. But it is going to be put forward - Bill No. 48.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 48)

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

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);

A bill, "An Act Respecting Pension Benefits" (Bill No. 46);

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Dealers Act, The Direct Sellers 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" (Bill No. 51); and,

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Volunteer Service Medal" (Bill No. 29).

MR. TULK: Order No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we do that, the Chair would like to table the report of the Auditor General.

In accordance with section 13 of the Auditor General's Act 1991, I hereby table the annual report of the Auditor General for the year ending March 31, 1996.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2, Bill No. 21, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 2, Bill No. 21, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I will not be bawling today, I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) dancing lessons. I never danced as much as I will be dancing at your wedding in a couple of weeks time. I am looking forward to that.

MR. TULK: A point of order.

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman has been threatening to come to my wedding. Is he coming?

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

The Chair has not recognized -

AN HON. MEMBER: He will be there.

MR. TULK: Good!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: He will be there and the set of pillow cases is in the mail in case I do not make it.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, (inaudible) just set there. A set of pillow cases, and there is a toaster coming from the Member for Conception Bay South.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words - it is too bad the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is not here - to say a few more words on Bill No. 21, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act".

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that deals with everything but fish inspection. I do not know why it was put forward as An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, because the Act clearly states here: "which relate to the regional distribution of processing licences," - which has nothing to do with fish inspection - "the development of the fishing industry of the province and other matters that are not directly related to fish quality."

Why is somebody bringing forward a bill dealing with An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act when it is about an Act that is not directly related to fish quality? When you talk about fish inspection, you are talking about the quality of fish, and that was supposed to be the intent of this bill.

Now, if the minister were going to bring forward a bill in this House to deal with the issuing of licences, to deal with the issue of fish plant registration, or any other thing, then why would it not be clearly stated in a bill that would set out in that direction? There is a lot of concern about this particular bill out there in the industry today, because the minister has brought this bill forward without any consultation. It has come forward from a government that got elected on promising consultation and to include each industry as to rules and regulations brought forward in this House before they are proclaimed into legislation.

It got elected on saying: We are going to include the people, and we are going to include the stakeholders. That is not being done, I say to the Government House Leader. There has been some concern. I know there have been letters written to the minister. I know he has gotten phone calls from the industry asking, `How come we were not consulted? How come we did not have input into a bill that directly relates to an industry we are involved in here, an industry that still employs thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?'

The other part of this bill, part 2, says: "(2) The minister may issue licences under this Act subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate". ...the minister considers to be appropriate, Mr. Speaker. Now, here we are, putting all this power again in the minister, and it is `the minister' that gives me great concern - that is why I stand here today and debate this bill - when I see some of the things that this minister did in the past. Mr. Speaker, one minute he is on television saying that he is not going to play God, he is not going to decide which fish plants are going to open, which fish plants are going to close, and the next day you hear him saying that he has a list of the plants that are going to remain open and a list of the plants that he is going to close. So what is it? I ask members opposite. You cannot do it both ways, and the industry has a right to know what the minister is doing. The minister should consult in the industry and receive direction, not the minister unilaterally going out and saying: I have a list of what fish plants are going to open and what fish plants are going to close.

Then, Mr. Speaker, he took it one step further and talked about taking licences back from fish plants that are already in existence. He did not say which licences he was going to take back, but he did say that there would probably be licences taken back.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to interrupt the hon. gentleman but there is a point that we have to make -

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

MR. TULK: - and maybe we need to do it now in order to send out certain notification. His Honour has asked us if he can make a speech to the House. It is the last time he will be in this House as Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour has asked us if indeed he can be permitted to make a speech in the House. We have notified the media that he is going to do it at 7:00 p.m., but I think maybe we would like to consider - there are only two television outfits, three, maybe, in the Province - if we would like to allow CTV and CBC to set up a camera each down there to tape his speech, and we have to ask leave of the House to do it.

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

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

In recognition of the fact that His Honour has been our Lieutenant-Governor for five years and due to the fact that the matters we are discussing in this House today are relative to the heritage legislation and to the Lieutenant-Governor's medals, we believe it to be entirely appropriate - in addition to the fact that this is his last official function relative to this House. We, on this side of the House, would be pleased to give our approval. Therefore, the pertinent notification should now be sent out.

MR. SPEAKER: So, do we have an agreement?

MR. TULK: Yes, I think that one camera each will not interfere in any way with His Honour - take one camera each and focus it on him only and let him make his speech. Start it when he speaks and cut it off when he finishes. Do you agree?

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with my caucus so they would certainly have a right to disagree with my viewpoint. I would tend to agree, speaking as one member, that if the cameras are focused on the Lieutenant-Governor and do not take wide-ranging, panoramic views when he is speaking, we would have no objection to that; as we do on Budget day and such times as that.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, just for the Lieutenant-Governor's speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just the Lieutenant-Governor alone.

MR. TULK: We will tell them to come in and turn it on when the Lieutenant-Governor is speaking and turn it off when he is finished.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Government House Leader, if I were going to invite a camera into this House, the first person I would call is the gentleman from Glovertown, because I have not seen anybody as persistent as that man. Everybody here must know that we don't have to buy any pens, we don't have to wear any caps or teeshirts, we don't have to buy any of that. He is persistent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or pens.

MR. FITZGERALD: Or pens. He is persistent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, he is that. I met him a little while ago and he said, `You don't know me', and before he went any further I said, `Boy, hopefully not.'

MR. FITZGERALD: So you certainly have to give him `e' for effort. When the minister spoke that was the first thing that came to my mind. He is certainly trying, that is for sure. There is nobody here in this House who does not know what he is doing, or what he is trying to do, and the equipment that he has. He is to be commended for that.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, those are the reasons I have some concerns about this particular bill. The bill is not very clear. It talks about fish inspections, and it does everything but that. What it does is put power, a lot of power, a lot of power that scares me, into the hands of the minister, and not only this minister but ministers to follow as well. I think that direction should come not from one person, because we have seen too many one-person shows in the past and we have seen too many mistakes made in the past by somebody figuring they have all the answers, and going out and saying: This is what will work and this is what will not work; and it will work because I believe what I am doing is right. Far too often it is not right, and that is what scares me.

We are now a little bit excited about this fishing industry coming back and employing many, many more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, allowing them to go back to work in their fish plants and in their fishing boats, and earn a living to feed and support their families. If we are going to be doing that, Mr. Speaker, we should learn from the mistakes that we made in the past and never, ever allow those mistakes to be repeated again. That can only be done by including the stakeholders, involving the stakeholders, and they are the fishermen, the fish plant workers, and the industry. That is what is not being done in this particular bill.

In fact, the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture only a couple of weeks ago talked about a new industry whereby they would be picking kelp -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - whereby they would be marketing kelp, and all the markets for it. There were tons and tons and tons that could be harvested and sold. When the minister announced that, the next day my office was flooded with phone calls from fishermen who said: What is the minister trying to do? Doesn't he know he is supposed to be the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and we have just developed a new market for sea urchins, a market that we can't fill, and we are trying to encourage people to go out and fish sea urchins. Doesn't the minister know that the kelp he is talking about marketing now is the feed for sea urchins?

So, this is what happens when you don't consult with people. There is no point in developing new markets, or there is no point, Mr. Speaker, in developing a market for underutilized species if you are going to take away the food supply for that particular species. Then you are going to be left with nothing.

Those are some of the things, again, that I will put forward on this bill. I spoke on it at length when it was introduced in Second Reading in the House. Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that we saw fit to bring in a piece of legislation like this without consulting with people in the industry, without consulting the stakeholders that this piece of legislation is supposed to be put in place to help and to make things better, because it is certainly not going to do that. It is going to fall far short.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 21)

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

MR. A. REID: Order No. 5, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 33.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill No. 33, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act," be now read a third time

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a couple of minutes to talk about Bill 33 again, I guess probably the last time that we will have the opportunity to speak on this particular bill. Bill 33, Mr. Speaker, has bothered me since its introduction into this House and it still continues to bother me today.

We proposed four amendments the other night, Mr. Speaker, none of which, of course, were approved. That to me is very sad because in the first two cases what we were trying to do was have the landowner given the same rights as the minister, with the right to refer to the PUB. Also, Mr. Speaker, we were asking that once the minister had this particular decision that she would not be able to sit on the decision but that the decision must be forwarded immediately to the Public Utilities Board. Of course, that did not happen.

I guess, as my colleague from Kilbride said the other night, it really intrigues me, the offer that has been made to residents of Kilbride and the Goulds and that particular area, where there will be, over the next little while, a fair amount of expropriation taking place. From what I understand, the offers that are being made are certainly not what you would call decent offers, Mr. Speaker. For that reason, I will certainly have no other choice but to vote against this particular bill.

It is too bad that the bill wasn't amended, Mr. Speaker, whereby each and every person would be at least given some rights to be able to go to the PUB. I feel, anyway, that these people should not even have to take these particular bills and go to the Public Utilities Board with them. I think that we should have left things as they were. There has to be an ulterior motive here, Mr. Speaker. There is an hidden agenda here somewhere, and I would like to go on record as saying that there is something here. To me it is a bill that seems to be being pushed through and I certainly don't feel that it is right. I feel that it should not be passed, Mr. Speaker, and it should end.

Now, the other night when we were going through this we had, I think, probably six points as to why we were objecting to the particular bill. Of course, the compensation is set by the PUB and not by an arbitration board and again I feel that that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it is dead wrong. I think it should have been an arbitration board. Of course, under the old act the failure of the minister and the landowner to agree on compensation for expropriated land means an arbitration board is appointed for that particular case. The minister appoints an arbitrator, the landowner appoints one, and the two agree on a third, or the trial judge appoints one. In addition there is a stenographer.

Under this bill the board is the PUB, and the PUB is probably more costly and less swift since it is already bogged down with other responsibilities. I do know, there has been some discussion held with the PUB in this regard, with the PUB actually taking over this work. Of course, like everything else it says: If it comes to us we will handle it. I guess I would have to question: Will it be handled in a timely and efficient manner? I'm really afraid that maybe it won't be.

The minister decides whether to refer it to the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not fair.

MR. FRENCH: That is certainly not fair, Mr. Speaker. Under the old act, if the minister and the landowner can't agree on compensation then the appointment of an arbitrator becomes automatic. Under this bill the minister is given the power to make the application to the board, and it therefore stands to reason that he or she will have the choice of whether and when to refer the matter to the PUB. The landowner has no such power to apply to the PUB. It is the minister, it's either her way or the highway, or his way or the highway. Again, clearly wrong.

The landowner no longer has a rep on the decision making board. Again I feel that is certainly wrong. There is nobody who is involved in the decision making process. Under the old act one of the three members of the decision making board is the landowner's arbitrator. The landowner's arbitrator can veto the minister's choice of the third arbitrator, and the award decision of any two arbitrators is final. Under this bill the PUB decides and the landowner has no say in the composition of that board, which can be as small as one. Of course, that could be just one commissioner.

Nor does the landowner have a rep on that board. Must he hire and pay for independent legal council? I guess if you are going before the PUB it has the resources, it has the funding of course, that it can hire legal council. I'm sure it would and it does in most cases hire legal council. Therefore the landowner again, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, is placed in a very awkward position.

Of course, there is no rep when the land is in dispute. Under the old act, when the ownership of the land is in dispute or the owner can't be found, the minister is obliged to appoint an arbitrator. Of course, this again is wrong. There is no one on the PUB to represent the missing landowner, so who will make the case for and defend the rights of the missing or the disputed landowner now? Absolutely nobody.

This bill raises the cost of the process and intimidates the landowner into accepting the minister's offer. It will certainly intimidate landowners, Mr. Speaker, and again will deny the right to the landowner to be represented unless he or she, of course, has enough money and can afford to pay for representation at the PUB hearings; which of course is certainly not right.

This bill intimidates the landowner even when the minister's offer is nothing, because again the landowner would have to go before the PUB. Mr. Speaker, if the minister has made no offer prior to referring the claim to the PUB for a decision, the PUB decides which party pays the cost. The minister has the power to send the matter to the PUB without first offering any compensation. The landowner knows the PUB could award all costs to him and he could end up with no compensation from the government to offset the expenses. The landowner might be persuaded to accept nothing for the land rather than face the risk of paying the PUB's costs and getting nothing. Mr. Speaker, call this what you like, again there is an implication of a threat to any landowner, to anybody whom they would go before and, of course, expropriate this particular piece of land.

Mr. Speaker, I guess in a very few minutes we will vote on this particular bill, and when we vote on this particular bill, I for one, and I hope the members on this side of the House, will certainly be voting against this piece of legislation. It may become legal once it gets voted on, but it is certainly morally wrong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, we will be voting against this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 33)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform Your Honour that I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

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

I, the Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 1996. By way of supplementary supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: ___________________________

James Gushue, Administrator

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with the amount, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, and that I do now leave the Chair.

On motion, that the House resolve into a Committee of the Whole on Supply. Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Motion No. 2.

CHAIR: Motion No. 2, Bill No. 34, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses To The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1996, And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

We are dealing with Bill No. 34?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have a few words relative to this bill. It basically is a supplementary supply for the fiscal year 1995-96. Mr. Chairman, what we are really talking about here is giving legislative approval to the government for a sum of $32,515,500, and we are giving approval retroactively. Mr. Chairman, this is back in the days of Premier Wells when we were told there was no money for anything, we had to save money in education, and we had to save money by laying off civil servants. We had about 400 people given their marching orders a year ago. He said Merry Christmas to them and then we found out afterwards, well that wasn't such a -

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't he say it that Christmas? Didn't he say it?

MR. H. HODDER: Then he said, as my colleague is saying here, I need to get some approval for having overspent.

Mr. Chairman, this is the money for Marble Mountain. It has not gotten legislative approval yet but it will. The Government House Leader hopes he will get the approval this afternoon. This is the money that we had when we went out and brought a fleet of water bombers. This is when the Cabinet of the day, a year-and-a-half ago said: Well, we got a good deal. We got such a good deal on water bombers that we are going to buy a whole fleet, and off they went in the middle of the summer and brought the whole fleet of water bombers. In fact, they overspent by $32,500,000. Now not $15 million, not $20 million, not $25 million, not $26 million, not $28 million, not $30 million but $32 million. That is where they got the idea this year of putting into the budget the $30 million slush fund. So this year they said: Boy, we can't have that happen again.

So in the budget for this year, they said: We are going to have the regular expenditures and then, just in case we need a little extra, we are going to put in a little bit of a cushion, we are going to put in an extra $30 million. So this year they said: Let's put it in at the front end rather than have to come back to the Legislature to get approval for the Lieutenant-Governor warrants as we have been doing every year for years and years and years.

Mr. Chairman, we know that there is not much we can do now about this amount of money; the money has been spent. It is done, it is over with, it is finished, it is spent. I guess that the people have received the money and of course we have the water bombers and Marble Mountain. Marble Mountain if over there and if they get enough snow they will be able to make some money.

So in the spirit of Christmas we find, in the very last hour of this House this afternoon, that the very last thing we have is the Government House Leader coming in and saying: In the spirit of Christmas, I want to have my Christmas stocking filled. My Christmas stocking includes approval for $32 million that we did not get approval for last year, not in the budget a year-and-a-half ago, and we did not have it in this year's budget but the money is spent. So we are saying the government operates on: It is better to get forgiveness than permission. It says that it is easier to get forgiveness for spending the money than it was to come to the House and seek permission. This year it switched it around. This year it said: Let's get permission so we don't have to go to the House every time and get forgiveness. So it just switched it backwards this year.

A wise move, I say to the Government House Leader, but that is the essence of it. We know why it is here. We express our disappointment with the decision making processes that occurred, that led to this. We want to say to the Government House Leader, that yes, it is Christmas, but in the dying hours of this particular session we can't let this one go without having a chance to say to the government that you should be on your knees begging forgiveness from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We say to the Government House Leader, that penance is in order, and it is $32 million worth of penance.

It is a case of where we have said before that we have to have accountability. I do believe that it wouldn't be too much to ask if someone would give us a list of all of those expenditures so we could see exactly what made up the $32 million, in addition to the schedule which you see on page 4.

It says here that Works, Services and Transportation spent $10 million of that. We see that Industry, Trade and Technology spent $5 million of that. We want to know where the minister spent that money. We would like to find out. Tourism, Culture and Recreation spent $9 million of that. Health, which is so important to all of us - notice I said everything thus far has been in millions of dollars - got $800,000. That was so they could do more cardiac surgery at the Health Sciences Centre. That is what it was for, as I understand. Social Services got $3,300,000, but didn't rank up there with Tourism, Culture and Recreation, nor did it rank up there with Industry, Trade and Technology nor Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Chairman, we say to the House that there should have been a more detailed explanation, but we don't expect to receive that because we have asked these things repeatedly over the years, to give us more information than what we have. Maybe we will get it in the Auditor General's report. Maybe we will find out in that. To table the Auditor General's report in the last moments of this session says, either that we want it tabled because it is required by law to do it; but to table it right now. We won't have a question period tomorrow, the House will close in the next few hours. We will have to wait until the session in March before my good friend the Member for Kilbride, who is the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, can rise in his place and make his comments.

Mr. Chairman, with these few comments I'm going to yield to my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, who is most anxious to get up and beat up on the government, and make the Government House Leader do penance and do it in a public way.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Just a few brief comments. I want to say, my colleague here is really coming into his own, isn't he, in this sitting. He really is. Yesterday he was talking to the Minister of Education and he asked him was he going to the party, and he said no. The Minister of Education replied: I can't go to the party because I'm newly married. To which my colleague replied: Don't worry, the shine will come off that in about twelve months, and we will see you at next year's party.

AN HON. MEMBER: The shine came off it last night, did it?

MR. E. BYRNE: It was a good night. I was going up to get my jacket around twelve o'clock and I bumped into the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board in the Opposition office, at 12:05 a.m. We had a good chat for a few moments and we moved on. It is fair to say that enough has been said on that matter.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that Bill 34, when we discussed it in Committee, brought forward that government is looking for $32,515,500, basically retroactively. I think it is a significant sum of money, and I think it would be irresponsible not to make a few comments on it in the Legislature. After all, we are talking about an expenditure, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service, and what we are saying is that $32 million is a lot of money. Where is it going? The schedule here headed Expenditure, Legislature, $3,960,000, I suspect that is for the election, is it? I suspect that was for the election. Maybe the Government House Leader could...

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Works, Services and Transportation, $10,200,000; what was that sum of money for, I wonder? Do you know? Was that for the Goulds bypass road?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what I am asking.

Industry, Trade and Technology, $5 million; Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Department of Health; these monies have already been spent, is that correct? They have already been spent. There is no money left.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). They have been tossed back and forth.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1996, the sum of $32,515,500."

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, if I could, just for a minute, for the Opposition House Leader, there is a Motion No. 2 which is not absolutely necessary for the government to have, I believe -

CHAIR: Order, please!

Motion?

MR. TULK: Motion 1, I am sorry. Which is not absolutely necessary for the government to have but I believe that it would speed up some processes that might take place, if I am correct. It is, "An Act To Amend The Local Guarantee Act, 1957".

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Bill No. 6.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Do you have any problem with it?

MR. H. HODDER: Could you give me a copy?

MR. TULK: Do you want a copy of the bill?

Take a look through it. While you are looking, maybe I will call, Mr. Chairman, Order No. 19, Bill No. 32.

Do we have to rise the Committee?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TULK: We have to go in and out again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TULK: Oh, you will have to wait, `Jack'.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Motion No. 1, Bill No. 6.

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill No. 6).

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

We, on this side of the House have no procedural difficulty with approving this particular Act. I say to my colleagues that basically, what The Local Authority Guarantee Act does, is it approves the loans that have gone out to the various towns and municipalities in the Province.

I thought that was the one; I did not have it with me in my file here today but it is the monies that have been given out to the various councils primarily, I think, under the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. There is even money here, I say to my colleague, for the Town of Conception Bay South, $171,000, and various listings here. The Member for Port aux Basques will want to know that we are giving approval here for the Town of Channel - Port aux Basques to get $80,000 but they already have the money, I might say, and have it spent, because this piece of legislation really falls from last Spring's agenda. It is the one motion on which, if we had wished to, we could have extensive debate and ask a lot of questions on it. But these are operating funds, monies that have been allocated to municipalities, and our only complaint about this kind of funding is to make a note to the government that it is not enough. When you see the cutbacks in the MOGs - this morning, for example, I heard on the radio Mayor Boyd Noel of the Town of St. Anthony, saying that they are having difficulty balancing their budget because of the cutbacks to the town by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Of course, every town in the Province is having a great deal of difficulty in balancing their budgets due to decreases in the assessed values of properties and also due to the closing of certain businesses and the moving away of substantial numbers of people through out-migration.

So, Mr. Chairman, we would say we approve of this; our regret is that these sums are not higher, and when we have a government that is downloading its commitments to municipalities, we recognize that they are still getting some help but not really enough to enable municipalities to function effectively.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will ask my colleagues if they have any further comments, and if they do, they certainly should make them. All I will say is I wish there were more money allocated for the towns and municipalities in the Province, so that we could keep our taxation rates somewhat more reasonable at the municipal level.

Thank you very much.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the guarantee of the repayment of loans made to, and in advance of loans to certain local authorities."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clause one carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957," (Bill No. 6)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have adopted certain resolutions and recommend that Bill Nos. 34 and 6, without amendment, be introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, resolutions read a first and second time.

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the bills have to be read a first, second and third time.

On motion, the following bills read a first second and third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1996 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authorities Guarantee Act, 1957," carried. (Bill No. 6)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 19, third reading of Bill No. 32.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few moments just to make a few remarks on this bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Heritage Animals". I will not say, otherwise known as the Newfoundland pony bill, but it is the bill that arises out of the effort that was made a couple of years ago through an all-party unanimous resolution of this House to provide for protection of the Newfoundland pony and to have it designated as a heritage animal.

I was the member who brought the resolution forward to the House. I was very pleased to have unanimous support for that resolution. The demise of the Newfoundland pony was approaching. It would require significant efforts on the part of individuals trying to save it, and significant effort on the part of government to provide support for those efforts, by recognition of the Newfoundland pony as a heritage animal and by protecting the export of Newfoundland ponies. At that point and even subsequent to then, they were being exported and sold for meat, dog food - for the meat wagons, as they call them. And it would be necessary to ensure that there was an opportunity for some group or organization to designate individual animals as members of that group or breed known as the Newfoundland pony.

Well, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the efforts over the last couple of years in that regard have proved fruitful. Government has taken up the task of perhaps crafting a better Act than I envisaged in providing for the protection of heritage animals and the designation by the minister to protect individual heritage animals. I understand the minister has already announced that the two animals he intends to designate right now under this Act immediately are the Newfoundland pony and the Labrador husky. I think it is very fitting, Mr. Speaker, that both important animals are recognized immediately in this legislation. The minister is given considerable powers to provide for the protection that is required for these animals.

I do want to acknowledge that this effort has been fruitful and I think it shows that efforts of individual members, whether they be in the Opposition or in the back benches of government, can bear fruit. It is very encouraging to see that happen in this particular case, not for myself, Mr. Speaker, but for those who have over the years worked very diligently to save, protect and promote the Newfoundland pony as a heritage animal, to protect the breed and to try to get recognition of it, as a breed, under federal legislation.

I think those people and those animals are the beneficiaries of this legislation and hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to report in another year's time that the fate and future of the Newfoundland pony, through the efforts of the individuals, and through the support and enhancement of those efforts by government's action, are ensured for years to come.

It is particularly fitting that for the 500th Anniversary of Cabot's discovery of Newfoundland and Labrador, this action is being taken, because of the significant cultural and heritage value of these animals. They are working animals, they are animals which have helped Newfoundlanders and Labradorians live in this land, to provide a living for themselves and their families, and this is a significant part of the cultural and working heritage of our Province. It is fitting that in the year 1997 we will be able to show all of those who come to visit our Province that we have taken this effort and these measures to protect these significant and important animals. I would wish to commend the government for bringing this bill forward at this time, and offer my wholehearted support.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Heritage Animals," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 32)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am almost tempted to call Address in Reply but I do not believe I will this evening. Before we recess and give way to the more prominent people in this parliamentary process - I guess the two leaders will say something after the Lieutenant-Governor is finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You are not a leader, you are not a parliamentary group, but you will be allowed, Sir, with leave. I would hope that the Opposition would give the hon. member leave. I can say to him, the government side will.

Before we do that, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should - I would, as the Government House Leader, like first of all to thank His Honour, and the Speaker, and the chairpersons - as another House Leader would say, the `clarks' - for their patience with us this Fall, and in aiding and assisting us on doing, I believe, what has been a very good five weeks' work. I think we have passed some -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Hold on now, I will get to you later. I want to say something to the hon. gentleman. I want to tell him that I think the world of him, too.

I want to thank the other officials as well, Mr. Speaker, for help, and the Pages for looking after us, and indeed for helping us pass, I believe, some twenty-nine pieces of legislation, and some two other motions on the Order Paper. We should also, I think, express our congratulations to the commissionaires and our thanks for their having to sit here and listen to us through some very late nights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I suppose we should thank the gentleman upstairs for at least trying to keep us cool for part of the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to also thank, on behalf of the government, members on both sides of the House for their patience with the goings-on of some of us who are supposed to direct the affairs of this House. I would also like to thank the NDP representative, and the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

I would like to extend season's greetings and thank the Opposition House Leader for his co-operation. Sometimes we have to kick him to get it out of him; nevertheless, he came through. He missed a couple of votes but he still came through and did his work. On behalf of the government, I would like to wish all those people I have mentioned a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. As they say in the cartoons when the sheepdog passes by the clock: See you tomorrow, Sam.

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

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

I, too, would like to join the Government House Leader in recognizing the tremendous work done by the officers of the House and other officials who come under the Speaker's office, to thank them for their diligence, and to thank them for their co-operation with us who are members of the Official Opposition.

I would recognize as well the tremendous work that has been done by our corps of commissionaires. I can assure you that staying here until 6:10 in the morning is not enjoyable for any of us, but when you have to be here and just sit, shall we say, and observe the goings-on in the House, and to do a very important job but a job that sometimes might go unrecognized, we say to them thanks.

We would like to thank as well the other officials of the House. The people who keep our sound system here operating well, and the people in Hansard for making sure what we say gets transcribed in some meaningful manner. We certainly appreciate their work.

We say to the Government House Leader, it has been an enjoyable session in most instances, and we, certainly, on this side of the House, want to wish him and his wife-to-be in the next few weeks, I think, all the best. We hope that he will have a very happy and productive honeymoon, and that he comes back from his honeymoon a changed person.

All the members opposite in the government benches, although we disagree from time to time on matters of policy, we want to thank hon. members for keeping it to a political level and avoiding, I think, in this particular session, very many references that go outside of the acceptable bounds. We thank members for that, and for the general co-operation we have had.

Again, we say to my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, Leader of his party, we wish him well. We wish him a very happy Christmas, and hope that he looks forward to sharing Christmas with his young daughter. Before we come back again there might be a larger number in the family. We do understand there is another child on the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, he is going to do what he can do.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, and to you and your staff a very Merry Christmas, and to our Pages, as well.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have agreed that we will recess until 7:00 p.m. His Honour is supposed to be here at about 7:00 p.m., I believe. You might want to start ringing the bells at 6:50 p.m. to make sure everybody is aware they are supposed to be here.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is recessed until 7:00 p.m.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

It is my agreeable duty, on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, her faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of supplementary supply granted in the present session.

Bill No. 34, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1996 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service."

HIS HONOUR, THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (Frederick W. Russell, C.M., LL.D.): In Her Majesty's name, I thank Her loyal subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its present session, passed certain bills, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Volunteer Service Medal". (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act". (Bill No. 23)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act No. 2". (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". (Bill No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St. John's Assessment Act". (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Municipal Elections Act". (Bill No.37)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act". (Bill No. 41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act". (Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act Respecting A Provincial College". (Bill No. 47)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Dental Act". (Bill No. 31)

A bill, "An Act To Provide Firefighters With Protection From Personal Liability". (Bill No. 43)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991". (Bill No. 24)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act". (Bill No. 42)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act". (Bill No. 21)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act". (Bill No. 22)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Judgement Enforcement". (Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act". (Bill No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act". (Bill No. 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act". (Bill No. 35)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Freedom Of Information Act And The Privacy Act". (Bill No. 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, (No. 2)". (Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Education". (Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act". (Bill No. 49)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act And The Liquor Corporation Act". (Bill No. 50)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province". (Bill No. 48)

A bill, "An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador". (Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Pension Benefits". (Bill No. 46)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Dealers Act, The Direct Sellers 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". (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957". (Bill No. 6)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Heritage Animals". (Bill No. 32)

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's Name, I assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker, members of the hon. House of Assembly, on November 5, 1991, I took the oath of office as Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland in this hon. House of Assembly. Now, some five years later, I am here to say farewell.

In my address of acceptance, when I was sworn in, I pledged to be the Lieutenant-Governor of all the people of our Province and not just St. John's. While it is up to history to decide if I kept that pledge, we have certainly tried to do so.

During my term of office, my wife and I have been involved in over 1,800 official events in most parts of our Province, including nineteen visits to Labrador. In all those official events in St. John's and around the Province, we have not encountered one single incident that was unpleasant or one single person who was discourteous. While this might be explained by the fact that our people are inherently kind and courteous, I think it goes much deeper than that. I believe it reflects a genuine, widespread regard for the office of Lieutenant-Governor which is an integral part of our constitutional monarchy form of government. This respect and regard for this office has to be experienced to be understood and it is not, as you might think, only from our elderly citizens but from all ages including; cadets, Scouts, Guides, CLB, school children and students generally.

This Christmas Season, my wife and I have visited all the senior citizens homes in the St. John's area and we have shaken the hands of at least 1,000 of our seniors, including many veterans. To see the way their eyes light up when we shake their hands has to be seen to be believed. For us, it is a truly humbling, yet rewarding and joyous experience but is one that many of you would find difficult to comprehend unless you were there to witness it.

Then, too, it has been a marvellous experience during the past five years, hosting thousands of our citizens in Government House and on its grounds, over 5,000 so far this year alone. Government House is a heritage home owned by all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is an integral part of the operation of the office of Lieutenant-Governor. It is a fact that over the past five years, to my knowledge, not one of our citizens who visited Government House has criticized this operation. Again, you would not comprehend the pride that our citizens exhibit in Government House unless you could witness it with your own eyes.

Next year we are celebrating our history back to 500 years with its discovery by John Cabot. Our first governor was appointed in 1729, so for 268 years of those 500 we have had a governor and Government House has been lived in continuously since 1829, that is for 168 years, and this accounts largely for its remarkable condition today.

I can assure you that Government House is the envy of many visitors to our Province and, as I said, it is truly the pride and joy of thousands of our citizens. I urge you not to change things for the sake of change. In the past we have destroyed too much of our heritage and our history. It is my hope that our pride in celebrating our 500th Anniversary will cause a real ground swell of desire in our people to make certain that we preserve the remaining important elements of our past as we progress towards a brighter tomorrow and a much better economic future.

In terms of my own heritage, my Russell ancestors first came to Bonavista from Dorset around 1755, and my grandfather and grandmother moved from Musgrave Harbour to St. John's in 1904. So, I was born and raised a `townie' but my roots go back nearly 250 years deep into the outports where my ancestors, like many of yours, were fishermen who carved out a living from our rugged ocean environment.

It may be interesting to note that I am almost certainly the last veteran of World War II to be appointed Lieutenant-Governor. The average age of World War II veterans is now seventy-five, and in five years time it will be eighty.

Although over fifty years ago, some memories of World War II remain vivid in my mind, especially the memory of lost comrades. They died so we could remain free, and I hope we never forget them.

I am very pleased this hon. House of Assembly has enacted a bill to create the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Medal. Volunteers are what make this Province tick, and we would be in a sorry state without them. It is time, however, for outstanding voluntarism to be recognized and rewarded and the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Medal will do just that.

I feel extraordinarily privileged to have served as Lieutenant-Governor of our Province and I would like to thank the members of this hon. House of Assembly for their kindness and courtesy to my wife and me. I would especially like to thank Premier Tobin and former Premier Wells for helping to make this office such a relevant and worthwhile part of the government of our Province. Their friendship and co-operation have made my job very much easier.

I will close by wishing all of you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous 1997. Yours is a heavy responsibility to ensure good government in our Province but I feel certain you are equal to the task. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Your Honour and Mrs. Russell, I know I speak for all the members of this House and indeed I know I speak for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when I express to you our deep appreciation and our deep thanks for the outstanding way in which you both have discharged responsibilities in the duties of your office.

Your Honour, a few days ago we reflected in this place upon your contribution to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; reflected upon your service during a time of great conflict, world conflict, as a pilot, a mosquito pilot, in the theatre of war over a period of years; reflected upon your career as wide and varied as it has been, as a business person, a leader in this Province; reflected upon the tremendous service that you have given yourself as a volunteer in a great many capacities, too numerous frankly to mention, at this time in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We reflected, Your Honour, that we noted that that volunteer service was given with no other expectation of any reward whatsoever other than the improvement of an organization, community, indeed the Province or the country. Your Honour, it is in that regard then, particularly fitting that the Legislature has seen fit upon your recommendation - and it should be known that the recommendation for a volunteer service medal to recognize all across our Province the work of volunteers, those who give freely of their time, is a piece of advice that has come directly from Your Honour Frederick Russell and Mrs. Russell. We pay tribute to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We pay tribute to you in seeing that it is passed before this, your last occasion to address this place.

Your Honour and Mrs. Russell, I want to tell you that you have served in this office - and it is a vital office, an important office - with great distinction. You have served, Sir, may I say, all of Newfoundland and Labrador. You may have been raised a `townie', but you will retire from this office as a son and daughter of all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We say to you, Your Honour, and to Mrs. Russell, we say to your families, some of whom are here today for this occasion, again how much we appreciate the service you have given. We hope that in some other ways, upon reflection, after an appropriate period of time, you will find another occasion, or other occasions, to continue to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In the meantime, we extend to you heartfelt and warmest wishes on behalf of all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for a Merry Christmas, a time of family and friends, and every best wish for the new year and all the years to come.

Thank you, Your Honour, and Mrs. Russell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Your Honour, and Mrs. Russell, on behalf of my colleagues in the Official Opposition, I extend to you a very sincere thank you for your efforts and for serving with distinction in this position, and bringing a great measure of dignity and service to the position.

You referred to World War II. You were one of those individuals who gave of your time and devoted a portion of your life so others can have freedom and be able to live in peace. I know it has placed great demands on you and Mrs. Russell, your entire family, in this position. While you may have benefitted, I am quite sure that the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are the recipients of those 1,800 visits here in this Island and in Labrador, are the real recipients of your courtesy, your honour and dignity, that you exemplified in that position.

I am certainly privileged to be here, as Leader of the Opposition, having the opportunity to say to you and Mrs. Russell and to your family, thank you for giving of your time and effort on behalf of all of us.

Certainly, in closing, I would wish you and Mrs. Russell, and your entire family, a very sincere Merry Christmas. I hope you will have a very enjoyable retirement from what has been a very busy time for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Your Honour, I take great pleasure in having an opportunity to pass on to you, on behalf of myself and my Party, my thanks for your efforts and that of Mrs. Russell on behalf of the people of this Province during the last five years.

I did some rough calculations on the 1,800 events and it seems that either you have not had a holiday in the past five years, and have done one event per day, or you have had some very busy days over the last five years.

Our own association, of course, goes back to the time when you were Chairman of the Board of Regents of Memorial and I was a student, a somewhat active student at the time, and later on the labour relations board where you sat and I made representations from time to time, and in the last five years both as Lieutenant-Governor and as one of my constituents, and I was pleased to have you as one of my constituents in Government House.

You made reference to the heritage role that Government House plays, and the fact that you, yourself, and Mrs. Russell, have made great efforts to involve and invite as many people in the Province as possible to see that edifice which is ours and you occupy on our behalf. I think it is commendable that you and Mrs. Russell have made every effort to do that.

I remember having a conversation with Mrs. Russell earlier this year about the efforts made in Ottawa at Rideau Hall to, in fact, show off that residence to visitors and to people with students well versed in its history and the history of the place, and I think that is something that I would like to see developed as an ongoing effort for Government House, to show indeed, for all people of this Province, and for visitors, that we have a lengthy heritage and that the office of Lieutenant-Governor, in addition to providing a significant but perhaps little known constitutional role, also provides the continuity of time and of generations in this Province going back to when we were a country.

I do recognize and thank you and Mrs. Russell for your efforts and your service. The people and the Province were well served by you and Mrs. Russell during your period in office. I wish both of you and your families a Merry Christmas and best wishes for all of your future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you very much.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor and Mrs. Russell leave the Chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we could be here all night.

I just want to say a few words of greetings to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the staff of the House of Assembly, to those who advice us at the Table and to thank you and all of the team for the wise way in which you have given guidance to all of us who have no doubt challenged, from time to time, both your patience and that of the rest of the team. We are hardly, Mr. Speaker, in a position to challenge your wisdom. Your wisdom is all pervasive and thank you for your guidance that you have given each of us during this session of the House.

May I, Mr. Speaker, as well, wish you and all of the staff of the House a Merry Christmas. Best wishes to each of your families. I extend Christmas greetings to all members of the House, my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party and to all members. Mr. Speaker, we have had a productive session. We have produced an enormous amount of legislation under the guidance and leadership, may I say, of the best Government House Leader that has ever occupied the bench!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if Scott Chafe puts that on the radio I will be in trouble with `Ed' tomorrow! Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Opposition House Leader for his skilful and deft handling of matters from that side of the House, as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would only say this, that while all of us know that we have been here and every second has been vital, every moment has been vital and every evening session has been vital, some of our families are not quite so sure about all of that. I would reflect two things, one is I hope that every member is able to go and spend time with their spouses and with their families, with their friends, with their loved ones over the Christmas season. Have a good rest, have a good break, because I can assure you we are going to be busy again when we come back in the new year. Have a good holiday everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly, too, extend on behalf of the Official Opposition a thank you to you for your patience. Thank you.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to the bills in a minute, I say to the Government House Leader. Give me time. To the Speaker and to the staff here, the Pages and Mr. Collins, who must be quite busy after those lengthy nights, I must say, and to all of the staff of the Speaker's Office and Hansard, who, I am sure, had a very busy time.

I would like to congratulate this tremendous Opposition, so responsible - with over thirty bills, I say to the Government House Leader, the number I have been saying all along - for responsibly dealing with some very serious business here in our Province, I must add. We tried to make things as unpleasant for you as possible during this session of the House. I hope we have succeeded in doing that.

But it is the Christmas season and a time when we certainly wish a very Merry Christmas to all members of the House of Assembly, and we certainly hope you have an opportunity to enjoy the time with your family and friends. I think it is needed and it is very important. I can assure the Premier that as soon as I do get home - and I have not been home in a while - when I do get home I will put your Christmas card on my mantle, I can tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if I have leave, I could assure you we will all be able to leave very shortly.

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to send you and your staff Christmas greetings, and thank you for your assistance throughout the session. It has taken a lot of work by the Pages and the Clerk and clerks of committees and all of the House staff to make this happen. I especially want to thank the commissionaires, and the people who make the Hansard work, and the people in Hansard whom we never see but we rely on very much for their accurate reporting - sometimes we hope they do not report us as accurately as they should; nevertheless, we do get accurate reporting from them - and all of the staff who make the operation of the House possible.

I want to pay particular thanks and recognition to Mr. Kirby -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - who provides a level of dignity and decorum to the House that most of us are not able to keep up with, but I think it is very worthy of this House to have that contribution, and to remind us all that this is a House of the people where the dignity and decorum of the proceedings is important to the operation of our democracy.

I want to, finally, wish all hon. members of this House a very Merry Christmas. I hope everyone has the same opportunity that I hope to, to enjoy some time with my family and enjoy the Christmas season and look forward to the New Year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. the Government House Leader puts the motion to adjourn, the Chair would like to take this opportunity, as well, to extend to all members and this families sincere seasons greetings. To the workers in the Legislative Library, the staff of Hansard, the staff of the Clerk's Office, the Commissionaires, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, I wish you all a very enjoyable season and a happy and prosperous New Year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is moved that when this House adjourns today it stand adjourned until the call of the Chair. The Speaker, or in his absence from the Province the Deputy Speaker, may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated by the notice of the proposed sitting. It is moved that this House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the call of the Chair.