The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

On behalf of all members of the House of Assembly, it gives me great pleasure to announce the appointment of Mrs. Elizabeth Gallagher RN, as the new Sergeant-at-Arms. Mrs. Gallagher is seated on the floor of the Assembly next to the present Sergeant-at-Arms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Mrs. Gallagher will formally assume her position when our present Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Cyril Kirby, retires on April 1. During the next two weeks, Mrs. Gallagher will serve as the understudy to Mr. Kirby.

Mrs. Gallagher began her working career as a registered nurse and from 1960 to 1973 was the supervisor of the operating rooms at the General Hospital here in St. John's. After marrying Ray Gallagher and becoming mother to three children, Mrs. Gallagher had, over a twenty-five year period, extensive experience in volunteer and charitable organizations. In particular, she served on the St. Patrick's Mercy Home Board until September 1993. For the past five years, Mrs. Gallagher has served as the Information Officer in this building and a tour guide to the House.

In addition to performing her duties as Sergeant-at-Arms, Mrs. Gallagher will continue to be Information Officer. I might add that Mrs. Gallagher will be the second female Sergeant-at-Arms in Canada. The first such appointment was in the Legislature of New Brunswick. On behalf of all members, I congratulate Mrs. Gallagher on her appointment and we look forward to working with her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure on behalf of this side of the Legislature, on behalf of the government, to congratulate Mrs. Elizabeth Gallagher on her appointment to this House as a Sergeant-at-Arms and I am sure that all of us in this Legislature would agree that she will serve well in the position.

Mr. Speaker, as you said, for the last five years, Mrs. Gallagher has served as Information Officer in this building and as a tour guide. Mr. Speaker, I want, at this time, to say that on many occasions when you walk into this House, if you come in at 1:50, which sometimes I have occasion to do as a Government House Leader, it is obvious that Mrs. Gallagher in that position has shown a rare knowledge of this place and a rare feel for it. I am sure a great many schoolchildren in this Province whom she has had the pleasure to escort through this place will remember her well as a tour guide, and she will, as you said, Mr. Speaker, do both jobs and I am convinced that not only will she do the job of tour guide but also the job of Sergeant-at-Arms as well.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Gallagher will be the first female Sergeant-at-Arms in this Province and the second, as you said, in Canada, which in and of itself is a notable milestone for us who govern and for those who take up occupations at such an honourable place as is this House.

Mr. Kirby will retire at the end of this month, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure, without getting into any great detail now, that we will get into some detail on the way in which he served this House. But I would like at this time, on behalf of this side of the House, to congratulate him on the job that he has done over the past few years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, on behalf of the Official Opposition, congratulate Mrs. Gallagher on her appointment. It is certainly a first here in this Province. I am sure Mrs. Gallagher feels it is quite an honour to be the first woman appointed as Sergeant-at-Arms in our Province and I am sure she will bring to her position the same degree of professionalism and the thorough job that she did as Information Officer and as tour guide here. She has an excellent reputation for doing a very thorough, a very competent job, and it is certainly my pleasure to welcome her into this position. I would like to congratulate on behalf of our caucus, too, Mr. Kirby, who has served well in his role and we wish him well in his retirement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with you and the previous two speakers in congratulating Mrs. Gallagher on her appointment as Sergeant-at-Arms. She has, as has been noted, served as Information Officer for the House of Assembly and, on a number of occasions, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, I have had the privilege of joining with her in showing some of my constituents around the House of Assembly, a group of Cub Scouts from my constituency. Mrs. Gallagher has a rare knowledge of the operations of this House and of the history of this place and I am sure that she will bring to the position of Sergeant-at-Arms the same degree of professionalism, decorum and dignity to our proceedings, as has her predecessor, Mr. Kirby, whom I am sure we will appropriately honour at the last day of this sitting.

MR. SHELLEY: Could I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

By leave, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to extend congratulations to a colleague of ours in this House. The Mokami Status of Women Council has named Yvonne Jones, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, as Woman of the Year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: On behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure everybody in the House, I extend congratulations on attaining this prestigious honour. I understand there were many letters of nominations and support for Yvonne during the selection process. I had the privilege, by the way, of submitting a letter by Yvonne's mother, Barbara Rumbolt which appeared in last week's Labradorian.

I have come to know Yvonne since her election and I must echo the praise articulated by her mother in saying it is an honour to have her with us in this people's House. I know Yvonne is a dedicated, hard working and knowledgeable individual who cares deeply for her constituents in Labrador and in the Province as a whole. It is my pleasure to rise today and recognize her achievements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise on behalf of the government to congratulate Yvonne on her award. I have known Yvonne for a number of years in different capacities, in serving as the Mayor of Mary's Harbour when I was working with government, and I certainly think we do well in congratulating her. She is fully deserving of such an aware. She has worked really hard and, I think, we certainly have, over the weekend in Labrador, celebrated with her at the most appropriate occasion of the Winter Games.

Mr. Speaker, it is very fitting when we see a lady of Yvonne's stature win awards like this and I think it shows well that we have come a long way in terms of being able to recognize the efforts of people like Yvonne, so I say on behalf of government, congratulations to Yvonne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay and the Minister of Government Services and Lands in congratulating Yvonne Jones, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, on being recognized as an outstanding woman of Labrador by the Mokami Status of Women Council. We all know, of course, that she achieved her election against great odds, and showed an example I think for women throughout the Province that despite the electoral system, which often is stacked against women as candidates, that she has been able to overcome those odds, and in the House of Assembly show herself to be a determined and effective member, a representative of her people, and she deserves the honour that she has received today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure for me today to announce the approval of $70,000 for the research, development and design of a training program for foster families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In our Province there are approximately 500 foster families caring for 750 children and youth who are in the care of the Director of Child Welfare. Many of these children have diverse personal, emotional, and behavioural needs having experienced severe neglect and/or sexual or physical abuse before entering care. When foster families accept these children into their homes they are presented with many challenges. Securing appropriate placement is often quite difficult.

Although the Department of Social Services and the Foster Families Association have identified the need for foster parent education for several years, there is little training available. In light of research and developments regarding the foster parents role in family preservation and reunification as a strategy to further the best interests of the child, training requirements cannot be ignored. In today's environment caring is not enough. Knowledge and skill are required.

We recognise more and more that foster families must have special knowledge and skills to meet the complex needs of the children placed in their homes. This is recognized as important to ensure better stability for children and youth in care and a higher level of satisfaction for the foster parents.

In order to research, develop standards and design a high quality training program for foster parents we plan to contract with a qualified person who will work with an advisory committee composed of many staff from my department, representatives of the Foster Families Association, birth parents, Youth in Care, and other persons in the community in the field of children's services.

Investing in foster parents through foster parent education is an important component of the delivery of responsible, adequate and effective child and family services. My department is pleased to be able to initiate this project at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to rise today and say that this is a good beginning. It is not going to fix the problem; nor will it address the great need there is for training.

I am reminded of a presentation made last year to the Select Committee on Children's Interests, and I would like to read from that presentation just for one moment, one paragraph. It reads: In the administration of foster care, a system by the Child Welfare Division, Department of Social Services, foster families are often neglected. Conversations with foster parents will reveal a sense of despair, inadequacy, powerlessness, frustration and insecurity. The foster family is often treated as a non-entity in the assessment of plans for the foster child and children in their care.

Mr. Speaker, last year we identified the need for adequate training for foster care parents. I am pleased to see the beginning made here today, and I welcome the commitment as well to the intensive family preservation strategies, because we have to try to preserve the family structure the best way that we can, and by that we mean that we have to put additional funds in that direction as well.

Mr. Speaker, foster parents talk about too many turnovers in the front-line social workers as well. They talked about the need to see youth, ages sixteen to eighteen, included in the child welfare legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: There is much to be done; however, we recognize that this today is a beginning, albeit only just that.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to welcome this contribution for research and development of a training program for foster families. We have some excellent foster parents in families but, to be frank, the history of foster parenting in this Province leaves a lot to be desired in many, many cases, and anything that can help in providing training to people from the department is a very positive step.

It is a modest step, I will acknowledge, and it seems that the minister has, two days in a row, given us some modest good news. I am a little afraid of what we might hear tomorrow. They may have run out of good news by the time the Minister of Finance gets up to speak tomorrow, and we may be in for some bad news after all of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are on health. I had intended them for the Premier, but I will ask them of the acting Premier.

I spoke with a fifty-five year old man yesterday who is waiting almost a full year for cardiac bypass surgery. This man is a long-term worker with the provincial government. His sick benefits from his employment have run out, his sick benefits have run out from EI. After his illness last year he went through a process and received Canada Pension disability. This government has told him he cannot receive provincial disability pension because he has not exhausted all medical avenues and he must have a bypass operation first. So, Mr. Speaker, people in this Province are dying while waiting for surgery. We just heard a case in the news a couple of days ago about a case a couple of months ago in St. Lawrence, and there have been many others. I would ask the Premier, or the acting Premier, if he thinks it is acceptable to wait for months and even years for life-saving cardiac surgery.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the House that the Minister of Health is in Central Newfoundland today releasing the consultancy report dealing with Central Newfoundland. The acting Minister of Health is the Minister of Social Services, and we will ask that she respond.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it has been quite clearly stated by my colleague the Minister of Health that we are also concerned about the waiting periods that have been obviously identified over the last number of days, and even the last number of years. I think this government has been trying to deal with a problem that is certainly increasing. We know last year in April this government approved an extra $1.5 million for cardiac surgery. We have actually moved to increase staff, increase allocation of beds, expand our intensive care unit, and also establish an intermediate care unit.

I would like to say that we are quite concerned about these issues, and we would certainly express our sincere sympathy to the families. I think that the Health Care Corporation today has come forward and identified as well initiatives that will begin to address this problem. We have increased the average number of surgeries from nine and a half to ten a week. In 1998 they hope to increase the number of surgeries to twelve per week. I think that as cardiac surgeons must do, they must allocate the level of urgency that is required. I know waiting periods are very frustrating for people. We understand their concern, but this government is recognizing the need. The Health Care Corporation has come out and identified it as an issue that it is going to continue to address. Yes, we are concerned, and we will work with the Corporation on this issue.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has done nothing to reduce the waiting list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is longer now than when I first raised this three and a half years ago. There are more people on the waiting list, I say to the minister. Calls come into my office on a daily basis from people who are frustrated and despondent over the declining state of health care here in our Province. There aren't ten surgeries being done every week -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I spoke with officials -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In emergency room departments elderly people are being put on stretchers for up to two days at a time. I ask the minister if the minister thinks it is acceptable to have an eighty-three year old woman with a broken hip on a narrow stretcher in an emergency department for up to two days without food or drink before finally deciding to do surgery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to refer to the first part of the statement that was made before I get to the last part of the question.

I would like to say that in any case where any person is awaiting cardiac surgery the issue of waiting for an I.C.U. bed is the same in 1978 and 1980 when I was an intensive care nurse than it is now. If there are no beds available in I.C.U, that is certainly a factor that was considered then and must be considered now. Even with the expansion of the intensive care beds, physicians still have to make sure an intensive care bed is available, and right now I know they are in a 100 per cent capacity. That hasn't changed. There are periods of time when the I.C.U. is not at full capacity. There are times when it is full. That situation will not change and has to be considered and factored in.

In terms of the concern that he raised with an elderly person, the Health Care Corporation is trying to deal with this issue by trying to move the people through the system. I think that those concerns that you raise are concerns to us as well. Sister Elizabeth has come out and tried to address the issue by moving people along in the system as quickly as possible and giving them the best care and the best quality that is possible within reason and I think that's the aim of the system, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that's nonsense. I heard the Health Care Corporation official indicate that they are isolated incidents. Well I had seven incidents -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. This is not a time for debate. I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Emergency room staff has been stretched to the limit due to cutbacks by this government. Now a man was badly injured at sea, flown by a helicopter to the Health Sciences. There was no surgeon available that day. He had to wait until the next day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, the swelling had increased so much by the next day they could not operate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member must get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact that this man spent several weeks in hospital because there was no surgeon available and no medical attention and in light of the fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary and that there ought to be no preamble on a supplementary question. He should get to his question immediately.

MR. SULLIVAN: Since the Premier is a major part of the cutbacks under Canada Health and Social Transfer, I ask the minister now, when is this government going to provide sufficient funds so they can properly care for the sick in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to state that this is not the place to discuss an individual case across the floor of the House. I have to say this, Mr. Speaker, if you have an individual case that you want to come over and report to myself or to my colleague when he returns, we will be happy to deal with it but without having the access to a person's chart and knowing all the details, I think it is quite unfair and unreasonable to expect a response based on the individual assessment of the patient.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak about policy, procedure and budgets but I think the individual issues and personal cases of individuals should not be brought across the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that last year in our budget we put forward a stable budget -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her answer quickly please.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly do that. This government put forward a stable budget for health care. It was identified as $903 million and, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to providing quality health care in this Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a shame when people can't get help from the system and have to turn to an Opposition. I say it is downright disgraceful!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Another man I spoke of recently was told that he would have to have bypass surgery done within six months. Nine months later no surgery was done. Now how would the minister feel -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question, he's on a supplementary.

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman opposite has every right to put a question. He has every right to put a question and to be ordered to do so in a manner that is appropriate to the Speaker but I say to him that he has no right to disobey the rulings of the Chair on four separate occasions as he did in the last supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this that if the hon. gentleman continues I would ask the Speaker to name him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, again I remind hon. members that during Question Period, one is that we should remember that preambles are not permitted on supplementary questions and secondly, if there are points of order to be raised on Question Period they should be reserved to the end of Question Period.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was into my question when I was interrupted by the Government House Leader.

I ask the minister now, how would the minister feel if you were still on a waiting list for lifesaving surgery, months after you were told that you need it? Now do you feel the government is providing adequate care to those that are in need?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. member's question is out of order. He is asking for an opinion from an hon. member and I think questions ought not to reflect opinions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually asked two questions there. I will ask the minister again: Does she feel the government is providing on an adequate level for those people who are waiting for life-saving surgery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the physicians, the nurses and the staff in the health care system. I have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that they are able to diagnose and assess their patients and triage them in such a way that clients are determined to be urgent or elective.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the budget $1.5 billion last year for this specific area of cardiac surgery. I think, Mr. Speaker, the fact that our health care system is providing more varied services, treatments, drug interventions, means that more and more people are requiring surgery because they are living longer and they are able to sustain the treatments that they have been given.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have said we would like to improve the system. We are working with the health care system to do this and, yes, I am convinced that we are doing the best we can at this time and we will try to improve in areas that have been pointed out to us.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services.

The Newfoundland Dietetic Association released a report yesterday which indicates the results of their research, is that it costs a family of four, 85 per cent of their basic social assistance in order to provide a nutritious diet for their family.

I want to ask the minister whether she believes that this policy of the government of only providing a bare minimum of money for social assistance is adequate, or is it the case that this government has it as part of its policy, that people who are poor or on social assistance should get their meals from food banks in order to be able to survive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We spend over $250 million on income support in this Province every year, Mr. Speaker, and I have said it time and time again, I wish that we could increase the money that is going out to social assistance 200 per cent. I would like nothing more than to be able to do that; but this year, we held the line on maintaining social assistance basic rates and I would remind my hon. colleague that in working through the National Child Benefit, in having access to approximately $12 million of new money, we hope to begin to address through programs and services, issues such as child poverty and other day care and child care issues. And I think it is one very good way of trying to address some of the issues and focusing on this type of program.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister and all hon. members know there has been no increase in rates since 1989 and almost 20 per cent of the value of social assistance payments has been lost through inflation. What steps are the minister and her government taking to increase the ability of people on social assistance to be able to live properly and to be able to provide adequately for their families?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never at any point said it was easy for people on social assistance. I know it is a last resort program. It is $250 million that this Province has chosen to put forward on programs. We did not reduce basic social assistance and, yes, Mr. Speaker, we would love to increase it but, we have choices to make, difficult choices. We are trying to do other things like private-public partnering with respect to school lunch programs. We have access to new money coming down the system, which no one on that side of the House seems to see as a valuable resource in trying to address some of the problems. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we do, and we will work to try to develop new programs and services to address these needs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier, the Acting Premier or the Minister of Health, Acting Minister of Health, whoever cares to answer the question on health, Mr. Speaker.

Our waiting lists for cardiac surgery have been increasing and line-ups have been increasing at emergency departments as cuts are made to staff.

Now, I ask the minister: When is the minister going to see the light and put the dollars back into health care and emergency services so that people can get a service that they justly need?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in answer to the previous question, we have maintained the line on health care funding in the Province. We recognize that this funding has been stable. The Health Care Corporation is aware of that, and they are working with the budget allocations that they have.

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The minister said yesterday that she has been consulting with people for one year on the privatization of parks; yet we cannot find anyone, and the people packing public meetings cannot find anyone, and people in your District of Gander cannot find anyone with whom you have been consulting. I ask the minister, can she tell the people here now, who she has been consulting over this past year?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, throughout the year, this government has consulted through the pre-Budget consultation process.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not in the Budget.

MS KELLY: We have also done surveys all through our parks system. All of our park users have been surveyed throughout the year. We have consulted extensively.

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

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

The Minister of Education, and the former minister who started the privatization ball rolling, said in debate yesterday that this is phase two in the grand privatization scheme of the Strategic Economic Plan set out by the Economic Recovery Commission. We pay the Economic Recovery Commission $25 million to develop the policy procedures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

`The approach that I have seen government taking so far is contrary to the principles in this report rather than in accord' -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: - says Doug House, Chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission.

I ask the minister: What has the minister to say now that the author of the government's privatization plan says what you are doing is completely contrary to the plan itself?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member to repeat his question, because there was one word I did not understand in your question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS KELLY: I could not understand it; I am sorry.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it slow, `Jack'.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will take it slow.

What has the minister to say now? For the author of the government's privatization policy says: The government's careless, consultationless approach is absolutely the wrong approach and contrary to the plan itself - Doug House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now understand the question. I was not sure if you were saying `author' or `audit'.

Mr. Speaker, program review -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. House that the ERC, and the past chairman of this, has not been working with us through the program review process. This decision comes out of the program review process and it is wholly supported by government.

We have had more than 450 responses to our request for proposals. There is a very high level of interest in this proposal, and I am very confident that our parks will be successfully privatized, will be very well run by the private sector either through municipalities, tourism associations, employees, or the private sector.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The program review that you referred to advised against the very thing that you are doing. Your Cabinet colleague yesterday stated that you are using -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now making a statement. He is on a supplementary question. Let us get to the question.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will ask the question.

Minister, will you not admit there is no master plan, and the only reason the parks are on the chopping block at the eleventh hour, before they are due to open, before the busiest season ever, is to basically fill holes in this year's Budget and to basically -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: It is basically to put a bit more money into the Budget this year and basically a cash grab, just as a cash grab was there last year with the converting of the leases to grants. It is a cash grab and no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Would the minister comment on that?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question by saying that this government is responsible enough to make choices. We have all been listening to questions in this Question Period today about health care and social programs. We all know that the people of this Province have very clearly said that health care, education, and social programs are a priority. Parks are a priority, also. We have a good core park system. We have two national parks in our Province. We will have three keystone parks and ten camping parks, as well as many, many - the twenty-one plus, the numbers that are already there of private camp grounds that will be very well operated by our private sector.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to complete her answer.

MS KELLY: I am totally appalled by the fact that members opposite do not have the confidence in the private sector people of this Province that we will have good, private sector run parks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My question this afternoon is for the Attorney General. Preparations are clearly being made for the closure of correctional facilities at Salmonier and Bishop's Falls. We recall the courts rake the minister over the coals for using temporary absences as a way of responding to the shortage of space in our penitentiaries for people convicted of crimes.

My question to the Attorney General is: how is the closure of correctional facilities going to do anything but worsen the already critical shortage of incarceration space in this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if the lord tarries another twenty-three and one half hours the Minister of Finance will rise in his place and he will present to this House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the Budget for the coming year, and at that time all things will be revealed. I ask the hon. member to try and keep his patience for another twenty-three and one half hours.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of this Province Appeals Division rule that the minister's reckless use of TAs amounted to contempt of court since people that a judge ruled should be incarcerated would be let right back out on the street by the minister, sometimes the very next day or that very day. Will the minister acknowledge that persons denied light sentences and sent to prison by a judge for crimes such as impaired driving have been serving little or no time, and have been receiving no remedial treatment, and that there will now be even less space to take these individuals off the streets. What kind of message, I ask the Attorney General, does this send to people that our society does not tolerate for such serious crimes as for example a second charge for impaired driving?

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

MR. DECKER: An awful lot of words, Mr. Speaker, for the same question. I tell the hon. member to be patient. Well, actually it is less than twenty-three and a half hours now, it is only about twenty-three hours and twenty minutes, then all things will be revealed and the hon. member will be able, then, to come forward with his question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. John's East on a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the Attorney General if he will acknowledge that once again, as with his abuse of temporary absences, he is charging full steam ahead with significant decisions of tremendous consequence for our justice system in the absence of any rationale or plan? And will he also acknowledge that his decisions are not only showing contempt for the fine workers at these institutions, but also show complete disregard for the significance of incarceration and a total lack of understanding of many of the principles of sentencing?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in our temporary absence program. We have one of the most progressive temporary absence programs in all of Canada. At this very minute there are probably thirty people out on electronic monitoring. Every single one of these people is involved in a rehabilitative program.

A short while ago I met with a group of people who told me that one individual had been incarcerated nine times for impaired driving. This was supposed to prove to me that you should lock people up and throw away the key. It told me though, Mr. Speaker, that incarceration did not work for this individual. Maybe it is time, and not only in Newfoundland but across the country, we are beginning to recognize that in a humane society we have to put stress on rehabilitation. The corrections are meant to correct. The temporary absence rehabilitative program we have developed in this Province is second to none in the country, and the country itself is making major strides. I am very proud of the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - in Corrections who are doing such an excellent job, Mr. Speaker, and I take great pride in boasting and bragging about the great steps that have been taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Attorney General in response to that answer, that same individual, the person who was convicted nine times for impaired driving, in addition to the remediation which that man needs, and the help that that man needs, doesn't the Attorney General think that that man should be off the streets of this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, he certainly should not be driving. But to throw that man in prison again as was done for nine times does not work. That man has to be rehabilitated. The man obviously has a sickness. Therefore I believe the way we are dealing with that individual is the proper, correct way to do it, not like some bunch of dinosaurs who would lock them up as was done in the Middle Ages, throw away the key, throw their families in with them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: This is a concept we have over here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to -

MR. DECKER: - and I hope to God that that kind of mentality never gets in a position of authority -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. DECKER: - in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy while he is still here, so I figured I would get a couple of questions to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows - I'm going to raise his profile a little bit now. What I say, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Of course, (inaudible) Voisey's Bay continues to be our bright spot, and we talk about nickel so often, but the minister knows I've asked him many questions concerning the copper and the potential for that. For three straight weeks -

AN HON. MEMBER: Coppertop.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, the coppertop. Still going! For three straight weeks, Mr. Speaker, I asked questions on the viability of a copper smelter. Of course it was said no, and actually laughed at in this House for three weeks. Something has changed since then. I would like to ask the minister the first question. When he got his first advice on saying no, did it come from his own department or did it come from Inco?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for his question. I hope to get a few more questions before the session closes. I've been waiting a long time for this one. I thought it would never come.

Voisey's Bay is a great development for this Province, and since it was discovered two years ago it has moved along very nicely. We in our department continue to do assessments. We work with the people in the Department of Finance as they assess all aspects of taxation, we work with people in the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology as they assess all aspects of industrial benefits to this project, and it is moving along nicely. Nickel of course is the main thing that is there. Sure there is copper, sure there is cobalt, and I'm sure as we refine the products there will be other minor components as well that will add to it. Right now the environmental assessment process is ongoing both for Argentia as well as for the Voisey's Bay mine and mill. In our department -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly, please.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, I will answer as quickly as possible. I know that time is about running out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask -

DR. GIBBONS: In my own department -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: - we are continuing our assessment of all the components of this development, we are continuing our assessment of the copper, and in answer to his question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: - I don't take my directions from Inco -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

DR. GIBBONS: - I take it based on what we learn ourselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, time for one quick supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, first thing we have to do is get a definition of order and send it to the other side of the House. I had a second and third, so I will go into my third question as we are running out of time here. As we sit here, March 19, 1997, with the legislation that is in this House, there is a ten-year tax break to Inco and Voisey's Bay.

When does the minister expect to not pay lip service but put it on the books in this House as the law, and the legislation be changed so we get our full share out of Voisey's Bay?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, to me it is as if time had stood still, because it is as if it does not matter whether this is a question from Sue on Open Line at VOCM during the morning, or Sue on Open Line with George MacLaren in the evening, or in this House of Assembly the last time we sat. The question is the same; the answer is the same. There is no ten-year tax break for Inco. Inco was told a year ago that there was no ten-year tax break for Inco. There will never be a ten-year tax break for Inco - never!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte on a point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: I would like to - I am sure the Speaker will look into it. The question was asked from the Member for Baie Verte, the critic for Mines and Energy, not to sue any other names that you (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is an interim report on behalf of the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: There is an interim report, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Select Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance.

The Select Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance have had public hearings around the Province. One of the major concerns identified at the hearings on the Burin and Bonavista Peninsulas was the fact that they are included in rating Territory 1. The committee has reviewed the particular problems associated with the rating territories and at first talked about establishing an extra territory in the area. However, upon reviewing new evidence pertaining to this particular matter, the committee decided, on a motion by Perry Canning, the Member for Labrador West, seconded by Anthony Sparrow, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, that the boundary of Territory 1 be east of Highway 210; that the other parts of existing Territory 1, comprising the Burin and Bonavista Peninsulas, including Goobies, be included in existing Territory 2 and that the rate in Territory 3, consisting of the Labrador portion of the Province remain the same. The decision of the committee, Mr. Speaker, was unanimous.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders who are petitioning this House of Assembly to direct the government to establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our children a better chance.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of a series of petitions that have been brought to this House by people who are very seriously concerned about the state of child hunger in this Province and the need for schoolchildren to have access to a proper nutritional compliment in order to be able to learn properly in school.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know there are those who believe that a charity-based model ought to be the one that is put in force across this Province and that where communities want to provide charitable food donations to schoolchildren, they can do so. There are some, Mr. Speaker, who even talk about the deserving poor as opposed to the undeserving poor. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, where all that comes from but I do know that what is necessary in this Province is a program that ensures that each and every schoolchild is able to learn effectively in school.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are saving through changes in the school system - through school reform, through changes in school busing, through school consolidation, through a reduction in the number of teachers because the number of schoolchildren has diminished. We are saving many millions of dollars. In fact, the former Minister of Education said that we would save $8 million alone in school busing as a result of changes in the education system brought about by Term 17. Now, Mr. Speaker, some of that money ought to go to establish a program that ensures that our schools, like other countries, provide meals for children so that they can participate fully in school activities and learn properly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a number of studies done, a number of studies referred to in the Committee on Special Interests reported by Dr. Patricia Canning last Fall, indicating that this is a serious problem in this Province.

We do know, from facts revealed by the Newfoundland Dietetic Association yesterday - which I referred to in Question Period - that the ability of families on social assistance to provide adequate nutritious food for their families is impossible. It is beyond their means, beyond the ability of people on social assistance to provide sufficient food for their families without using up all of the money or practically all of the money that they have. Obviously, there are other needs over and above food that must be met - for clothing, for housing, for fuel, for other amenities that are required to properly live in this Province.

The figure that I used, Mr. Speaker, was for the city of St. John's. The cost in the City of St. John's to feed a family of four is 85 per cent of the basic social assistance. If you go outside St. John's, you go to rural Newfoundland, to Labrador, to areas where the transportation costs are higher, where the selection is less, where the economies of scale are fewer, than the cost is more prohibiting. So, Mr. Speaker, the need is fairly obvious. There is an opportunity here for some of the education dollars to be transferred over to help communities and help schools provide a school lunch program. We cannot rely on the charity-based model to produce a comprehensive program; it might be alright for a place which has lots of resources, lots of service groups, but what about a place, Mr. Speaker, that does not have any of those things, that does not have the social infrastructure, does not have the ability to produce such a program?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Education to speak to this issue and advise whether or not he is prepared to redirect some of the money that he is taking out of school/teacher allotment, out of school costs, out of the school busing program. Is he prepared to allot some of that money to a universal, comprehensive school program that is going to give the school children in this Province a better chance at benefiting from the education system they so desperately need in order to get themselves out of the situation that they find themselves in and have an opportunity to more fully participate in the benefits of the society that we are part of, Mr. Speaker? We are living in a very wealthy country. There is no reason for our schoolchildren to be hungry when they are trying to learn.

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

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

I am pleased again today to rise and support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, we know in this Province that poverty is a real, a significant and a prevailing problem that is faced by many, many families. We know that 20 per cent of all families in Newfoundland and Labrador live below the poverty line. We know that there are 40,000-plus children who go to school hungry every day. We know from studies that were done in the early 1990s by the Department of Health, studies done by the Department of Education, studies that are reflected in the Williams Royal Commission Report, studies that have been done by the group who conducted the study here for the Children's Interest Committee, studies done by Dr. Patricia Canning and many, many other studies that show that child poverty is a prevailing problem that is inhibiting young children from getting the kind of education and the kinds of life skills that they need.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to stop paying lip service to this. We have to look at our vulnerable populations. When we look at vulnerability, there is no person in our community as vulnerable as a child. A child is the most vulnerable person and a child cannot help it if he goes to the fridge and there is nothing there. Mr. Speaker, just in the last few days I have had to call upon the St. Vincent de Paul Society in my district to assist a family. Mr. Speaker, we see it in our districts every single day, and the teachers see it in their schools every single day, and parents who cannot provide for their children - they know what the pain is when they have to look at their child and say: no, you cannot have this or we cannot afford that particular item that the child might want.

Mr. Speaker, we know that child poverty is the one thing that is going to hold children back. Many children start school at age five and they are already significantly disadvantaged. Many children who start school at age five will spend years trying to catch up to other children because they have not had proper nutrition in their early childhood. That is all researched, it is self-evident and, what are we going to do about it? We have to look at some aggressive measures and while we compliment the government for putting more money into the school lunch program a little while ago, in reality this was just a tidbit, it was just a nucleus, just a beginning, just a core of what is needed to be done.

So until we can say we are going to have a comprehensive program that really is pro-active, starts at a very early age, and starts in some cases right at infancy, then we have to say that we in this Province are not doing what we should be doing, and the children of this Province will not have an effective voice in this Legislature until we, all of us together, stand up and say that we are not going to put up with child poverty anymore.

Mr. Speaker, we know the goals are there; but putting $150,000 a year into a school lunch program is not sufficient. It is just a little, tiny bit, it gives a signal. It pretends to be concerned, but in reality it does not address the issue in a comprehensive manner at all.

I agree with my colleague when he spoke, saying with respect to young children in his district, and in all the other districts here, if we do not address the issue then we are going to fall behind in this Province, in this Country, in terms of where our children are going to be going, in terms of the new and increased need for higher levels of education, because already we have systematically institutionalized and we have, by our actions, said it is okay to have child poverty as a feature of our society.

It is not okay. It never was okay. Therefore, until we can have a government that says we are going to do something aggressive about it in a pro-active manner, in an interventionist manner, in a manner which starts in early childhood, then we are not really going to address the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to take his seat.

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, Private Members' Day, and I believe the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is debated today.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to speak on the private member's resolution asking this government to do what Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have done as a result of harmonization. We have been the only Province that joined this agreement that has transferred the burden from the rich to the poor.

Now, as a result of harmonization, this Province has given up $155 million in tax revenue that we were getting into our coffers. The Finance Minister, in questions I asked in the House of Assembly on new tax measures they are going to bring in, indicated we will get $90 million extra. Under the current system there is a $245 million difference, so we are going to be out the difference. The minister has not explained why there was only $105 million difference as opposed to $155 million that the numbers add up to.

Maybe we will see this $50 million difference announced in some new tax measures tomorrow - that is a possibility - or new fees and licences like last year when they told us there were no tax increases but we ended up with tens of millions of dollars in new licences and fees.

Now, the burden has been shifted from essentials. I guess everybody who receives it is a customer of Newfoundland Power - the Harmonized Sales Tax increases the cost of electricity. People are now just starting to feel the effects. The same government that fought tooth and nail, at hundreds of thousands of dollars - I do not know but a quarter of a million dollars - against an increase in electricity to the people of this Province, turn around and increase it by 8 per cent; that more than doubles the taxes.

If you are going to harmonize tax and have a single, common tax base, that is good. I do not have a problem with that. That is not the concern that people have. I did have a big problem with the tax-inclusive pricing, and that was solved. I spoke in the House. The Minister of Finance was the only person who did a presentation that agreed with it, the only one in this Province - only one in Nova Scotia and one in New Brunswick, and they were the Finance Ministers. Nobody else agrees, not even businesses, not even private citizens of the Province.

Now, we have transferred onto the poor in this Province the burden from a Harmonized Sales Tax that is supposed to come into effect on April 1. If it is a policy of government to give up $155 million in revenues and re-allocate that into the social sector, whether it be on low-income families or in health care, or to serve some social function, that can be looked upon as a policy of government, to shift the resources for a social purpose. But that did not happen. Along with forfeiting $155 million in revenues, they shifted the burden onto the poor, the people on fixed incomes, the working poor of the Province, seniors on fixed incomes, on students, on young people trying to build homes, and on the people who need that money the most. That is where the burden shifted. If you want to go out and buy a car, you will be money in - the big ticket items. The common family out there today that is struggling to make ends meet cannot afford to go out on a regular basis and buy an automobile and spend money on various other such items.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bar of soap.

MR. SULLIVAN: We would need more than a bar of soap, I say to the minister. To clean up this government's act, we would need a lot more than a bar of soap. When we are looking at a bar of soap compared to what you pay on your light bill, there is a big difference, compared on children's clothing, I say to the minister. What will happen to a bar of soap? I can tell you, it will not disappear very fast at the price of a bar of soap, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What happens to them? They should go to 15 per cent, I guess. They should. What about the price of children's clothing, I ask the member? I would say to the associate finance minister, what about children's clothing? Or is he the finance minister? He is the only spokesperson in this House on finance; he must be the finance minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Junior finance minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, junior finance minister. He is being groomed for the job, I would say.

Now, who is going to benefit and who is going to be hurt? People who can afford the big ticket items are going to benefit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Education who taught in the classrooms of this Province and saw many individuals come to school every day who could not even afford to buy a lunch, who could not afford to buy decent clothing, the person who should have a social conscience, is now a member of the Cabinet that is bringing in - and crucifying people on low incomes.

I am calling on government tomorrow in the Budget to make an announcement that they are going to do like Savage, when his life is on the line in Nova Scotia - McKenna's life is not on the line in New Brunswick. Premier McKenna saw the need to shift; he saw the need to refund and rebate back to low-income people. This Province has not done it.

Let us look at who is going to benefit. Are seniors going to benefit, on fixed incomes? No, because seniors spend a fair portion of their income on basic necessities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have told the minister who is going to benefit. I have already stated that, I say to the minister. The minister needs another wake-up call. Those, like the minister, who get big salaries, who can buy the big ticket items, golf clubs -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will benefit from it. I find that resentful. I want to contribute more. I think the balance should be different. In fact, members of our caucus feel that it is unfair to shift the burden from the rich to the poor. I say it is wrong to shift it from politicians, from Cabinet ministers, and from members here in this House, and put it on people who can barely put food on the table. That is wrong. Savage did not agree with it in Nova Scotia, McKenna did not agree with it. They did something about it. This is the only province that did not.

People wanting to start a new home, young people who want to get into a new home, people with young kids, they are going to pay a bigger price. They are going to pay it on building materials and the overall cost of a home. The cost of a house is going to increase by 4 per cent to 5 per cent. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board refutes all the evidence, he refutes all the information. He was the only one out of hundreds of submissions - I went through submissions to the House of Commons committee. I read statements to the Senate. Every single person who made a submission on the tax-inclusive, except our minister, thought it was bad. This Province does not see it. They know the situation. They are just crucifying the people in this Province who cannot afford to pay the price.

There are many people, young kids today - and many parents are struggling to be able to enrol their kids into recreation programs, into sports programs, into hockey programs. They will go to their arena on April 1 and there is an extra 8 per cent tax on ice rentals. That extra 8 per cent comes out of the pockets of parents who cannot afford it. The rental goes up on an arena. You took away a $10,000 subsidy to arenas, and now the kids who avail of recreation programs are going to pay the price. The young families trying to get a start here in this Province wind up being discriminated against by government policy. It is they who are being affected by it.

I indicated it is not the money, that $155 million you are giving up. If you did not harmonize you would have $155 million more dollars, I say to the minister. Does the minister realize bad fiscal policy to satisfy the Prime Minister and the only two other Liberal governments left in this country? And they are disappearing by the month, I say to the minister. There is only Nova Scotia and New Brunswick left, and Newfoundland. Nova Scotia will be disappearing within the next year - running like a scared rabbit in Nova Scotia. We will soon find out. Prince Edward Island with a Liberal premier and an election coming, would not harmonize its tax. To give the impression that it is gone when it is just hidden is basically what happened.

Now, who else is going to benefit? When you can go out and get a fur coat cheaper, and you go out and buy children's clothing and pay more. When you put taxes on children's clothing, and double the taxes on children's clothing, and give a break of 25 per cent on the fur coat, there is something radically wrong with our fiscal policy and with taxation here in this Province. There is something dramatically wrong with it when on a $10,000 fur coat, you can get a reduction of $500, and a young kid's clothing, you put a tax on it and increase it, and double the taxation. It does not make sense.

This government has to come to its senses in dealing with the problems. You pick up your light bill, and during the phase-in period, the taxes there, you would almost want to be an accountant to decipher it. Come April 1 there will be - there are many low-income people in this Province who turn off the heat in the nighttime, they stay in the kitchen area with a wood stove, and they live in very cold houses; because they are on fixed incomes and they are seeing them being eroded. Thank God the inflation level is low. If not we would have a major problem. They are going to bed cold. There are children going to school hungry, there are children going to school without the clothing they need because they cannot afford it.

There needs to be a system whereby there is going to be a reallocation. That is all I am asking for in a private member's resolution here, quite simply: "that this Honourable House urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to enact a provincial annual income supplement program...." I am not specifying the amounts, just that they look at where the burden has been shifted onto those items, essential items; not optional items, I say to the hon. members. Not onto optional items, they are onto essential items. There should be some type of program to alleviate that burden.

Maybe the minister does not know what it is like to want or to be in need. Maybe he does not realize it. I deal with constituents on an annual basis, I know of many people out there who cannot afford to go and buy food for their kids. They are realities. If the minister does not know what I am for by now in this House, he has not been doing a very good job of listening. Because I have stated unequivocally, very clearly, what I stand for on any particular issue. I do not sit on a fence and beat around the bush. I agree with a single common tax base, one tax collector.

Here, this Province agrees to harmonize tax, when Prince Edward Island did not go in on the tax, and they got all the harmonized jobs in Prince Edward Island! The province that did not participate got the jobs - and our penalty. We have only half as many workers per capita in the federal public service in this Province as in the rest of Canada, and we (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do my own reading and do much of my own research, I say to the minister, very much so. I just wish the government would do a little bit of their own research.

Mr. Speaker, every single person out there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Can we have protection from that motor mouth across the House, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did `Clyde' tell you what to say?

MR. SHELLEY: Do you support the GST?

MR. SULLIVAN: Could we have protection from that motor mouth, Mr. Speaker, that motor mouth across the House? The master of hypocrisy, the person who wept on the steps of Confederation Building for the poor teachers in this Province and now he turns around and sticks a knife in their backs. That, we call hypocrisy at its finest, I say to the minister, hypocrisy. I assume he would be rushing off to the 4:30 new conference to see what his former colleagues are going to say today, all the good news they have for this Minister of Education, all the backslapping they are going to do.

MR. GRIMES: (inaudible) PEI.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister does not understand. He missed the point. Does the minister not realize that there are jobs over in Prince Edward Island? They have a great Premier in Prince Edward Island, a Premier who represents the people in the Province.

MR. GRIMES: You are talking about the GST centre, are you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Who?

MR. GRIMES: You.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know what you are talking about. The minister must be confused here. When he hears the word jobs he gets confused. It is only the loss of jobs that he can identify with and not the creation of jobs, I say to the minister. You are so long now cutting jobs, eliminating jobs, and looking for excuses in the Province here, that the minister does not even know what he is talking about.

The minister talked about bringing in a tax, bringing in a harmonized sales tax, to eliminate duplication in the system. And here they bring in a new insurance tax, a new tax on the private sale of vehicles, new tax collectors to go with the ones - we were going to economize, we were going to streamline our tax collection system but we did not do it, and we give up jobs out of this Province to other parts of the country because of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, for what? I say to the minister, for what? I agree with the minister when I say, for what? Another interesting point on the harmonization tax we also give up, with a $1 to $1.5 billion Voisey's Bay development, we have just given up the 12 per cent down to an 8 per cent tax on the capital assets of Voisey's Bay. We have lost that revenue by a harmonized tax. We have lost tens of millions of dollars by reducing the sales tax on the capital assets of Voisey's Bay and we are now only going to collect 8 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know nothing about Voisey's Bay.

MR. SULLIVAN: We know a tremendous amount about Voisey's Bay, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know anything about it because you are not involved in the meetings and discussions and do not know what is going on.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am assuming the five minutes came out of the minister's time.

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

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

It is unbelievable that after eight years of being in the House of Assembly I finally have been able to hear a speech whereby a member actually stood in this House of Assembly and argued about the fact that we should not lower taxes. Somebody actually stood up and attempted over fifteen or so minutes to explain to us why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should not see a reduction in their taxes, they should not come down from 20 per cent to 15 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who is doing their research but I have to tell you whoever it is has sorely let them down. The people of this Province are ready for a tax reduction, the first tax reduction that we have seen in this Province since 1949. It is the first time since 1949 that we have seen taxes go down and what we have is an Opposition who in their own right want to oppose, searching out for examples that they can thrown in front of a parade that they believe has started. Well, there is no parade. They have managed to single out electric utility costs. They have singled out new homes, and they believe that these are the items that are going to begin the parade throughout Newfoundland that they can now jump in front of.

They make big mistakes when they do that, because by singling out certain items they are willing to accept, in their own minds, that the people of this Province do not realize that we, as a government, have given back $105 million, have given back $105 million to the people of this Province. That money will be reinvested in the Province. That money will be spent by the people because it remains in their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how, when they single out certain items like the building of a new home, the cost of a new home to young couples who are trying to get started will go up dramatically according to their numbers. Well allow me to give them the benefit of a doubt that even part of their analogy is correct. They automatically accept the belief that no one who builds a new house will buy forks and knives. They believe that Newfoundlanders will go back to eating with their fingers. They believe that they won't cook in a pot. They believe that there will be no new dishes go into the house and yes, if the people who built that new house are lucky they will hold on to the old crates that they find at the backs of businesses because they won't buy any new furniture which also tends to happen when you buy a new house. There is always something new that comes into the new house. They won't accept the fact that there will be thousands of dollars in savings to those individuals because of that. They are willing to ignore the fact that people just might go out and buy something new for their new home. They ignore the fact that the rate has gone from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent.

It is also amazing, Mr. Speaker, how they are so quick to forget that people in this Province actually buy things other than clothing and pay light bills. They forget the fact that everything from furniture polish to furniture goes down, from Kleenex to toilet tissue goes down and from what I am listening to the other side in their speeches so far this afternoon, it sounds like they have already taken advantage of the reduction on laxatives. I think they have already taken advantage of that reduction. They forget that people will buy panty hose at 5 per cent cheaper. They forget that paper towels have gone down, that record albums have gone down, that pens and pencils that the students use have gone down, indeed, the paper itself that they use has gone down. It is so easy to ignore the fact that these items have gone down.

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day to help make up that $105 million that is going back into the economy, anyone in this Province who is making between $1 and $10,000 will actually see at the end of the year $185 saving. They will see that. If you are making more money chances are you will spend more so indeed the savings will go up. Those between $10,000 and $20,000 a year should save at least an additional $190 a year back in their pockets so that they can reinvest in the community. It is so simple to stand up and find one, two or three items that you think you can throw out into the public and that the public are going to be naive enough or indeed, uneducated enough that they would accept those two or three items. Well the people of this Province are very aware of the fact that there are $105 million that this Province will not take out of their pockets this year.

We are also forgetting the fact that businesses themselves now with flow-through tax will also see a reduction on many items. I have great faith in the business community and I have great faith in the pressure of the marketplace itself that those savings will be passed on; that those savings will be passed on to the individuals. Now some of them are waving some papers over there showing advertisements that say the price is going up and so on. I think at the end of the day all those companies will pass on the savings that they are able to garner themselves because of the flow through.

In selecting items, Mr. Speaker, it is so easy to forget that in actual fact many food items will go down. Granted, I will give you that the electrical cost will go up but we will see in the basic overall operation of a home for a family who is making somewhere in the area of $15,000 there will be as much as a $1,200 saving in the basic operation of an individuals home. Any furnishings that they should buy that year, even if they are minimum amounts, in terms of even spending as much as $550 will see reductions of thirty-five dollars. Household operations, if some $1,200 are spent, there will be as much as a ninety-dollar saving in their pockets that they do not have now. Indeed, including recreation, education, be it private transportation or public transportation, those costs can and will come down to the individual. One hundred and five million dollars will remain in the pockets of the taxpayers of this Province, and for some reason or another, the Opposition and the proponents for the resolution this afternoon are willing to ignore that.

The speeches that I have heard already today, and I am sure the ones -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: Oh, no trouble to oppose the resolution. The resolution is not built on fact, it is built on fiction.

The resolution is not willing to accept the fact that at the end of the day, that $105 million which will be re-injected into the economy is money that will remain in the pockets of all of the individuals that they have been able to list out whether the person is making $10,000 a year, $20,000 a year or more. Each individual, each family, will, at the end of the day, see savings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you table those figures.

MR. WALSH: No trouble to table the figures if you wish. I have some notes on them but I will be happy to table that because that is what I am quoting from.

What I am saying is, Mr. Speaker, the members who will not agree with the fact that the HST at the end of the day is a reduction in tax. We saw taxes go from the 1960s under a previous Liberal Government from approximately 7 per cent or 6 per cent, we saw the Progressive Conservative Government drive it to 12 per cent, drive it from what people could live with it up to 12 per cent. Now I see the same Party or the same group arguing about the fact that we are actually lowering taxes, arguing with us with the fact that, to take taxes down is something that we should be ashamed of. Well, we are not. We, as a government are proud of the fact that we are moving the actual tax from approximately 20 per cent down to 15 per cent, and by working with our counterparts in Atlantic Canada they, too, will see the benefits in an actual fact that it puts us on target with what has been happening in Quebec.

Quebec harmonized their tax immediately when the federal government put on the GST. They immediately harmonized the tax so, there is not just three provinces in Canada with a harmonized tax, there are indeed four provinces with a harmonized tax, all of them fully cognizant with the fact that at the end of the day, the people who live in their province will have more disposable income in their pockets, able to purchase more goods and by the mere fact that $105 million will go back into the economy, one would have to assume that because of that, we will see some job creation as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, to simply put forward a resolution because you see a parade that might be forming, to put forward a resolution that you believe people are going to line up behind, you are being naive in what you believe the people of this Province understand. The people of this Province are fully cognizant of the fact that taxes, taxes that they have been spending for the last eight, ten years are now coming from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent. Don't be afraid to allow the people of this Province to enjoy that extra income that they will now have at their disposal. Don't be afraid to allow the family whose income is in the neighbourhood of $10,000 a year, don't be afraid or willing to deprive them of that extra $185 that they will now have in their pockets to spend.

Why don't you stand and put forward the actual resolution that you believe in and that is, that the taxes should not be reduced!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALSH: That the taxes should remain at 20 per cent. Because in reality that is what you are saying!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WALSH: In reality, that is what you are saying. Leave the tax at 20 per cent; take as much money as you can from the pockets of Newfoundlanders. Well I will tell you, we aren't going to do that. We make no apologies for lowering the taxes in this Province for the first time in forty, fifty years. We make no apologies for that, and we make no apologies for leaving money in the pockets of Newfoundlanders, a total of $105 million that they will now have the opportunity to go out and have additional purchasing power, more disposable income. We make no apologies for that. We stand behind the decision because at the end of the day we know that the people of this Province will fully support the HST and the reduction in the provincial tax. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted today to be able to get up and speak on this very serious issue, the HST. The first thing we have to get to is the root of this whole discussion and debate to begin with. It is directly related to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island who was just on his feet a few minutes ago. It is the federal speech for the Member for St. John's East from when the election starts soon, probably in June.

Because they are going to have to defend this GST, and the root of this problem came exactly from that. Because this was the government, the federal government, which stood up and on public radio, public TV, all over this country, said: We will scrap the GST. That is where the root of this problem started. That is why Newfoundland and the other two Liberal provinces - now take note of that, it is quite obvious to me - are the only ones that are accepting it. As a matter of fact, the previous premier of Prince Edward Island even tried to duck out as soon as she could and get out of the mess. They wouldn't accept the Harmonized Sales Tax.

The truth is the root of this whole debate has started with the federal government which is about to call a federal election, and the Member for St. John's East, the MP for St. John's East, who the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island will be campaigning for, will have to write her speeches. Because he started the campaign some few weeks ago when the nomination process started, I say to the Member for Virginia Waters, when the campaign started back then. That is what the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island started talking about. He is getting the speech ready for the Member for St. John's East.

Because I am going to tell you, the quote made by the Liberal strategist in Ottawa was to say: Boys, if you think that the GST is not going to be an issue during the federal election then you are whistling Dixie. Because nobody believes in this Province or this country that the root of all of this came from the GST when it said it would promise of being scrapped. Now the Premier, a former minister with the Chrétien government, sits here in this House in this Province and says to us: Mr. Chrétien, bring it on down, we will take it all in for you. Mr. McKenna said the same thing. Mr. Savage over in Nova Scotia is going to meet his fate very soon. They are going to be picked off one by one by one, I will guarantee you.

That is the root of the problem, and there is no denying it. The Minister of Mines and Energy is going to have to run (inaudible). The Minister of Mines and Energy when he passes the first hurdle and becomes the official candidate is going to have to go out in June and defend this GST fiasco, because that is what it is called.

Let's get down to some specifics. I was so surprised that the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island absolutely doesn't know anything about this issue. He doesn't know it. I just had calls this morning from a group in Stephenville which - as a matter of fact, when I get up to my office there should be a fax, an example of an electricity bill. She said: Just forget about all the other issues for a second. She said: The electricity bill. She will fax it and I will table it in this House if she will allow me, in the next few days, to show a specific example of how the HST is going to hit home in this Province.

Her bill for this month, she said if she did the recalculations and went from 7 per cent to 15 per cent, her electricity bill - not Pampers and things that the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island was talking about - about her electricity bill. Something that everybody in this Province needs unless you are going to have a windmill out by your door is electricity. It will have a direct impact on electricity. A necessity, that is what it is, and it is a shame that the Member for Conception Bay East, or anybody who supports this bill, the HST, does not see that. It is going to hit directly in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when it comes to necessities.

What the member should realize is that the low-income people in this Province, whose disposable income accounts for electricity and children's clothes and gasoline, and things like that, they are the people who are going to be hit the hardest with this, and it is not going to stop there. If people in this House, people in this place here today, believe that it is not going to impact negatively on the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian, they are in a dream world, they are not living up to reality.

I came up with a specific example in my district of a low-income family. While the House was closed, I produced a specific example of a low-income family with an income of $9,300 a year. What we did was calculate their budget, what they spend on things like electricity, children's clothes and so on, and that family of two children, with $9,300 a year, the new HST coming in will bite into their budget anywhere from $500 to $700.

Imagine taking $500 to $700 out of a low-income family in this Province who earn only just over $9,000 a year. Now, that is not pulled out of the sky. That is coming directly from a person at whose table I sat and did up their budget for after the HST comes into effect. Mr. Speaker, they have to spend money on electricity, they have to spend money on children's clothes, and they have to put gas in their car. And all these other things you are talking about, shaving cream and Pampers and pencils and so on - I am talking about necessities. Every day you wake up, and every night you go to bed, you need electricity. That is where it is going to hit the most and that is where, after this is all over, people are going to sit back and say: Now we know where it hit.

This lady who called me this morning from Stephenville - representing, by the way, a group of people who are going to send me their electricity bills - said: Forget about all the other ones you are talking about. Look at this one, electricity, something we have to use every day. That is where people are going to be hit - right between the eyes. And every member in this House, who may be better off than a lot of people in this Province, they are going to be really affected when they get down to their budgets. And when you sit down with a family that has a $10,000 income and they start to look at their electricity bill for the month and all of a sudden they are losing - this lady in particular said $44 extra a month on her electricity bill. She has electric heat. Everything in her house is electric. That is the person who is going to be most negatively affected.

I also had a call today from my own district from a business person who is so confused about this that he thinks he is going to be shutting down his business. As a matter of fact, he guaranteed me he would be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Proper thing. So he should (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The minister says: So he should close down his business. Now, what kind of an attitude is that from a minister of a government in the House of Assembly here today? What an attitude, that he should close down his business.

I guess the lady who used electricity in her home should get a windmill for her lawn also, and when she goes to buy her children's clothes she should go and get second-hand clothes.

The minister, by the way, referred to long-term effect and this government - it will come back on them, there is no doubt about it, if the minister wants to talk about long-term. What happens in two years from now when the compensation money runs out for this transition phase, and the coffers of this Province - the government, trying to balance their budgets and do everything for health care, do not have that income; that we are down from 12 per cent to 8 per cent. Then how are you going to answer to your budget?

What was the answer from the Minister of Finance when we asked him that: What is going to happen in two years from now? He said: We are going to be into a boom then - things are going to be happening in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray for everybody's sake that he is right, because if he is not we are going to be in a lot of trouble. We might be walking into a Budget tomorrow that we might be able to get through, but I am going to tell you that he is not going to be able to walk through a budget in two years time if this boom that we are talking about does not happen.

Mr. Speaker, this is serious stuff, and the best thing to do, any time you make changes that are this dramatic, is to consult with people who are going to be affected the most.

I know some members in here, on both sides of the House, by the way, who have talked to some people, common-Joe people with low incomes and so on, and if they look at their budget and see where the HST is going to affect them, it is going to impact upon the necessities of their lives, not the fur coats and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I was in Corner Brook a little while ago and do you know what was for sale in the paper? Do you know what was for sale in the Western Star? There was a sale on pre-arranged funerals. Come, pre-arrange your funeral now. So, it is going to be cheaper to die and more expensive to live. That is what it comes down to. Imagine, advertising for pre-arranged funerals. `Come, save on the HST', the advertisement said. `Come, save on the HST and pre-arrange your funeral today'. What kind of advertising... What are we coming to in this Province, when we are going to have pre-arranged funerals now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you sign up?

MR. SHELLEY: Electricity bills, low income - no, I did not sign up, Mr. Speaker. I plan to live for a long time yet and hopefully by that time we will switch around this and scrap this HST and do something sensible like bring in a harmonized tax or a tax that we have always said we could agree on, one single tax.

The leader also acknowledged it and I agree with it but I am just saying it is a wrong one. It is a wrong deal with the federal cousins in Ottawa that we are going to go from 12 per cent down to 8 per cent to the coffers of this Province while the GST stays the same. The GST, the 7 per cent is still the same, Mr. Speaker. That is what bugs me about this whole process. The government basically caved in. The Premier of the day, a good colleague of the Prime Minister, went to Ottawa and he caved in. He said: Whatever it is, `Jean', we will take it. `Jean' said: You reduce your tax from 12 per cent to 8. The Premier said: No problem. What about the HST, `Jean'? `Jean' said: No, we are going to leave that as is. We cannot change that. We cannot change the coffers in Ottawa. You cannot expect us to do that, but we want you to do it `Brian' because I know you will do whatever we ask.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough, because what is going to happen in the short term, first of all, is that people who have to spend money on electricity and children's clothes and whatever, are going to be the people affected by it. And I still say that in the long term if we do not see this boom and, Mr. Speaker, I hope we do. I hope we do not have to get up and complain one little bit, that Voisey's Bay is going to give us everything, that Hibernia is going to flow and that we can stand up in this Province and the Minister of Finance can stand up in two years and say, we have balanced the budget. There is an increase to health care, so that we can take on the extra burden in health care. Our social programs are okay and our balanced budget is good. Now, Mr. Speaker, if he can do that and it is on record here today, in 1998, like the Minister of Finance said, I will be the first to stand and applaud and congratulate the minister, but what if it does not? Mr. Speaker, from an economist point of view there is a good chance it will not.

In two years when this $340 million compensation for us taking this hit runs out - and it is going to run out pretty fast, Mr. Speaker, the economy of this Province will have to grow by some 55 per cent to compensate for the losses that we are going to have in this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a scary thought. What I believe we are doing is gambling and it is a big gamble. The HST was brought in quietly under the demise of the GST in this Province. There is no hoopla. It went to Ottawa very quietly, Mr. Speaker. There is not a lot of noise about it, and they agreed and so did the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick. So did the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia but who else did, Mr. Speaker? Did Alberta? Did Ontario? Did B.C.? Did Quebec? No, they did not, Mr. Speaker. Do you know why they did not, Mr. Speaker? For one simple fact, they said: Mr. Prime Minister, you got yourself in this mess; you get yourself out of this mess.

What we are seeing here today, on March 19, is trying to get this done, covered up, finished with before the Member for St. John's East and maybe the Minister of Mines and Energy hit the campaign trail in June and say we have satisfied it, we have harmonized the sales tax. That is what is going on. I know what is going on. People know what's going on, too, and politically I guess, politicians hope they will listen. Let us get this done with now in March. By the time you hit the trail people will forget all about Chrétien saying he was going to scrap the GST because you will not see it, it will be HST here. But, Mr. Speaker, let me forewarn the members of the federal Liberal Party that it will not go away.

The quote in the Globe and Mail from the Liberal strategist in Ottawa, who very bluntly said, `If there is any Liberal federal candidate ready to run in this next election and he thinks the GST will not be an issue, he had better think again. Because, Mr. Speaker, people are not that stupid and naive anymore. I do not believe they forget that fast. I believe, what you are going to see is that people in this Province, in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick are going to say: Hold on Chrétien, you did not fool us. You said you were going to scrap the GST. It is not scrapped. As a matter of fact, besides not scrapping the GST you just added insult to injury. The truth is, now you are hitting us worse.

Who are they hitting, Mr. Speaker? To make sure people get elected, to make sure he covers up the GST scam, who is going to get hurt the most? The low-income and middle-income people in this Province, the people who look through their budget every month - and some of these families that have two people even, working, who look through their budget every month. They go down through and the first bill, their monthly electricity rate, that is the first thing they go through, Mr. Speaker, and there is no denying it. There is not a member who can get up here today and say that no - forget about all the other issues we talked about. Just ask a person, `How is your electricity bill going to be affected?' It goes from 7 per cent to 15 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

The lady today who called me representing this group said that her bill would increase by forty-four dollars a month just because we decided to harmonize the sales tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred dollars a year.

MR. SHELLEY: Five hundred dollars a year, the member just worked out. Imagine, $500 because we are going to cover up the GST in this HST racket, and that is what it is all about, it is at the root of it all, Mr. Speaker. Never mind things like shaving cream and if your child takes part in recreational hockey and those things, they all go up, too, Mr. Speaker. The fact is, that this lady who called me this morning and other people are asking: What is going on with this HST? We do not know very much about it. And we raised the questions here in the House but the truth is, the media had not even reported on most of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SHELLEY: The media had not reported on it for some strange reason. I do not know why that is, I guess it is bought off like everything else in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some strange reason.

MR. SHELLEY: That is right. Some strange reason, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister. The truth is, the GST is at the root of this, it started, and the truth is again, that there is a federal election coming up, they want to make sure that the Prime Minister can say: Oh look, we have solved it, there is no GST in Newfoundland now, they have their harmonized sales tax. It should not be called harmonized sales tax, the HST, it should be called hidden sales tax or hide the GST is what it should be called. Because the low-income people in this Province will be the ones to pay and the Province, as a whole, will be the ones to pay in the long term if this Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: - (inaudible) to ninety-eight, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few, brief comments with respect to the private member's motion that is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have been having great difficulty on this side of the House in trying to get some consistent message from the Opposition, particularly through the Leader, as to where they really stand on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that even in the private member's motion that is before us today, even now, there continues to be confusion in terms of the view put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I take it, in what they want to propose. Because in fact, Mr. Speaker, in one voice, the Leader says when asked - because I asked him several times myself: Do they really believe there should be a single tax? The answer is: Yes, they believe there should be a single tax. Do they think then, that a harmonized tax is the right approach? Yes, they think the harmonized or single tax is the right approach but it is just that this one is wrong because, I guess, we thought it up.

Now, if they thought it up it would be a bit different, I suppose, it would be okay. So they like the idea but, in the meantime, when questioned further, he says: No, do not do it at all right now, because by doing this he acknowledges that we are going to leave $105 million in the hands of individuals to choose to spend it how they see fit. It is $105 million less that the government will take in. So his approach, when questioned further along that line is: the government should keep that money and use it to help poor families and put it into health care, and help with school lunch programs and keep all the parks open, do not privatize any. Because everything that comes up, they want to keep everything the way it is. I think that they do understand that the government, no matter whether it would be them or us, do not have the money to keep everything exactly the same as the way it is in the government system today.

I believe they even admit from time to time that they understand that, but still for all, no matter what the cause and no matter what the issue, they want everything left unchanged. So with respect to this issue you get the double-talk and the double-speak from the Leader of the Opposition in whose name this particular private member's motion is here saying: We believe in a single tax but we do not believe this is the right one and we do not believe you should do it now. So what he is telling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is that the official position of the Opposition Party is that they do not believe that the basic tax structure for consumable goods in Newfoundland and Labrador should decrease from 19.84 per cent to 15 per cent.

He is stating on behalf of that party that if they were the government, they would leave the sales tax, the combined sales tax in Newfoundland and Labrador at 19.84 per cent. And the researcher they have working for them, who used the line first, I believe, on an Open Line Show where I heard about it: will reduce the tax on a fur coat and put up the tax on children's clothing; it is a nice catchy line, it has a bit of a ring to it. But the reality is, you can pick an example like that, Mr. Speaker, but somehow, somewhere along the way, there is a government that is saying: We will go to this harmonized tax regime on April 1 and leave $105 million in the hands of individual consumers.

Whether people choose to believe it or not, the officials in the Department of Finance and elsewhere are professionals in this area, trained in this area. Tax deliberations and so on are what they do, they have degrees in this area, and they are accountants by nature. They are not Open Line critics who become researchers for the Opposition and pretend to have an expertise in just about anything, as long as the expertise concludes that no matter what the issue and no matter what the proposal of this government, it is wrong. The only criterion you need now to do research for the Opposition in this House of Assembly is to come up with a conclusion that no matter what the issue is, whether it is a social policy, whether it is a fiscal matter, whether it is a very minor individual decision, whatever this government decides to do, the research has to conclude that it is wrong.

I know we are wrong sometimes, but I have not yet met anybody in my life who is wrong 100 per cent of the time. I have not met too many people who are right 100 per cent of the time. But the researcher for the group over there - and she gave copious notes to the Leader of the Opposition today. He got a little bit sidetracked, he tried to make up some of his own statements, so I fear he had to leave the Legislature and go upstairs because they are having quite the racket up there now, I am sure of it - that he came down here and actually strayed from the notes that were prepared by the researcher and he got it all convoluted.

As a matter of fact, to make the point with respect to the confusion and where they will not give a clear answer as to where they stand - they think there should be a single tax, not this one; they think taxes should go down, but not now, they have to stay at 19.84 per cent, even in the motion itself, in one of the `Whereases' - it would break their heart to write a `Whereas' even acknowledging that some items must be going to decrease in price if there is going to be $105 million left in the hands of individuals. Even if it happens to be a person who bought a fur coat, or a car, they are going to keep some money. I mean, these are individuals in our society, too. They are going to keep some money.

The analysis by the people who work for the government, some of the same people who used to work for the members opposite, or people of that party when they were in government, some of the same officials have done an analysis saying that comparing all income levels there is a savings in this particular tax change.

In the motion itself they could not put in any `Whereas' that says: Whereas some prices will decrease. No mention of that. Whereas some prices will go up, whereas this will happen. Then it says: "whereas the chairperson of the Senate of Canada Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has publicly urged the participating provinces to enact a provincial rebate system similar to that enacted by the Federal Government with respect to the Goods and Services Tax." That is in the preamble to the motion, suggesting that they probably think that is a good idea, that there should be an HST rebate just like there is a GST rebate.

But then, instead of following on and supporting that, they propose something different. They use as part of the `Whereas' in building the motion that they really like this notion of a provincial rebate system similar to the GST rebate, but they do not then say: Be it resolved that we have a provincial HST rebate. That is not what the motion is. They praise up the rebate system in the motion, and then they resolve that we should not have a rebate here, though. It is a good idea. The Senate Committee says we should think about it. But because their researcher concludes that even though the Senate Committee says is a good idea that we should have a rebate, their proposal is that we should have a provincial annual income supplement.

Now, that is a different creature from a tax rebate. They are completely different creatures. Income supplements applied means that they are applied to families that may never access a tax rebate system because they might not be impacted by it at all. A tax rebate for any tax is a very different creature from a general income supplement program. So again, even in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, they do not know for sure what they want, whether they want a tax rebate or whether they want some kind of annual, general income supplement program. They have to make up their own minds, so, I guess, maybe they will go back and see what happens and have another discussion of it, and before the end of the day the leader might come down and even amend his own motion for all I know, because he has been that ambiguous and unclear about what he is proposing at this point in time that it would not surprise me at all if that happened before the end of the day.

The impact on families, again, just for the record. The work done through the Finance Department indicated that families with incomes less than $10,000 a year, which are the working poor and families on social assistance, their average annual sales tax saving as a result, from a generally applied consumption tax that is at 19.84 per cent that goes down to 15 per cent, as indicated by my colleague the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, before, the first consumption tax decrease in Newfoundland and Labrador since Confederation, that it shows in the analysis done on a typical basket of goods that a family would purchase in the run of a year, that the annualized savings for families below $10,000 would be $185 as a result of the change in this tax.

Now, the indication given by the Minister of Finance is that they will still further study the notion as to whether or not, because some people have questioned that particular part of the analysis, whether or not there could possibly be some questions with respect to that analysis that was given by the officials, and if there seems to be an error in some way, that he will certainly consider -and he has been on the public record as saying, he would consider making some kind of a statement in the Budget, which will happen tomorrow, as to whether or not there needs to be some kind of attention paid to that particular issue.

There is nobody on this side of the House that wants to impose any particular hardship on the lowest income earners, and the poorest amongst us in Newfoundland and Labrador. The rest of the ranges clearly show that income ranges from $10,000 to $20,000 show an annualized saving of $190, $20,000 to $30,000 $370, and so on. So, it showed in the analysis that was done, and was shared with all the Cabinet and all the caucus on this side of the House, that every income level would be a beneficiary, and that is why there is $105 million left in the hands of the consumers and not in the hands of the government.

But, now, again in the confusion the Leader of the Opposition stands up in one breath and says, do not bring this change in on April 1. I have heard him make the point myself several times, that the government should change its mind altogether. We should scrap it and we should not have HST, a harmonized sales tax on April 1. He is saying it is the wrong one, because we are doing it, of course, and not them. They would do something but they have no idea what it really is. We should not do it at all. We should leave the $105 million not in the hands of individuals but government should take it. That is what he is on the record as saying, that government should take the $105 million and keep it. We should not lower the tax at all, but in the meantime while he states that publicly, while he has said it here in this Legislature in his preamble to questions in Question Period, while he has said it in speeches around the Province in places like Grand Falls - Windsor when he went out and laid out the party's platform that nobody listens to because they know he will not be the leader in the next election.

There is no point in listening to him because he will not even be around for goodness sake. If they want any chance at all of trying to win he will not be around. Instead of then putting a motion in saying, scrap the HST and leave the sales tax combined at 19.84 per cent, which is what he says in his speeches, he turns around here and brings in a motion which says: urge the government to enact a provincial annual income supplement to offset the consequences of the implementation of the HST. Now, he is telling us in this motion to go ahead and do it. He says, go ahead and bring in the HST but bring in an income supplement program with it.

Again, he is saying, not only in the motion is he saying two different things, but in all of his public representation on the issue he says two completely different things again. One being leave the tax system alone, government should take the money; keep the $105 million. The only way you can keep the $105 million, by the way, is to not have a harmonized sales tax. If government is going to keep the $105 million we cannot have a harmonized sales tax of any description, so that is the official position of the Leader of the Opposition when he speaks.

Maybe that is what he is saying when he says it by himself. I do not know if this is what he believes himself or if this is what his policy analysts believe, but one or the other they are confused. When he speaks for himself he either says, bring in an income supplement or he says do not do it. One of them he is saying for himself and the other one he says because he is up now trying to mend the big rift with the policy advisor, because he insulted the policy advisor today by actually varying from the notes he was given and blurting out some things that he thought himself. So there is an awful racket going up upstairs at this point, and I hope he is in good enough shape to come back and conclude the debate later on.

We are so confused about what he is really proposing that I would expect the Government House Leader is going to suggest we vote against it for the time being because there are two things presented in this motion. One is a rebate system; the other one is an income supplement program, which is different, and there is another public statement by the Leader of the Opposition saying that we should not do it at all; we should keep the money; we should keep the $105 million.

So when we get clearer direction from the Leader of the Opposition as to which of the three things they would really like for us to consider, and which of the three, if any - because there might be a fourth or fifth thing by then - that they would ever do if they ever became the government, then we might be able to vote for it. But right now we are so confused that we really cannot deal with this, and I am sure the Government House Leader is going to suggest that this side of the House vote against the motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: He might have a new policy advisor, which would give him a new direction.

MR. GRIMES: This is very true, too. The other thing is, following the meeting that is going on at this point in time, we will either probably have a new leader in the House or a vacant seat, or we might even have a new policy advisor for the Opposition, because I think really they are short-changing themselves. They should let their policy advisor go back to full-time on the Open Line where she had a bit of credibility, because now when she phones up everybody knows that she is a paid, hired mouthpiece for the Progressive Conservative Party. Therefore she cannot have the great credibility she had before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to make these few comments with respect to the issue.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion before the House today with respect to an attempt to ameliorate the consequences of the new Liberal government GST, which they have renamed the HST.

This motion, I support wholeheartedly. It is a good social democratic motion. It represents recognition of the non-inequitable effect of the HST on lower income people. I have to say that I am shocked to hear comments from members opposite, particularly the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island, who never once addressed the burden of this motion that there is, in fact, an attempt here to decrease the consequences to lower income people for the consequences of the increases that are going to be caused by this tax.

I am very surprised that the Minister of Education would defend an allegation that this tax is going to benefit everybody. He says he has an analysis. Yes, he says, he has an analysis and a study that has been shared with the members opposite in caucus - it has not been tabled in this House - that alleges that people who are earning $10,000 or less will save an average of $160 on this tax, based on a bundle of goods and services that are purchased by people in that income group.

Mr. Speaker, I defy this government to lay that analysis on the Table of this House for inspection, because I do not think it is possible to justify what they have said.

Let me give an example. A family who lives on $10,000 has $850 a month to spend, less than that, less than $850 a month to spend. Now, what do they spend it on? I suspect they spend a few hundred dollars on rent. I suspect they spend perhaps $300 or $350 on rent. No HST on that, no GST on that, no PST on that. No difference, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that they spend several hundred dollars a month on food. Unless they have other plans to amend this act I don't think there is going to be any HST on food. So I don't see any affect on the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I suspect if they have a nutritious food basket, Mr. Speaker, they have to spend at least $100 a week on food for a family of four. No GST on that. I suspect that if they are like everybody else they have to heat their house, and they are either going to use electricity or they are going to use fuel. What do you find? You find that there is an increase of 8 per cent on fuel and an increase of 8 per cent on electricity. So how do we find a savings of $160?

The Member for Baie Verte talked about a family with a heating bill from electricity where the increase is going to be $44 a month. If that family earns less than $10,000 a year, where is the family going to save? That increase, that $500 increase annually, where is that going to be saved to net them out a $160 gain?

I don't buy it, not for one minute. The study, or the alleged study, or the alleged analysis, that has been talked about in this House, never been presented, never shown us the breakdown, never tabled in this House; hiding behind some figures that have never been revealed to the public because they can't stand up to scrutiny. They can't stand up to scrutiny because they aren't factually accurate.

There is no question that a family that is on an income less than $10,000 a year is going to have an increased burden as a result of having to pay an increase of 8 per cent on goods and services that are now going to be attracted by this tax. If the government believed otherwise - and other governments have said this too, by the way, this is not the only government that has tried to make the case. The Government of New Brunswick has tried to make the case that everybody is going to gain. The Government of Nova Scotia has done the same thing. But none of them, just like this government, have ever tabled the analysis, the breakdown, of what goods and services go into this mix to make the alleged decrease.

I know there are some ambiguities in the position that the Progressive Conservative Party has taken. Their national party introduced the GST, so I understand that. I understand there are some ambiguities and ambivalence about that. I know from members opposite, including the Government House Leader, they have a sore spot about this issue, because they all campaigned with the `silent seven' last year. They all worked hard to elect the `silent seven' to Ottawa on this kill the GST platform. The Member for St. John's West was out there working for Jean Payne last year, insisting that she be elected on a kill the GST. Three years ago in 1993 the Member for St. John's West was out knocking on doors trying to elect Jean Payne to go to Parliament and to fight, to go to Parliament and to implement the Red Book, along with Sheila Copps, to rid the country of the GST. I know the Member for St. John's West was out there knocking on doors for Jean Payne last time, convinced that Jean and the other `silent six' who got elected were going to rid the country of the GST.

I know it is a sore spot for members opposite, having worked hard to elect those people who in 1993 went to Ottawa on a mandate to get rid of the GST. I know that they get upset when people remind them of that. They do not want to be reminded of the fact that they elected the `silent seven' to Ottawa to do nothing to stop the decrease in revenues to this Province, to do nothing to stop the destruction of the Canada Assistance Plan, to do nothing to stop the destruction of the established programs in financing, to do nothing to defend the needs of the people of the Atlantic Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know it is a sore spot for them to have to bow down now and implement this program in order to convince, in order to try to convince, people that somehow Jean Chrétien and Jean Payne and Bonnie Hickey have met the mandate, that they have met the mandate somehow or other.

I know they were out campaigning for the last time. I saw the member knocking on doors. I saw the hon. member knocking on doors, trying to convince the people of Newfoundland that they were going to get rid of this GST. The hated GST they called it, the hated GST implemented by the cousins of our friends opposite. I know it is a sore spot for them. Now they have to bow down to Jean Chrétien and implement this new GST. I am surprised they are not even going to expand it to cover TAGS payments; they are not going to put HST on the TAGS payments.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple opportunity for members opposite to at least try to ameliorate the effects of this HST by supporting this resolution, because this resolution offers at least some assistance to the people whose tax burden is going to be increased.

It is very popular these days - the Liberals talk about it, the Tories talk about it in Ottawa, the Reform Party talks about it - tax reduction. To the extent that it reduces the taxes for the wealthy, it is a tax reduction; but why can't this party opposite stand on their feet and support the people who are going to be affected most badly by this? Why can't they do that? Why do they have to stand over there, sit over there and bray? All they can do is bray. They cannot stand on their feet. They cannot stand up and support the people who are going to be affected by this. They cannot even listen. They are afraid to hear the truth. They will not even acknowledge that the cost of electricity will be increased by 8 per cent as a result of this measure.

The Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island is talking as if the people of this Province are going to be lined up on April 1, embracing the new HST, ready to pay an additional 8 per cent for electricity, lined up at the gas pumps for an additional 8 per cent, lined -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are dying to pay the additional 8 per cent on the necessities of life, for heat and fuel. They are very anxious to pay this extra burden.

I wish this government would be honest enough to table any analysis that shows the items included in that study, that alleged study that suggests that people who are earning under $10,000 are going to save $160 a year. I do not believe it, and I do not believe that anyone over there can justify it and defend it because it does not exist. If they would table that study and show us the items that were supposedly included in that, I think they will be shown to be wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of noise in the Chamber is absolutely unacceptable. The Chair has recognized the hon. member, and would like to hear some of the things that he has to say in the debate. I will ask the members to my left if they would please give him the opportunity to continue.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a shocking display on the first day that our new Sergeant-at-Arms is in the House to witness the display, the lack of decorum and respect for people speaking.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is one which identifies and recognizes the fact that people are going to be affected in different ways by this tax. The Minister of Education was at pains to make some sort of splitting hairs over the wording used here, whether it is a provincial annual income supplement as opposed to the GST rebate. Now, Mr. Speaker, whether it is called a GST rebate or whether it is called an income supplement or whether it is called whatever, it is designed to compensate people who will be at the lower income scale losing money as the result of this new tax because it imposes that tax, in particular, on items such as fuel and electricity which were not covered by provincial sales tax.

Now insurance premiums are another, Gasoline is another. These items, Mr. Speaker, are ones that ordinary people use and need. It is people of the disposal incomes that buy other goods that are going to be getting the tax break, Mr. Speaker, not the people at the lowest income level. This is a very simple act, Mr. Speaker, a very simple resolution. The other provinces who have implemented this harmonized sales tax have been required to implement such a measure, Mr. Speaker. This government doesn't have the compassion necessary to introduce a similar rebate to people who are going to be adversely affected.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is up and I expect, I suppose, that hon. members opposite will - some of them over there will - have the courage to support this resolution.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say just a few words about this motion that has been put forward.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the NDP speak about the social conscience. You know I was reading the paper the other day and I saw the Prime Minister of Canada was in BC visiting the British Columbia NDP Government as a matter of fact. It is a cross-Canada tour, getting around to see all the people of Canada. Anyway, he went to visit the Premier of British Columbia, the hon. Glen Clarke who is the New Democratic Party Leader of the BC Government. Do you know what he went to see him about? He went to see him about a policy that they have in BC which says that if you move to BC, you have to be a resident of BC for three months before you can collect welfare.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Oh, yes. In British Columbia three months you have to be a resident before you can collect welfare cheques.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the point that he is making is no longer true because it has been changed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - and that it was implemented in order to avoid the onslaught of people leaving Alberta because they were cut off by the Alberta government but he also knows that it is not relevant to the particular motion before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It is simply a disagreement between two hon. members.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get to the point. The point is this, that when we get up - and we all have a social conscience in this House of Assembly - we all try to work hard and we all try to serve our constituents. Given all the fiscal pressures on governments today, different policies are enacted and so on and you try to do the best you can. As a member of the House you serve your constituents and a lot of us, we have urban ridings, we have rural ridings and in each particular circumstance people on low incomes are having a tough time. We are trying to rejig our policies but when someone gets up in the House and says, I have all the answers, I have the only social conscience, Mr. Speaker, and our party has the only social conscience then I just want to point out that there is an example in Canada of the same party of the government of the NDP, that had a policy that you had to be a resident for three months once you moved there before you could collect social assistance. That was a New Democratic Party policy, so at the end of the day, the party in British Columbia had so much pressure from the members of the New Democratic Party, just recently as a matter of fact, they had a convention and there was so much pressure from the membership of that party that finally, the Premier, the Hon. Glen Clarke, a very pleasant fellow, very much a centrist and so on and a fellow who works hard, he finally changed his view on the policy, but he did change his view when the Prime Minister of Canada came down and gave him an extra $60 million to use to help deal with the funding.

So you know, the Prime Minister of Canada went in and met with the hon. Glen Clarke, they had a very reasonable conversation. As a matter of fact, I think the hon. Glen Clarke then said some nice words about the Prime Minister of Canada. $60 million I think it was and I think, hopefully he would have given more. I would hope that we can find as much assistance as possible within the means of our own Province and within the means of our own government and with the federal government. The hon. Minister of Social Services, Mr. Speaker, is working really hard I must say to do what she can to represent this government and its people and the interest of people who are having a difficult time on low income.

She is working hard to put together a policy and has been leading the way. As a matter of fact, she is the Chair of the Social Services ministers in Canada this year and has been working with the federal minister for income security, looking at some options to try to make sure that there is enough income going to individuals because that is what we have to do. We have to get through the bureaucracies and make sure that income can get to individuals for people to live and that is the goal. The goal is to ensure that there is a safety net in Canada. We have one of the greatest places on the planet, Mr. Speaker, to live in but we also have to straighten out and insure that people who need income would be able to get it and that the policies, be it our provincial government or the federal government, that will be able to ensure that people can get their funding and get income to live on and so, you know, we all have that aspiration, Mr. Speaker, to work for our constituents.

We all are working on it individually as MHAs, we are working hard trying to return the calls of people and going to see them and understanding the frustrations that they have and we are trying to, at the same time, get a tax policy that does not add any burden to people who have a low income, to low income earners, so that we can get our economy going at the same time and that is a delicate balance. But this is also a Liberal Government, one which will reflect, Mr. Speaker, the values of making sure that people come first, that people get an income that is a safe income for people and, Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if it were more and hopefully we can get more income for people, but the best income, Mr. Speaker -

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill- Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: The member did not mention that the federal government took $7 billion out of social programs in the last two years in terms of what is being done for people who have low income. Perhaps he should mention that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Hon. members are not in a position to dictate what other hon. members say or do not say when they engage in debate.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, you know, I listened to the hon. member when he was speaking and I will listen again whenever he speaks again without interruption, but I say, it was well recognized that the federal government has had to deal with the deficit, Mr. Speaker, and you know, it is a good thing they did deal with their deficit problems and maybe, Mr. Speaker, individually or even within governments we may not have always agreed with the way that the federal government has dealt with the deficit but at the end of the day, they had to deal with it and we have had to try to make sure that we can have a good, strong social safety net for our people and that is what we are all working on collectively, to put together a good strong safety net.

So when you look at bringing any tax changes you have to make sure, we have to make sure, that our policy will reflect not only a fair taxation policy but will also reflect that it will have the least impact, the minimal impact, no impact, on individuals who have a low income, or are on fixed incomes, because there are many people who are on fixed incomes who are struggling to survive in our society. We have to be cognizant, in any moves that we make within any of the taxation policies or revenue policies that any of the governments, federally or provincially, are going to bring, that we deal and understand that situation.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the members on this side of the House understand that. They live it every day in the sense of understanding the people who are trying to create a living for themselves, to create an income, to get employment, to create a job, to find an income and to create a future for themselves. We are cognizant of that.

We are working with the people of this Province, along with members of the Opposition, and I am optimistic and hopeful that as we go forward with some of the changes that have to be made we will reflect and understand and ensure that the policy meets the needs of people who need it, be it income or other public services that we need, because there are a variety of public services that are put forward on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province, through the government of this Province, a whole range of social services, of public services, that are very important for the people, people who are disabled, people who are challenged, people in the school systems who are challenged. There are a lot of programs that the government has on behalf of the taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying for the programs, and we have to ensure that we keep as many - and put forward a new and innovative - rejig our programs to ensure that we have programs that meet the need. So when it comes to income programs it is the same way.

The Minister of Social Services has been making a very dedicated effort to ensure that a policy is put forward in the next few weeks that reflects that idea, that reflects the want of this government to ensure that people will have an income, that they will have some security, and also that they will have something further to look forward to as they try to get into and work towards helping create an economy in this Province, because that is what we are all trying to do at the end of the day. We are all trying to figure out a way to make this place a better place to be, to make it a better place for all of us to live, to make sure that our kids have a good opportunity to grow up.

Mr. Speaker, that is going to be there now and it is going to be there in spades in the next few years as other economic development kicks in. But at the end of the day our effort has to be to ensure that people in our society who are struggling to survive get as much help as we possibly can give, that we should give as much as we can, to ensure that people get as much help as they can get to help move ahead. There are many people that have moved ahead, and there will be more in the future, but we have to make sure there is a basic quality of life that people have in this Province, and we are going to do the best with the resources that are available to the people.

I am confident that the Minister of Social Services for this government is going to ensure that a proper policy is in place, to ensure that people are treated as fairly as possible, given all of the circumstances that we are facing today because of the past spending practices in the last number of years.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time and your attention as always.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a couple of minutes today to talk about my colleague's motion, of course, and to support the motion. It has been very interesting in the last couple of days to hear at least two Cabinet ministers refer to somebody by the name of Sue. Now, I don't know which Sue they are really referring to. I don't know if it's like in the song, `The Boy Named Sue', or what Sue it is exactly, but they are very, very concerned about somebody by the name of Sue.

I would like to say to those two members, and to others, that maybe they should be more concerned about King Malcolm. Now, King Malcolm rode in here on the white horse -

AN HON. MEMBER: Premier Malcolm.

MR. FRENCH: Maybe Premier Malcolm, but he rode in here on the white horse from Ottawa, and he is up there now with his scissors out and he is cutting and cutting and cutting. They must have cut the horse. It is too bad that we really did not save the horse so we could send King Malcolm back to wherever he came from, hopefully Ottawa or maybe even further than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fogo Island.

MR. FRENCH: Maybe he came from Fogo Island or maybe he came from LaPoile. Maybe he came from St. John's. I will not take much time today but I am very concerned, and I guess I have a right to be concerned. If they are concerned by somebody by the name of Sue, then I am certainly concerned about somebody by the name of Malcolm, and there are a lot of people in this Province over the next few days that are certainly going to be concerned about Malcolm, or Gerry, or whoever else might be there. I listened today, Mr. Chairman, and watched this tax, and I know what this tax will do to us at the end of the day. I have to put on my glasses because I get a bit worried when one of my colleagues is sitting over there in the back making me a bit nervous. I am glad you are sitting in Wally's seat.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I heard the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island talk about this particular tax and how it is going to work. I would like to advise the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island that he now has further to come to get to work, and I would like to say to him that at the end of the day this will probably add another five or six cents on his purchase of gasoline. It will probably add, not probably, but will add more money onto all our light bills. It will add more money onto all our children's clothing.

It is very interesting to note that in Ottawa yesterday, or the day before that some report came in that said there was no collusion between oil companies. What a crock of garbage. These fellows have fixed more prices in the past number of years than they can ever shake a stick at, and now this will go up again. I am going to save that speech for another day because I will tell this House one of these days about collusion in the oil industry. I spent ten years in that particular business and if anybody thinks that the oil companies in this Province do not fix prices, believe you me, they fix prices.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. FRENCH: No, I was not allowed to fix them, but the oil companies certainly are fixing prices and not only in this Province, I would suggest, but all across this country. One of these days, hopefully in this session of the House, I will have time to talk about that, and will certainly relate some stories to this House about a company that I used to represent.

Anyway, back to the taxes. I just want to say here that I support my colleague's motion today. I think it is a motion we should all support, and I hope that this tax is stopped. I hope that it does not get through the Senate and it certainly should never have gotten through this House. I think we spent countless hours talking about that tax, so I leave it for now, and just say that I support the motion of my colleague for Ferryland.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Private Member's Resolution put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose it tries on behalf of the Opposition to perpetuate the myth. They are trying to have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. They are trying to suggest that even though this is a tax break for the people of the Province that it isn't. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition recently when he was speaking on provincial affairs I had a hard time understanding. He kept talking about how this was going to be costing everyone more money and then in the same breath he spoke of the fact that this was going to cost us $150 million a year. So, it is difficult to understand how you can argue a point on both sides and still be right. How can you say that this will cost the Treasury $150 and suggest that it is other than a tax break for the people of the Province?

It is without any kind of clarity that the Opposition has tried to make the case that this will not benefit the people of the Province. So if they were speaking in a way that we could see their argument as being of any validity, maybe we could give some consideration to the premise on which they brought this forward.

I look at the Opposition fiscal plan and I have kept my copy of it here and I have passed it around. Members of the government have of course the Opposition fiscal plan printed on page 6 of Friday, March 14, The Evening Telegram and that Opposition fiscal plan says that they advocate the attaining of an equitable deal regarding equalization. That's fine. That's all well and good, Mr. Speaker. They also say that they oppose the introduction of a harmonized sales tax which diminishes the Province's revenue by an additional $150 million. Now, the problem is that they have acknowledged in that comment, in that fiscal plan that has been presented so ably there by the Opposition in The Evening Telegram, they have acknowledged that it is a tax break for the people of the Province.

They do suggest, to be fair, that it will not benefit those people in the Province at different income rates. People in the lower income brackets will not benefit as much as those in the higher income brackets. Well that I suppose is a matter of course. People at a higher income level pay more tax and therefore benefit more by a tax break then those at a lower income tax bracket, those who earn less income. That is a standard case. It is without argument. Who could dispel that? Who could suggest other than that being accurate? Now some would say that that would mean that those in the lower income brackets will be hurt more by it. Well it is just that they will receive less actual benefit from it and maybe if the budget holds some promise there will be some addressing of that situation, maybe not, we don't know. That is all of course a decision yet to be brought forward by the Minister of Finance and possibly there will be some addressing of that issue but to look at the resolution as put forward by the hon. member, I don't see how we can support it, Mr. Speaker.

It is a matter that they speak of us enacting a provincial annual income supplement program to help compensate low and fixed income families for the added expenses they will incur as a consequence of the implementation of the HST. So therefore to spend more money in addition to the money that we are already giving up in tax breaks. So, on top of the $150 million savings that we are giving to the people of the Province, to spend more in addition to that and really I don't see how we can justify that. On top of that, the Opposition would have us give a general tax break to the people of the Province. As their Tory cousins in a couple of other provinces are suggesting tax breaks as a means of reviving the economy.

The Tory Opposition here has suggested that they advocate a progressive tax regime which eliminates the payroll tax allowing employment growth and advocate decreasing personal taxation through a tax credit system which encourages local investment and increasing disposable income. It sounds like this was written by Jean Charest. I think that this is probably a prelude to the federal election campaign and probably Jean Charest is writing the Tory fiscal plan for them in the Opposition over there just so that they are singing from the same hymn book.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Well there is a similarity I suppose in the approach that has been put forward by those who draft the Opposition fiscal plan. I am sure that the midnight oil was burning brightly in the Opposition offices on the fifth floor in coming up with the response to The Evening Telegram criticism that they did not have a fiscal plan. They have one. It is here now and it is in The Evening Telegram for all to see. Maybe they should see that it gets published in The Western Star and all of the Robinson-Blackmore papers as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Well, I would really like to compare it to the Blue Book because, as hon. members might know, if we were to implement the balanced budget by the year 2000 approach that was envisaged in the Blue Book, we would probably be doing much more drastic cost-cutting measures than we have undertaken right now.

The Opposition, in the election campaign, advocated a much more serious tone. It seems now, of course, as oppositions do very well, they can criticize government policy and initiatives, and the closure of provincial parks - that is what they call it - we suggest it is a privatization, and are determined to implement the privatization and the furtherance of the provincial park system in a way that benefits the travelling public, those who travel and those who camp, and those who use tents, and those who use the parks for daytime activities. These are the things we want, but you cannot always have your cake and eat it too.

The Opposition is quick in want of criticizing all decisions of a fiscal nature made by the government without note of the consequences of the total action. They are very, very quick to respond.

AN HON. MEMBER: We cannot support it without knowing the consequences.

MR. RAMSAY: Support it without knowing the consequences? Well, we support it because we know that our fiscal situation is such that these are some decisions that have to be made. We are receiving $87 million less this specific year, plus a general shrinking of the economy, and on top of that the Tory Opposition advocates personal income tax cuts. The people of Canada themselves do not really, from what we have seen in recent polling, do not advocate personal income tax cuts at this point in time, so they are trying to be even more far-reaching in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Jean Charest (inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Jean Charest is the one, obviously, who has had a good lot of input in writing your fiscal plan. It is obvious that the Opposition's fiscal plan - and I think you should get this framed and keep it close to your hearts, because I am sure that the Opposition fiscal plan - it is a fantastic document; it is all of about a dozen pages long, and I would think that the Opposition is so secure in wanting to make sure that they are -

I am sure that the hon. Leader of the Opposition's final twenty minutes is here now, Mr. Speaker, or does he have fifteen?

MR. SPEAKER: Fifteen.

MR. RAMSAY: Fifteen? So I have another five.

MR. SPEAKER: Four.

MR. RAMSAY: The Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts back there in the group of nine - there were many famous groups of nine. I do not know if this group of nine will go down in history as a famous group of nine, but I am sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is going to be the core nine.

MR. RAMSAY: The core of nine, is it, is the new reference?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: The core of nine, I see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like most cores, they will be melted down by the time (inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Nuclear meltdown of the core.

Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the point, I think you cannot have your cake and eat it too. The Opposition has suggested that on the one hand the $150 million that we are giving up in taxation we should not give up. On the other hand, they are deciding that we should spend more to offset the $150 million. It is difficult to comprehend how they arrive at their fiscal policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't happen the next time.

MR. RAMSAY: What won't happen the next time?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: They are still waiting for your leader to bring up the points that he was going to bring up.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will pass on that and allow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to conclude.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to have to sit and listen in my office and in here to the nonsense that is going on by this government, the Minister of Education, utter, complete nonsense. Figures that are not accurate, just like the government's own figures, and to hear the associate Minister of Finance stand up and insult people. He insulted people in this House when he said: they will be buying new cutlery or eating with their hands. That is what he said. Buy new furniture, he said, or else sitting on cartons. Now, they should take his speech and broadcast it around the entire Confederation Building, the associate Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island -

AN HON. MEMBER: Broadcast it across the whole Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: Broadcast it across the Province to show how out of touch that member really is with the people and what is happening in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, if you just look at somebody on an income of $2,000 a month -

MR. H. HODDER: Bonnie Hickey wrote his speech.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was Bonnie or Clyde, one or the other.

If you look at somebody making $2,000 a month, $24,000 a year, it is above the poverty line. Let us look at an example. I just worked out a few realistic figures and it is not unusual to pay $700 a month on a mortgage, that is very much within reason; $300 a month if you pay on a car, $100 a month for insurance, being $1,200 for the year and that is not excessive at all, that is very cheap, very cheap when you look at house insurance, car insurance; $150 a month for heat and light, a very modest amount. If he uses $100 a month for gas; $70 a month for phone and cable, it costs $800 a month for groceries, you have already exceeded by a few hundred dollars your $2,000 a month, not allowing any money to come out for taxes. You have exceeded it, and then look at a family in this Province who is living on $600 a month and how you expect anyone to believe the figures the Minister of Education mentions talking about $184 better off, families with less than $10,000.

I hope the figures are a little more accurate and researched than the last seven projections in the Budgets in which they were all off; none of them was accurate I must say, none at all. So we are talking about disposable income, how many people in that bracket have disposable income to buy a new car, new furniture or the new cutlery that the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island, the associate Minister of Finance and Treasury Board talks about? He must be living in Shangri La, that is where he must be living and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he must be living there. This is not a progressive tax, it is a regressive tax and people who support this are out of touch.

Just look at the families in this Province. There are only 188,000, 189,000 people working in this Province, many on low and moderate incomes, many, many people. There are 78,000 people in this Province depending on social assistance. There are 54,000 on unemployment insurance. There are 25,000 on TAGS, of which 17,000 or so are drawing benefits. You look at those fixed incomes, the seniors on fixed incomes, other people on pensions, and people being forced out on pensions. Seniors out there can't live, being tried to force back to work, people retired, to be able to survive. Some are not allowed back by the finance minister. Some are prevented from getting back, I might add; very much so, because they want to set a double standard in this Province.

How many people in their right mind would want to be able to save $500 on a fur coat and go crucify families on low income on children's clothing? It does not make sense, it does not add up. Eight dollars extra people will be paying on a $100 light bill because of HST. They will be paying on gasoline. Even for those other people they froze other taxes at the higher levels, some of the ones that are not essential ones. I didn't complain about that, I say to the minister. I haven't complained about doing that because they were items that were not essential items, tobacco and alcohol. They were not essential items.

But when people's disposable income is going into paying their heat and light, their children's clothing, people are out trying to buy a house and get a start in life, with young kids too, and they are going to be paying $4,000 to $5,000 more on a $100,000 house because of harmonization, there is something wrong. If it was going like the minister said, $105 million - I will say it is $155 million, because the numbers don't add up, and I can use the numbers again and explain the mathematics if the minister would like to know. I can do it very slowly so everybody can very clearly follow it. The figures the finance minister used do not add up, I say that.

If you were going to put it in the pockets of consumers to have more disposable income to stimulate the economy that might be a noble effort, but what it is going to do, and they wouldn't admit it, the Senate Committee finally relented, the best thing was taxing prices. It was fantastic, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said. He saw how great it was and now how he has changed his mind, because he didn't believe what we said. From day one, I say to the minister, nobody in this Province has been on this issue more than I have. With a news conference last spring, we had news conferences, we have had press releases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We went up 4 per cent the last time, I say to the minister - every quarter, 4 per cent, so we should be about 95 per cent by the next election, and maybe higher. Who knows? There may not be a Liberal left in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, your time will come, I can tell you, and come it will. I have asked in this resolution - and the Minister of Education had some comments - I have asked to look at some form of income supplement for the poor. I did not ask for a HST rebate - if they want to give it, fine. If you look at a HST rebate, and if you are going to do it through the HST system, to whom do you rebate? You do not know their incomes at that time. Their incomes will be determined on their income tax and you calculate it. It is an easy system to look at their income and give a supplement to the people who are at that income cut-off point. How it is handled I do not care. If the minister wants to handle it with a GST or HST rebate, do it. If you want to handle it as a supplement to people who do not make that cut-off point on the taxation line, that is fine. How you want to do it does not matter to me as long as you do not rip off young families, rip off seniors and rip off people on fixed incomes who have to pay their light bills, who have to pay for gasoline, and pay other costs.

Now, the Minister of Education had his chance. He had his chance to speak. We gave him time to speak and I did not interrupt. I listened to him but he did not make any sense. I still listened to him for awhile and he made very little sense. He is still not making any sense over there, in fact, none whatsoever. The thing he fought for a few weeks ago, the thing he argued for a few weeks ago, tax-in pricing which was the best thing since sliced bread, is gone. It does not have to be there. They said that was so important, when they found out that Michael Kirby said otherwise. In fact, Michael Kirby, chairing the Senate Committee -

MR. GRIMES: What do you think consumers would rather see?

MR. SULLIVAN: If the minister does not know what I think after what I have spoken on this bill when it came through the House, on debate in the House, then the minister has not been listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I said it is $155 million. I will use a little mathematics for the minister now. I ask the minister to listen and I will use a little mathematics. Last year in this Province there was $279 million, up to $283 million, depending on what month you take, collected by the Federal Government in GST. That was at 7 per cent, and when you convert that to 8 per cent that we are going to get on the same tax base, it comes to $323 million.

We projected, last year's budget, $565 million in retail sales tax. When you subtract the two you get a $245 million shortfall. Now, the Minister of Finance, in Answers to Questions in the House, said, freeze the alcohol and tobacco tax, bring in a new insurance tax, a tax on the private sale of vehicles; that, he indicated, is going to amount to $90 million in extra revenue the Province will get. When you subtract that from the lost of $245 million, we are short $155 million. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education and everybody are trained to say $105 million. Well, I do not see, on the mathematics of it, where the difference is. There is a $155 million shortfall. What is going to happen after two years when we plug that $155 million with a one-time lump sum, $310 million? We are only left with $38 million in year three. Before year three is over we will only have a fraction of that money to fill the gap and there is going to be a $155 million hole in the revenues to plug because of harmonization. And that is not good economics to me. That is not good fiscal policy to me. If it were going to be taken out and spread to serve a social function, as I said before, if it were going to be put on health care -

AN HON. MEMBER: You even got the Minister of Education agreeing with you.

MR. SULLIVAN: - if it were going to be put into education

The minister went to Ottawa with the Premier, I went there - and the minister will confirm it. In a meeting with the NDP, I had to set the Premier straight on one occasion when he wandered off with a few inaccuracies. The Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi was there, too. I had to correct him in that meeting, in a meeting with the NDP - I believe, if you were there, which he was, with his colleagues. He said - and they sold the plan - the extra money they were going to save was going to go into education in the Province; that is what they indicated. They told a good one to the people of the Province. They ran a fast one by the people of the Province there, and now we are struggling because this government, to please the Prime Minister - when the Prime Minister pulled the string and the Premier said we have to hide this GST, who could they find in Canada? Premier Savage in Nova Scotia, Premier McKenna in New Brunswick and the only other Premier that was there was in Prince Edward Island - `We cannot touch that in Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island would not touch it - `An election call and we will be crucified.' They were crucified as they were, because they did not believe it, and they kicked them out just like they are going to do in the upcoming election in Nova Scotia again. You will see, they will kick them out again because people do not like being deceived and they do not like being told inaccuracies and untruths. People get to the point where they do not want it anymore.

Now, all I am asking is that this government do what the other Liberal governments have done in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick when they harmonize the tax, that is, give a form of rebate or supplement to the low-income people who are hardest hit by this HST. That is a pretty simple thing to ask. Just give a particular income - how you want to cut it is entirely up to yourselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you want us to keep the money.

MR. SULLIVAN: I want you to keep the money if you are not going to do the things I want you to do. That is what I said, minister; that is what has been indicated.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is easy to confuse (inaudible). Does anybody over there understand that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, everybody over here understands it, quite clearly. It is the lack of understanding on the part of members on that side of the House, and the members of the Cabinet, that they are trying to ram through something that is going to hurt the poor folks around this Province. There will be a price to be paid for doing this on the HST. As it kicks in on April 1, you will be seeing the effects of that as people in this Province start to rise up and complain. They are starting to do it now.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my discussion. I certainly hope that government will see the wisdom to stand up and be counted here and to vote for something that is serving an important social function here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division. Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to inform the Sergeant-at-Arms that we are ready for the vote and he can put the bar across now.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Osborne, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Ms Jones.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, Mr. Langdon, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Whelan, Ms Hodder, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Reid, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sparrow, Mr. Wiseman.

Mr. Speaker, nine ayes and twenty-three nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.