May 13, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 25

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today, twenty-six Level

II students from Coaker Academy in the District of Twillingate & Fogo. They are

accompanied by their teacher, Gerald Peddle; guidance counsellor, Ann Marie Dalley; bus

driver Edward Luff; and chaperon, Noreen Cutler.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with first oil from Hibernia last

November, Newfoundland and Labrador's petroleum industry moved from the development to the

production phase presenting many new challenges and opportunities. In particular, this new

development requires that a renewed emphasis be placed on ensuring that offshore

exploration and production activities are conducted in the safest and most environmentally

responsible manner. This is a very important part of the mandate of the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.

The provincial and federal governments, and indeed the people of the

Province, also continue to look to the C-NOPB to ensure that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians receive the greatest benefit from the development of our oil and gas

resources. To achieve these goals it is important that the C-NOPB be led by a strong and

dynamic individual who is knowledgable about offshore oil and gas matters and, Mr.

Speaker, one who will ensure that the Canadian requirement and that the Newfoundland and

Labrador requirement for full opportunity, for full benefits, is fully realized.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce today in the

House that Mr. Hal Stanley has been named as the new Chair and Chief Executive Officer of

the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Stanley, who is well-known to members, and I

think favourably well-known to members on all sides of the House, is the first

Newfoundlander to occupy this very important position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Hal Stanley has had a long and distinguished career

in the Newfoundland public service. He is a former Clerk of the Executive Council,

Secretary to Cabinet, provincial deputy minister of a number of departments, most recently

the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Intergovernmental Affairs and Natural

Resources. Mr. Stanley chaired the Province's team - indeed, I had the pleasure to work

with him as Chair of the Province's team - of senior officials charged with negotiating

the agreements with the oil companies, with the proponents with respect to the Terra Nova

development and also, Mr. Speaker, the committee responsible for developing the Province's

generic offshore royalty regime.

Mr. Stanley has extensive knowledge of the offshore oil and gas

industry and the Atlantic Accord legislation. He has served in a senior capacity for many

years in this Province and has served with equal diligence with governments on both sides

of the political spectrum. He is indeed a non-partisan, highly-qualified, professional

public servant, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Stanley has dealt extensively with the C-NOPB

and has a thorough understanding of the critical role the Board plays in regulating the

oil and gas industry offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. I am confident that Mr. Stanley

will carry out his responsibilities with the same insight, dedication and sense of fair

play which has characterized, as I said a moment ago, his exemplary public service career.

Mr. Speaker, underscoring the role and responsibility of the Board is

the importance that both governments place on health and safety, environmental protection,

and benefit matters. The Atlantic Accord recognizes the right of Newfoundland and Labrador

to be the principle beneficiary of the oil and gas resource off our shores consistent with

the requirement for a strong and united Canada.

The first consideration provisions to the residents of this Province

for employment and industrial benefits is a basic tenant of the Atlantic Accord

implementation acts. Newfoundland-Canada benefits plan are integral components of

development plans which must be approved by the Board prior to the commencement of work

and monitored carefully, diligently, daily, hourly, for full compliance.

Mr. Speaker, officials of both governments continue to work closely

with the Board to ensure that benefits are maximized. Officials of both governments

similarly work closely with the Board with respect to safety and environmental issues.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. John Fitzgerald, who has held the position of Acting

Chairperson for the past three years, has expressed a desire to retire from the Board;

but, in order to allow for an orderly transition, he has agreed to remain with the Board

for a number of months. During the period in which Mr. Fitzgerald has held the position of

Acting Chair, the Board dealt effectively with budgetary restraints which faced all parts

of the public sector and, at the same time, met the challenges as the industry in the

Newfoundland and Labrador offshore passed from the development phase to the production

phase. I know that all members would want to join with me in expressing to Mr. John

Fitzgerald our deep thanks for his leadership, indeed for his years of service, with

C-NOPB.

I wish to conclude by expressing again my congratulations to Mr. Hal

Stanley on his appointment as Chair and CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum

Board. Mr. Stanley is with us today and we wish him well in his new endeavours on behalf

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As Leader of the Opposition, I join in congratulating Mr. Stanley. The

Premier has certainly outlined his record of service to the people of the Province, and

the commendable record of service that Mr. Stanley has provided in all facets of his

public sector life.

I will say that if there has been a critic of the Offshore Petroleum

Board in the last three or four years in this House, it has been me; and I believe that up

until this point history will judge some of the decisions that were made by that Board,

and it will be judged and found left wanting in some areas, especially when it comes to

the provisions of the Atlantic Accord and with respect to first considerations being given

to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am pleased today because I think - Mr. Stanley, I know, is the first

Newfoundlander who will act in that capacity - along with other recent moves on the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, I am a lot more hopeful today than I was a

year ago -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - that the benefits, the types of technology

transfer, the amount of employment that should occur with respect to the people in this

Province, I believe we may have turned a corner and moved in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I will not hold up the House. I would like to say to Mr.

Stanley, congratulations. I, too, join with the Premier in wishing him well in his new

endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

he have leave?

By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition

in congratulating Mr. Hal Stanley on his appointment. I think it is fair to say that all

members of the House recognize Mr. Stanley as a dedicated senior public servant who has

the interests of this Province at heart in all he does. We look forward to good things

from him is his new role as Chief Executive Officer and Chair of the Canada-Newfoundland

Offshore Petroleum Board.

Mr. Speaker, I would also echo that in the past, it is fair to say that

legislation, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, have been

diligently pursued, and I would hope that the new regime would see also a new enthusiasm

for ensuring that the Province receive maximum benefits.

I also thank Mr. Fitzgerald for his work; but I would also suggest that

perhaps one of the first things the board might do is have a look at its role in the

offshore safety area with a view, perhaps, to switching that role to the Department of

Labour where offshore safety as well as onshore safety is more properly administered, Mr.

Speaker. I think it is a potential conflict in the administration of the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and I would ask Mr. Stanley and his new board

to have a look at that with a view to making changes in jurisdiction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a very slight addition to the statement

I made earlier, and I know it is one with which all members will want to associate

themselves: I have just recognized and realized that Mrs. Stanley is in the House as well,

and we want to offer her our congratulations and thanks for the many hours, without the

benefit of overtime, that we have kept Mr. Hal Stanley away from home and family, and to

tell her that we anticipate he will continue to work at such a terrible pace; but we know

the benefits for all of us will be wonderful. It is very nice to see you here as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, in recent days, positive economic

developments in the Province have captured a great deal of attention in the media -

locally, nationally and internationally. Yesterday, in The Globe and Mail , for

example, the Bank of Montreal joined a host of other credible organizations predicting our

Province to lead the country in growth in 1998 and beyond. Last night, Hibernia was

featured on CBC's national prime time television news show. Today, there was another story

in The Globe and Mail focusing on higher than expected results from the Hebron

oilfield.

Today, I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that while the oil and

gas sector is important, it is only one of the reasons for the expected increase in our

growth rate. There are other reasons that can be attributed to the high level of

confidence in our economy. Other sectors, such as manufacturing and exporting, continue to

be a key link to diversifying and expanding our provincial economy and play a significant

role in future development as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House today that there is yet

more good news, this time from our manufacturing and export sector. The latest issue of Alliance ,

the magazine published by the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada, highlights a

national study on trends in the manufacturing sector. Mr. Speaker, what is interesting

about one aspect of the study, is that Newfoundland and Labrador had the strongest

productivity performance in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We have always known that manufacturers and exporters in

Newfoundland and Labrador have the advantage of dealing with a fiercely loyal,

hard-working, highly skilled workforce, and this study confirms it, Mr. Speaker.

It is also one of the factors that I always use in my attempts to

attract business to this Province.

Manufacturing companies are also promoting this, and more and more of

them are using this advantage to look for new export markets, and, increasingly, they are

succeeding.

Companies such as: Terra Nova Shoes in Harbour Grace that exports

quality footwear to Europe; Brookfield Ice Cream that makes ice cream here in St. John's

that is sold in the SkyDome in Toronto; FPI in Burin that makes products that are sold in

Sobey's stores across the country; and Hi-Point Peat in Bishops Falls that exports

products to thirty countries worldwide, and also manufactures products sold under Canadian

Tire's MasterCraft brand name.

Companies like the ones I have just mentioned employ over 16,000 people

on a seasonally adjusted basis. The increase in the value of manufacturing shipments over

the past five years was over $400 million. Last year, manufacturing shipments in our

Province reached $1.7 billion, with the strongest growth in plastics, printing, chemicals,

wood products, and fabricated metals.

This year, Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the country with the

growth in shipments predicted to be at 4 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In the manufacturing and exporting sector, there is a

realization that if we are to succeed, we must work together. And the Alliance of

Manufacturers and Exporters in Newfoundland and Labrador is leading the way. The Alliance

has aligned itself with Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic to

establish a Manufacturing Technology Centre, which will provide provincial manufacturers

access to capabilities that exist within the post-secondary sector.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing our partnership with AMEN.

Next week, the organization will hold its 8th annual conference and exhibition. I invite

my hon. colleagues to tour the exhibition and see first-hand the variety of products that

are "made right here" in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is another good-news statement, but I caution the minister that

before we all wrap ourselves in the flag -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Before we wrap ourselves in the flag, Mr. Speaker,

we should remember that a publication released by the minister's department just last year

shows that 25,000 jobs are created in Ontario because of exports from Newfoundland,

whereas only 4,000 jobs are created in Newfoundland because of imports from Ontario. We

have to work at reversing those numbers, Mr. Speaker.

While this is a good news story today, we have to remember that our raw

resources are going to other provinces, creating jobs there. We have to start doing the

secondary processing on our own raw resources right here. Instead of putting Nova Scotia

manufactured windows in our schools and selling imported juice in our cafeterias, we have

to start using our own materials right here. Mr. Speaker, it is the manufacturers and the

exporters of our Province that are to be commended by this good news story.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister in expressing our pride in the

productivity of our workforce. We know that they have good work habits, are very excellent

workers and do terrific jobs. However, I would like to say that a 4 per cent growth rate,

while excellent, if it follows several years of negative growth it may be bringing it back

to where we were last year. However, it is in the right direction, but if all we are

talking about is the value of oil being produced by Hibernia and shipped past our doors

then it will not bring maximum benefits to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, while we pursue the increase in manufacturing jobs of the

Province, let us beware that we not be trying to create a low wage economy in this

Province to replace perhaps foreign workers and develop what might be known as the

Maquiladoras of the North. I would beware of that, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to apologise to my critic the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis

that I don't have a prepared statement, that I did not have one to share with him. As a

result of a couple of phone calls that I received in the last few minutes, from both my

colleague the hon. David Collenette, Minister of Transportation, and from Mr. Rex LeDrew,

the Chairman of the St. John's Airport Authority, I am pleased to be able to advise the

House today that the Authority and the federal government have reached successful

conclusions in terms of the negotiations with respect to the devolution of the St. John's

Airport to the Authority.

Later today the full details of that arrangement will be announced by

the hon. Minister Collenette and Rex LeDrew, but it is sufficient to say that the

agreement is a substantial one. It involves in excess of $15 million in terms of transfer

of funds, both in retrofitting of 1129 Runway and other upgrades to the airport. It will

conclude a series of very intense negotiations that we have been having, along with the

Authority, with the federal minister, to bring this thing to fruition.

The announcement today will indicate clearly that the Authority will

now be able to move forward in this area to do the substantial work that needs to be done

in terms of upgrading the airport facilities in St. John's. It is a facility, Mr. Speaker,

that handles about 750,000 passengers per year at the moment. We fully anticipate and

expect that that traffic rate will increase and grow with the major developments that are

happening on our shores. In my brief conversation with the Authority Chairman just a few

minutes ago, he shared with me his great enthusiasm on behalf of his board that this is a

significant, major, economic announcement in terms of development for this region and

indeed for the whole Province. We look forward to the full details in just a few minutes

from the federal minister and the Authority's Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for his apology upfront. With

respect to the privatization of the Torbay airport, Mr. Speaker, what can we say? We will

have to wait to see the details, to see what impact it will have with respect to

downloading in and around the region of St. John's and the Northeast Avalon. So we will

just wait for the details and have further comment at that time.

Thank you.

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say that the privatization of the Torbay airport, like

the privatization of the rest of federal airports in Newfoundland and Labrador, is not

something that we support. It does result in a downloading, not only of the services and

the responsibility from the federal government which has been putting capital works into

airports across this country for decades, Mr. Speaker, and while there may well be

economic advantages in this particular airport because of the offshore, we think that the

end result is going to be a downloading and a downgrading of services and a passing on of

cost to the consumer.

Oral Questions

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

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

Yesterday, federal Justice Minister, Anne McLellan, announced plans to

overhaul the Young Offenders Act, in part to deal more harshly with older, repeat, violent

young offenders, and in part to respond to the recommendations of the Commons' committee

urging a move away from incarceration and towards treatment, restitution, rehabilitation,

and intervention as the approaches of choice.

It used to be that the federal and provincial governments shared

funding for this responsibility 50-50. Some years ago it was capped. It's obvious that in

order for this approach to be carried out, funding is required.

Has the government spoken with, dealt with, or is about to deal with,

the federal government with respect to this issue, with respect to funding that will

obviously be needed to be able to do the work of treatment, rehabilitation, and

restitution, so that the approaches that are being outlined in the new Young Offenders Act

will actually, in some tangible way, be carried out on the ground in the provinces?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a good issue. I

heard an interview with Anne McLellan, I believe it was yesterday or this morning,

outlining some approaches the federal government has taken, which are not substantially

different from the changes that were made several years ago.

The key issue is, as the hon. member points out, whether or not any

funding will follow to further enhance programs for young offenders. As far as I'm aware,

no offer has been made by the federal government. As the hon. member knows, the federal

government establishes a regulatory scheme, but very often the implementation of that is

left to the provinces. As far as I'm aware, we haven't seen the money yet, if any is to

follow, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

Opposition.

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

The reality is, if there is no federal funding to back up these new

measures, then the federal minister's announcement yesterday is merely window-dressing,

and we will have missed, I think, Minister, a golden opportunity to start addressing young

offenders and the issues that face them in a very meaningful and progressive way.

What priority has the provincial government put on treatment and

rehabilitation programs for young offenders, especially in light of the recent Dr. Inkpen

report?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will speak to part of it. Perhaps the questions might be addressed to

the minister responsible for some of this.

The key with young offenders is often in prevention, rather than trying

to impose a cure on people who for various reasons have come astray of the law. In the

recent Budget, we announced several measures that were intended to deal generally with the

problems of youth. That included trying to develop new programs in social services and

human resources for young people, to try to deal with the problems of youth around the

Island. There are many organizations that act independently to try to encourage youth

toward productive lives and things in their communities, but often those efforts are not

coordinated, and we believe there is some merit to helping to do that.

At a very fundamental level, the issue that concerns us most is the

problem of child poverty. We have taken steps to address that, as well as problems in the

school. I would say to the hon. member that the young offenders legislation changes may be

very worthwhile, but the focus for us in the Budget in the current year is trying to find

ways to prevent young offenders before they are actually young offenders, to try to direct

youth in ways that are of more social value.

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

Opposition.

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

The minister goes to the heart of the issue. Because at some point

government will have to invest, whether it chooses to invest up front or it's forced to

invest at the latter stage of an offence in terms of incarceration.

The question is: Where will the money come from to ensure, Minister,

that all this fine talk about justice reform actually ends up doing some good for somebody

at some point in time? That's the question I put to the minister.

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

MR. DICKS: The hon. member identified the issue earlier on when he

said that several years ago the federal government capped its participation. Up to that

point, the federal government had shared with the Province, on a 50-50 basis, any costs of

new programming, and any additional costs to existing programming. At this stage, not

having seen exactly what the federal minister has in mind, we have not had a chance to

evaluate and determine what if any additional costs there would be to the provincial

government.

I would agree with him that to the extent it will demand additional

resources, because we are in charge of the process provincially, the federal government

should at least cost-share, if not fully fund the provinces for any additional financial

burden we would have as a result of changes that I'm sure are well meaning and well

intentioned.

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

Opposition.

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

Look, it's obvious; failure to fund adequate intervention, prevention,

and treatment programs will result ultimately in the failure of this whole project to

overhaul the reform of the Young Offenders Act.

Mr. Speaker, Canada already locks up more of its youth than many other

countries, when the money could be better spent in many cases on rehabilitation and crime

prevention.

Will the minister, or will the government, contact the federal Justice

Minister to enter into some sort of negotiations urging her to put Ottawa's money where

its mouth is, if she wants to support this Province and the reforms and the administration

of this very worthwhile piece of legislation?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Province has made active representations to the federal government

both through the Department of Health and Community Services and the Department of Justice

in the past concerning the whole issue of youth, youth poverty and young offenders.

I would say to the hon. member that some of the concern and some of the

solutions that are proposed in the country are a little on the extreme side and I think,

to the extent we have had a chance to evaluate them, the measures proposed by the federal

minister appear to be commonsensical. I would refer to an interview I heard this morning

with retired Judge Lloyd Wicks and a St. John's lawyer, Ms Dawson. I thought they had a

very good perspective on it, that some of the concern being expressed in the country,

particularly with regard to things such as putting ten-year-olds in prison and treating

them as criminals, is probably a little bit misguided. We do not buy into all the notions

that are bandied about, that the country is going to fall apart because young offenders

are not sufficiently punished.

I believe, as the hon. member does, that to the extent we incarcerate

young people we are probably doing them a disservice, and society in the long run, rather

than trying to treat the problems there in another way. Because, as I said earlier in

another expression: The problems of crime are often the problems of poverty; they are just

expressed in a different way.

Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, the minister only announced these

changes within the last twenty-four hours. We are obviously going to evaluate those to the

extent that we disagree with some of the substantial provisions. We will make those known

to Ottawa to the extent that it incurs costs to the Province, and we will make

representations for the federal government to fully fund those. Whether or not they will

be successful remains to be seen.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand the answer to the question

the minister has put forward because he has alluded to, I guess, an approach and a

mind-set coming out of Western Canada that can be attributed to the Reform Party and other

such approaches, very right wing.

Our focus certainly, as a Party, would not be on that. Our focus, I

think, is one that would look towards intervention, rehabilitation, so that at the end of

the day the investment we must make - because we must make it minister. If we put our

heads in the sand and do not address the fundamental issues up front, both federally and

provincially, we will be forced to make it at the end of the day with respect to more

youth offenses, more crime coming out of our youth system, which ultimately will mean more

incarceration.

The issue is: Investment is not a question; we must invest. The

question is, where will we invest? So the issue, I think, for the provincial government,

is to press the case.

I will ask the minister again: Is the Province actively pursuing - from

what I understand it is not, that it hopes to be - negotiations with the federal

government on this very important and timely issue?

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

MR. DICKS: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members opposite

and ourselves probably understand the problem and share, in large part, a view as to how

it might be resolved. I will just point our several things.

First of all, the hon. member refers to a report that was just tabled

yesterday. As I said, it is unrealistic to assume that - not even having a chance to

assess and review it, it is very difficult for us to say at this time what, if any,

additional costs there will be. By and large it is not substantially different from the

reforms that were enacted in about 1995, and we have been carrying through on that.

We do, as a matter of course, and have continually made representations

to the federal government that their sharing of social costs in the country is diminished

and is irresponsible on their part. That is as true of young offenders as it is of the

health and educational burden that have been shifted to the Provinces. What I would say,

however, is that to the extent we recognize and deem that youths in poor circumstances are

in greater jeopardy of a life of crime, for obvious reasons - you can reference Charles

Dickens if no one else - we recognize that and have attempted to treat that on our own.

If you think of our Budget that we just brought in a short time ago, we

have put more money into the School Lunch Program, we have put more teachers in the

schools. We have done numerous things, Mr. Speaker. We have developed a system at a cost

of $2.5 million that will be implemented over the next year to year-and-a-half or two, to

try to co-ordinate youths between sixteen and eighteen, where often the greatest number of

offenses occur, in more meaningful activities in their community.

I share the hon. member's concern. We have actively looked for a

solution. To the extent that young offenders legislation per se will create a greater

social burden on the Province, and a greater expense, the answer is: Yes, we will

certainly actively pursue the federal government, but it is not at a stage of negotiation

since we have not had a chance to cost it yet to bring forward figures.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

While we are opposed to the export of our raw resources to be processed

elsewhere, including our water resources, we are, however, strongly in favour of

processing our resources here to create the jobs here, to create the benefits here, which

is the reason we want to see water from Gisborne Lake bottled right here before it is

exported from the Province.

Last week the minister said she had no problems exporting water, both

as a raw resource and in bottled form. With that in mind, I ask the minister: As the

minister responsible for trade in this Province, have you read the NAFTA Agreement as it

relates to the export of water from our Province? Yes or no?

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

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asked me about the

export of water from this Province in bulk or in container, I mentioned last week to him

that truly the issue here is: We are looking at what is good for this Province in terms of

job opportunities. Exporting bulk water that is being proposed - Gisborne Lake - is for

irrigation purposes, Mr. Speaker. We are not interested in exporting bulk water to have

the secondary processing done elsewhere. If we are exporting bulk water, it will be for

irrigation purposes.

The hon. member knows that the market for export water out there in a

bottled sense is only 5 per cent of the entire world's need for water. So if you have all

of this water flowing into the ocean - 100,000 cubic meters of water flow into the ocean

every second from Canadian waters - that is a loss.

Here we are with an opportunity to export water, both bulk and in

container, and this is what we are considering. We are looking at job opportunities in

Gisborne Lake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can only assume that she

must have read the agreement then.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal that is before government right now is

because of the demand for fresh, pristine water. That is written right into the proposal.

The American trade representative on NAFTA states very clearly that when water is traded

as a good in raw form, all the provisions of NAFTA regarding trade of goods apply.

I want to ask the minister: Given the fact that Barry Appleton, a

lawyer, and one of the leading authorities in the country on the NAFTA Agreement, said

that the trade of our water resources would have a serious implication within the NAFTA

Agreement - the Council of Canadians agree - I am also concerned about our water supply.

This is the reason I ask the question.

I ask the minister: Does she understand the implications of what would

arise if we were to ship our water out as a raw resource instead of bottling it right here

in this Province?

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

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, again I go back to talking about job

opportunities for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Maybe we should not be exporting oil, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly the individual is putting forth a proposition here that we should not export

anything in its raw resource.

Here we are with a water supply, every indication that we have more

than enough water in Newfoundland and Labrador to meet our immediate and foreseeable needs

in the future, and the hon. member opposite is suggesting that we should not take

advantage of an opportunity to export water if it means jobs.

In Grand Le Pierre, we had fifteen people leave two weekends ago to go

to the mainland looking for work. You tell the people in Grand Le Pierre that we should

not be exporting water, whether in bulk or in container.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, she obviously does not

understand the NAFTA Agreement. Let me be clear. I want the maximum benefits and the

maximum jobs for the community of Grand Le Pierre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: By bottling the water in Newfoundland we create

more jobs and more benefits for the people of Grand Le Pierre. By trading it as a raw

resource it is considered a tradeable good, and open to the water resources under the

NAFTA Agreement, which would open our water resources to the American Companies and

Mexican Companies to come in here and export our water. We would have no control of that.

Let me ask the minister: Is she prepared to live with the consequences

of exporting our water and opening our water resources to the NAFTA Agreement, and

allowing American and Mexican Companies to come in and export our water?

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

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I live in fear of not being able to ensure

that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian who wants a job does have an opportunity to get

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Here we are, we have an opportunity to export water. We

are going to look at it on a business case, Mr. Speaker. We are going to determine whether

or not it is a good thing for us to do as a Province.

This member knows that before we export any water it has to go through

the Environmental Assessment Act. It will be out there for public comment and review, on

whether or not we proceed with this; and based on the reaction we get from the public, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Labour will bring it to Cabinet.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is a opportunity here for employment and

the hon. member over across the way is suggesting that we not take advantage of this

opportunity. I guess he would do the same in the oil industry, Mr. Speaker. We may as well

close down the oil industry in this Province, if we cannot be exporting the oil. Tell

Harvey's down there, that we should not be doing that either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame!

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

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Obviously, if there is a market for water, as

drinking water, from Lake Superior, surely we must be able to find a market from Gisborne

Lake.

Is the minister telling me that she would prefer to export the water

from Gisborne Lake as a raw resource, and open it up to NAFTO, as opposed to exporting it

as a bottled, finished product, creating even more jobs for the community of Grand Le

Pierre?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Technology.

MS FOOTE: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not telling the hon. member or

telling this House, that I would rather export it in its bulk form. But I am telling the

member that the market for bottled water in this world is about 5 per cent of the total

demand for water. Now, tell me that we do not have the opportunity here, that we should

not take advantage of the opportunity, to export water in bulk if the market requires it.

We are talking about water for irrigation, Mr. Speaker, under the

Gisborne Lake Proposal. We are not talking about sending water over to some other country

to be bottled there. This is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, that I think we should consider

taking advantage of. It will mean jobs in rural Newfoundland, for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health, or probably more

appropriately the President of Treasury Board.

Minster, there are people working in our health care system for up to

twenty years or more and they are listed as temporary, even though they have been working

a full week for ten, fifteen, and twenty years. The percentage of workers who are not

listed as permanent has been increasing rapidly for some time. It does little, I say to

the minister, to improve the low morale among people that are overworked in our health

care system.

I ask the minister: Is he prepared to address this growing concern and

to help improve morale within our hospitals?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, some of these issues are being resolved at the bargaining table.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said to the minister, some for twenty years; I just hope some people

live to see them resolved. It has been close to twenty years that some people have been

working. There has been no movement, I say, in the last nine years.

Temporary workers who have worked full-time hours, I say to the

minister, for over ten years, can only obtain sick leave when they are hospital, even

though they might have banked sick leave of up to a year. Now as a result, people who are

discharged from hospital and are under doctor's care at home, are now left without any

income at all, when they have worked for years in our health care system. You may be in

hospital for two days, I say to the minister, and you will get your sick pay; but once you

come out, you may need two to three weeks to convalesce, and you are without an income.

I ask the minister: Does he consider this aspect to be fair treatment

for our sick, and will he do something about it?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In some cases there is a reason to have temporary employees, as opposed

to full-time employees, and areas where demand may diminish over time.

I am not certain that the way the hon. member describes the sick leave

policy is true in every instance, or perhaps in any. Having said that - I am being

generous to the hon. member - I merely point out to the hon. member that we are at the

bargaining table with several of the groups. It is to the union representatives to bring

forward instances where they want change, where they feel there is an inequity and where

working conditions can be improved.

I can tell the hon. member, that recently we did, in some of the

collective agreements we have negotiated and changed and that have been accepted by the

members, had some changes regarding the status of different types of workers. There are

several unions now where we are dealing with the issue of casual employees, which is of

equal concern, as well as temporary.

What I say to the hon. member is that, in different bargaining units

there are different rights that attach to different employees with different status, be

they casual, part-time or temporary. We are resolving some of these issues.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To listen to the minister you would think now that he is resolving

this. Minister, there is something wrong when somebody who has worked for ten, fifteen,

and twenty years, a full work week every single week, gets sick and is home convalescing

under doctor's care for a week, two weeks and so on, and is told: If you want to get your

sick pay, you have to come in and report to work that day and then go home. That creates a

whole new set of problems for that person, other than this particular sick leave. That is

impossible, I say to the minister, when you are sick and you just got over an operation

and got out of hospital.

Minister, I would just ask you: Will you show some compassion for the

injured and the sick, and will you make changes to that bureaucratic nonsense now that

workers have been subjected to?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member tells us part of the story. First of all, if the

problem is of twenty years' duration, I point out that a previous government, of which he

is now a member of the party, didn't resolve this problem. What he has to bear in mind is

that sick leave is an accumulated benefit. What happens with temporary employees, and

casual employees, as far as I'm aware, is that instead of accumulating sick leave

entitlement - I know one group of casual workers, for example, that is paid an additional

14 per cent of wages in lieu of these other benefits. So to the extent that some people

may want to acquire sick leave benefits, they may very well lose an additional payment

they now get.

It's very easy to stand in the House and generalize, but I'm telling

the hon. member that these are not simple issues, that not every employee in the

bargaining unit necessarily wants to lose the immediate cash payment they receive in lieu

of benefits. We are actively negotiating some of these benefits with some of our unions.

It's not appropriate for me to put before the House issues and discussions at the

bargaining table, but I don't mind saying that the issue of casual employees, temporaries

in some instances, are issues that have been raised by some of our bargaining units. One

union in particular is very concerned about casuals. We are attempting to resolve that at

the bargaining table, and we are discussing it as we speak.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I understand some one who works casual, like nurses for

example, in lieu of benefits they get a percentage, I think 14 per cent or 15 per cent,

whatever. I am talking about workers who don't get that. Let's take nursing assistants and

other people out there who don't get any extra pay in lieu, who are working a full week,

every week for ten, fifteen, and twenty years, who don't have the privilege of those

benefits, who were in hospital two days and were home for two and three weeks. They can't

get sick pay, and they have eighty and ninety days built up. They can't get out of bed in

some cases, Minister. It's unfair! They are the people I'm talking about.

Will the minister give us some assurance that something will be done

for these people who are really struggling, and on some of the lower incomes within the

health care field, who really need it; very honest, hard-working people all their lives?

They deserve some compassion and understanding, I say to the minister.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member well knows that many of the groups - and the particular

groups he just referred to - are covered by collective agreements. Where there are

collective agreements, the employer does not have the right to unilaterally change

benefits.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: They wouldn't hire you as a negotiator, you need not

worry about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: They would not want you as chief negotiator, you need

not worry.

MR. DICKS: To the extent that the hon. member identifies areas in

which there may be a lack of benefits, other people and their employers may identify areas

in which there is an excess of benefits.

Where we have a collective agreement, Mr. Speaker, we abide by the

collective agreement. When they come up for renewal, we negotiate them. We change them

from time to time. In some there is a change of benefits that are cost neutral. Other

times it's an additional monetary benefit to employees, or some substantial benefits such

as sick leave.

If the hon. member is saying that I will, here in the House, announce

that we are changing a collective agreement in some relevant fashion without consulting

with the union involved, the answer is no. What may happen, as a result of a round of

collective bargaining, is some circumstances of some employees may be improved but we have

to let the process take its course, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address my question to the Minister of Human Resources

and Employment. It refers again to the National Council of Welfare Report, the poverty

profile. This report says that children are poor because their parents are poor, and one

of the main reasons their parents are poor is because of lack of jobs. Now we know that

the National Child Benefit was designed in response to public outrage over the child

poverty statistics and was supposed to help children in poor families.

In light of the news that we now have 9,000 new jobs in the Province,

does the minister feel her job is done, that the poverty problem is solved because job

figures, the GDP figures and economists' projections are rosy, or is she hearing the

reality check from new reports like this which tell her that there are children in this

Province living in poverty, going hungry, malnourished and poorly clothed while our

Premier, in his ivory tower, pretends that things could not be better?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the National Child

Benefit Program and indicated that it was intended to address child poverty. In doing so

the member opposite is quite correct, but I would like to speak to the point that the

original intention of the National Child Benefit Program, as it was stated and published

in September of 1997, was to tackle the issue of child poverty by identifying and

providing support for low income working families that is critical to helping parents

better meet their children's needs.

The specific focus of the National Child Benefit Program is to address

this one area of concern which is to support low income families in working. What we know

is that for families who are receiving minimum wage, even up to $6.00 an hour, close to

$7.00 an hour, they do not receive an equivalent financial benefit to people who are

receiving social assistance. When you are talking families: If you take an equivalent

family, with two children, who are receiving social assistance, who are renting their

home, we know that a family who is receiving $6.00 and more is not receiving the same

financial income let alone receiving access to the benefits and services that social

assistance also provides.

So what we have to keep in mind is that the National Child Benefit

Program is not intended to address all of the issues associated with child poverty. The

ministers and federal government recognize that we all have to do more. This Province,

likewise, recognizes that we have to do more. Our Budget reflects that this year. We have

introduced a number of programs to try and address issues associated with child poverty.

The Minister of Finance referred to $1 million that we invested in the

provincial School Lunch Foundation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BETTNEY: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that

this is a very important issue. It will take time and it will also take a number of

interventions if we are going to break the cycle of poverty. The National Child Benefit

Program is one aspect that will help.

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

West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This report points out that as the deficit has been falling poverty has

been increasing. Child poverty is at a seventeen year peak. To get to this zero deficit

the Province froze welfare payments and then Ottawa slashed transfer payments.

When will this government wake up to the fact that it has reduced

deficits, in large part, on the backs of the poorest children? When will the federal and

provincial ministers responsible for the welfare of children get their act together and

come up with a real strategy to help children and their parents out of poverty, instead of

making them casualties of the war on the deficit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, another aspect of this that people need to

consider is that this is a report that was issued based on data from 1996. That is what is

covered in the report that I read and the coverage that took place in the media. As we all

know, there has been a significant change in circumstances in 1997 and in the beginning of

1998 in this Province. I would suggest to you, that rather than, at this point, standing

at the fifth position - and I would like to point out that this report identifies that

when you are looking at the rates of poverty across this country for children,

Newfoundland was not at the highest level, it was not the number one. Newfoundland and

Labrador, in fact, was number five.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I ask the hon. minister to quickly conclude her answer. Question Period

has ended.

MS BETTNEY: In conclusion, what I would say to you is: That with

the stimulation that we have seen, the infusion of 9,000 jobs in this economy over the

past year, with the reduction of our social assistance caseload by up to 4,000 cases since

this time last year, with the implementation of active employment programs and other

measures, we have made significant gains.

Presenting Reports

Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: I appreciate the appreciation and the applause. Thank

you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to report that the Social Services Committee has

considered the matters to it referred, and it is pleased to report that it has considered

the Estimates of the Departments of Human Resources and Employment, Education, Health and

Community Services, Employment and Labour, and Justice, and that these have been approved

without amendments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act."

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

MR. FRENCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following

resolution:

WHEREAS the provincial government is not providing personal care home

operators with allowances adequate to cover their growing expenses in light of rising

costs; and

WHEREAS personal care home operators provide a valuable health care

service in this Province stretching the government's limited health care dollar while

allowing many people needing a high level of care to live in comfortable surroundings near

their own homes and families; and

WHEREAS the failure on the part of the provincial government to provide

adequate allowances to personal care home operators will compromise their ability to

deliver health care services on which a large and growing number of families in this

Province depend, and will erode this critical and much admired segment of our health care

delivery system;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the provincial government

to consider moving quickly to grant that an appropriate increase in allowances for

personal care home operators.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: I believe it is Private Members' Day, and the motion

today is by the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has announced its

intention to prevent social assistance recipients from enjoying the full advantage of the

National Child Benefit in addition to their meagre social assistance; and

WHEREAS the government's decision to use this clawed-back funding for

employment incentives and family resource centres, while important for many people, does

not change the fact that those receiving social assistance are clearly receiving

inadequate benefits on which to support their families properly;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to change its current policy to ensure that children living in

families on social assistance receive an increase in benefits equal to the National Child

Benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the reason the public put pressure on the government to

develop a program like the National Child Benefit is that there are children in this

country and in this Province in families living below the poverty line who are going

hungry. They are malnourished and they are poorly clothed. Poverty in childhood undermines

the opportunities available as a child grows. Poverty in childhood leads to poverty in

adulthood.

As I spoke on a few moments ago, the national report on welfare, 72.1

per cent of children in single parent families live in poverty. That figure leads in

Canada. We have the highest poverty rate in Canada in children in single parent families.

This report confirms all older reports which say there is a serious problem with child

poverty in our country, and especially in our Province. According to these statistics,

some 27,000 children in this Province subsist below the poverty line. In single parent

families the rate of child poverty, as I said, is a whopping 72.1 per cent, the highest in

the country. Some 11,000 children in single parent families in this Province live in

poverty. As I said yesterday, I find those results absolutely appalling.

I ask the minister if she is concerned by those results, or is she

content, as our Premier is, to dismiss every piece of evidence of the failure of this

government's policies, and the hurting of our people, as nothing but negativity?

The report points out that as the deficit has been falling the poverty

rate has been increasing. The poor are getting poorer. Child poverty is at a

seventeen-year peak. To get to the zero deficit that they were so proud to announce, this

Province froze welfare payments, and then Ottawa slashed transfer payments.

The Patricia Canning report released a while ago said that tens of

thousands of our children live in poverty. Her report, as well as the Williams Royal

Commission Report, linked poverty and hunger to poor performance in school. Poverty and

hunger sap the life and initiative and potential out of a child and lead to poor

attentiveness, poor performance, and poor expectancy for employment, post-secondary

education, employment and economic self-sufficiency. So, it is common sense that these

things are linked, but we now have reports that put it in black and white. The evidence is

here and it is time for us to do something about it.

If the Williams and the Canning reports didn't wake up the government,

then the report of the Select Committee on Children's Interests should have. Members on

both sides of this House cooperated to undertake an in-depth study of the challenges

facing our children, and what they found was not good. What they recommended was sweeping.

They recommended ensuring all decisions affecting children be examined in view of their

impact on children, but the government has completely ignored the calls for a child

advocate. Children remain an afterthought. Even when it comes to programs where the

interests of children are the primary focus, such as the Child Benefit, the interests of

many children are simply ignored. Children in families on social assistance have been

ignored. You were warned not to ignore the interests of children. You ignored the warning,

and because you ignored the warning children continue to suffer.

As if all these other reports were not enough to wake up the

government, we had the Social Policy Advisory Report, chaired by Penelope Rowe. This

comprehensive report calls for a new way of thinking about the delivery of social

programs. It calls for a new focus on how government programs affect and ignore the people

they are supposed to serve.

The release of this report should have represented a turning point in

the way government does things. It should have been the last wake-up call the government

needed; but it, too, is starting to gather dust. The report called for new, imaginative

ways to help the vulnerable and disenfranchised of our society, but it certainly did not

recommend doing so on the backs of the poorest in our society. Why is this government

ignoring the advice of this report when it comes to the National Child Benefit? Why are

poor children, like so many other vulnerable citizens of this Province, getting the short

end of the stick once again? Even if there had never been any of these reports, common

sense would have dictated to us the poverty problem was increasing and children were

suffering.

For years, the Wells government froze social assistance rates despite

the rising cost of living. People were slipping deeper and deeper into poverty. In

addition, as the moratorium progressed and the lame efforts to foster economic recovery

failed, the government gave up altogether on economic recovery, more and more turned to

social assistance, and the dependency reached record levels - we were back in the 1930s;

towns dying, people leaving - and what did the newly elected Chrtien government do with

our own Premier sitting at the table banging his fist in support? It decided to freeze

welfare transfers; then, to combine transfers under the CHST; and, finally, to slash

hundreds of millions out of the money we get for social assistance, health and

post-secondary education. And things have become worse and worse and worse.

Out-migration has ballooned to record levels. Poverty has reached

crisis proportions. Our food banks have seen record demand and, sadly, have had to turn

people away despite the great boost they got from a PC resolution to help with food

donations.

In their crusade for the great zero deficit, the Liberals, with the

`Tobinator' dancing merrily to the same tune, have hacked away at the poor, and the

poorest of the poor in this Province have suffered the most. And what crumbs have the

Liberals given back in return for all they have cut? The meagre, paltry, National Child

Benefit, a mere pittance compared to what they have cut from our tens of thousands of poor

and vulnerable children. They have thrown crumbs to tomorrow's generation of leaders, on

whom we will one day be counting to build a new society out of the ruins that the Liberals

will leave.

The National Child Benefit is inadequate. We applaud any expenditure of

new money. We applaud money for the working poor; they deserve it. It barely compensates

for what they have lost under these governments, but we covet every penny of it. We

applaud any new money for family resource centres, day care and other key services, and we

would like to see these services available everywhere in the Province.

What we bitterly oppose is that the money to help the poor has come

from the poorer. Children on social assistance will have to give up their National Child

Benefit to pay for the government's "generosity". The government officials make

themselves look good by announcing the money twice: first for the children and then, after

clawing back the money from the children, they announce it again for the resource centres

and the services. How callous.

We have long spoken out for the working poor. There are fewer and fewer

working middle class, and many of the new jobs are at very low wages, barely enough to

support a household. These people count themselves fortunate to have a job.

Newfoundlanders always prefer to be working than to be idle, but there comes a point when

the wages are so low that they are just not enough. Where is the economic growth that

fosters job creation and brings with it the opportunity for upward mobility? People cannot

spend decades of their lives working for the same low wages. As their families grow and

their expenses increase, they need new income; so it is critical to support low income

families, if not with more and better jobs then certainly as a band-aid to support them

with child supplements.

Is this Child Benefit enough to compensate for what has been lost

through increased taxes on essentials like electricity and children's clothing when the

government sold out with the HST? Is it enough to make up for the numerous other cuts that

have worked their way to the pocket books of the working poor? No, no, no!

The government takes away ten of your cows and gives you back one.

While that is hardly a good reason to sing the praises of the government, it does mean at

least you will get one cow. But let us never forget that a government that gives you back

part of what it has stolen from you is not giving you a gift.

Family resource centres are important. The government should have been

funding them long ago, not from social assistance claw-backs but from general revenues.

They represent an important investment in the social and economic potential of a

community. They provide incentives and assistance to families, and advance the welfare of

our children.

This government has lost sight of the importance of investment. It

speaks only of costs, and the need to cut these costs, to achieve an even bottom line. A

government often needs to spend money and incur debt associated with that debt in order to

invest in some future good. If it were not for debt, and debt financing, there would be no

roads, no schools, no hospitals. There would be no mortgages or car lease arrangements,

and most students would not even get an education. Debt is a good thing when it is sound

investment. Somehow that truth has been lost to today's generation of Cabinet ministers,

whether upstairs in Confederation Building or in Ottawa around the Prime Minister's table.

Investing in families, communities and children is critical. That is

why we, like so many socially progressive groups, support the concept of family resource

centres, day care, youth services, employment incentives and the like. It is sensible. We

need to borrow from the public Treasury to finance such services, but stealing the money

for such programs from our hungriest, poorest, most vulnerable children, as this

government has done, is absolutely outrageous and unforgivable.

Since the government has insisted on stealing the money to pay for

these services from all children in families on social assistance, the debate shifts to

one of fairness. The government says it can better spend the money on behalf of these

children - but funnelling it into services that help people escape welfare and get the

services they need to help them find jobs. Here it is a matter of choice. We are not

giving the people who get the money a choice of how to spend it, or who get the services,

a choice to direct how their money should be spent.

Is it the case in Newfoundland that the lack of services like day care

is what is keeping so many people unemployed? Or is it rather the case that in many areas,

rural and urban, there simply are no jobs to be had? All the family resource centres and

day care centres in the world will be meaningless if there are no jobs for the people.

It is like when we had hairdressing courses in so many community

colleges. It is great to have training and experience, and the self-esteem that goes with

the training and experience and with completing a program and getting a certificate, but

what is the economic value of every second household in a small community having a person

trained in exactly the same skill? What happens to self-esteem when you realize that your

training has given you no employment advantage whatsoever? What happens when single

parents put their children in family resource centres and find out the government has

ignored the job creation side of things?

Family resource centres and day care centres are critical, but the

government must not stop there or their strategy is ridiculous. It is like budgeting for a

new car and forgetting to budget for the gas to drive it. How much good will that do?

It is time the government followed through with integrated programs

that treat not only the lack of day care and the like, but the lack of jobs, industries,

diversification and investment. Since all children on social assistance are paying equally

for these centres, will they and their parents all have equal access to the centres they

are financing? This question is less important when such centres are funded from general

revenue. In those cases we recognize that some areas will benefit from some programs and

services more directly than others; but when child (

a) and child (

b) are losing equal

amounts of money to pay for services intended for these children and their families, is it

fair when only child (

a) and his parents have access to them? What did child (

b) lose her

money for? How does she benefit from the Child Benefit that has been taken away to pay for

programs and services if the programs and services are out of reach because of geography?

Could all of this have been done better? You had better believe it. Put us in office and

we will show you.

Today I call for one strategy: Ensure that children in families on

social assistance get the equivalent of the Child Benefit just as children in families of

the working poor are getting it. It was intended to benefit them in the workplace. That is

how the program was sold to the taxpayers, and it would be deceptive to turn around now

and steal the money from these poor children as the government has done.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has good intentions. No one, I don't

think, on this side of the House has any comment on the intentions that the hon. member

has with respect to the motion. There is an element of it, though, that of course is

political in nature; the whole idea of suggesting that the government is doing something

to take something away from anyone.

The National Child Benefit Program, Mr. Speaker, is one that is not

just in place here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is one that has been put together by

the federal minister responsible, the provincial ministers responsible, and the

territorial ministers as well. Mr. Speaker, the whole concept of the program is that it

should be followed on a nationwide basis.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the early intervention programs, and the concept of

early intervention that this is pointing towards, is trying to steer all of our child

activities towards, is such that it tries to provide some early intervention for children

and therefore realize savings in a system at some future point. But, more importantly, it

is providing benefit for the sake of children so they can become more productive and more

contributing members of society later in life.

We can prevent them, Mr. Speaker, from involvement in activity which

does not benefit them in any way by early intervention programs, by early education,

preschool programs, through constructive day care programs, through a variety of these

things which this program will provide to community groups and other agencies that request

this kind of thing. Now where there are schools, where there are government agencies,

these programs will be provided.

The whole idea is to eventually - according to the brochure and the

documents printed - remove the children from receipt of social assistance. The idea is to

provide a quality and a large enough benefit for children so that they may be removed from

the social assistance system so that the National Child Benefit, as this evolves, will

allow children to be off social assistance, off the total social assistance system. The

way of doing that, of course, is to gradually increase the federal share of the overall

portion of what is made available to children as we also decrease the provincial

contribution. Now a function of doing this is, of course, seeing that we reinvest the

funds that are saved.

These are not really savings, this is not really, in any way, shape or

form, taking from the children that which was intended for them in the first place. There

are provinces in the nation that have put in different program, but this is the way the

program was designed. I guess groups which are opposed to this have found an angle that

allows them to suggest that we are taking from children, when that is not the case, Mr.

Speaker.

What is happening is this: As it was originally designed by both the

federal and all of the provincial governments, it was not there to give the money directly

to children who are in social assistance families of the non-working poor. It is designed

so that by reinvesting these newly available funds that are saved as children move more

into the federal realm of being cared for, as far as the Child Benefit goes, these

low-income families with children can then see improvements, not only to their own lot

from a financial perspective, but also to the overall benefit of them in their

communities; so that they can receive, through work support programs for their parents,

the continuation of certain benefits that are now not available to social assistance

recipient families.

All of these things, Mr. Speaker, would allow people to move out of

poverty and into the realm of, you know, work programs. If it is a low-wage earner, at the

very least allow them to move to that without being penalized.

So there are some pilot projects that are a part of this program. There

are many different areas. One only has to look at the problems associated with situations

as we know them. How many times have we, as individual members of the House of Assembly,

received complaints that there was no incentive for someone to go to work who was in

receipt of social assistance? They could look after their families better by not moving

from the base social assistance into the regular workforce.

How could we, as legislators, discredit anyone, in any way, shape or

form, for the fact that they wouldn't go out and start some work? Because, are they doing

the right thing for their children if they are not going forward and finding work, if in

fact they are going to receive less money to benefit their children? Actually, they are

hurting their children by going to work.

One of the key elements of the Child Benefit Program that the minister

has suggested is the pilot where we are trying to get people off the social assistance

payroll and into the workforce, providing some extended period for medical care benefits

through the drug card program and providing some incentives for them on the day care side

of things. Mr. Speaker, those are very important elements of the program, and something

that cannot be denied.

Now to look at some of the parts of it - it's a staged approach - some

of the component parts and the principles that are used. These elements are all much more

important than the idea of suggesting that we are taking from children. In no place in the

country does the program allow, from what I'm able to gather - the program is done a

little bit differently in each province according to its needs and existing programming.

In each case, the provision is being made for the equivalent savings to be directed into

programs for children in the community.

This is, I think, a challenge now to the minister and the department,

to see to it that these programs are implemented equitably throughout the Province, so

that the rural child is treated as well, in light of this programming, as the child who is

in an urban setting. That is a concern for all of us who represent rural areas in the

Province. It's a challenge. It's something that we, as individual members, have to work

with our communities on, developing proposals. Because it is not to go to a community

where there is little or no leadership in the community and say: You people go ahead and

come up with a program. It is for us to take, in some cases, to that smaller community,

make suggestions, work with them and bring forward proposals which will access some of the

funds that are available.

So these are the things that we have to do; and hopefully the overall

benefit, as time goes on, over the next two to three years of the term that is already

defined for the program, will allow us to move into a stage where we can improve the

financial lot of those who are still on social assistance and who have little or no

opportunity for work. Regardless of our desire as legislators to bring forward a program

whereby everyone will be working, we all know in our heart of hearts that there are people

who will continue to be in receipt of social assistance. There are people who will always

have a reliance on the system for the benefit of their children. Now those people,

hopefully we can make their lot in life a little better through the provision of more

funding, through the provision of better services in the community, not necessarily to

make it a more comfortable situation but to provide more for the benefit of the children

in those situations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to make this resolution of the hon. Member

for St. John's West more acceptable to the House of Assembly, I want to propose the

following amendment:

It would, number one, strike out the first

WHEREAS and substitute the

following, and this reads:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has announced its

intention to have social assistance recipients enjoy the full advantages of the National

Child Benefit in addition to existing social assistance benefits;

Two, to strike out the second

WHEREAS entirely; and three, to strike

out the BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED and substitute the following:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that all children living in families on social

assistance benefit to the maximum extent possible as a result of the National Child

Benefit Program.

Mr. Speaker, I move that, seconded by the hon. Member for Labrador

West.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I could just speak to the amendment.

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

The Chair has not yet seen a copy of it.

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, on a point

of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we would like to see a copy of the

amendment, to see if it is consistent with the thrust; and would await your ruling before

we would, shall we say, wish the House to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess for a few minutes to consider

whether the amendment is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Chair has considered the amendment, has referred to Beauchesne ,

and has read from ' 567 to ' 579. I would like to refer hon. members to ' 567,

which states, "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such

a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition

as an alternative to the original question".

It is the ruling of the Chair that the amendment falls within the

definition as I read in ' 567. It is the position of the Chair that the amendment is

in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

While the Chair was waiting for photocopies of the amendment, we will

consider that the House was in fact recessed. Therefore, the hon. member has two minutes

left in his allotted time.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, there are just a few points I wanted to

make about the National Child Benefit and the Province's implementation of it, for the

benefit of the House and for the benefit of those who would like to see this put on the

record.

Certainly both levels of government are working together to prevent and

reduce child poverty, to support parents in their employment efforts, and to reduce the

overlap between both levels of government. We are also committed to reducing child poverty

and reducing barriers to employment.

Mr. Speaker, we also wanted to point out that this approach will ensure

a secure uniform basic level of support for children in low income families across the

country. Furthermore, we are maintaining our commitment to those in receipt of social

assistance, increased child care earnings exemption in the tax system, increased earned

income exemption for social assistance recipients, extended drug card benefits for some,

and also the increase of social assistance rates by 2 per cent. Also, Mr. Speaker, we will

reinvest the $10.15 million every year, to reinvest that in new programs and services -

the first year, I am sorry; the second year it is $7.7 million. That variation is because

of the implementation date of July 1 as opposed to the fiscal date, the date of the fiscal

year.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the strategy reflects the findings of a number of

recent public consultation processes, including the Select Committee on Children's

Interests, which was a bipartisan committee of course, the Strategic Economic Plan, also

the Classroom Issues Report done under the auspices of - I forget the name of the author

and the committee. Anyway, the other points to make: Low income working families will

receive a higher income benefit as a result of the National Child Benefit. That will help

them enter and also remain in the workforce. And those in receipt of social assistance

will not receive any less in combined social assistance and National Child Benefit income.

Mr. Speaker, those are the key points, the elements of which we all

would like to be able to do better for the children of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RAMSAY: Maybe if I could continue just for thirty seconds.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I come at this from a little bit of a

different perspective. My family, when I met my wife, was a social assistance family. She

was managing on very little and my two daughters now, my stepdaughters - at the time I met

her and we married, she was getting by on social assistance. So I come at this from a

standpoint of someone who has been there, who has seen how getting out into the workforce,

and the ability to move out and take positions, was hampered by the fact that by declaring

income and different things like that, it certainly would put a person into a more

difficult circumstance financially.

These benefits will work. They are a long-term approach, and they

certainly will benefit children throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while I recognize the fact that you have ruled the

amendment in order, I also have recognized that the amendment is substantially a different

proposition and it is put forward as an alternative by the governing party. That

essentially says that the governing party was not happy with the words that had been put

forward by the Member for St. John's West.

What this resolution by the Member for St. John's West was all about

was to make sure that all children in this Province, children from the very poorest of

families, children who live in communities where their parents will not have an

opportunity to be able to find employment, parents in rural Newfoundland, where

unemployment rates are 70 per cent, 80 per cent and 90 per cent, that their children will

be able to have an opportunity to have food on their tables, lunches to take to school,

and they will have equal access and equal opportunities in this world.

What the amendment put forward by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile

essentially says is: We want to water that down. We are content to put in words like, `to

the maximum extent possible'. Therefore what we have done again, we have compromised at

the expense of children. Children have no voice in this Legislature. Let's be honest.

Children do not vote. Children here are not heard. By this amendment, what we are saying

is that the very poorest of the children in this Province have absolutely no voice here

whatsoever. Because this amendment put forward by the government so waters down the

commitment of this government that what it is essentially saying is that the poor child

living in Harbour Deep, or the poor child living in Wesleyville, or the poor child in St.

John's, has absolutely no hope of being able to say to their parents, come this September,

they want a new pair of sneakers to go to school, or they want to be able to buy food so

they can be equal to children in the school system. This will do nothing to erase the

poverty that is out there in the families of this Province.

I recognize that the thrust of the National Child Benefit is, as the

minister said in the meeting last night on the Estimates, to break the dependency, to use

her words. The minister said last night that she did not want to continue the policies we

now have. We have to make people more self-reliant. So we are going to take $7.7 million

this year that is going to come in to this Province and we are going to promote jobs. I

agree with that. I think we should be putting more money into policies and changing

practices to make sure we can have opportunities for the poorest of families to be able to

find meaningful employment.

The minister essentially is taking the approach that not having a job

is the fault of the individual, because they are not sufficiently self-reliant. What we

are really hearing the minister say is: If you are really poor and you either cannot work

or there are no opportunities for you to work in your community, we are going to punish

you. When the punishment comes out, it is going to be punishment inflicted on children.

While, therefore, a family where the mother or father can find a job that is paying $6 per

hour or $5.25 per hour can have extra benefits coming in, they are the working poor.

Right next door to them you have somebody who cannot get a job, tries

hard to get a job, and would work if there were jobs available. Who suffers when that

family cannot get access to the National Child Benefit? What does it mean when you call

the children to supper? What does it mean when you go to school and walk the corridors

because you do not have a lunch? What does it mean when the children go and line up in the

cafeteria and you have to walk around and say: Do you have five cents?

This is the reality in the school system in this Province today:

Children walk the corridors; children go to the cafeteria; children wait to see if

something is left over on someone else's plate. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I know

children in this City, in St. John's, who have to go to the dumpsters at McDonalds. They

go around and see if they can get into the dumpsters so they can get some food. And you

are telling me that these children will not be able to have benefits from a National Child

Tax Benefit.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reality. I wish that children had a voice in

this legislation. I wish there was some way in which we could tweak the consciousness of

the government because it is not right that the youngest citizens of this Province, from

the very poorest of families, in communities where there is no opportunity to get a job,

be asked to pay the price. So we are going to punish people for being poor. We are going

to punish people for the fact that they search and search in a community where there is 75

per cent unemployment. We are going to say to them: You can't get any benefit from the

National Child Tax Benefit.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here in this poor Province is a `Made in

Western Canada' approach, a very right-wing approach that basically says if you are poor

then that is God's will; that is what God wanted you to be. Be happy - that kind of

nonsense. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an absolute right-wing approach that is so

pass you have to go back to economic history in Canada to the 1890s to find literature

that supports it.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that it is a tragedy unfolding right

here today in this Legislature when we are, by this amendment, watering down the

commitment that the Member for St. John's West wanted to have placed in this government's

hands, and wanted this Legislature to say: We are going to be proactive. We are going to

take care of the poorest of families.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly has been said here many times by me and by

many others, and the Williams' Royal Commission said it eloquently in

Chapter No. 16, when

they talked about equal access and equal opportunities. Mr. Speaker, the first barrier

that is talked about to equal access and equal opportunities, in terms of education, is a

barrier of poverty. That entire

chapter talks about all the studies that have been done.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we can look at reports done for the Department of

Social Services and the Department of Health and Community Services, background papers

done for the Select Committee on Children's Interests, background papers done for the Dr.

Patricia Canning Report; and all of them talk about child hunger, and the impact on

children when they happen to be born into families whose social economic status is not

commensurate with the majority of the population.

to have poverty of children eliminated by 1999. Today, sadly, there are 500,000 more

children in poverty in Canada, then there was nine years ago.

Mr. Speaker, we in this Province, put $1 million of taxpayers' money

into an allocation to the School Children's Food Foundation. That is commendable. That is

wonderful. Mr. Speaker, I know that Susie Green and her team have been going across the

Province trying to initiate and support programs that will see food provided in schools,

either by way of a breakfast program or school lunch program. Seven schools in St. John's

now offer a school lunch program. That is recognition, that before you teach children, you

have to make sure, first of all, that they are not hungry. That is not new. That has been

around for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, what this resolution was intended to do, the one that was

put forward by the Member for St. John's West, was to get a commitment that we would not

be bringing in programs to support the working poor, on the backs of the very poor.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that there should be programs for the working

poor, but when the minister stands up and says, nobody will have less money than they had

before, what they are saying is that they are going to make the gap wider between the very

poor and those who are not so poor. Mr. Speaker, that is what is going to happen, because

there are no jobs in rural Newfoundland for many of the people who are unemployed today.

So we are going to perpetuate - instead of solving and breaking the cycle of dependency,

we are going to make it even worse. What we are trying to prevent, we may even be causing.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the minister: Think about it. I know

that her heart is in the right place. I know her to be a kind, compassionate person, and I

might say that anywhere. Very few people in this House know the minister better than I do.

I want to say that she, in her very heart, wants to do what is right for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. She knows that this program does not meet her expectations.

Therefore, I have to say that we had expected her today to be supporting the resolution

put forward by the Member for St. John's West, because that resolution was put forward

with all great intentions, put forward with the intention of supporting what we know to be

right in this Province.

It disappoints me that we have it so watered down with language that

says: To ensure that all children, living in families of Social Services, benefit to the

maximum extent possible. I wish there were some

definitions of that language; maximum

extent possible. What you have here is a watering down that so weakens the intent of the

resolution, of the original motion put forward by the Member for St. John's West, that you

have to use subsection 567 of Beauchesne to have it accepted.

Mr. Speaker, on this side, we will be voting - I will be voting, I

should say - for the motion even in its amended state, because we find that anything -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: - will give greater recognition to the issues that

have been put forward on behalf of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the minister: Reconsider. Do what is right for

the poorest of children, because if we don't do what is right for them we will perpetuate

the cycle of poverty forever and ever and ever.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very proud this afternoon, actually, to stand to discuss this very

futuristic program, a program that many in this Province have known for a long time,

services that many mothers and fathers and families have always wished that we had been

able to provide, but due to circumstances over the years, of just not having the financial

capability to provide these programs that many, many other provinces have, we have been

unable to provide these programs in spite of the will being there to want to do it.

This government initiative deals with all poor children, not just those

on social assistance but also those who are part of families who work or part of families

who have disabled parents. It includes everyone.

It is true that this is a first step; this is not as far as all of us

would like to go. We all know that if times were ideal and we had money that could be

allocated, all of our social programs would be greatly enhanced. But as this Province's

and this country's fiscal situation improves, we will do that. There is already a

commitment from the federal government that as times become better more money will be put

into this program, and the commitment is there that when the first $850 million is spent,

in the first two years, that they will do better. They are already committed to carrying

on with this program.

Advocacy groups in my district, in particular groups like the Women's

Centre, support the new programs that will be now available because of the enhanced

funding under the National Child Care Benefit. Many single mothers, as I work with them,

come in and say: I don't want to be on social assistance, I would prefer to be working.

Many of them talk about how they could go back to work if they had these programs.

One mother, in particular, whom I have, who has a child with a chronic

illness and requires medication, and will for the rest of that child's life, because the

medication costs so much each month, she realizes that if she does go back to work at what

she is able to do, probably in a fairly low-wage position, that her child will be worse

off. Now who can blame a mother, you know, in circumstances like that, for staying on

social assistance? This program may possibly help that woman and she has been asking for

that help for many a long year. Her child is now seven years old and she would appreciate

being able to get back into the workforce and to do what she trained to do many years ago.

It is important for us to realize that we have families who are not on

social assistance, who are worse off than if they were on social assistance. I think, more

than anyone else, that is the group that will be able to avail of these programs. We have

long worried about families whose mother or father, or both, work in a low-wage sector,

and meanwhile their children are worse off and they are worse off than if they gave up

their jobs and stayed on social assistance.

This program, above all else, supports all of the consultation and the

direction we have done with our Strategic Social Plan. Hundreds of people, hundreds of

submissions, came in. When the group went around this Province asking for input and we

consulted far and wide, these are the recommended directions that we are taking at this

time.

I think that is why many of the advocacy groups, while they wish we had

more money to put into this, while we all wish we had more money to put into it, to

enhance the monthly allowances we give on social assistance, know that this is a good

program and one that many people have asked for a long, long time: Could we have these

programs?

Federal, provincial and territorial governments have agreed on the

objectives of this National Child Benefit. It took a lot of consultation at many tables to

come to these conclusions. The most important of the objectives of the program is to help

prevent and reduce the depth of child poverty in this Province and in this country at this

time.

It is also to promote attachment to the workforce, resulting in fewer

families having to rely on social assistance. Maybe that's the point where we will be able

to give greater allowances on social assistance, when we have fewer people receiving it,

by ensuring that families will always be better off as a result of working; and to reduce

the overlap and duplication through closer harmonization of program objectives and

benefits and through a simplified administration. This is an ongoing process. While we

continue to strive for greater harmonization, even now as we speak many of us feel this

program could be greater harmonized between the federal and provincial governments. This

government will continue to work in that direction.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments have agreed on

operating principles for this program. This will be a partnership between all levels of

government. It will require significant incremental and permanent federal investment; and,

as I have said, the federal government have agreed that this will be necessary, as well as

appropriate and complementary provincial investments benefiting children in low-income

families.

It will be developed in a staged approach. I know that many times a

staged approach is viewed with cynicism, but in this instance the staged approach is being

put in place because as the money becomes available we will stage it and improve this

program; the initial investment representing a starting point to a more significant

investment in the future, an investment which is sufficient to (inaudible) benefits for

children who are on our welfare systems.

It will not result in the reduction of the overall level of income

support for families in receipt of social assistance. We know that this year, through

several Budget initiatives that our government put in place, while some of them are not

huge, they are still significant. There is a 2 per cent increase in the basic social

assistance rate. Effective May 1, a $150 cost of living allowance will be provided to

families with dependent children residing in Coastal Labrador communities. We all saw this

winter with Black Tickle the significance of the problems. It's bad enough, some of the

problems that we have in many of our rural communities, but when you look at Coastal

Labrador and the cost of goods, this $150 allowance is being spent very strategically to

help the people who most need it.

Effective June 1 this year, the earnings exemption for families with

dependent children will increase to $150 a month, but the national child care programs and

services we need to continue to work on. Effective the fall of 1998, the child care

expense deduction will be increased for families moving into employment. Effective this

fall also, drug card benefits will be extended for families moving into employment. As I

have pointed out, my constituent who has had such difficult problems moving into the

labour force for seven full years now, will be able to avail of this opportunity.

Additional family resource centres will provide a range of supportive

and early intervention services to meet the needs of low-income and social assistance

families. Also, the point that several people have been making, that family resource

centres are for urban Newfoundland, that is just not true. One of the best family resource

centres and the best models that we have is in Gander Bay, in the minister's district.

Licensed child care services will be improved and expanded, including

additional child care subsidies, the introduction of licensed family home child care,

which we have never had in this Province - we are the only Province in Canada that has

never had it - the introduction of licensed infant child care for the first time in this

Province, and the provision of a range of supportive program funds to assist with the

development of general child care services. All of these are extremely important programs

that we have long wanted to have and now, because of this new national program, we will be

able to offer the citizens of our Province.

Regional youth services networks will also be developed in partnership

with existing community programs to support youth at risk. It is only today, as we hear in

the news and read in the news about the need for changing our Young Offenders Program,

that we realize it is not just the Young Offenders Program that needs changing. We will be

able to address some of these needs through this new program, with an emphasis on

prevention and early intervention supports, stay-in-school initiatives and other

initiatives which will contribute to future employability.

These programs are good for all children, all over this Province, every

nook and cranny, in Labrador and on the island portion of our Province. In particular, one

of the reasons I support this program is because it is good for both rural and urban

Newfoundland. These programs are able to be implemented in rural Newfoundland. Some of the

programs that we have had in the past were not able to be, but now that we are moving into

licensed family care situations - and we have already proven that family resource centres

and regional youth service networks can be big assets in rural Newfoundland. All of these

programs, the child expense care deduction, drug card benefits, will extend into rural

Newfoundland as well as urban Newfoundland and Labrador.

This government initiative deals with all poor children, not just those

on social assistance but also those who are part of families who work but in reality are

worse off than if they were on social assistance. As I have said, this is a good first

step. As this country and this Province's fiscal situation improves, we will do better.

That has to be a goal of our government, that we will continue to improve on these

programs and to make sure that these are a good first step.

Prevention and early intervention programs are essential to addressing

child poverty and the problems associated with it. It is not just the amount that comes in

the cheque with social assistance that will address child poverty in this Province and in

this country. Early, effective intervention programs can have important lifelong benefits.

Families with low incomes often have difficult times in meeting the needs of their

children. Whether a family, as I have said, is on social assistance or earning a low wage,

the hardships caused by poverty can be truly overwhelming.

I know, on a daily basis as I assist constituents in my district, in

Gander district, that many of the needs they have expressed to me in the past will be

addressed in this program, for a number of reasons: Working poor parents may be

financially worse off than when they are receiving social assistance; their employment

income may be actually, believe it or not, less than social assistance income; they may

not be eligible for supplementary health and dental care, dental care in particular, and

for prescription drugs, one of our biggest problems; they may incur work related expenses

such as child care, clothing and transportation; and they may be required to pay income

taxes, various premiums and contributions. Similarly, parents on social assistance may

find it difficult to move into low-wage work while continuing to meet their families

needs, especially if their children have special needs; and as we know, we have many

special needs children.

The National Child Benefit is an important first step in improving the

life chances for poor Newfoundland and Labrador children, but child poverty, we all know,

cannot be eliminated overnight. We have struggled with this for years and years and years,

and it is good that finally we have some money that we can put into programs that we know,

in other areas, have addressed some of the child poverty needs. That is why federal,

provincial and territorial governments have made an ongoing commitment to doing more for

children. Our aim is to do more for children and to erase child poverty by the year 2000.

While that may be very, very optimistic, considering the fiscal

circumstances in this Province, if we do everything in our power between now and the year

2000, we will have made a huge, big dent in this problem. As fiscal circumstances improve,

the investment in this initiative will go further and further and further, so that we can

continue to ensure that all of our children have the best chance in life.

The federal government's initial $850 million investment in the

National Child Benefit just represents a down payment, and this has been made very clear.

Not many people are addressing that this is the beginning of this program. The federal

government is committed, and this government is committed, to increasing its investment

when resources become available. It is very important that we continue not to, you know,

think this is the end all and be all; it is not. We recognize this as a first step.

The funds that the National Child Care Benefit will provide in

provinces and territories will be devoted to reducing barriers to work and providing more

benefits and services for low-income families and their children. The National Child

Benefit will protect the overall benefits for families receiving social assistance, and

this is a very, very important point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS KELLY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying; I

know we have a long way to go, but more important than anything else here, this is the

most important first step that we have ever taken in this government to erase child

poverty in this Province and in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on this motion presented by the Member for St. John's

West.

I won't even refer to the amendment yet, Mr. Speaker, because I could

regard the amendment as a cynical piece of work by the government to try and deflect

attention from the reality of child poverty in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, let's look back a few years and put this into the right

perspective, as a part of Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Mr.

Speaker, the Canada Child Tax Benefit came about nine years after there was a unanimous

all party House of Commons resolution to seek to eliminate child poverty in Canada by the

year 2000. Mr. Speaker, that was a motion presented by the hon. Edward Broadbent, as

Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada. It was supported unanimously by the Liberals

in the House, by the Conservatives in the House, by the New Democrats and whomever else

was there, Mr. Speaker, at that time, sitting as Independents. It was a national

commitment, Mr. Speaker, to place an emphasis and to place a priority on the elimination

of child poverty. Mr. Speaker, at that time there were 1 million children living in

poverty in Canada, 1 million children.

Now, following the passage of that resolution, Mr. Speaker, in 1989,

and the signing of the Charter of the UN Convention on the rights of the child in 1990,

time economic policies, both fiscal and monetary, were put in place that created

permanently high unemployment, underemployment and fostered a trend towards low-wage

employment and the downward pressure on wages, Mr. Speaker; and did nothing to solve the

high regional unemployment in places like Newfoundland which has historically been double

the national average. There were cuts to social assistance, to higher education, to health

care, to UI, only serving to increase the ranks of the poor.

Mr. Speaker, the astounding fact is, that by 1996 there were nearly

500,000 more children who had become poor as a result of their parents either becoming

unemployed or could only find work in poorly paid, temporary or precarious jobs. This was,

Mr. Speaker, a 50 per cent increase in the amount of child poverty in a country that had

committed itself to the elimination of child poverty in Canada. That is indicative, Mr.

both the Tory Government and the Liberal Government that followed, at the national level.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened is this country's deficit reduction,

rather than alleviating the poverty of children and that of their families, has become the

unwavering but misguided priority of governments at the federal level and at the

provincial level as well, Mr. Speaker.

Our country, and we as a part of it, should be ashamed of the record of

this country. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we have let 1.5 million of

our children suffer the hardship and burden of poverty daily. Mr. Speaker, we have, in

this Province and in this Country, over 20 per cent of our children living in poverty; 20

per cent, Mr. Speaker. Six out of every ten children in single mother families are poor in

Canada. That is 58 or 60 per cent, Mr. Speaker, in Canada. In this Province it is 72 per

cent. Over seven of every ten children in single parent families live in poverty, Mr.

Speaker.

At 57 per cent, the Canadian figure, that is the second worst record in

the whole industrialized world; in Canada. In Newfoundland we are nearly twenty points

higher than the Canadian rate. Now, Mr. Speaker, why are we allowing our children to

suffer the harsh sentence of poverty?

Mr. Speaker, we have a terrible record and a terrible problem. What do

we do to solve it? We have a program which is going to deliver $10 million worth of

programs in this Province, that are needed and they are not bad programs. They are not

perhaps as well distributed as they should be. They do not offer the opportunities to

everybody. But where is the money coming from for this program, Mr. Speaker? The $10

million is coming out of the pockets of the children on welfare. That is a condition of

the program.

The Provinces are required to reduce their level of welfare payments by

the amount of the increase in the Canadian Child Tax Benefit and invest these savings in

services and programs, designed to promote attachment to the work force, not designed to

eliminate child poverty, Mr. Speaker. What happened? Did this Province go up there and

say: No, we are not going to participate in a cruel program that is going to destroy the

possibility of children on social assistance being better off? Did they say: No, we are

not going to participate in probably the worse social program that has ever been foisted

upon the children of Canada? Did they say, no? No, Mr. Speaker. They said: Oh, this looks

good. We will be able to pass out $10 million and look like we are adding new services.

We just had the minister speak about all the wonderful new services

that are going to be ongoing. She did not say that the poorest of the children in this

Province are the ones who are going to be paying for those programs for someone else, Mr.

Speaker. She did not say that. This is appalling, and every member opposite who has gone

along with this, one way or the other, should be ashamed of themselves. The ministry, the

Premier, whoever had any say in it -and I do not care if they blame it on Paul Martin.

They should not have been sucked in by Paul Martin, if they think it is Paul Martin's

fault. They should have said: No, we are going to participate in this cruel program that

attacks the welfare of children.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, what does it do to our children? It tells

them that because your mother or father does not have a job there is something wrong with

them; not with the system that consistently has twice the national unemployment rate in

this Province as in Canada.

This requirement, Mr. Speaker, effectively restores the concept of the

deserving and the undeserving poor to the approach to income support. It perpetuates the

harmful myths and the stereotypes about people who suffer the misfortune of needing to

rely on social assistance to survive. It blames people for their poverty, Mr. Speaker,

when the reality is that the economic and social conditions are to blame, the economic and

social conditions that are beyond the control of the family living in Port Anson in White

Bay, or beyond the control of the people living down in Fortune Bay who do not have jobs,

or in Placentia Bay, or the areas where the fisheries has been shut down for the past six

years, and does not happen to have the benefit of TAGS.

It blames them, Mr. Speaker, for their poverty and says: You shall

contribute by a reduction in social assistance to programs for people who are working.

That is what it does, Mr. Speaker; as if somehow or other, the fact that you are lucky

enough to get the job makes you better than someone who does not happen to be in the

position to do that. The truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the people who are

forced to rely on social assistance have to do so because the policies of government are

inadequate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, don't tell me we are trying our best, because if

every other country in the industrialized world, except Canada, can have lower child

poverty rates than Canada, then we are doing something wrong. Do not blame it on the

globalization, do not blame it on trying to be competitive in the markets, do not blame it

on anything except the cruelty of governments towards the poorest of our people.

If this program was designed to help poor children, why would you have

a program that by its very design refuses to help the poorest of the people, those on

social assistance? The children who are going to get this benefit through their parents

are having the benefit taken away from them by government.

Don't tell me that the federal government forced us to do it. The

Premier of this Province knows how the federal government works. This Cabinet knows that

they went along with whatever agreements had to be made, and if they disagreed with it

they would have said: No, we are not going to participate in a program of such a cruel

design as this. We are not going to do it. We want to make sure that we have social

programs in this Province equal to or better than the national average. That is what we

want to have in this Province, and our Province and our government should be demanding

nothing less.

If that means shaking up Paul Martin, if that means shaking up Jean

Chrtien out of his golfing lethargy, if that means shaking up the rest of the people of

Canada who don't recognize that what we are doing in this country is treating our poor

people and our children in a cruel way, then let's do it. Let's have this government lead

the way, let's have our Province lead the way, not just roll over and say: This is

wonderful, now, we have $10 million to spend. Neglecting the fact the $10 million comes

out of the pockets of the people who would otherwise receive the Child Tax Credit.

We are not talking about just statistics, either. We are talking about

real people here. We are talking about real people who have hunger, real people who don't

have enough to eat. You know, I have young children, and most members here have young

children. If they don't have children of their own, they have grandchildren. You have to

have children of your own, I suppose, to have grandchildren. You have nieces or nephews.

Everybody knows the needs of children. I find myself, how much milk does a two- or

three-year-old drink? When a child is asking for another bottle of milk and someone has to

- I don't have to say no to my child. I would very much not want to be a parent who had to

say: No, you can't have another bottle of milk because we don't have any milk in the

house. We can't afford to buy milk because we don't have enough money.

When it comes around at the end of the month - and I get phone calls

from people who are saying: Me and my sixteen-year-old daughter have to go hungry for a

couple of days towards the end of the month. That is what they are saying. Me and my

daughter, who is in high school, have to go hungry for two or three days until our cheque

comes because we have run out of food.

We have a proliferation of food banks in this country. I don't want to

blame the people who are volunteering and helping out the food banks, they are doing a

wonderful job, but they are doing the work of the government. When the government praises

them for it, I say to them: Shame on you for praising someone for doing the work you

should be doing in making sure that poverty doesn't exist. I don't think it is right for a

government to go around and praise people for, through volunteer effort, setting up food

banks and providing food to the hungry. That is the job of government, to have a system

that works for poor people and works for poor children.

I don't care if they can say they are doing what they want and they are

doing as much as they can. There is something very wrong. When we are one of the

wealthiest countries in the world, why is it that our child poverty rate is the

second-worst in all of the industrialized world? What are we doing wrong? Do we not care

about our children? Or are we lulled into some sense of waiting for the train to come,

waiting for prosperity, waiting for the better tomorrow?

I don't care how many million barrels of oil have been discovered off

the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. I don't care how many million barrels of oil are coming

out of one well and being sent to the tankers somewhere else in the world. That doesn't

bother me one bit. We can double and triple our GDP, but if we don't distribute our wealth

properly - so that we have poor children continuing to live and exist in this country,

then all of that is for nought, all of that is wrong.

It is wrong to allow the distribution of wealth, the wealth and

poverty, to be stretched to the point that we have the worst record, in this Province, in

all of the industrialized world for poor children. We have to do something about it. We

can list off all the programs that you are going to do with the money you take out of the

poor people's pocket. That is all very well, but I say shame on them if that is what they

want to talk about. Shame on them if they amend that motion. If they amend and pass that

motion and say: We will help them to the fullest extent possible that we can under the

existing Child Tax Benefit, what they are saying is: We won't help them at all. Because

the program is designed only to promote attachment to the workforce to subsidize, in fact,

low wage jobs.

I did not hear the minister get up in the House today - not this

minister, the other minister - and talk about how we have an inadequate minimum wage in

this Province. What I heard her say was that some of them are better off on welfare so we

have to have programs. Mr. Speaker, if we had a minimum wage that paid a living wage, we

would not have that problem. So let's try and address the problem, and not try and make

excuses for the fact that we cannot find a solution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity

before we close here this afternoon to once again speak on the National Child Benefit

Program and support the amendment which has been introduced this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of