December 1, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 52

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to

welcome today to the gallery nine students from the Youth Service of Canada Community

Garden Program, Victoria and Carbonear, accompanied by their instructors Donald Innis,

Eileen Rose and Penney Burden.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide an update on

implementation activities associated with the Strategic Social Plan for the Province. This

plan embodies government's steadfast commitment to the social and economic well-being of

people in this Province. We believe that the Strategic Social Plan is a unique approach to

addressing the challenges facing our Province, one that recognizes the importance of

engaging people as active participants in building effective solutions.

The supportive response of regional and community stakeholders to the

release of the Strategic Social Plan has been very encouraging, not only because it gives

credence to the direction in the plan, but also because the long-term thrust of the plan

seems so well understood. The plan is a framework for achieving the kinds of outcomes for

people and communities that will be essential to the long-term growth and prosperity of

this Province. Achieving outcomes related to the health, education, economic and social

well-being of our people and to community capacity requires a broad based long-term

strategy involving government and the public.

Government is committed to doing its part. We have undertaken

significant new social initiatives including new legislation in the areas of Child, Youth

and Family Services and Child Care Services, and a number of initiatives under the

National Child Benefit Provincial Reinvestment Program, such as additional funding to

support child care subsidizes and infant child care services, additional family resource

programs, and initiatives related to youth services. These initiatives signal our

commitment to move in directions that support prevention and early intervention approaches

that will yield long-term results.

During the fall, activities associated with the Strategic Social Plan

have focused on information sharing in preparation for implementation. Some of these

activities have included:

Information sessions for members of the regional boards. Eight sessions

have been held across the Province, and three more are scheduled to be completed by the

end of this week. Sessions for the health boards are now complete, while briefings with

school boards will be finished shortly. The Provincial Caucus of the Regional Economic

Development Boards has also been briefed;

Information sessions have been held with community agencies in

Clarenville, Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Stephenville and Gander, with more

planned in the next few months; and,

Information sessions have also been held for senior government managers

to ensure that our managers are aware of the priority that government attaches to the

Strategic Social Plan.

As I have noted, these sessions have given government an opportunity to

discuss the directions of the Plan with a variety of people across the Province. On the

basis of those discussions, I believe that there exists a genuine desire on the part of

all parties to seek cooperative approaches to addressing this Province's challenges

through the Strategic Social Plan. Implementation at the regional level will begin in

early winter 1999 and of course we will use a phased-in approach. This will enable the

process of other regions to be guided by the experience in the first region.

On other level, a first meeting of the Premier's Council on Social

Development was held on October 26 and another will follow shortly. Actually, that meeting

will take place on Friday of this week. The Council provides government with a unique

opportunity to seek a wide range of views on issues that impact on the policy and program

decisions of government. Work has begun on the development of Indicators for the Social

Audit, under the advice of the Premier's Council. These Indicators will be an important

mechanism for providing regions and communities with planning information on an on-going

basis. The Social Audit will be conducted after five years and will inform the public on

progress achieved.

I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that this Province's

announcement of a Strategic Social Plan has been applauded at the national level as a bold

initiative that leads the way in the area of progressive social policy. The commitment of

a government to a broad based social plan is unique and the emphasis on integrating social

and economic development at a policy and program level is supported by the best available

research. The formal commitment to a government-region-community partnership around social

and economic development is certainly seen as innovative. The Social Audit will be the

first time that such an initiative has been undertaken by any jurisdiction in the country.

I believe that the Strategic Social Plan, carefully managed, has the potential to achieve

long term positive outcomes for this Province and demonstrate new ways for effectively

addressing social change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank

the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement.

There are a couple of items in it I would like to particularly address.

One is that the Strategic Social Plan "recognizes the importance of engaging people

as active participants in building effective solutions." Also, the "Indicators

for the Social Audit, under the advice of the Premier's Council. These indicators will be

an important mechanism for providing regions and communities with planning information on

a ongoing basis."

It seems that over the years this government has engaged many people in

creating solutions. They have been provided with volumes of consultative work in the area

of social policy but they have been unable to translate the concrete recommendations into

concrete actions.

We have the Williams report on education, the Canning report on

education, the Inkpen report on justice, the Children's Interest report, the Royal Report

on Social Policy, the Workers' Compensation report, various Auditor General reports,

reports by students, reports by social agencies, and the list goes on. It will soon be

time to do something. What I would like to say is that until the government has the

ability to turn these plans into effective action, then they can be charged with

implementation failure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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. The Strategic Social Plan is a

document mostly about process and discussions. What is the value of a Strategic Social

Plan without a guarantee of a quality of life for seniors, such as government pensioners

who have not received a raise since 1989? We need a committee for home care for the

elderly and disabled with proper pay for workers, a commitment to full employment for our

people, and a guarantee of a full stomach for our children going to school. A Social Audit

in the year 2005 does not help people who are suffering today. What we need is a

commitment and action now.

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

Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to take this opportunity to update the House on the progress

being made towards the development of an Endangered Species Act for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and to report on some of the initiatives being carried out on

behalf of species at risk in this Province.

Almost a year ago Cabinet gave its approval to proceed with the

development of an Endangered Species Act. We did so for two reasons. First, there was a

recognition that legal protection currently being offered to endangered species in this

Province was inadequate, and for some species non-existent.

Second, we committed through the National Accord For The Protection of

Species at Risk along with all other provincial, territorial governments, and the federal

government, to ensure that no species in Canada will go extinct as a result of human

intervention. Under the Accord each jurisdiction will ensure it has legislation in place

to protect and recover endangered species.

Mr. Speaker, officials from my department went around the Province in

January and February of this year visiting a number of communities, soliciting comments

and suggestions on what such

an act should contain.

To help facilitate the discussion we produced a paper entitled, "A

Public Consultation Paper Regarding an Endangered Species Act for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador".

Close to 200 people attended the meetings and gave their overwhelming

support to the concept of an Endangered Species Act. In addition, we received over fifty

written submissions from the general public, business and environmental groups.

In total there were more than 800 comments on the proposed legislation.

We have reviewed each any every comment and have used a number of the suggestions to help

strengthen an already good legislative proposal.

I say this because during the consultation process, and since, we have

received high praise from within and outside the Province for our proposal and our

consultation process.

It has even been suggested that our legislative proposal could be a

national model for endangered species legislation. Most recently, a coalition of national

environmental groups gave this Province's proposal the highest ranking of any existing or

proposed endangered species act in Canada.

As well, there continues to be a national dialogue on the

implementation of the various elements of the National Accord, including legislation.

Through this process we are better able to harmonize our efforts with other jurisdictions.

I hope to bring forward for discussion with my colleagues in caucus and

Cabinet, in the near future, a set of drafting instructions for an Endangered Species Act.

I am now awaiting finalization of the federal government's Endangered Species Act to

ensure that it compliments proposed provincial legislation.

Legislation, however, is only one tool in the protection and recovery

of species at risk. Within the past decade we have made significant strides in the

protection of endangered species. We have established an endangered species program within

the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods and with a full-time endangered species

biologist.

Mr. Speaker, we have set up a protected area for the endangered piping

plover and are currently working with other to establish reserves to protect the habitat

for the endangered Newfoundland pine marten.

We have taken steps to reduce the accidental mortality of pine marten

and are also involved in captive breeding of this species. One of the steps being taken

was the introduction of a modified snaring program to eliminate the deaths of pine marten

in rabbit snares. The recent death of a pine marten in a conventional snare in the Terra

Nova area confirms the need for this new initiative.

We have participated as well, on recovery teams for such species as the

peregrine falcon, wolverine, and harlequin duck. We have also been successful in

establishing partnerships with the public, industry and environmental groups for the

protection and recovery of species. These partnerships have been built in part on an

understanding that we all share a concern and responsibility for species at risk.

Mr. Speaker, it is this government's intention with the assistance of

legislation to ensure that we will never again witness an extinction of a species.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister rises and talks about endangered species. He talks about

such things as the pine marten, the harlequin duck, and the wolverine. I will tell the

minister what is endangered in this Province today, and that is the young people, the

people under thirty years old who have to leave this Province and go other places to find

a job. I will tell the minister what is endangered in this Province today. It is our

seniors who have had to come here today and demonstrate in order to get the attention of

the Minister of Finance!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Those are the people who are endangered today, and

unless the government admits there is a problem, that rural Newfoundland is falling into a

hole, that there is not enough economic activity there in order to maintain the people who

want to live there, then we will never, ever make things better. Unless you realize that

you have a problem, you will never correct it. So I say to the minister and I say to

members opposite, pay attention. Pay attention to the seniors. Pay attention to the young

people who are leaving this Province today, and let's try to work together in order to try

to solve some of those problems before we deal with the animals of the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the comments of my

colleague from Bonavista South but I want to address directly the statement of the

minister. I think it is important that government raise awareness of the issue of

endangered species and also awareness that the environment that we inhabit is also the

habitat for many other species, and the government's effort in that regard is certainly

valuable. Of course we want to have as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians available as

well to enjoy this habitat and this Province of ours.

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

Services.

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

I rise today to ask hon. members to join me, and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, in recognizing December 1, 1998, as World AIDS Day in this

Province and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, over the past number of years the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, in partnership with many community organizations, agencies and

individuals, has supported HIV/AIDS education, prevention, treatment and support.

The new health and community services regions are playing a significant

role in this effort, particularly in rural and isolated areas of our Province. At the

community level, increasing emphasis is being paced on partnerships with service

organizations to reach youth, both in and out of the school environments, and make the

linkages with addictions and mental health programs where necessary. In addition, HIV

prevention and risk reduction are being integrated, through partnership with the

Department of Education, into the new health and personal development programs for

intermediate and senior high school Students.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize in the

House today the success of the social marketing campaign implemented in collaboration with

the Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee. Television ads carrying a broad prevention

and risk reduction message were targeted towards sexually active adolescents and young

adults, and emphasized the importance of parent and mentor support.

This campaign reflects the approach of many of the prevention and early

intervention initiatives of our department. By increasing people's understanding of the

risks, we are enabling them to better protect themselves from HIV and other sexually

transmitted diseases.

My department is also engaged in ongoing research on treatment and

support of HIV and AIDS-related illnesses. An excellent example of this is the Community

Health Resource Project being undertaken by Memorial University. The Department of Health

and Community Services has partnered with the Department of Human Resources and

Employment, the Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee, and Health Canada, to extend

funding and support to this initiative.

With the cooperation of People Living With HIV/AIDS, and particularly

the chief researchers, Dr. Ian Bowmer from Memorial University, and Dr. George Segovia,

they have been able to collect data about utilization of human resources and employment,

health and community services, drug therapies, family and volunteer assistance. The study

will assist community agencies and health planners in developing future strategies for

improving policies, programs and services relevant to HIV and AIDS.

Today it is important to acknowledge that while HIV/AIDS still carries

a terminal outcome there is potential that the new drug therapies will enable individuals

to pursue or continue educational attainment, and transition to the labour market.

One of our challenges therefore, is to continue to coordinate service

delivery which increases quality of life, optimizes health, and reduces the costs of

providing health and community services. To that end Newfoundland, in its role on the

Federal/Provincial Territorial Advisory Committee on AIDS, is participating in national

and international work which will increase our knowledge of the prevention of HIV

transmission from mother to infant, HIV and AIDS as it relates to Aboriginal peoples, HIV

drug therapies, cost and access, and also HIV rehabilitation.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to recognize World AIDS Day in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Through continued education and prevention we can reduce the

numbers of people contracting this terrible disease, and through world-wide research

hopefully we will soon find a cure.

I have red ribbons with me here today, to distribute to all hon.

members to wear today in recognition of World AIDS Day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, join now with the minister and the government today, to

recognize World AIDS Day. AIDS and HIV is rapidly growing in certain parts of the world

today, and I think it is very important that we take initiative in not only dealing - as

reference was made - with drug therapies that can enable the people afflicted with HIV and

AIDS have a better quality of life - it is very important - but we should never undermine

the importance of concentrating our efforts into the prevention of this deadly disease

today.

Here in this Province and in this country we have a role to play a part

on an international scene where the problem is much more pronounced, and growing at a much

faster rate than it is here in our Province.

This government has a responsibility to certainly practice what it has

been preaching today, when a move in health care today is to move towards prevention

rather than have to deal with the problems inflicted by people who happen to contract

various diseases, of which AIDS certainly is one of the ones that people would least want

to contract.

I certainly endorse any efforts at all in this department to move

forward and to work diligently to prevent it. I think that is where the concentration has

to be. The minister did allude to targeting people in the high-risk group and

concentrating efforts in that area. I certainly hope we will see an increase of efforts in

the future to sort of curb the growth of this deadly disease.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in recognizing World AIDS Day. It is very

important for us to note, not only here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the problems we have

had with people facing this very frightening disease, and the efforts that need to be

continuously made to provide comfort and care to those who have suffered it, and also

engage in very active programs of prevention and education. It is not only a sexually

transmitted disease. There are other people who have suffered from this disease, having

received the disease from blood transfusion and other sources.

We do have to be mindful of its effect and problem, and also the world

situation where in some parts of the world, in certain countries in Africa, large portions

of the population are afflicted by AIDS. It is a national tragedy in many parts of the

Continent of Africa.

It is important that we do our share here in Canada to support efforts

to do something about these problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I want to pay tribute to the Newfoundland and Labrador

Aids Committee for keeping up the fight here in Newfoundland and Labrador and putting a

human face on a very frightening disease.

Oral Questions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this

afternoon are directed to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

We just witnessed outside, just a few minutes before the proceedings

this afternoon, hundreds of our retired public service pensioners who are saying to this

government, enough is enough. No increase in approximately the last ten years. We have

some 11,000 public service pensioners who are affected by the fact that this government

refuses to listen to their plight and to listen to their concerns.

We have the homes of public service pensioners, their nutrition, their

health, their sense of security, their well-being, and their dignity, being compromised by

the fact that this government will not listen.

My question to the minister is: Will he today do what is necessary to

ensure that our public service pensioners' benefits are reasonably increased in

consideration of the rise in the cost of living and their lifestyle, as it exists today,

on a day-to-day basis?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is committed to do what is fair and equitable for every

person of this Province. I want to share some statistics with the hon. member and the

group he refers to.

You have heard on the media, stories that the average government

pension is around $11,000. The average normal retirement pension in this Province, for

people retiring from the public service - the normal pension plan - is $14,400. The

average teachers' pension plan is $25,232. I want members to bear those two figures in

mind. Let's remember that there is a gradation. Some people worked for short times for

government and have smaller pensions.

Let me tell you about the rest of the people of this Province - and

these are statistics from 1996. In this Province, for individuals aged sixty and over,

there are 20,000 people with an average pension income of $3,400. In the Public Service

Pension Plan, with an average pension of $3,600, there are 866 people.

Let me ask you: Is the hon. member proposing that we tax the other

19,000 people at that income category to provide an increase to the people who are at that

category? Let me add them all up. If you add up all the people in this Province who have a

pension income of $9,300 or less, there are 59,300 people. In the Public Service Pension

Plan with that amount or less there are 2,184 people.

Does the hon. member propose that we tax the 57,000 who are on fixed

incomes because less than 1 per cent of the pension plans of this Province are indexed -

less than 1,000 people have that - in order to provide a percentage increase to government

retirees?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the hon. minister to do

what is fair and to show some compassion to the thousands of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - who have devoted their lives and careers to the

public service.

I was speaking with one gentleman outside who worked fifty years, nine

months, one day, and has not seen any improvement in his lifestyle in terms of money being

offered by this government since 1989. In fact, his lifestyle has considerably gone

downhill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Minister, we are talking about thousands of

public service pensioners who today are asking for redress from this insensitive

government.

I will ask my question again. Will you take the lead in announcing that

you, as Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, will commit funding to such an initiative

regardless of what others do, regardless of the situation? Will you, in response to these

people who are outside here today, senior citizens, public servants who have devoted their

lives to this cause, assist them today and make a commitment to the thousands of

Newfoundlanders who find themselves in this very ridiculous situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: The most interesting thing about the hon. member's

question, Mr. Speaker, is he said: Will you, regardless of the situation. Let's look at

the situation.

An individual with a pension income, aged sixty-five and over in this

Province, of $14,000, their average total income is $23,700. Now I ask the hon. member

again: Is he in favour of taxing the people on fixed incomes? There are many of them,

people who retired from the railway, people who do not have pensions. There are only

103,000 people registered for pensions in this Province out of a workforce of over

400,000. So are we to take tax dollars from everybody else in this Province, including

those on fixed incomes, to provide a percentage increase to people just because they were

lucky enough to have worked for government and have the pension?

I ask the hon. member, does he know how much it would cost? To provide

a 1 per cent increase to pensioners, we would have to put $22 million in the pension fund.

I ask him: Where would he take that $22 million from? Would he raise taxes on other people

with fixed income to provide it? Would he take it from the hospitals that so desperately

need it as well?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board, when he is in Opposition he can ask the questions, Mr. Speaker.

There is an issue here of misuse of public funds and I will indicate

why to the hon. minister. From approximately the mid-1960s until the early 1980s,

contributions made by public servants in this Province did not go to assist them in

pension benefits. It went for roads, it went for hospitals, it went for other services

that the government of the day deemed necessary. That, I say, is inappropriate. I say that

is a misuse of their money. What they are asking for today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - is to show some attention, consideration and

compassion for correcting that particular problem. Again, I ask the minister this

question. Will he make a commitment to the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

who say to this government: Please help us, we need your help, please listen to us and do

something about it.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the hon. member speak for the individuals who are receiving well

over $60,000, the individual who is receiving $106,000? Is that the person? Will I look to

their needs? The answer is no. People on substantial retirement pension from government

should not have it.

What I do think is fair is not that we give government pensioners an

increase but that we look for a way out of our revenues to give all elderly people in this

Province a tax credit or some form of additional money. Because let's not forget,

government employees who have retired are a small portion of our population. There are

many people, such as retired fishermen. My grandfather retired from the Newfoundland

Railway in 1947. When he died in 1972 he had the same pension. That is typical. He did not

regret it. He was happy to have worked, he was happy to have earned a pension.

I say to the hon. member that with respect to the contributions made

prior to 1980 that were used by government, his predecessors never put a nickel in the

pension plan to repay that money. This year this government is putting $193 million in to

repay the money that was used. I would be critical of former governments, but let me say

that that money was well used. It went into the hospitals, it went into the roads, it went

into the schools of this Province from which we have all benefitted. To the extent it was

well used, his predecessors used it, some of our predecessors did, more his, but we are

the ones who are repaying it now.

That's part of the reason we are unable to give this pension increase.

Even if we could, if we had $20 million, that should not just go to a small select group

of people, be they government pensioners or otherwise. That should go to all the retired

people of this Province who should benefit equally if they are below the poverty line or

have small incomes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Premier, on September 8 our

party announced that we believe it is time for the provincial government to put in place a

permanent and fair arrangement to compensate the City of St. John's for services and

infrastructure provided by the city on which the provincial government relies. The

Province has been providing a traditional grant since the transfer of the fire department

to the city some years ago. However, this assistance has now been discontinued. The Mayor

of the city has stated that a new form of assistance has been promised in the form of

payment in lieu of taxes but nothing seems to be forthcoming.

My question to the Premier is this. Will you take our suggestion and

put in place a permanent fair arrangement to compensate the City of St. John's with a

grant in lieu of taxes on services and infrastructure on which the provincial government

relies? If so, when?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government is reviewing all its arrangements with its

municipalities because the nature of the government's relationship with its municipalities

is changing. What the Province of Newfoundland does is provide a lot of services to

municipalities that municipalities themselves pay for elsewhere. One of them is policing

services, which are not charged to the municipalities. Just let me say that this year

alone we are paying to the City of St. John's $160,000 for water rates. If the mayor were

to apply and to have the Province pay to the City of St. John's water rates, at the same

rate, it would total $500,000.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think municipalities should have it both ways. If

they want to tax government, so be it. We would be willing to pay another, what is it,

$350,000 to the City of St. John's. Now let me tell you what we did give them this year.

There was a transitional grant regarding the fire fighting, just phased

out in 1997-1998, $3.2 million; the civic centre, $16 million; the Harbour clean up, $1.5

million; land slide prevention at the Battery, $400,000; the annual municipal operating

grant of $5.3 million; annual debt servicing on behalf of St. John's, $5.6 million; and an

annual boundary agreement, $100,000. If the mayor wants water rates we will give it to

him. We will not pay these amounts in future years.

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

Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that our party believes that the city has a

strong case in pressing the government for greater considerations for the capital city.

Will the minister not admit that the federal government provides such

remuneration to the city in return for services, that other municipalities throughout the

Province receive remuneration from government for services provided? Why should it be

different in St. John's? Isn't the obvious presence of the bulk of provincial government

buildings and offices in the city placing a great demand upon the city infrastructure,

such as water and sewer, fire protection, street services, and shouldn't the city and its

taxpayers be compensated fairly for that?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the federal government can well afford to

pay taxes in this city. After all, look at the civic centre. What is the federal

government's contribution to that? The Province's contribution is $16 million. Let me ask

you what the federal government is paying to the City of St. John's for its municipal

operations this year. Zero. What is it is paying for past debt? Zero. What are we paying?

We are paying close to $11 million.

As I say to the hon. member, if he wants to hold the federal government

up as a shining example of support for the City of St. John's, I think he better check his

figures first before he compares it with the provincial government contribution.

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

Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, if we could all only have a civic centre in the

City of St. John's - I would like to hear your figures quoted on the rest, I guess.

I would like to also ask the minister this. When an ad hoc arrangement

takes place for permanent fair and long-term arrangements, the city is hard pressed to do

long-term budgetary planning. I am sure the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board must

know something about that.

Will the minister, in the interest of fairness and balance, admit that

a permanent fair arrangement is needed now, one that will take the matter out of the realm

of constant political wrangling and one that fairly compensates the city for the services

it provides?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an interesting issue

about who should contribute to the services in St. John's. I have heard the mayor say that

the brown baggers, people who have come from Conception Bay South and take advantage of

the city's services and contribute nothing to it, should be taxed as well. I think we have

to look and ask the hon. member if he is in agreement with everything the mayor says.

Because obviously if the mayor's contention is that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: So the hon. member is not in agreement with the mayor?

He obviously believes that it is in the City of St. John's interests to collect water

rates from the provincial government, rather than accept the subsidies that we have so

generously and consistently offered over the years?

I say to the hon. member that the mayor's position in this matter is

not a fair nor well expressed one, and I am sure that the hon. member has his own

disagreements with the hon. Mayor of St. John's.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community

Services. Subsidized personal care homes only receive $900 a month to provide care for its

residents. Now almost all of that money is paid by the resident, with a minimal amount

paid by government. The homes have had an increase of only 6 per cent since the late

1980s. I ask the minister: Will she inform this House if homeowners can expect a

reasonable increase before more of them are forced out of business?

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

Services.

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

We have had meetings with our personal homeowners over the last number

of months and we have expressed concern and have shared many of their concerns,

particularly as it relates to the subsidized beds compared to the non-subsidized beds. We

look forward to that debate in the House of Assembly when it is raised very soon, I am

sure.

We are -

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will look forward to your support on that side

of the House, which we never got the last time. I certainly look forward to it.

It is very interesting today as I stand here and look back over the

past number of weeks. Every time the member opposite stands up, he asks, are we going to

put more money into something? It does not matter if it is ambulance services, physician

services, staff services, drug services, and now most recently today asking for personal

care homes.

We have a lot of choices and a lot of priorities, but we have to work

within our own financial means. I have had meetings with the personal care homeowners, and

if we are moving in this direction it will have to be budget item that will be discussed

through the process.

If you are asking me today if I am going to do it, no, I have no money

in my budget to do it. If you are asking me if it will be there in March, I would say,

stay tuned for the Budget.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not enough to share the concerns, I say to the minister. You

cannot make this reference to ambulance services. You proposed to give an increase to some

and to go out and take it on others to pay for that increase. That is not playing the

game, I say to the minister.

Some personal care homes have up to 50 per cent of its residents who

require Level II care. Some nursing homes receive, Minister - I have a list and breakdown

for every nursing home here, and what it costs for each person there - some receive up to

$5,000 to provide that Level II care to those same people in the nursing home.

I want to ask the minister: Why should a Level II care resident in a

personal care home not be given the same amount of care as a Level II person requiring

that care in a nursing home that is funded by this Province? Why the discrimination,

Minister?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: First, Mr. Speaker, in response to the

preamble,

when the member opposite said it is not about playing the game, there are no games

involved with respect to health care. This is very much about spending the precious few

dollars we have in the best way possible.

Now there are demands, and if anyone wanted to check back through

Hansard, every single day the member stands up and says: Put more money here, put more

money in cardiovascular surgery, put more money in physician services, put more money in

recruitment services, put more money in ambulance... The list goes on and on. Put more

money in child welfare services.

The answer is very clear. We would love to put more money in

everything, but we cannot. We have to look at what we are able to do.

Now we are conducting an overview of how we deliver home care services,

long-term care services, from the whole continuum of a person's home support care all the

way to nursing homes. Yes, we have most recently moved to bring Levels I and II of

personal care homes in an area where they can be provided that care, in a personal care

home. We are moving towards having Levels III and IV in nursing care homes. That is why

right now you have a mixture in some places.

Our goal is clear. We are trying to move Levels I and II care of our

seniors into the personal care home model and keeping our nursing homes for Levels III and

IV, more complex care; where, I might add, we have the highest professional skill mix in

the country. We are the only Province that maintains a skill mix of nursing assistants,

now mostly recently named LPNs, and registered nurses only. We stand by that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not talking about skill mix. I am saying it is wrong and

discriminative to pay one institution one-fifth of the cost to care for a person with the

same level of care as you are paying to another institution that is funded by government.

That is discriminatory, I say to the minister, and something should be done about it.

Minister, in 1994 there were 1,346 residents in subsidized beds here in

this Province. Today, under your leadership, there are only 1,100 subsidized beds in this

Province. When we have almost 100 people here in this city alone who are medically

discharged - here in hospitals in the city, not counting the rest of the Island - this is

the question: When people are getting older -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is kind of worried about my question. It

is the question, if you would listen to the rest of the question. I said: When our

population is getting older, when the demand for care is increasing in this Province, why

does this minister remove 250 subsidized beds, or 20 per cent of the beds, out of the

system here today in the Province?

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

Services.

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

I think an element of accuracy is important here. This minister did not

remove - this minister did not reduce the number of subsidized beds. There has been a

freeze on the number of subsidized beds, but this minister did not impose that reduction.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that many of our subsidized beds -

over the 1,400 in the Province - over 730 of them are in Conception Bay South and

surrounding districts. One of the reasons why there are so many vacancies is that many

people do not want to go to Conception Bay South. We are looking at - and I said it

earlier and I will repeat it again - how we are providing long-term care services,

particularly personal care homes.

I acknowledge the member opposite who talks about the transition

because we are committed to bringing forward very progressive social policy and moving

forward on issues that are long outdated. I thank the member for his compliment in terms

of the transition and moving forward because we are trying to move forward some very

difficult issues that have been in order for a long time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, there are very real issues

particularly as it relates to changing demographics in how we are able to meet those

needs. We are looking at it very carefully. We are meeting with the people involved. We

are consulting extensively, and we will make the decisions that we can make within the

best of our financial means as soon as possible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Minister of Health and Community Services.

I say to the minister, she is well aware there has been a concentrated

effort in the Bonavista area to have chronic care beds open at the Golden Heights Manor.

There exists ten beds at this senior's complex that were never opened. You, Minister,

continue to say that the waiting list is not long enough to warrant opening those beds.

I say to the minister, if there is just one senior on a waiting list

with a need to be admitted to this facility, should that not justify opening one bed,

since the staff and the extended services are already in place?

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

Services.

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

The member opposite has been involved in the meetings that we have had

with the Town of Bonavista and with the concerned citizens, and with the board. The member

opposite knows that many of the issues raised are far greater than health care and

long-term care. They are as much about the community and employment issues as any other

issue.

I have been very clear and upfront and honest with the people from

Bonavista, as I will be here again today. We have to make those decisions based on

financial ability and also based on the need and the waiting list.

Mr. Speaker, we have said we will incorporate other measures - for

example, home support or personal care home measures - to try to address the needs. Those

beds that were built down there, and arranged at a time when it was an expectation that

you could book your nursing home bed, that was at a time when we had Level Is in nursing

homes. We cannot do that any more. We cannot afford to do that any more. We have to work

within our capacity.

Mr. Speaker, again I say this is as much about finances as anything

else. We have to make the best decisions, in consultation with the board. The member

opposite knows we have been working very closely with the board and the community and our

answers have been very honest, based on waiting lists and financial availability to make

any types of decision.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I am only talking about the beds here today, not

other issues. The other

part is as it relates to meeting with the people down there. That

has been ongoing, and I thank the minister because she has shown concern and effort.

Minister, $1.4 million was spent to refurbish part of the Golden

Heights Manor, to create those ten vacant beds. I ask the minister if this was wise use of

taxpayers' money to create ten beds and then to leave them vacant, even when the need

exists in that particular area?

Minister, I am referring to Level III. I am not referring to Level I or

Level II people.

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

Services.

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

I have to disagree with the member even though he is from the district.

I think there are a lot of other issues involved. Whenever you are talking about issues of

a community you cannot isolate the issues to one issue only.

I have been to a number of meetings, probably more than he has on this

specific issue, and there have been many more issues every time I go there in addition to

the health care issues that are raised. First it was physicians services, then it went to

the beds, then it went to the fishing, then it went to the economy, then it went to the

employment. What I am saying is that you cannot look at any issue in isolation. But I will

say - and I will say it again - we have to make our decisions based on our financial

ability, we have to make our decisions based on the numbers on the waiting lists, and we

have to make our decisions based on the regional needs, and we work with all the people

involved in addressing those issues.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, there are approximately eight to fourteen seniors on a

waiting list to be admitted to this facility on any given day, and it is certainly cheaper

to have seniors at chronic care facilities than occupying acute care beds at our

hospitals. I ask the minister if she would consider opening these beds as needed. If there

is a need for one person to be admitted, open one bed. When there is no vacancy, close the

bed. There will be nobody arguing to keep the beds open when there is nobody to fill them.

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, again on a point of accuracy, there

are not eight to fourteen Level IIIs on a waiting list at any given point in time. I think

it is important also to state that it is not cheaper to care for these people when they do

not necessarily want to go in a nursing home and when we provide a much higher skill mix

in this Province than any other province in the country. We are the only Province, in

long-term care, that provides LPN and RN services, only to provide the care for people in

those homes.

It is not cheaper, and we have to make the decisions based on the

waiting list, the level of the people on the waiting list and, believe it or not, our

ability to pay and finance those changes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister

of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

The public service pensioners have traditionally in this Province

received an increase along with the increase granted to public sector workers. While there

was no legal requirement, this was a tradition and was effectively part of the plan for

public service pensioners until the Liberal government was elected in 1989.

Why has his government and the predecessor government unilaterally

changed this plan, depriving the pensioners of increases that they were traditionally due

and had a legitimate expectation of receiving?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say two things. The first is that pension plans are earned

benefits; you get what you paid for. Now the unfortunate thing was that in 1990 what

happened was that because of the lack of funding over a period of years - part of it was

the government of the various days had taken the funds and put them into public services.

The second part of it was that most of the pensions in the Province, people were not

contributing sufficiently to pay the benefits. For example, people were contributing 3 per

cent and 4 per cent; the benefits they were acquiring were 7 per cent.

At about 1990 there was a virtual crisis in pensions in this Province.

The previous government had ignored it for years. They had been told repeatedly, `put

money into your pension plans.' It was not done. So at that point the government had to

act.

Now at that point the government changed and we had a very difficult

time dealing with our unions and employees to change the pension plans to make them more

viable. We increased our contributions. We changed the benefit levels. We eliminated the

practice of buying early retirements.

One of the things that happened was that we discontinued the practice

of giving gratuitous payments, and for the reason I said earlier today. We can give our

employees a 1 per cent increase by paying approximately $17 million. To give a 1 per cent

increase in our pension will cost us $22 million. It costs more to give a 1 per cent

increase in pensions than it does to give a 1 per cent increase in salary, because that

money has to be put into the pension plan in order to fund it on an ongoing basis, because

the annual cost is about $2.1 million.

I say to the hon. member, with all due respect, the issue is not and

should not be seen as giving government pensioners an increase or not. The real issue is

about people in this Province who are on fixed incomes and what is a fair public policy

position to deal with people who are at very low incomes.

I think the only fair position members of this House should really put

forward to government and consider themselves is to find a way that we can, out of the

Province's resources, fund all the people, and seniors in particular, on low fixed incomes

so that everybody can benefit equally.

If we do what the hon. member is suggesting and give the same

percentage increase to everybody, we would give to people with $25,000, $30,000, $106,000

on pension. Is the hon. member, in all seriousness, suggesting that we should take money

from people on low incomes and fixed incomes to give a 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per

cent increase to someone who is now getting on pension $106,000? I don't think so. I have

more respect for his intelligence than that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister well knows that not every government program is

self-financing. This certainly was the case with the government's pension plan over the

years, but the legitimate expectation was certainly there.

The people who are here today protesting outside, and are calling the

open lines and petitioning, are not here because they are looking for special treatment

from other taxpayers. They are here because they are hurting. They are here because they

are unable to provide a descent standard of living for themselves.

I am not talking about people who are receiving big, fancy pensions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: I am talking about people who are hurting. These are

the people who are here asking for help.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to address that concern and

answer the question as to whether the pensioners who are hurting as a result of his

government and the previous Liberal government's policies are going to be assisted by this

government?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say with all due respect to the hon. member, the pension plan is not

the issue. All that you do by giving gratuitous payments of the pension plan is you

undermine its solidity and the basis to make these pensions payable in the future. What is

needed, I believe, is an initiative, when we have the funds, to give money and find a way

to channel the money to people who are on fixed incomes.

As I said earlier, in a response to an earlier question, in this

Province there are 51,100 people with an average pension income of $6,400 or less. The

average public service pensioner goes out of here with $14,400. The average teacher goes

out of here with $25,000.

I ask the hon. member: Is he seriously suggesting that what we should

do is tax these people? Tax these people who have very, very small incomes, to give a

gratuitous payment to pensioners who are, by and large on average, of a much higher

income? I do not think that is fair public policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of public service

pensioners in this Province, many of whom congregated in the lobby of the Confederation

Building this afternoon, many of whom have spoken out publicly, particularly in recent

date, and who simply say to this government that they simply cannot cut it on the fact

that this government is not prepared to listen to or in any way adhere to the concerns

that have been raised by public service pensioners in this Province. I will briefly read

the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the public service pensioners in this Province have not had an

increase to their pension since 1989; and

WHEREAS some 11,000 retired public service pensioners are directly

affected; and

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime

contributing to their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to provide adequate increases in benefits to public service pensioners which

reflect the increases in the wages of public servants.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many stories recently, and if members

opposite were outside today in the lobby of this building they would have had an

opportunity to listen to many stories from individuals who have provided years of

dedicated and devoted service to the Province, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

These same individuals now say to members opposite, and in particular to the Premier and

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board: We simply cannot live on the salary and the

pension benefits that are provided to us on a day-to-day basis.

There has been absolutely no consideration given to the well-being of

these individuals since the last ten years. That is simply not good enough. These are

people who are crying out on a daily basis saying: We are living well below the poverty

line. We cannot meet our day-to-day needs. We cannot provide, in many cases, adequate

housing. There are nutritional and health concerns.

These are the kind of concerns, regardless of the statistics that are

put forward by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, that have to be addressed and

listened to. It is an issue of need, I say, Mr. Speaker, and when there is a need,

government has to listen. Government has to place as a priority the needs and well-being

of its people. It is an issue of priority.

There are many expenditures that we see this government experience over

the course of the past several months. We see expenditures on certain projects and certain

activities that are distributed throughout the Province. Some are legitimate; others are

not. Many are not when we have individual citizens, when we have people who are retired

and who are pensioned in this Province who simply say: Our standard of living is well

below the poverty line, and we need a government that will lend us an ear and will listen

to what it is we have to say.

It is a sad day when the minister can only stand up and recite

statistic after statistic, and talk about a contractual basis. In the past I have heard

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board say: We cannot do anything about it because we

have to respect the contractual integrity, that this is what was or was not contracted.

I say, let's forget about the contractual obligation and let's talk

about the compassionate obligation. That is what this is about. This is about caring, it

is about compassion, it is about listening, and it is about doing what can be done as a

government to assist some 11,000 retired public servants in this Province.

Governments in the past have tried to break a contractual obligation.

We saw it when successive governments dealt with Churchill Falls, for example. No harm in

government then trying to deal, breach, or break a contractual obligation, but

unfortunately the minister uses as an excuse, as a reason why he cannot do anything in

this case: Because there is a contractual obligation. It was not a part of the terms and

conditions of the arrangements that were entered into at that particular time.

Government has full control and authority to do what it must do to

assist some 11,000 retired public servant pensioners, I say, Mr. Speaker. It has the

authority to do that. It is well within its own power and well within its own jurisdiction

to simply seize this opportunity and recognize that there is a need. We have people out

there who find it quite difficult to live on a day to day basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Some stories, granted, are worse than others, but

on balance we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, that requires assistance, it

requires attention, and it requires a sensitivity by a government which to this point has

not shown any whatsoever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support my colleague for St. John's East. This is

certainly not the first time this time of petition has been presented in the House of

Assembly. I believe we had a motion last year on Private Members' Day when we presented a

similar type of motion to have the pensioners' pension in Newfoundland and Labrador

increased.

It is very easy for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to fire

out figures as he has done today, such as his figure of $106,000 a year in pension. I

would love to know the number of people who were out here today in the front lobby

protesting that receive $106,000 a year. I would love to know, I would say to the

minister, the number of people in the pension plan of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador who are receiving $106,000 a year.

Maybe it is his own pension when he decides to retire. If he does not

soon get a heart, he may retire sooner than he thinks. The time has come for pensioners in

this Province - the pensioners who have called me at home, who have stopped me at

functions that I attend - to raise this issue of their pensions, of how difficult it is

for them to live on the meagre dollars they receive.

As I said today, there were not many people in this lobby, and the

people I spoke to, I can assure the minister, were not receiving $106,000 a year in

pension from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would go so far as to say that

there was not one person in this lobby today who was protesting who is receiving that kind

of money. The number of people that are receiving that from this Province, I would say,

are very minimal and there are not a great deal of government pensions being paid out to

the tune of $106,000 a year. If there are then I would like for the minister to stand in

his place tomorrow or the next day and tell us how many people in this Province are

receiving that kind of a pension.

I believe it is imperative for the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to do something for our pensioners, for our senior citizens, who are living on

meagre amounts of money. We have all read the stories, we have all watched the stories,

and I believe the time has come for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to have a

heart, to do something for these people so that they can live the kind of life they

deserve to live in this Province.

Hopefully over the next little while, and in the next budget - and

maybe it will be a popular thing to do if we have an election coming down in the spring

before that, to do something for the pensioners in this Province.

I did notice one member from the other side out there today. I did not

notice a big crowd of them out there, but I did notice one member out there. I am sure if

he were to stand in his place today he would feel the same as we do on this side of the

House, that a lot of those seniors have not or are not receiving a fair remuneration for

their years of service.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board talked about his uncle who

worked for the railway who, when he died, was receiving the same pension. Let me tell you,

I know of people who retired from the Dockyard a year ago and are receiving quite handsome

pensions. They certainly do not fall within the $12,000 to $14,000 range, but are much

larger.

I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board today: Find it in

your heart, and in the next provincial budget do something for our senior citizens and our

government pensioners in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to offer a few comments with respect to the petition and

support some of the information presented by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

I wanted to make a few comments because the hon. Member for St. John's

East, I think it is, in presenting the petition indicated that it is an issue of need and

not particularly finance and so on, and that there are people in need here and have

difficulties with diet, food, heat and light, and the basics of life.

I make the comments as Chair of the Social Policy Committee of the

Cabinet. We just finished a meeting as well over the lunch period with the Federation of

Seniors and Pensioners for Newfoundland and Labrador in which they raised this issue. We

had a fair discussion of the whole matter and they did raise this particular issue.

As the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board was pointing out, the

government's role is not to just try to meet the needs of a small select few of the people

who are pensioned, retired, and on a fixed income. Because our public service pensioners,

while they have given in many cases long and valuable service to the Province as public

servants, are only a small group and portion of the full number of retirees and seniors.

The group that we met acknowledged that. There are a lot of other seniors on fixed income

other than public service pensioners who have very great levels of need with respect to

their fixed income and their ability to live a lifestyle they had become accustomed to and

would like to maintain.

The difference is this. There are a couple of points I would like to

make. The campaign, for example, that the public service unions are using, using a number

like $11,000 as an average public service pension from the Government of Newfoundland, is

very selective in what it does. It does not treat the issue fairly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Let me make this distinction, Mr. Speaker. I think

members - I wish I would not be interrupted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I would even give leave for him to speak to the

petition because this is an important point.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister is suggesting that the

members on this side of the House are misleading and saying that the average pensioner is

$11,000. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has said that the average new

pensioner retiring today is $14,000, and not the ones who are already retired.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order. I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I was trying to be very serious in making was that the

campaign that is being sponsored by the public service unions is leaving the people of the

Province with the impression that the average public service pensioner is out there trying

to live on $11,000.

The reality of it is that while the average public service pension may

be in that range - they might be able to make an argument -, the amount of money the

person is living on is not $11,000. Because those people who are aged sixty and over have

other incomes along with their public service pension. That is a part of the information

that is being very conveniently left out of the equation.

We are very serious about the issue of need, and that is why our whole

Cabinet committee and others are dealing with it. We want to find a way to meet the needs

for those on fixed income, all of them in Newfoundland and Labrador, not just a few

thousand who did give good service to the Province as public servants.

The other issue is this. Cast your minds back to just three or four

years ago. The public servants of the Province and pensioners of the Province were asking

the question: Will we still have a pension? Because they had heard for years that the very

basis and underpinnings of their pension was in jeopardy. I offer in response, petition

the fact, that it is largely because of polices adopted in the past - like the hon. member

was suggesting today - over seventeen years of rule by a previous government, in the face

of advice that said: You should not give ad hoc gratuitous increases to your pension plan

because you are undermining the plan.

That is what caused the decision in 1990 to stop ad hoc increases.

Because there was an actuarial study done that recommended - and it recommended to two

previous governments before, in 1985, 1987 and 1983, when there was a different government

altogether that this group supports - they should stop ad hoc increases unless they were

going to put the money into the plan on an actuarial basis.

The other piece of information, if I could just finish, is that there

is a suggestion that it is very easy to give the increase to pensioners because it would

only cost $2 million. That is fine if you just want to give them the money on their cheque

for one year, but if you are going to sustain that into the future and have it actuarially

sound so that you can then provide that increase every year for the rest of their lives

without giving it one time for one year and taking it back, the actuarial study is that

you must - in order to secure the ability of the plan to pay that for the rest of the

person's life - immediately put $22 million into the fund anyway -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - so you can guarantee that payment. There are a number

of issues, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is suggesting: Don't worry about anything else,

just give them the money. That is what he said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: - that is what they did for seventeen years, and that

is what has caused the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I am also going to present a petition on behalf of the public service

pensioners. I am proud to present the petition, but I am not proud of the reason I have to

present the petition. It reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the public service pensioners in this Province have not had an

increase in their pension since 1989; and

WHEREAS some 11,000 retired public service pensioners are directly

affected; and

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime

contributing to their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to provide adequate increases to benefits, to public service pensioners, which

reflect the increases in wages of public servants.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am not proud of the reason this petition is

being presented is because we, as legislators, should be looking after the people who have

built this Province, and the government are not. That is a reason not to be proud of why

the public service pensioners had to come to the lobby of this public building and lobby

government. I commend them for doing it, but they should not have had to do it if

government had a heart at all. They argue that people who are over sixty have other forms

of income, such as Canada Pension. We all know in this House that this very government

claw back the public service pensioners when they start receiving their Canada Pension.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stood in his place today and

said that some public service pensioners are receiving $60,000, $70,000 or whatever -

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and six thousand dollars.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One hundred and six thousand dollars. Well I would

submit, Mr. Speaker, that is a very select few. The many seniors, the many public service

pensioners who are receiving $11,000, and some of them less, who have to put food on their

table, pay their utilities and look after medical expenses, deserve every cent of their

pension they are getting as well as their Canada Pension Plan. Not to mention the fact

that government are clawing some of that back. They deserve every cent of that for what

they have done for this Province in previous years, for building this Province and for

adding to the society we now enjoy.

We in this House saw a raise to public servants this year. We saw a

raise to recipients of social benefits. I don't argue either of those raises because those

people deserve it, but the public service pensioners deserve it as well. I have visited

some of the public service pensioners that have called me and I have written some of them.

I have responded to phone calls by some of the public service pensioners. The stories that

we hear, the little amount of money that some of the public service pensioners have to

survive on, it is absolutely deplorable that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

and other ministers - such as the Minister of Education, who stands in his place and

almost mocks these very public service pensioners. It is deplorable that these public

service -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I regret that the hon. member in

making his points cannot resist but to try and suggest that anything I said in terms of

expressing the government's position had anything to do other than to acknowledge the good

work public servants have done in Newfoundland and Labrador. How that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - could be misconstrued to suggest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - that I am mocking anybody -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister -

MR. GRIMES: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it deserves an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: It is no point of order. I ask the hon. minister to

take his seat.

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

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

The only apology that should come from this House today is the apology

to the public service pensioners, because of the attitude that government has taken

towards these ladies and gentlemen who have put their lives in to building this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

I am pleased to support this petition. I too attended the demonstration

today in the lobby of Confederation Building. It is sad that our seniors and retired civil

servants have to resort to this.

When I was standing there today while they were up speaking, I glanced

around and I looked at some of the placards. They did not have a lot of words on them, but

the words that were on them were very profound: Dignity, not poverty, and no more food

banks. What have we done to our seniors? What have we done to our retired civil servants

when they have to stand in the lobby of the very building in which many of them worked,

which many of them gave so much of their lives to, stand in front of television cameras

with signs that say: No more food banks, and dignity not poverty. What have we done to

these people?

The Minister of Education got up and said that the amount, the $11,000,

belies the amount they are receiving. Many of them are sixty-five and over. Many of them

are not sixty-five and over, many of them are fifty-five plus and they went out

voluntarily. More of them were forced into retirement by cutbacks made by this very

government. I spoke to one person out there today, a licensed nurse practitioner, who had

worked for more than thirty years. She is receiving $215 a week. That is about $11,000 a

year. That is below the poverty line. This person, along with many of her colleagues, and

many people who worked side-by-side with her, gave the best years of their lives to the

public service. This is the way we are treating them, forcing them to come to the lobby of

the building or the government that they worked for, with signs saying: No more food

banks, dignity not poverty.

One month from today we are going in to 1999. That is the year of the

senior. What I would like to say here today is: Let's welcome the new year and let's

welcome the year of the senior by granting them and recognizing their needs, and bringing

them out of poverty and giving them the raise that they so justly deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would just like to add a couple of comments with respect to

the petition to continue on where I left off the last time.

Mr. Speaker, the issue that has been raised is: Is it fair, or what is

wrong with the whole notion of not having an increase for the public service pensioners as

a select group since 1989? I guess the question that the Opposition refuses to ask is: Why

is it that they have not had an increase since 1989?

Before they left the government they were in possession of actuarial

studies, as the government of the day, that told them that the pension plans - including

the public service pension plan - were about to collapse for two reasons: One is that they

were underfunded because they were paying out more benefits than the people and the

government themselves, the employer, were paying for; that we were agreeing to more

benefits than we were putting money in to sustain, and that should be corrected, and it

has been corrected over the last nine or ten years.

Secondly, that one of the biggest features in putting the plans in

peril of collapse was that the government for seventeen years had paid out gratuitous ad

hoc payments, that were never, ever accounted for in the actuarial studies, to the point

that there were increases in the payouts that were never, ever identified in any premium

discussion or in any funding mechanism for the plans.

The advice from the actuarials that were hired in the first instance by

the former Progressive Conservative government was that you must stop doing this. The

pension plans themselves can only sustain themselves if you put in enough money to pay for

what you plan to pay out in the future.

The hon. member suggested that we are doing some disservice to the

people who built the Province. Our notion is that while public servants did provide

tremendous good service to the Province, we should not downplay or suggest that they are

the only ones who built the Province. What about the loggers? What about fishermen? What

about miners? What about labourers on construction sites who built this building? They

were not public servants. Are they suggesting that they did not help build this Province?

They too have people who are now pensioned, on fixed incomes, and have fixed incomes as

low or lower in some instances than the public service pensioners.

Our notion is to try and find a mechanism to deal with all of those

seniors on fixed incomes rather than again jeopardize the very plan from which they draw

their current money by going back to a practice that the Opposition endorsed for seventeen

long years, against the advice of actuaries who told them: You are dooming the pension

plans to disaster.

Despite having that advice in their possession, they went ahead and did

it because just like the hon. Member for St. John's East today, he said: Never mind the

consequences. Do not think of anything else; just give them the money.

I am assuming that in their Blue Book that will be part of their

platform for the next election. Regardless of what else, they will give the public service

pensioners an increase and never care about any other consequence, but that will happen. I

hope I see it, because it will go along with a promise to give $250 million to the Iron

Ore Company of Canada to put the pellet plant in Labrador West - because that is what they

suggested - and it will go along with a guarantee that they will put at least another $100

million into the health care corporations - because that is the tone of the questions

being asked by the health critic every day.

I have been running a tally. It is well in excess of $100 million, so

far, of additional services that he questions the Minister of Health and Community

Services about on a daily basis, as to services that should be in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Along with that, in the range of $50 million extra for school boards, asked

yesterday by the education critic, we have $500 million worth of promises at least.

They were suggesting just a few days ago that the finances of the

Province are in complete disarray and jeopardy, that there is not enough money to provide

for current services, and every day they jump up and say: Don't worry about it. The hon.

member today said: Regardless of anything else, give them the money.

What they did before was they gave them the money for one year, they

put no money in the plans to fund it. We are not going to be that foolhardy and put the

pension plans at risk again. We will work to try to find every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian who is pensioned and on a fixed income, and in need, to try to find some way

to address the needs for all of them, not just a select few - by putting the pension plans

back at risk.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of Labrador

City who condemn the provincial government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada

decision to process Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

The petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

reverse the decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing within the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We spent a lot of time in this session of the House debating the new

Minerals Act. That new Mineral Act talked about the power of the government, and giving

the government power to require primary processing of minerals in the Province and

allowing the government to effectively dictate to private enterprise what they would do

with our mineral resources.

I supported that legislation because it gives government powers that

are clear and unambiguous in relation to what government has the power to do under

legislation.

I have some quibbles about whether or not it should come before the

House of Assembly. It should come before the House of Assembly because this is where the

power ought to rest. The government has the executive power, but the legislative power,

and the power of the people, is in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I supported the legislature in principle and I support

that this government, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, ought to be

able to control and, if need be, dictate to corporations how natural resources of this

Province should be used to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Government failed the test. I said many months ago up in Labrador,

addressing a gathering of steelworkers from the Atlantic region on this issue, on the

issue of what the government decision was going to be on the pellet plant, that this was

going to be a test of this government's ability to ensure that the benefits of iron ore

production in Labrador go to the people of this Province.

At that time the member, the Minister of Environment and Labour, and

others, were up parading around. You talk about jumping in front of a parade. They led a

parade. There was a party. They were at the gates of IOC carrying on some kind of a

charade, leading people on to believe that the fix was in. They led the people of Labrador

West to believe that this government was going to look after their interests. What

happened? We know what happened. They failed the test. The government failed the test of

whether or not they were prepared to do what had to be done to ensure that Labrador West

was protected first, in the short run and in the long run.

It did not achieve a pellet plant development in Labrador West. Not

only that; the company officials have said definitively to the people of Labrador West, to

the Chamber of Commerce, to the community groups and to the union, that they are not

prepared to guarantee that the Labrador City plant would remain open in priority of the

Sept-Iles, if there was a turndown in production. They were not prepared to give that

guarantee.

What does this government say, Mr. Speaker? They accept verbal

assurances from IOC that they have no intention of shutting down the pellet plant in

Labrador West. That is very easy to say. Of course they have no intention, today, of

shutting down the plant in Labrador West. They have no intention today - the company can

say that - but if they are not prepared to commit, to give the pellet plant in Labrador

West priority over Sept-Iles in the event of a turndown, then that is the measure of their

commitment to Labrador West.

I say to the government that they have - unless they reverse this

decision - failed the people of Labrador West. Secondary processing and adding value is

just as important as primary processing. A smelter in this Province is just as important

as a pellet plant in Labrador West. There is no fundamental difference to me than a

smelter in Thompson, Manitoba, or Sudbury, owned by Inco and a pellet plant in Sept-Iles

owned by IOC.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Government should reverse its decision and listen to

the petitioners from Labrador West.

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

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

Isn't it awful that here we are presenting petitions; petitioning this

government because of the way that they are treating its residents, the way they are

treating our senior citizens. They deserve better. The way they are treating the residents

of Labrador West, they deserve better. As I said yesterday when I was speaking to this

petition, these people deserve good government, they deserve honesty, and in this

particular instance they are receiving neither.

First of all, our resources are being allowed to go out of our Province

when the secondary processing can happen right here in the Province. They are making chalk

of one and cheese of the other. For IOC it is alright because they determine that it was

not viable. They determined that it was not viable. This government did not determine that

it was not viable; but for Inco it is not alright.

Last year, when the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy were

in Labrador City for the winter carnival, it was a feel-good situation and they wanted to

be political, the Premier said he would go to Australia. Now I don't know if he had any

intention of going to Australia or if he just had dreams of being a joey. That is a little

animal who hops around Australia. Somehow, maybe the Premier decided that he wanted to be

a little joey and therefore he would go to Australia. In any case, maybe he has designs on

being a little something -

MR. SULLIVAN: Joey, that is a kangaroo isn't it?

MS S. OSBORNE: A little kangaroo, yes, hopping around Australia.

Maybe that is what he had designs on being, but his designs are set elsewhere now and the

people of this Province don't really mean anything to him.

Last year he could get up and make all kinds of promises and have the

people all buoyed up: Oh, what a wonderful person the Premier is. Oh, what a wonderful the

person the Minister of Mines and Energy is. They are going to keep our resources right

here in Labrador West. We are going to get secondary processing, and if they don't stay in

Labrador West I will be the first person on the plane to Australia to ensure that they are

kept in Labrador West.

I am wondering, is this promise that the Premier made indicative of all

the promises that he is making? `I will do it.' That is how good his word is. He has not

gone to Australia yet and I suggest that he does not plan to go to Australia. It is a fait

accompli as far as the Premier of this Province is concerned. He can make a promise one

year and he can renege on the promise the next year. He can make the people feel good when

the time is right to make the people feel good. He can turn his back on them.

He cannot say he did not say it because there were a lot of witnesses

there when he did say it. I would suggest that our Premier has not had good government and

he has been less than honest with the people of this Province by promising them that he

would go and represent them, that he would go and be the fighting Newfoundlander on their

behalf. To this day he remains in this Province not having lobbied on behalf of the people

of Labrador West and for the people of this Province.

The people of this Province deserve better. Hopefully some day they

will get it, in the not-too-distant future.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to clarify again -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I wonder if the House would want to recess for five

minutes or however long the minister has to respond to this petition?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is struggling to try and determine how that can be conceived

as a point of order.

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to speak very briefly - not to take five minutes - to the

petition presented by the Member for the Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and supported by the

Member for St. John's West. Just to try one more time, Mr. Speaker - because we will send

copies of Hansard to Labrador West and other appropriate places - to make sure it is clear

what the position of the Opposition is.

They are suggesting there is something wrong or something amiss in what

has been done. The Member for St. John's West, in particular, is more interested in

political rhetoric about something that may or may not have been said a year ago and

whether it is true today or not. The fact of the matter is the only two alternatives that

I have heard presented across the House, and I understand it reflects the official

position of the Official Opposition as well as the NDP party, is either one of these.

First, leave it in the ground. If this full redevelopment and expansion does not occur in

Labrador West, that we should refuse to let North IOC take any more ore. Leave it in the

ground. Which means the expansion should not go ahead under any way shape or form and we

jeopardise, in fact, the stability of the operation in Labrador West. Secondly, there was

another version of it, saying: Give them the cash and buy the pellet plant. Which is $250

million that again the Official Opposition would give to the Iron Ore Company of Canada

today to make sure they built a pellet plant in Labrador West.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte on a point of

order.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister can ramble on, and he needs

to ramble on today. For some reason, we cannot understand why yet, he is going to ramble

on, which is fine, but when he states the position of this party or this side of the House

he is incorrect in his position that we would say: Give them the money to do it in

Labrador City. We absolutely did not say that, never did, and never will.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, speaking to the

point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I am assuming that since the critic -

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Minster of Education speaking to the point

of order.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

There is no point of order. As the Chair has ruled on many occasions in

the past, hon. members are taking advantage of the rules of the House just to further

engage in debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are trying to muzzle the speaker, I think as well, more than

anything else.

I appreciate the clarification. All we are trying to do is get the

position of the Opposition clear for the record in Hansard, for the House. The critic for

mines and energy says they would not give them the money, which was the proposition from

Mr. Malek from the Chamber of Commerce. That was in the paper and so on. Some of them

jumped up and said it was a good idea. That is not the position of the Opposition. They

will not give the Iron Ore Company of Canada any money to help get the thing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: You just said that. They will not give them any money

to help make sure the extension to the smelter is built in Labrador West. That concludes

that the official position, of the Official Opposition is that there is to be no expansion

whatsoever in Labrador West with the Iron Ore Company of Canada. They are not to take any

additional ore out of the ground whatsoever. Today's production rates must stay as they

are, whether that puts them at disadvantage globally or not in the marketplace. I am glad

that it is now clear at least to the people of the Province who can read Hansard that that

is the official position of the Opposition. Regardless, of what that causes to happen in

Labrador West with the Iron Ore Company of Canada, or with Wabush Mines, they do not care,

because it is the same as the pension issue. They said: Regardless, just give them the

money, don't think of the consequences, don't worry about what may or may not happen.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the official position of the Opposition is:

Regardless of what might happen to the Iron Ore Company of Canada and North, regardless of

what might happen to Wabush Mines, do not let them expand their operation in Labrador West

unless they build a pellet plant in Labrador City -

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

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

MR. GRIMES: - and therefore, Mr. Speaker, leave it in the ground.

That is the official position of the Official Opposition.

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

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis on a point of order.

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

The Minister of Education has stood in his place a number of times over

the past few days and made statements with respect to what the policies are of the

Official Opposition.

By the way, what I am saying to you is that just because - and this is

for the Hansard record - the Minister of Education is stating a policy that he believes is

ours, that does not make it so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will state, as the Chair as stated on many occasions before,

that not only are members taking advantage of the rules of the House, members are abusing

the rules of the House to further engage in debate outside of the designated rules that

are clearly defined in Standing Orders.

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

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

I am again going to present a petition on behalf of the people of

Labrador City.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Labrador City.

WHEREAS, we the residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial

government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador

resources in Quebec;

WHEREFORE, your petitioners urge the government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Minister of Education stand and try to

profess what our policy is, when in actual fact he does not even know what his own policy

is on Labrador City. The Premier of the Province has set a policy on Voisey's Bay and Inco

very clearly. If the overall project is viable, regardless of whether or not a smelter on

its own is viable - even though Inco say a smelter is not viable - if the overall project

is viable and they want our resource, they will do the secondary processing on our

resource right in our Province.

That is all the people of Labrador City are asking for, and that is

what we are supporting them on. If the overall project is viable with the pellet plant, it

is our resource, and if the Iron Ore Company of Canada want to profit from our resource

they should do the secondary processing right here.

That is our policy. It is a policy the Premier set forward regarding

Inco and the smelter for Voisey's Bay ore. We are wondering why the Premier is not taking

the same stand on IOC's pellet plant.

Very clearly said, our resources should give maximum benefit to the

people of the Province. The Premier of this Province in the last general provincial

election, while he was campaigning, after Inco stated they would put a smelter somewhere

in this Province, while it was an easy promise to make, the Premier while campaigning

stated that he will guarantee a smelter in this Province or there will be no mine in

Voisey's Bay. Essentially, if the resource is not processed in this Province, leave it in

the ground. That is what the Premier said.

I am asking: What is the difference when Inco say that it is not viable

to put a smelter in this Province? IOC are saying it is not viable to put a pellet plant

in this Province. What is the difference? If it is our resource and there is to be no mine

in Voisey's Bay unless there is a smelter in this Province, what is the difference with

IOC and a pellet plant?

If the overall project is viable for Voisey's Bay then a smelter must

be built. If the overall project is viable in Labrador West then a pellet plant must be

built. That is my position. It is the Premier's position on Voisey's Bay. Why is it not

the Premier's position in Labrador West?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into

Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole,

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order No. 5, Committee of the Whole on a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," Bill No. 36.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission

Act." (Bill No. 36)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order No. 4, "An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act (No. 2)," Bill No. 29.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic Act (No. 2). We had some discussions on this bill when it was in second reading,

and there were a number of questions I had anticipated asking the Minister of Government

Services and Lands with respect to this bill. This bill, by the way, deals with the

graduated driver licence that the Administration wishes to bring in and have effective on

January 1, 1998.

Actually I had a call from an individual, I say to the minister, who is

twenty-five years old and he had some concerns that he would not be able to get his

licence. He is twenty-five years old now and is after having driving lessons and what have

you. He phoned last week to go in and do his test before January 1 in Mount Pearl, at

Motor Registration, and he was told that he could not get in. He could not get in to take

his driver's test before January 1 because everything was booked up -

MR. TULK: Is he a Tory?

MR. J. BYRNE: I never asked that question. I don't ask that, I say

to the Government House Leader. The Government House Leader just asked me if that

individual was a Tory. When I serve my district everyone is the same to me, everyone: PCs,

Liberals -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Because they are all Tories.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for St. John's East just made a point,

that is because they are all Tories. There are some Liberals down there, I would say. My

opponent in the last election, I think he is a Liberal. He used to be a Tory. My opponent

in the last election was a delegate for me at the leadership convention four or five years

ago now, but all of a sudden he decided to run for the Liberals. Again, as we know, on

that side of the House of Assembly if you want to go anywhere with that Administration

over there, the first qualification is to be a Tory first. We all know that on the

government side of the House, if you want to go anywhere in that Administration over

there, especially if you are a new group coming in, the first qualification is be a Tory

first. Then you become a minister, no problem.

Anyway, back to my individual.

MR. TULK: You are wrong, you know. (Inaudible.)

MR. J. BYRNE: I stand to be corrected. The Government House Leader

is trying to correct me now. He says it takes 20 per cent just to keep us happy on this

side of the House. I would say I could name a few over there. It would probably come to

more than 20 per cent, especially in Cabinet, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in Cabinet?

MR. J. BYRNE: In Cabinet. If you go anywhere in Cabinet, well, you

have the Ministers of Works, Services and Transportation, Human Resources and Employment,

Environment and Labour. Who else is over there? Let me see.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The next one to go in is the Member for Humber

Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is right of Tories.

MR. J. BYRNE: He is right of Tories? You are certainly right,

slightly right, and that is where he should be, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, with that big roller he was driving the other day.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands that with

respect to that individual he said he could not get in to take his test before January 1

because all the time slots had been allocated to the driver schools. He phoned me. I think

there is a clause there that if -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I told him he does not have to, he will not have

to. That is the answer. I just wanted to make sure it was confirmed.

I do not understand. Here we are, Mr. Chairman, and listen to this. The

Government House Leader is over there: Come on now, get this going, let's move it on. We

are in the House of Assembly two weeks and two days. We were not here since early June,

and he wants out. He is bringing in legislation - we have about thirty pieces of

legislation thrown at us right, left and centre. What is the proper name for these?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Clerks. What do you call you guys?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pages.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Pages. All you can see is them going around when

the House is open, bills going everywhere. It is like snowflakes falling out of the sky

and he wants us to close within a week. I do not know where he is expecting this to get

done. That is a fact, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I have to say here, and I am going to

plead to the Minister of Health and Community Services, to make a few psychiatrists

available so that the Minister of Government Services and Lands can drop in and have a

visit in a hurry and he won't have to wait too long. So he can get straightened out with

respect to this legislation. If he thinks this is flowing through this House of Assembly -

AN HON. MEMBER: Buffalo.

MR. J. BYRNE: The story about the buffalos.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Government House Leader,

he is here interjecting. I have no problem with that, and I appreciate it actually,

because he gives me a few words that I can say. We have a Government House Leader wanting

to put buffalo burgers on the table, who is dropping bills in this House of Assembly like

snowflakes coming out of the sky. He wants this done and he is saying: Hurry on. We have a

piece of legislation here, and I would imagine that it is a very important piece of

legislation. I spoke to this before. Obviously any piece of legislation coming through the

House of Assembly for the Province of Newfoundland is important.

MR. SULLIVAN: So important he had (inaudible) in the gallery

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and when it was introduced in the House of

Assembly he had members of the RNC in the gallery, members of the RCMP in the gallery, and

he had the Newfoundland Safety Council in the gallery. Obviously it is an important piece

of legislation and we have to address it and take it seriously.

AN HON. MEMBER: Also the insurance people.

MR. J. BYRNE: The insurance people. Now that is a point I want to

address, Mr. Chairman. With respect to this legislation, and I have mentioned it before -

and some members of the House of Assembly started to laugh, but this is a serious point.

As a matter of fact I had a senior from Pouch Cove - I will not say the lady's name -

phone me on this very issue when this was discussed earlier in the year. The point she was

making was this.

She said: I have a granddaughter who just turned seventeen years old

and is getting her license - no, she had a grandson who had just turned seventeen or

something like that - and she had a granddaughter who would take this new program. She

said: Let's compare them. If the two of them go in and you have the granddaughter take the

test, the new Graduated Driver System, and the grandson goes in, two of them the same age,

will they have to pay the same insurance?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, they do not pay the same insurance. The young

male has to pay more for his insurance but now this new graduated system is geared to

reducing accidents on the highway. I have some of the stats here which I will get into in

a few minutes. It is all geared to reducing accidents on the highway, and these young

males and females - I am particular here because this is going to apply to all new drivers

in due course. They can be thirty, forty or fifty, but I am talking about the specific

group of young males who are seventeen, eighteen or nineteen, whatever the case may be,

compared to the young females. You would not have people, eighteen, nineteen and twenty

going in under the new system.

The problem is this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is what I am getting to, based on the

driving skills.

The problem here is this: Now those young people will not be allowed to

drive from 12:00 to 5:00 a.m. when stats show there are the most accidents. If they are

driving, they have to have somebody with four years' experience with them. Again, this

should cut down on accidents hopefully. Therefore, why should a young male have to pay

more for insurance than the young female? It is wrong. It is discriminatory. It is

discrimination based on sex, no doubt about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not care if they are in the program or not. If

they are in the program, after January 1 they are going to have to be in the program. It

is a money grab. The Member for Humber East says it is a money grab. I just want to put

that on the record. He confirmed it; he is over there shaking his head. The Member for

Humber Valley is saying it is a money grab.

The Member for Humber Valley was on the committee - I think he was the

chairperson of the committee - which went around and had hearings on insurance rates in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If the Member for Humber Valley want to get to

his feet when he gets a chance, with respect to this, I would like to hear what he has to

say with respect to that specific issue - with respect to the insurance rates that are

charged for young males and females if they are in this new program. I would be interested

in what the Minister of Government Services and Lands has to say with respect to that

issue.

Actually, I had anticipated that we would be discussing Bill 7 first

today, for some strange reason, and I do not know how we got on Bill No. 29 first.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have no doubt about that; we will go to Bill 7 when

I am ready, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Here we go again. Tell me how good I am.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, with respect to

polls, I think this man lives by polls. I know the Premier does. Because whatever the

polls show, that is what the Premier does and this Administration does; but yesterday we

saw in Quebec - what happened? The polls in Quebec -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) because of what happened in Quebec yesterday,

but that is the kind of argument you will usually get from people who go down in the

polls, not like the hon. gentleman who just went up again. He came up again. I say to him,

be more positive. I want to tell you something. In terms of Opposition members, you are

again at the top.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Again the Government House Leader is on his feet on a point of order,

and again there was no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If the Government House Leader is correct, sure, who

wouldn't like to? But again, polls are polls are polls.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand to just say a few

words on Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2).

I say to the members on both sides of the House that this is a good

piece of legislation, something that we certainly agree with. Every time I stand I have to

pay tribute to the committee that brought this in place, the Woodford committee I will

refer to it as, of which the Member for Humber Valley was the chairman. He did a good job.

In fact, I would say that this might be the document that gets the Member for Humber

Valley in the front benches. This might be the beginning, I say to members opposite.

If the minister takes the advice of the committee, there are a lot more

of those bills to come. This is just the beginning. I think you will see a very positive

change brought about within the insurance industry as it pertains the Highway Traffic Act,

because one is directly related to the other one.

I am glad the minister brought this graduated licensing program in

first. If he was going to pick out something to bring in first, then this is it, I say to

the minister, because the most senseless kind of death and the most senseless kind of

accident I can imagine happens when a young person first gets a licence. I don't know what

word to use, but it is certainly outrageous. It is everything I could describe, when you

hear of an accident of a young person first getting their licence. I am always of the

opinion that everybody is entitled to make one mistake. Nobody should die because of a

mistake they made, their first mistake, in driving a vehicle, and this happens far too

often.

A young person gets their licence, they get their own car or somebody

gives them a car, or they borrow their parents' car, and they go out nighttime joy-riding.

It is human nature. We have all done it. We will go out and we will tear around and we

will show off a little bit. Because we do that, we don't deserve to be killed. Nobody

deserves to die in an auto accident because they decided to try something new, or they

decided they were going to speed for the first time, or they were going to go out drag

racing or whatever. Nobody deserves to die because of that. In most cases, it is probably

the only time it would have ever happened.

Good young people go out and are senselessly killed in auto accidents

because they want to experience something new and they want to go out and seek a thrill,

if you will. I believe this piece of legislation will curtail that. It may not stop it,

but I think it will certainly change it. We all know people to whom I just referred. We

all know young people, and we do not have to think long or hard to know somebody who

either was killed in such a situation or was severely injured in the first month or the

first couple of weeks they had their licence, and they were out trying to experience a

high in driving the car and experiencing something new, and I suppose to defy death, if

you would, because that is what it amounts to. Young people for the most part have no fear

and they feel they are in control, but they have a lot to learn.

This is what this particular part of the act will provide. It will give

them the opportunity to learn how to drive an automobile and to be responsible, under the

guidance of some other experienced driver who must be with them, number one, for the first

year, and number two, for part of the second year if they decide they are going to drive

in certain hours.

It is a good piece of legislation. I congratulate the minister for

bringing it forward so early, because it was only last March since it was submitted. It

isn't even a year yet since those recommendations were brought forward. The minister has

acted on two of those recommendations already: one which changed the territory rating

zones, which nobody could understand or nobody could give us an explanation from where

they came.

That was a big plus, where the people not only in my district, I say to

the Member for Ferryland, but people from the Burin Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula

were rated in the same Territory I with the St. John's area. Whether we want to accept it

or not, the Avalon Peninsula, the St. John's area, is the area where you have most of the

accidents, the area where you have most of the claims.

We felt, as a committee, that it was not right and proper to have

places like Catalina, Port Union, Bonavista, Marystown and Burin in Territory I with St.

John's when you had other places like Corner Brook and Gander, where there was a greater

population and a greater number of automobile vehicles operated in smaller areas, to have

them in Territory II, included in the rest of the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it was not the point of getting what I wanted.

It was a point of the committee seeing that there was an injustice there. Everybody pulled

together on it and said `this is wrong, let's change it.' It was one of the best

committees that I ever served on.

I go back and think about the worst committee that I ever served on,

and I have to mention that too. If you are going to mention the best one, you have to

mention the worst one. In fact, the Member for Humber Valley served on that one as well,

where we had struck a committee of this House to look at Private Members' Interests, and

the Minister of Environment and Labour was the chair of that committee. No wonder he has

no hair, I say to the Minister of Environment and Labour, because I think he will admit

too, it was probably one of the worst committees that he ever served on. In fact, the

committee did not even function. We used to walk out in frustration and it was mainly

because the Government House Leader, who was then a backbencher, and the former Member for

Eagle River, were the two government representatives on that particular committee. There

was too much partisan politics being played and the committee could not function.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where is the former member now? Where is he now?

MR. FITZGERALD: Where is he now? That is right.

The Government House Leader has taken on a new approach since that as

well. Now he realizes that he has to be more responsible and he is in a responsible

position so I think he would be a different member of a committee if he were allowed to

serve.

The Minister of Environment and Labour knows full well that was not a

very good committee and there was not much accomplished from it. It was a point that we

would get there, there would be the big argument, and somebody would run out and leave and

say: That is it, I am fed up with it.

I think the Opposition Leader of the day even wrote the Premier and

said: We are not going to take

part in this committee - if I am right - because it is

nonfunctional and we cannot get members to serve.

It is good when you have committees of the House where people put aside

their political differences and when people put aside their partisanship -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

is tarred with the same brush.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo; the Member for

Placentia & St. Mary's; the Member for Labrador West; the Chair; the Member for Humber

Valley, and myself, it was a committee where we did a lot of travelling. We sat late

nights. We held in excess of sixty meetings to give people an opportunity...

The committee's work, like every other committee of the House, I say to

the members here, everybody who wanted to meet with the committee was given an opportunity

to come forward and make their presentation and I think it worked well. This is the result

of it, whether it cost a few dollars or not, at least something was accomplished.

I think at the end of the day you are going to see lower insurance

rates because the amounts of collections are going to be reduced. Once you reduce the

payouts then I feel sure that you are going to see a reflection of what the insurance

companies pay out passed down to the consumer.

I would suggest that if everybody's insurance policy came due on the

same day in recent years, you would probably see the biggest upheaval that you ever saw in

this Province before; but because it is staggered over 365 days, where everybody's

insurance policy comes through at a different time, then people complain within their own

little circles. Then they go to the post office and be responsible, or go to the bank, or

go to the insurance company, and be responsible enough to pay it, accept it, and move on.

It is certainly one business sector in this Province I feel has gotten

out of hand recently. When you look at the rates that are being charged for the facility

part of the insurance whereby people are placed in that particular category, or in that

particular heading, Mr. Chairman, because they are supposed to be of a higher risk than

somebody who has had no accidents, when you look at the facility rates that are being

changed, it is completely shameful what insurance companies are allowed to charge in th