March 30, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 7

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we get to the routine proceedings, I would like to welcome today

to the gallery, twenty-seven Grade IX Social Studies students from St. Paul's School in

the District of Virginia Waters, accompanied by their teacher, David Brown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, Here!

Statements by Ministers

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of

Assembly that financial assistance is now available, or being made available, to

municipalities to enable them to purchase and install new information technology systems;

in other words, computers. This is a cost-shared initiative, 60 per cent provincial and 40

per cent municipal, to a maximum contribution by the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs up to $10,000.

I am pleased to say that the department is providing $500,000 in

financial assistance to eighty-eight communities. Under this computer technology

acquisition program, the grant ranges from $1,184 to a maximum of $10,000, an average

grant to each municipality of $5,656. The aim of this program is to facilitate more

efficient and effective local government through the application of modern technology.

Mr. Speaker, many of our municipalities today are using antiquated

systems to keep track of their financial records and their administrative affairs. While

this is attributable primarily to the lack of resources on their part, it is,

nevertheless, unacceptable in this modern age. The department has therefore decided to

assist those municipalities which, on their own, cannot afford to purchase and install the

type of technology that would be required into the Twenty-First Century. This program,

when fully implemented, will result in the establishment of electronic communication links

between our municipalities and the department.

The department also introduced a new municipal budgeting format last

year. Together, these initiatives will serve to enhance both the monitoring and reporting

of municipal finances. These initiatives are in keeping with the new direction that is

being established for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, one that will see the department

ensue a more pronounced role in the professional development of municipalities.

We are confident that these initiatives will have the positive effect

of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of local government throughout the Province.

It is anticipated the program will be fully implemented this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his

statement earlier today. I want to say to the minister that anything that can help

municipalities do their work, do it in a more timely and a better fashion, of course we on

this side of the House would support.

I guess with a lot of our municipalities, Minister, having some of the

difficulties that they are having in financing and so on, anything that would benefit

them, to try and keep themselves in line, we would certainly welcome that news.

On that note, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Prior to the House opening, the Premier, on behalf of

his government, announced a framework agreement with respect to the development of the

Lower Churchill. One of the features of that agreement outlined clearly the joint

development between Hydro Quebec, representing the Province of Quebec, and Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, representing Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the features indicated

that the joint development would look at a two-third/one-third arrangement in terms of the

development of the river.

Would the Premier be able to answer this question: What proposals, if

project so it would not have not been necessary for another province to take any ownership

stake in perpetuity of our resources in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

very clearly that it is not pursuing a policy of developing, as they say, mega-project

development at this time or any time in the future.

privately, that it does not have an interest in this kind of project as the hon. Leader of

the Opposition describes; but, more importantly than that, there are features of this

bear with me for a moment, I would just mention quickly three of them that are absolutely

vital for Quebec's participation; actually, four:

1. The Province of Quebec is the only partner who could waive recall

provisions on the 300-megawatt block of power which, in fact, have been waived and such

power given to us, and the money from such power flowing into our accounts since the day

of the announcement.

negotiate with us a guaranteed winter availability contract effective this November, which

will flow another $1 billion to our account.

(3) It is the Province of Quebec that can

divert two rivers to the Upper Churchill to create another thousand megawatts of power -

sixty-five percent of which, even though we pay nothing for the diversion and nothing for

the upgrade, will come to our account another $1 billion.

Finally, it is the Government of Quebec and Hydro Quebec that is

providing the roll-in which will pay the cost of $3 billion-worth of transmission line

in effect, an extra charge that will accrue to every ratepayer in Quebec to pay for the

cost of upgrading transmission lines, not only in Quebec but also in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Indeed, that national newspaper - which is a great fan of mine - the Globe

and Mail , in noting such a roll-in, said that they thought it was unfair - although I

disagree - to the ratepayers of Quebec. So these are all features of the deal which can be

provided by nobody but the partner in fact that we have chosen, the Province of Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer the question.

I understand the features he has talked about, and those are discussions, and questions

will come on those features at another day.

Historically, the Premier knows that there is not any other province in

this country that has ever developed its resources that has had to give up any part of it

to any other province to assist in its development. The Premier also knows, Mr. Speaker,

that historically, the federal government in other provinces dealing with energy matters

has come to the table financially to help other provinces develop its energy. The only

question I ask of the Premier, which he did not answer: What proposals has his government

made? Did he make any to the federal government prior to entering into negotiations with

Quebec to assist in the development of this very important project - as he would agree -

in the development of this important project so that at the end of the day 100 per cent

ownership of this Lower Churchill development would belong to the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador? That is the only question I ask the Premier: What proposals, if any, has he

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting if the position

of the Conservative Party is that they would cancel such a deal and they do not support

the deal, then I would invite the Leader of the Opposition, in the interest of clarity, to

make clear his position on this deal. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador need to know

where he stands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the Leader of the

Opposition's question: Has the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador ever asked the

`yes'.

The government, the previous Administration of Premier Wells, put a

am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows this, and they asked that the Lower Churchill

Development Corporation be used as the funding vehicle to develop the Churchill River

Power Projects. It would work this way: Newfoundland and Labrador would own 51 per cent of

would provide the financing, and the guraranteed financing to allow the funds to be raised

for the development.

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government of Mr. Mulroney

said `no' to 49 per cent, so the question has been put, the answer has been given, the PC

Party of Canada said `no way'.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier cannot have it both ways.

This is the first Question Period and the very first question I have put to him on the

Lower Churchill. Two weeks ago he was complimenting me on how responsible I was in terms

of asking the fundamental questions in this Chamber so people in the House could get it.

The very second question I asked of the Premier, he wants us to clarify our position.

Premier, our position will become clear -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, our position will become clear when we

start to get some answers as we ask the questions with respect to development.

I say again for the record, that I am not prepared today to stand in

this House and condemn this deal, neither am I prepared to stand in this House today and

embrace it.

The Premier and government have had at least eighteen months to

negotiate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. E. BYRNE: - we have had less than two weeks to really look at

it; all I am asking for is some clarification.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: With respect to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He did not answer the question. Former governments

both Liberal and Progressive Conservative in the federal House, of which he used to be a

part, have said `no' to assisting this Province with that development. All I am asking is

a simple answer, Premier: Did you, as Premier, before entering into discussions or

negotiations with Quebec, speak to the federal government with respect to being involved

in some way, shape or form with the development of this project? Did you? If you did, what

was the answer you received?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it must be absolutely clear to

everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, the very uncomfortable position the Leader of the

Opposition finds himself in, trying to straddle the fence, and a very sharp fence it is,

on this issue. Mr. Speaker, we have not seen this kind of performance, but apparently it

is a function of that job since they gave us their very clear position on education

reform. I must congratulate his predecessor. At the end of the day, his position was clear

and he took it without fear in this House and outside this House.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that he is asking a

question about whether or not the federal government wants to finance this project. The

answer to that question is no. He further asked: What have we put to the federal

government? We have asked the federal government to be involved, to assist us once the

analysis is completed; if all of the facts sustain the viability of the project, as we

believe they will, to assist us perhaps in financing the interconnect to the Island to

help build an 800-megawatt line to the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Prime

Minister of Canada has agreed to our request to enter into with us a series of studies to

look at the technical, the financial, and the environmental feasibility of such an

interconnect.

That is what we have asked for. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition

that we feel strongly that the agreement we have negotiated with Hydro Quebec, with the

Province of Quebec, is a very good one for Newfoundland and Labrador. We are prepared to

defend it in the House, we are prepared to defend it outside the House.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I do not mind him asking

questions, that is his role and right, indeed, it is his responsibility; but I say to the

Leader, trying to have it both ways, trying to ask hypothetical questions, fearing laying

down a straight position, fearing coming clean with the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, lacking the clarity to state where you stand, this will not win you any votes or

any support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe the Premier should send the questions over he

wants asked.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that might be a little bit more comfortable for

the Premier, I am not sure - a good point, I would say. Mr. Speaker, we are at a time

historically with this resource that is critical, no question about that. Thirty years ago

in this House one Premier stood and said `aye', and every member, Opposition and

otherwise, stood and said `aye' with him, and look where we were then as a result

historically.

That is not going to take place with respect to this agreement. I have

made a commitment to the Premier, to the House of Assembly, to the people of the Province

ultimately, to ask the questions that deserve to be asked. At the end of the day when I,

as Leader of the Opposition, representing my colleagues on this side of the House, am

satisfied with the answers that we have, and if we believe it is a good deal, we will join

with the Premier and say it is a good deal. If it is not a good deal, in our estimation,

for the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - then we will not join with the Premier and we will

fight the Premier in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. E. BYRNE: - in any way, shape or form with respect to this

agreement. That is all. It is fairly cut and simple.

Mr. Speaker, the last question I have for the Premier is this:

Obviously something must have been signed with respect to Quebec,

that outlined the framework that was released publicly; a letter of

intent, a letter of agreement of some nature. What is the form and nature of what has been

signed, and if it has been signed, why has it not been made public, and will you make a

commitment today to make that public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition

follows what is being said closely. He is a diligent member of the House. He knows that I

said prior to any announcement, I said at the time of the announcement, and I am happy to

repeat now after the announcement, that Newfoundland and Labrador has signed absolutely

nothing. There is no legal obligation on the part of the parties at this stage, Mr.

Speaker. What we have done is made public a proposal. At this stage there is no

obligation, no legal obligation whatsoever, on the part of either party, either Hydro

Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, who are negotiating on behalf of both

provinces.

What we have is a process. A chief negotiator has been put in place,

Mr. Speaker. It is our intention to have a letter of intent - and this is the specific

question of the Leader of the Opposition - in place by this fall. This fall we will once

again take all of the information available to the people of the Province, we will ensure

that what is negotiated, in fact, is consistent with what we have announced, and we will

then go ahead and sign a letter of intent. That would be my preferred course of action.

Now, if the Leader of the Opposition, at that stage, wants to argue

that the deal, having had some months to study it, is not a good deal, or wants to argue

that it is something that ought not to be ratified by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and if there is a genuine debate in the Province, I have said many times so

there would be no surprise, I would be prepared to take this agreement and put it before

the people so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the final say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I agree totally that the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador should not find out after the fact, they should know up front. That is why we

have made everything public now.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a consensus in this House or in this Province,

that we need an election, we will have an election and the people will have the final say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of certainties in

politics. Taxes are one and elections are another one. So whenever the Premier wants to

call an election, that is his prerogative; no one else has the prerogative to do that.

The question I asked the Premier is not with respect to: Are we

committed to anything? Because he has made a public commitment to the Province that we are

not obligated in any way, shape or form until the negotiations ultimately have concluded

and until it is put before this Legislature for ratification.

The question I asked the Premier was not with reference to that. The

question I asked was: Based upon what you have put out so far, the package that outlines

the framework agreement, was there an agreement on an agreement? Was there an agreement on

a process that was signed off by either yourself or by yourself and the Premier of Quebec

- not that it obligates us, not that it commits us, but was there anything signed to this

extent today that would set this process in motion? If it was, all I am asking the Premier

is, can he fully disclose what that was for public viewing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, neither I nor the Minister of Mines

and Energy, nor the Minister of Finance, nor any member of the Cabinet, nor any member on

this side of the House, nor anybody on my behalf has signed anything. There is no legal

document. There is no binding document. What there is is a public declaration of the terms

and the form and the shape and the intent of what has been negotiated. There is now a

mandate given to Mr. Jim Thistle, our chief negotiator, and his team, to translate all of

that with the advice of lawyers and accountants and all of the experts that we require,

into a Letter of Intent. The intention would be that the Letter of Intent would be

available by December 15 and I would assume if it is available by that date or perhaps

early in the new year, then some time next year we would be in a position to sign that

Letter of Intent. If the Letter of Intent is something that is supported by the Leader of

the Opposition and generally by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, then we would

sign it without any fanfare but if there were a genuine division and debate in the

Province then, Mr. Speaker, we would put it to the people and let the people decide.

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

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

My questions were for the Minister of Human Resources or the Minister

of Finance. In their absence, I shall ask the Premier.

In his Budget on Thursday, the Minister of Finance increased social

assistance payments by $3 million but it trickles down to a 2 per cent increase. The

government's own agenda here, the government's own table, shows that a single employable

person gets $130 per month right now. We have seen the appalling housing that these people

are forced to live in. Today, I ask the Premier, how much better does he think their

living conditions will be with that extra $2.60 a month? If they cannot find better living

conditions on that extra $2.60 a month, let him use his imagination; I ask for some

suggestions on how that person would spend that $2.60 a month.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have given an increase and

guaranteed an increase to individuals on social assistance of 7 per cent which is

equivalent to what has been negotiated with the Newfoundland Association of Public

Employees and indeed with CUPE as well. I might add, I might note, that we are very

encouraged to see that the majority of the bargaining units thus far have ratified this

offer. So what we have offered -

MR. J. BYRNE: What does that have to do with the question?

PREMIER TOBIN: So, Mr. Speaker, what we have given to people

receiving social assistance is an increase equating to what has been given to our own

public employees. Mr. Speaker, I would be a very happy individual if the Province were in

a position to be able to do more, but specifically, with respect to the question: What

other assistance may be offered? Mr. Speaker, the member knows there has been a

restructuring of the Department of Health and the Department of Human Resources and

Employment; the member knows that the National Child Benefit is being introduced this

year; the member knows that $10.15 million-worth of new program measures, which will be

specifically aimed at low-income families, families with children, are going to be

introduced; and finally, the member should also know that there will be another round of

RRAP again this year which will be administered by the minister responsible for housing in

this Province. Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to see that the greatest amount

of benefit is provided to the greatest number of families but nobody in this House has a

virtue of concern for those who are poorest amongst us, Mr. Speaker, not the member, not

me, we do the best we can in the financial circumstances in which we live.

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

West.

MS S. OSBORNE: That still does not answer my question on what that

person will do with his extra $2.60 a month.

However, I would like to speak now about the National Child Benefit.

Through an agreement with the federal government it is being clawed back from the social

assistance recipients. That is a new twist when the government gives to the poor by taking

from the poorer. I am surprised this government has allowed this to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, they have no social conscience.

The $10.5 million is supposed to be put into family resource centres,

child care services, regional youth service network, etc. Can the Premier tell me how many

jobs will be available for the Province's thousands of social assistance claimants? If

there are no jobs available for a recipient, then does this incentive to find work act as

a penalty against those who live in areas where there are no job opportunities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the

National Child Benefit and the way the program is going to work is a national program, and

indeed, governments of provinces, whether they are New Democratic Party governments,

Progressive Conservative Party governments or Liberal Party governments, are all taking

roughly the same approach, and that is -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: The member is asking questions, but her colleague is

shouting down the answer.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking a question. The

short answer is this. Every single person in the Province who receives social assistance

today will receive more, not less. Nobody will receive less. Everybody will receive more.

Those families, poor families, working poor, and people on social services with children,

may receive considerably more, for a variety of reasons. First of all -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) difference in 2 per cent of your salary

and 2 per cent of a (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am willing right now to offer up

another 2 per cent of my salary if every member opposite will offer up another 2 per cent

of theirs, and to direct it to the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let us put our money where our mouth

is. I make that offer right now on behalf of myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Count me in. I will be very glad to. Now, you just

said that the hon. (inaudible) -

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

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: The Premier just said they would receive

considerably more, and in the words of the Minister of Finance, they will receive the same

amount. Now, these family resource centres, child care services and regional youth

service, they are fine. The people who live in rural communities who are having their

social assistance clawed back to the same amount as the child tax benefit, will they all

have family resource centres, or will they have to pay for the people who have the family

resource centres? They have lost their National Child Benefit to pay for services they

will never receive. Does the Premier think this is fair to these people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member's

question is. The fact of the matter is, we have just had a budget introduced which offers

for the first time in quite a long time, an increase, and a projected level of increase

over the next three years, to people on social services. We have just had the largest

single increase in programs assisting the poorest amongst us in this society for many,

many years.

Rather than standing and acknowledging a step in the right direction,

the member opposite stands and tries to take what is a positive development and a positive

evolution in our social policy and somehow find fault with it. I do not mind the member

providing the critic's role and genuinely offering advice as to how things could be done

differently, but simply to stand and pretend that anybody is going to get less when the

reality is that everybody will get more, I think is unfair.

The reality is everyone on social services in this Province will

receive more money, and those with families will receive considerably more. In particular,

those who live in rural areas, where most of the few dollars for job creation we spent

over the last year, including, by the way, dollars utilized by the member opposite, have

been directed.

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, they will all receive more. I think the most a

family of four will receive is $6 every two weeks. That is considerably more, I suppose. I

am back to the question I asked you. The family resource centres and the youth services

that are going to be provided by the claw-back of the National Child Benefit for the

low-income families and social assistance families, what is clawed back is supposed to be

used for family resource centres. What about the people who live in rural communities who

do not get a family resource centre? Do you expect them to pay and not receive anything,

and if you do, do you think you are being fair, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to assume that the member is

confused because I would otherwise have to come to the assumption that the member is

deliberately misleading people and, of course, I know the member would never do that, so I

will say the member is confused.

The statement, that the most that any family would get is an additional

six dollars every two weeks is absolutely, totally, completely and unequivocally false. It

is not true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this Budget will allow families and in

particular, families with children, low-income families, to receive considerably more than

that. There are a variety of measures all the way from increasing the exemption, Mr.

Speaker - $400,000 is dedicated to a new $150 per month cost-of-living allowance for

families with dependent children, Mr. Speaker, living on the Labrador Coast. That is a

special feature for people living in rural Newfoundland, and this time, Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, a $500,000-pilot project will be conducted to explore

means of support such as day care, that will enable single parents collecting social

assistance to maintain employment. Mr. Speaker, the monthly earnings exemptions for

families with dependent children on income support will be increased from $100 to $150.

Mr. Speaker, there are a variety of measures here, they represent more money for poorer

families; I wish it was more but the member should acknowledge that everybody will be

better off, not worse off, because of these measures.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

Minister, we were all very saddened this weekend to learn of the death

of one of the workers injured at the recent Come By Chance fire, and we felt it very

appropriate on Friday that the Fire Commissioner has been commissioned to do a thorough

investigation of the incident and the conditions at the refinery, in co-operation with the

police, and Occupational Health and Safety and various government agencies.

Would the minister indicate the extent of his investigation by the Fire

Commissioner, and, will he ensure that the report is made public immediately upon its

receipt by government?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I made a statement in the

House on Thursday concerning the three injured workers, one of whom has since died. I will

say that, on behalf, I think of all of us, we offer our condolences to the Mercer family

from Bay Roberts and all I can say is, offer our prayers up for this particular family at

this particular point in time.

Mr. Speaker, on a twenty-four-hour every-day basis since the accident

occurred, both my department, Mr. Langdon's Department of Environment and Labour and

Government Services and Lands and the Fire Commissioner, along with a forensic expert, Mr.

Tupper, whom we brought in from Nova Scotia, who has done a number of investigations, not

only for us in that area but also for the company, and they have made recommendations to

the company. We have been on top of it. We are trying to ascertain, first of all, why this

accident occurred, but while we are doing that we are doing an investigation around the

area, to do our utmost to make sure that such an accident does not occur again.

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

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

Minister, we note that under

Section 63 of The Occupational Health and

Safety Act, the government has the authority to commission a public inquiry into such

circumstances, and we note again the very serious nature of this incident.

Has the government ruled out calling a public inquiry into this very

serious matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have not ruled out or ruled in a

public inquiry. What we want to do now, is allow the Fire Commissioner, the officials from

the various departments who have responsibility, the RCMP, to conduct the investigation.

It is now being conducted and when that investigation is complete - and I am sure the hon.

member would agree - only at that stage when we have all of the facts will we make any

decision about what kind of inquiry ought to occur with respect to this accident.

I think every member of the House shares in sending condolences to the

family, whose head has been lost, Mr. Speaker, because of this terrible tragedy, and send

our concerns as well to those who have been injured. Mr. Speaker, that being said, I

believe it is important - and I appreciate the tone of the member's questions - that we

allow all of the facts to come out in the kind of investigation to be completed prior to

coming to any other conclusions.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General. It

is with respect to the Whitbourne Youth Centre. The Inkpen Report, Mr. Speaker, indicates

in recommendation number one, that the youth corrections secure custody has the difficult

task of balancing two distinctly different responsibilities, the protection of society and

the rehabilitation of youth in trouble with the law. I emphasis the word `rehabilitation',

Mr. Speaker.

We saw the other day a news release from the Department of Justice

which indicated that there was now planning with respect to a new Youth Remand Centre. I

understand there are now some $300,000 that have been allocated for the planning and

design of the Pleasantville Youth Centre. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, that deals with

facilities.

I now question the minister with respect to the actual recommendations

as found in the Inkpen Report, with respect to the issue of rehabilitation and

preventative measures that are being taken in the youth centre while a young person is

incarcerated. What specifically are the steps that are being taken, Mr. Minister, to deal

with the rehabilitation of our young people who are experiencing serious problems?

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

MR. DECKER: I thank the hon. member for his question, Mr. Speaker.

He is quite right, Dr. Inkpen did point out that there is always a balance between

rehabilitation and, I suppose for want of better words, keeping offenders locked up.

I can tell the hon. member that there has never been any doubt in my

mind as to where the emphasis must be. We must always emphasize rehabilitation. Any child

who comes into contact with the court system and is sent off to a secure facility, it is

the duty, it is the responsibility of the state, to attempt to rehabilitate that child.

I think the hon. member will know - I don't know if he has visited the

facility in Whitbourne or not - but we don't have to take second place to any facility in

the country. We have been so dedicated to rehabilitation that we have had a couple of

close calls, as the hon. member knows. This is where you have to take chances on people.

You try to nurture your offender along until you give that person extended time off,

permission to go home with the family for the weekend, whatever the case might be.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to quickly conclude his answer.

MR. DECKER: Once or twice in the institution they have erred on the

side - maybe they were not cautious enough, Mr. Speaker.

The rehabilitative programs in that institution are second to none. As

a matter of fact, we have had people from other provinces who have come down and actually

looked at that institution. Some of the Members of Parliament came down, Mr. Speaker, and

did a tour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I invited the hon. Member for St. John's West to go out

and tour the facility, and I will be glad to take the hon. Member for St. John's East out,

because it is second to none in the country and I am quite proud of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am please today to present the annual report on the administration of

the Pension Benefits Act, 1985, for the year ending March 31, 1996.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today, Mr. Speaker, to be able to present the report

of the Select Committee to Review the Property and Casualty Insurance Industry of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would, first of all, like to thank the members of the

committee, who have put a lot of work, time and effort, into this particular committee;

the Member for Bonavista South, Vice-Chairman, the Member for Labrador West, the Member

for Twillingate & Fogo, and the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. Mr. Speaker,

they put an awful lot of time into this particular job. It was a fairly extensive and

exhaustive review of the property and casualty insurance industry in the Province, and

something that has not been done, Mr. Speaker, from what I have been told, in the history

of the Province. It has been done on an ad hoc basis over the years with regards to

amendments and so on, but never an extensive review.

I would also be remiss if I did not thank the two members of the

previous committee, the Member for Terra Nova and the Member for Trinity North, with whom

I served as vice-chair. The terms of reference of that original committee, Mr. Speaker,

was to look into some type of no-fault insurance in the Province, to see if it would be

something that would be reasonable and practical to institute here in the Province.

However, everybody in this House knows full well that was changed after the election in

1996 to improve and to expand the terms of reference to include all property and casualty

insurance, the industry, in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we had to address, one of the

biggest problems in the Province with regards to insurance - and the committee's research

shows - the primary cause of increasing premiums in recent years is largely related to the

increase in the cost of third-party liability insurance; specifically, liability insurance

as it pertains to bodily injury claims, Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) this problem appears to be primarily confined to the St.

John's area. As a result, in order to address one major issue which is dominant in one

specific area, it seems logical to reform rather than abolish the present system by

focusing on its weaknesses. The tort system has strengths which should not be overlooked,

such as providing an individual the basic right to sue for losses incurred. The right to

sue is intrinsic in our current system and should not be disregarded.

So, Mr. Speaker, from the outset I would like to make it quite clear

that one of the main recommendations of this committee on whether we should go with some

type of no-fault system in the Province or stick with the tort system we have, albeit, is

bringing in some type of reform.

In doing that, one of the biggest problems was third-party claims in

the Province, especially in the St. John's area, and one of the areas we had to look at

was contingency reform; contingency reform with regards to the fees charged by law firms

in the Province; contingency reform with regards to deductibles, for argument's sake. We

have that addressed in our report. Those are two of the main things.

One, on the contingency fee, is that we put in a clause and a

recommendation that states, if the defendant should make a so-called early offer in a case

then the plaintiff can accept that, regardless of what the figure is, but they cannot be

charged a contingency fee by a law firm. That puts more money in the consumer's pockets.

It takes away from probably a higher cost of third-party claims, because the severity of

claims is another example, the high cost and the severity of claims in this area.

The deductible is another one. I will not explain that because you can

spend a day explaining those things, but I want to make it quite clear that those two main

recommendations with regard to tort reform are based on non-economic damages. Everything

else is looked after under the regular system and it is optional. Those people do not have

to take it. If the defendant wants to make an offer, it does not have to be accepted by

the plaintiff. It does not have to be accepted at all. If they do, if they go over and

above, say, $50,000 or $60,000, that is all the law firm can charge them. They cannot

charge a contingency fee on the early offer.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, wage loss gross versus net. We have seen,

in the admissions and submissions made, that a lot of the reports and awards were based on

gross rather than net. Why should someone get more when they are home, hurt, for whatever

reason, than if they were working? That, according to some of the reports by different

people and different submissions, would save approximately 5 per cent to 7 per cent on

premiums in the Province.

Structured settlements, we touched on them, Mr. Speaker, and made

recommendations. Another important one is interim payments by order of the court. We have

a lot of people waiting around today for payments to be made, and finding it very tough.

Rating territories, we addressed that. We looked at rate regulation.

The present benchmark system, by its very nature, contributes to some degree to high

insurance rates because of the presence of a minimum benchmark. So, as evidenced by the

number of filings - twelve in the past year, Mr. Speaker - it is evident that the minimum

benchmark is not, in all cases, (inaudible) of the level of premiums necessary to maintain

solvency of companies.

So what we are recommending, Mr. Speaker, is that we go to a

file-and-use system of ratings in the Province, and that would be in line with the rest of

Atlantic Canada and other jurisdictions in Canada. We have looked at other jurisdictions,

and it has shown that any other jurisdiction that has a file-and-use system does have

lower rates. We are not saying it is the only problem here. We are saying it is part of

the problem, so that is one of the areas that we will be addressing.

One of the concerns was about local companies. We are one of the few

places in Canada that has a few local companies, but there are twelve companies that have

filed for rate decreases below the benchmark rate this year. It is funny; we only have

three local companies, but two of the people who filed for rate increases below the

benchmark were two local companies. So that says something for our local companies in this

Province as well. Yet, we have some of the biggest companies in Canada today that did not

file below the benchmark in Territory No. 1 in this Province.

We once had graduated licensing. The insurance companies will tell us

that for young drivers - if you have a son and a daughter today in the same household -

for the son you pay dearly. For the daughter, it is not so bad, you are pretty good

(inaudible), but if you have a son today, it is ridiculous to say the least.

Mr. Speaker, in order to address that, and looking at the pros and cons

and historically what happened across our nation, across North America, and in other

jurisdictions like Australia and New Zealand, the graduated licensing scheme shows,

definitely shows, a reduction. Ontario, I think, is 36 or 54 per cent, or something like

that.

We are the only Province in Canada where a sixteen-year-old cannot get

a permit to drive. We are a bit hypocritical about it, because we will give a

sixteen-year-old the right to get a motorcycle licence, but we will not do it with another

(inaudible). The big problem is inexperience. If a person goes out when he is seventeen

years old, and gets a licence a week or two after, he has no experience. They take the

car, the truck, and they drive it - they have absolutely no experience - in all weather

conditions.

So we are recommending that a sixteen-year-old be able to get a permit

to drive, the same as a seventeen-year-old can today, albeit in level one; very important.

They can only get out of level one into level two if they take

part in a safe driving

course or a defensive driving course. And then, and only then, can they get into level two

at the early age of sixteen years, nine months. That is the earliest. It would be three

months less than what it is today, but it would give them an extra nine months minimum of

driving experience. Then they go into level two, which will give them another twelve

months. And there are restrictions in level one and level two. You cannot drive between

twelve o'clock in night and five o'clock in the morning, for argument's sake. You must

have someone with you all the time in level one, another driver. So there are different

things to look at there.

Capital requirements for companies increased from one million to three

million, and any companies in the Province that are there now will be grandfathered.

Facility Association, we addressed that under underwriting. We

addressed the underwriting problem. Most of the complaints we had from consumers were

pertaining to underwriting problems, and that is another area that we looked at with the

possibility...

Under underwriting we are asking - we would be only the second

jurisdiction in Canada - that underwriting practices and principles be regulated. How far

we are going to get with that, I do not know, but we are asking that be done.

Those were the most complaints we had, Mr. Speaker, when dealing with

consumers across the Province, and I think it was only incumbent upon us to address it.

There are all kinds of other recommendations. I haven't time to go

through them here this evening. I would also like to thank all the people who made

submissions - the witnesses and the organizations, the Law Society and IBC, the insurance

adjustors and brokers and so on -, who took the time and effort to make a submission to

this committee, to try and make it something that we can show the consumers of the

Province that if there is any way of reducing premiums, we can do it with this report.

I think it can be done. With what is going on today with major

companies across Canada, with direct selling, telephone adjusting and so on, we have to

look at that. That is in there. We have to look at it because of what is happening with

CIBC and the big banks and the companies today. They are buying up and going into the

property and casualty insurance business.

Just today in the Telegram it says a couple of insurance

brokerage houses in Ontario merged. They merged because they want to fight those bigger

banks that are getting into the property and casualty insurance industry. Most of it is

direct selling, going to be done by the telephone, and we have to make sure our consumer

is protected when they are dealing with claims.

Once again, this will be available for public consumption this evening,

and I am sure there are going to be a few questions asked on it; that is for sure. If not,

then I can say as a committee member that we have done something wrong.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the few extra minutes to try to

explain some of it, and I look forward to the rebuttals in the future. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, by leave to

comment on the report.

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to add a few words as brought forward in response to

the chairman of this particular committee. I must say, I was very happy to have been

associated with this committee. The Member for Humber Valley, the Chairman of the

Committee, the Members for Twillingate & Fogo, Labrador West, and Placentia & St.

Mary's, put in a lot of time and effort. I think we had in excess of sixty meetings,

coming together here and going around the Province and giving everybody an opportunity to

come forward and voice their opinion. In fact, some of those people who had concerns were

invited back a second time, and we always made ourselves open for them to be able to come

forward and express their views.

If I was to express one satisfactory recommendation here in this

report, I would have to single out the graduated licensing program. I think that is

something that is going to have a big influence on our younger drivers, and I believe that

is the time to make the difference, when they are becoming new drivers, to teach them the

rules and regulations.

I must say, in conclusion, that this was a committee that was far

different from the last committee of this House of Assembly on which I sat, when the

Government House Leader was a member of a particular committee, and the Member for Eagle

River. They used their confrontational, objective, subjective ways in being

obstructionists in everything that was brought forward. There was none of that. There was

no partisanship in this particular committee, and it was a unanimous report. In fact, this

committee, I think, put forward so much influence that we saw recommendations brought

forward even before the report had been presented here today.

I would plead with the government, I would plead with the Cabinet, to

take this particular report and not let it gather dust, to act on it, to bring it before

the House in the form of legislation where it is needed, to bring in rules and regulations

in order to implement some of those - or all of those hopefully - recommendations and

suggestions. I think if we do that then we are going to have a much better insurance

industry in this Province with more acceptable rates than we have seen in the past. After

all, insurance is compulsory, something we must have, and I think it is something we

should keep to a minimum price as much as possible, while offering coverage that is

desirable and needed in order to drive on our highways here today.

In conclusion, I would also like to thank the researcher and writer,

Mr. Gerard Griffin, who works with the Minister of Government Services and Lands, and the

Assistant Clerk herself, who attended every meeting as well, and added much to this

particular document that we have here. So I plead on government to accept this document,

look at its recommendations and to implement them in a timely manner.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: If I could, by leave, just for a few seconds, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: I want to apologize. I forgot to mention, I want to

thank the Clerk, Elizabeth Murphy, who acted as Clerk on our committee, and Mr. Gerard

Griffin, who did a yeoman service in this particular committee. I forgot to mention their

two names and I wanted to make sure, for the record, that they are there.

Thank you very much.

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present a petition that was given to me probably

three-and-a-half to four weeks ago. It reads:

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

convened, the petition of the undersigned parents and concerned citizens of Green Bay

South and area;

WHEREAS we the undersigned are opposed to further cutbacks in the

education of our children; and

WHEREAS we were promised that a restructured non-denominational system

was supposed to mean better schools and better programs in our area; and

WHEREAS we have closed four elementary schools and amalgamated our high

schools to make better use of our resources; and

WHEREAS now we are being told that we have to endure further cuts in

teaching units and support staff, resulting in program losses and more multi-grading than

ever before; and

WHEREAS enough is enough, we have given up our fair share and will not

tolerate any further cuts;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to stop any further cutbacks in the education of our children.

Mr. Speaker, about four weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting with a

parents' group in the Springdale - Little Bay Islands area who gave me this petition to

present in the House. They asked me to talk about it, to say that it was an area that

supported the restructuring of our school system, that supported a non-denominational

approach, and did so, Mr. Speaker, with the knowledge and the commitment that at the end

of the day such an approach would mean a better system for their children in the area; it

would mean programs and services in that area that were not being offered before; it would

mean programs and services, with respect to curriculum, a greater level of service, a

greater level of curriculum that was being offered.

The parents' group I met with are very, very concerned that as a result

of further proposed reductions in teaching units, what they were promised and actually

what they are going to get will be two different things.

It was striking to note what one of the parents talked about: that at

one of the schools, as a result of the reductions that are forthcoming, some of the

programs and curriculum that are being offered actually will be reduced to the extent that

high school biology in the school may not be offered next year; and that as a result of

that science not being offered in the high school level, it would disadvantage high school

students coming from that area into post-secondary education; that as a result of not

having that foundation of curriculum that is available to many other students in this

Province in many other areas, particularly in the urban areas, that people coming from

outlying and more rural parts of the Province would not have the same opportunities as

were provided to others simply because of where they live, no other criteria, other than

the fact of where they live; and that, as a result, somebody from high school in that area

could end up coming into Memorial University or to any other post-secondary institution,

whether it be in the public system or private system, and not have that basic foundation,

that equal access to curriculum, that other students enjoy, and that other students not

only enjoy but other students have come to rely upon as being basic, as being something

that all should have.

It is the concern of these parents, Mr. Speaker, that I present here

today. There are some, I believe, 970-odd people from the Triton area, from Robert's Arm,

from Brighton, and they ask for nothing more than what other students in other areas are

receiving. They are not questioning the restructuring of the system - they support it,

they have supported it - but they ask simply for the opportunity to have the same level of

curriculum and services provided to them as are being provided to other areas of the

Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor - Springdale.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to respond to that

petition.

Let me say first, that I support any position taken by my constituents

in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker - if it is reasonable, I will support it - and I

support the prayer of that petition.

Now, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate the tenor and the

attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in presenting the petition, because this could

become highly political, as he well knows. At the time that that petition was drawn up and

presented, I myself, as the member for the district, was away, out of the Province

altogether, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware that the meetings were going on.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Baie Verte will

also know that some of the concerns expressed in that petition were 100 per cent, at the

time, a rumour. I came back to Newfoundland, sat with the very people who were responsible

for that petition, and talked about what their concerns were and they readily admitted

that they did not have the facts as to exactly what would happen: How many teachers would

they lose? What was the situation? They did not know, but they were being fed, they were

getting rumours and getting comments and letters and advice from school boards and other

people who had a self-interest in what would happen down the road and they were saying: If

this happens, this is what will happen to your child, and they are right, if this happens.

If the sky falls today, the ceiling will crash - if it happens, and the

funny part about it, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition will have to

acknowledge, is that, within a couple of weeks of his receiving that petition, when the

Minister of Education was in a position, he announced at least a 50 per cent reduction to

the number of teacher cuts that the people from Triton, Brighton, Robert's Arm, Pilley's

Island and Green Bay South were concerned about. And already they know, if you just use it

in relative terms, that their fears are cut by 50 per cent, so, Mr. Speaker, that petition

was based on a 400-teacher cut in the Province, approximately. The reality now, as the

Leader of the Opposition knows, is that it is not 400 anymore it is around 200, and that

is open, by the way, to negotiations from various areas depending on the special needs and

other things that the school board can make the case for, or the parents and the schools

concerned make the case for, or the community concerned makes the case for, to the

Department of Education.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of the petition. I have discussed

the issue with the Minister of Education, with the school board and with the parents

concerned. There is no question that they see, as very positive, the announcement made by

the minister here a week or so ago, indicating that the reduction in teachers will be at

least not more than 50 per cent of the concerns of the parents who signed and supported

that petition and other petitions around the Province like it. So one can presume, Mr.

Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: He just made the announcement or what?

MR. FLIGHT: No, the minister made the announcement two weeks ago.

It is the announcement the minister made that takes away the basis for that petition.

MR. HARRIS: Is the minister supporting the petition?

MR. FLIGHT: I am supporting the petitioners.

MR. TULK: Absolutely.

MR. FLIGHT: Definitely.

MR. HARRIS: Will they get a new school?

MR. FLIGHT: They are not asking for a new school. Why do you not

listen to the prayer of the petition? I can see why Andy Wells had no trouble, Mr.

Speaker. I can see why it got easier and easier for Andy Wells as they went down the road.

Am I supporting a new school for Green Bay? Let the word go out that

the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi wants to know: Am I supporting a new school for

Green Bay South? We are closing three schools in Green Bay South, we do not need any new

schools in Green Bay South.

MR. TULK: Shows how much he knows, `Graham'.

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

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: During the course of the member's remarks, I asked him

whether or not he supported a new school for the petitioners and he said `yes', and then,

he tried to get out of it by trying to pretend I did not know what I was talking about.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - either he supports a new school for the petitioners

or he does not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Windsor - Springdale.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I support the petition. The petition does

not ask for a new school. The petition, I think, basically asks that the level of services

be maintained, that the quality of education for their students based on the courses they

think are necessary be maintained, and be maintained in the face of the reductions that

they were hearing were going to happen. Now they know, Mr. Speaker, that the reductions

will not be nearly as great as they thought they would be.

I support the petition. I also support the right of the parents, Mr.

Speaker, to continue to dialogue with the minister and the school board to make sure that

the level and quality of education in Green Bay South are maintained.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thought the hon. member was rising to speak to the petition.

MR. HARRIS: I thought there had already been two speakers.

MR. SPEAKER: No. There have only been two speakers.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the leave of the House just to

make a quick response to what the member said, if I may, because I met with the parents'

group concerned -

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

already presented a petition, but does he have leave to comment again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will only be a few minutes. The member is

absolutely right. I was in the Springdale - Little Bay Islands area and a request was made

of me to meet with a parents' group while the member was indeed outside the Province. I do

not present the petition in any way today to reference the fact that I am doing it and not

the member. I want to make that clear for the record, because that certainly is not the

intention. It was a request made to me of a parents' group, and as an elected member of

the House and Leader of the Opposition, I felt an obligation to do so.

I just want to say this to the member, that he is right in terms of

what people were feeling was coming at the time, that there were a number of rumours in

terms of the number of teachers that would be cut that has not come to pass to the extent

that they felt it would come. As a result of what has happened and the announcements by

the Minister of Education and decision taken by government, those reductions actually were

half of what were anticipated or expected.

The real question - and I think it is the heart of the matter with

respect to the petition - is that as a result of that reduction, half of what was

expected, has that meant that those parents' concerns have been alleviated? Has it meant

that the same curriculum offered in that area will be offered everywhere else? Does it

mean that high school students will still have access to basic courses in sciences, like

biology, that will be acceptable and available everywhere else? Because that is the

concern of the parents, and it is a legitimate concern, that if students at the high

school level are denied access to basic programs and curriculum, based upon the fact of

where they live only, Mr. Speaker, then we have a problem. I think this is the point that

I would like to reiterate to the member, putting it into context of where the petition

came from.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents

of the city of St. John's, of Mount Pearl, Bay Bulls, Conception Bay South, St. Phillip's

and Killigrews.

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are petitioning the House of Assembly of

the Province of Newfoundland to direct the government to establish a universal,

comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador, to help

end child hunger and give our children a better chance to learn and participate fully in

the benefits of education.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of dozens and dozens of petitions, and I think

there will be hundreds more to come. Because, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province

recognize that unless and until we have a universal school lunch program, the needs of

children in this Province, to be adequately nourished and fed, to be able to participate

fully in the educational opportunities of our schools, will not be met.

I was delighted to hear about a small step taken by government the

other day. We are not fully understanding yet what the consequences of it are, but the

allocation of what was called a $1 million endowment to the schoolchildren's food

foundation, Mr. Speaker, was certainly a significant step taken by government to ensure

the ongoing viability and permanence of what government had been referring to, upon until

that point in time, as a pilot project.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if they use the term endowment, that means we

are not going to see $1 million at all. What they might see is the income or the revenue

produced by that $1 million in some sort of endowment or trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, at today's interest rates - and I am not talking about

investing in one of these mutual funds that are advertised at 25 per cent or 30 per cent

annual increase in value. I am talking about the type of conservative investment that an

endowment fund might participate in, guaranteed investment certificates, or some other

such activity, mortgages or whatever. The kind of return on that might be somewhat less

significant than that, maybe somewhere between 4 per cent and 6 per cent or 7 per cent, if

we did really well, 7 per cent or 8 per cent.

We are talking here about an annual amount, and being very generous,

Mr. Speaker, of perhaps $70,000 or $75,000. That would be a very generous return at

today's interest rates. I know that certain government bonds, Canada Savings Bonds,

certainly do not pay that much. We will expect that a certain amount of money will be made

available.

I like the idea that it gives some permanence to the School Children's

Food Foundation, but I think the need is far greater than has been promised so far. The

report of Dr. Patricia Canning has indicated that some 50 per cent of our schoolchildren

are at risk from suffering in school performance as a result of issues related to poverty.

We know that children are going to school hungry. It is sort of a hidden problem because

people do not like to talk about it. The parents do not like to talk about it, the

children are ashamed of it, and the communities themselves in some cases do not even want

to admit that they have a problem in their community.

I heard the other day from a chair of the board of one of our school

boards who indicated she was aware of a community in Central Newfoundland which turned

down a school lunch program when it was offered to them because they were afraid that

their community - when they found out that their community would be identified as a

community with a school lunch program, they felt the community would be stigmatized.

Instead of having a school lunch program and feeding their children, they turned it down

and said: We will do without it.

Mr. Speaker, that is an example of why a universal program is needed.

Not only should it not stigmatize individual children who are hungry and need food, but

the danger of a program such as that put forth is that whole communities feel stigmatized

and are prepared to turn down programs that would feed their children rather than engage

in a school lunch program.

The second biggest program with this program is its voluntary nature

and the need for the communities to fund-raise. The communities that need these programs

the most, the communities whose children are the hungriest, are the ones who are least

able to mount a volunteer effort or to raise the funds necessary to have a school lunch

program. It has to be a government program, it has to be a universal program. I am

encouraged by the small step - some might think it a big step - but an important step that

government has taken in the Budget, but I would like to see, and these petitioners would

like to see, a universal, comprehensive program which would ensure that every school in

the Province had a school lunch program, not just the 10 per cent that have them now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise today to support the petition put forward by the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, and note that this is the eighteenth time he has made that

petition to this House, and it is the eighteenth occasion of which I have responded or

supported that particular petition as well.

I, too, noted with interest the comments made by the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board in the Budget Speech the other day, talking about the $1

million as an endowment fund towards the school lunch program. I am anxiously awaiting the

details. We are anxiously awaiting to find out exactly how that is going to be used.

We listened today in the House as the hon. the Premier, in talking

about the child tax benefit, wanted to make it quite clear, he said, that nobody would

receive fewer dollars as a consequence of the introduction of the child tax benefit. Of

course, he is right. What he forgot to say was that for some people, who are the very

poorest of the poor, all they will receive is the 2 per cent that is talked about in the

general increase that will go to people with social services benefits.

What he did not say was that there would be two groups of poor people.

One is the poor people for whom the child tax benefit will be clawed back. These are the

people who cannot find jobs. These are the people who are unemployed. They have been

unemployed for a long time and, Mr. Speaker, for these people there will be no decrease.

What will happen is, they will get the child tax benefits but then their social services

benefits will be clawed back dollar for dollar for dollar. So what we are talking about

here is the fact that the $10 million that will be clawed back from the very poorest of

the poor, from the mouths of the children who go to school hungry every day, from their

tables, you will take back, in total, $10 million. And that $10 million will be used to

fund programs for people who are working for minimum wage, and people who are the very

essence of the working poor.

Now, Mr. Speaker, who should fund the programs for the working poor?

Should it be the corporate people in the community? Should it be those people who are at

an income level to pay 50 per cent of their total income on income taxes, or should it be

the people who are dependent entirely upon social services?

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today is the Premier admit that the

programs we are going to use to subsidize those people who can get a job at minimum wage

are going to be subsidized by taking the money from the very poorest of the poor children,

and the poor families of this Province. Therefore, what we are saying is that we will

still have these families sending their children to school hungry. There will be no food

to put on their tables, nothing extra for them. We talk about stigmatization!

I tell you, as a former teacher, as a school administrator, I have seen

- and every teacher who sits in this House has seen - the real effects of poverty and what

it does to children.

Patricia Canning identified poverty as the number one barrier to

educational achievement. We try to ignore it, but it is the number one barrier to

educational achievement. It was identified in the Williams' Royal Commission. It was

identified in studies done by the Department of Social Services, and studies done by the

Department of Health. Every single social service oriented department - whether it is

health, whether it is education, whether it is social services, whatever that department

is - has said in repeated studies that child poverty is the biggest barrier towards child

achievement in the school system.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about children going to school hungry, you

have to remember that these children have real faces, and when they miss the opportunities

in their environment today they cannot get ahead. We are, by our lack of action, telling

them that they themselves will follow the cycle of their parents, that they will not have

the opportunities to move forward with their lives any more than their families and their

parents before them had an opportunity. So we are essentially sentencing children who are

born to poor families to be forever poor. We are not doing anything to break that cycle

whatsoever.

So I support entirely the petition put forward by the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi. We have to address the issue of child poverty -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - and we had better start doing it very soon because

the consequences of not doing it are so catastrophic to the very youngest of our

population.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, today I have a petition about

Sunday shopping;

We, the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, being

families of retail workers and citizens, do hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to

rescind the amendment, to repeal the legislation. It causes extreme difficulty for the

retail workers and their families, and they see no benefit that will come from it.

I have petitions. There are this many people and they live in

somebody's district. I have received letters from people. This person here is afraid to

sign his or her name for fear of losing their job. This person wonders about Victoria Day,

May 18. Why did we move the holidays to Monday, like for May 24, for St. George's Day, for

the rest of them, June 24? Why did we move them to Monday?

AN HON. MEMBER: You will have to ask Brian Peckford. It was done

when he was the Premier.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, I tell you what now. What you might as well do

with that is change it, because that was implemented to give people a long weekend or a

two-day weekend. That is no more. How about the mothers who have to get up from the table

on Mother's Day and go to work? How about Easter Sunday?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) last year or the year before.

(Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, that is right, and some of us will be home. I

will tell you now what I propose, and what has been mentioned to me by a lot of people. It

was open for convenience. Why can't you get your car licensed on a Sunday now? Why can't

you go and buy some liquor on a Sunday? Go to the Newfoundland Liquor Commission out there

on Kenmount Road and pick up your bottle. You don't need to pick it up on Saturday now,

you can pick it up on Sunday, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you buy sandbags on Sunday?

MS S. OSBORNE: Can you buy sandbags on Sunday out to Kent's, I

wonder? Barrels and barrels of sand?

I have been following this. It is not open on Sunday. It should be. We

did open the stores for convenience. We opened the stores for the convenience of people

because ten hours a day, six days a week, was not enough. If that is not enough, then

thirty-five hours a week is certainly not enough to get your car licensed, or go buy your

liquor.

The grocers did not open. We thought maybe Sobeys or some of the bigger

grocery chains were behind this. They didn't open. They are now because they were forced

to buy into Sunday shopping. When this was legislated it was said that it was all choice.

Sure, it is a choice, but when competition starts to dictate then how much choice do we

have? Grocers forced to buy, bowing to competition from Costco, the big people, in eroding

the way of life of Newfoundlanders.

What I have here as well is a project from a little girl. This little

girl says the face behind the counter is real. She doesn't work on Sunday, she plays

sports on Sunday, and once upon a time her mom and dad used to be able to accompany her.

She lives out in Topsail, and she said her mom and dad used to always go to sports with

her on Sunday. Now they go to work. She says: People who work in retail have families. Put

a face on the person who is selling you that washer or TV or sweater. It seems that some

people think the people behind the counter have no lives and are there to serve. They have

families.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today in support of the petition on Sunday

shopping. I notice the Minister of Education is shaking his head, but I say to the

minister, that my stance on Sunday shopping has not changed, Mr. Speaker, since last fall.

My opinion on Sunday shopping has not changed. Every so often I still receive phone calls

from people and one of the issues I have raised -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: That is true, Sir, that is true. As a matter of fact, I

say to the Minister of Education, on Thursday or Friday of last week I had discussion with

somebody who works in that very industry concerning Sunday shopping, and how this

individual had to go to work on Sunday and her disappointment with the fact that she had

to work on Sunday shopping.

I asked the question in the House here last year: Who drove the bus on

this one? I could never get an answer and still, there is no answer today; and it is very

interesting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Sobeys.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, it certainly was not Sobeys. Mr. Speaker, every

once in a while somebody puts a quarter or a half-dollar into the member over there and he

chirps in, chimes in, he comes to life. We thought, until this session of the House, he

was actually sitting in his seat `dead', until he spoke. We thought he was gone.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Oh yes, well, that is about it. They certainly do not

get their fifty cents worth.

So again, I have to support this petition. My calls, I say to the

Minister of Education, I do not know how many he had in favour of Sunday shopping, but I

certainly have not been getting them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Isn't there?

AN HON. MEMBER: They go to Grand Falls.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, very good, and I trust the minister goes to Grand

Falls to do his shopping.

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. FRENCH: Absolutely, and I trust he goes to Grand Falls to play

his golf. I guess, Mr. Speaker, that goes without questioning. If his Sunday shopping

interferred with his golf, Sunday shopping would certainly be cancelled, I say to the

Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely.

MR. FRENCH: But, Mr. Speaker, there are families - and I mentioned

this last fall, I mention it again today - who are paying the price because of this

legislation. Time that was family time is no more and we have one or two parents working;

their days of the week that they were off, the one day that they could be assured of, as

my colleague just said, was Sunday; that is no more. We could now find people shopping at

various times. It would interesting, I suppose the 24 of May will be - I wonder, will that

be called a public holiday on Sunday? Will we be shut down on that particular Sunday so

that everybody in this Province can enjoy the 24 of May?

I have to wonder why, we ever had this particular piece of legislation,

why we ever had it in this House, Mr. Speaker? I suppose some day we are going to find out

why. Why was it introduced? Who wanted it passed? Did it involve contributions to

political parties? Was that the idea, Mr. Speaker? Because if it was, then it was wrong.

It was certainly morally wrong and certainly of no benefit to the people in this Province

who are suffering time away from their families, time away from their friends which they

could take on Sunday that they cannot take anymore. I wonder if we made the Minister of

Education work every Sunday - I really and truly wonder what he would really think of this

particular piece of legislation if he were legislated to work as I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that he does not work every Sunday. He certainly does not work every Sunday in

the golf season; I know him well enough for that, you will not find him during the golfing

season. Well, you can find him, I can tell you where to find him.

But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I am still opposed and if there were

another vote held in this House tomorrow, I would certainly vote against Sunday shopping.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a very brief comment with respect to the petition relating to

Sunday shopping.

I would expect, Mr. Speaker, and we will check at the appropriate point

in time, that because the Members of the Progressive Conservative Party who continue to

bring petitions to the House with respect to this issue and speak so strongly against the

notion, if the whole group feels that way, we would fully expect that, in the Blue Book

for the next election, there will be a statement that says: `If we are elected to form the

Government in Newfoundland and Labrador' - which is a big if - `we will do away with

Sunday shopping.' It is one thing to stand up and speak to a petition but the proof will

be in the pudding, to see if they really believe what they are saying as to whether or not

it shows up in the great Blue Book as a policy of this particular Progressive Conservative

Opposition that, if they are going to put a statement in, then Mr. Speaker, I, like others

in the Province, might believe that they are sincere about this and they really plan to do

something about it if they ever get the chance.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly in

Newfoundland in legislative session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland:

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 ensure public service pensioners receive a raise in their pensions whenever

public servants receive a raise in pay and to reverse the policy of clawing back Canada

Pension Plan benefits from public service pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, last week we had the opportunity to present a private

member's resolution on this very important issue, an issue which represented the interests

of some 11,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are recipients today, of what is

called a meagre public service pension and they are looking to this government to find

ways to resolve that particular problem. Sadly, in the Budget of last week, there was no

attention given to the plight of the public service pensioners, their wants went

unnoticed; however, at least the issue was raised in this House and it was important, I

think, that their representations be brought forward.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what was presented did not receive the

support of members opposite and the particular resolution was defeated. However, the issue

continues, the serious concerns. The fact that many of our public service petitioners are

living well below the poverty line, is a very real concern, a very real problem for so

many thousands of our public service pensioners. So, Mr. Speaker, I present this petition

on behalf of their interests and once again, members in this House have to be reminded

that there are indeed thousands of individuals who have given their lives of public

service, their years of work and toil and effort to the various governments of this

Province and it is, therefore, with pleasure that I present this petition on behalf of

those individuals who, again, asked this government to give their concerns due

consideration and hopefully changes be made to honour the problem that they now find

themselves in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the petition presented by the Member for St.

John's East and I want to join with him in speaking up on behalf of the some 11,000 public

sector retirees, and in some cases, their dependants, the survivors of these retirees,

many of whom are suffering badly. I heard a lady this morning speak on the Open Line

Program on CBC and she indicated that she was a widow of a person who worked in the

Auditor General's Department for many years. She was now living on the survivor's benefits

of a pension that her husband had earned while working for many, many years in the Auditor

General's Department. She said, for the first time in her life, she is living below the

poverty line. She said it is not a very pleasant thing. It hurts people's dignity - it

hurts people's health - it hurts people's outlook on life, it causes depression. It causes

damage to people's health. It will shorten people's lives, Mr. Speaker, and it is a

serious situation.

There are lots of other serious situations. I do not think this is the

only one. We see what the government is doing or not doing with respect to child hunger in

the Province. We see what the government is doing with respect to clawing back the child

tax credit that the government of Paul Martin was making available to children but this

government is taking away from children on social assistance. But, Mr. Speaker, at the

very minimum, the minimum position clearly must be that the pensioners, the government

pensioners and their dependants, receive an increase in their pensions equivalent to that

of the public sector workers who have negotiated an increase.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that may not necessarily be all the pensioners. I

think if we are dealing with a situation of hardship or below the poverty line or some way

of cutting it off - I do not think a person who may be earning a big pension of $50,000 or

$60,000 - and we do have a number of them, Mr. Speaker, earning -

MR. NOEL: One hundred and six thousand dollars.

MR. HARRIS: Well, if the Member for Virginia Waters would support

me on this, if there is somebody making a pension of $106,000, I do not think that person

needs to get an increase based on some across-the-board assistance to pensioners. That

person does not need it. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a point at which government ought to

intervene when its pensions for its own employees puts people below the poverty line and

does not help them in any way to get out of that circumstance.

So there ought to be, Mr. Speaker, a cut-off of some sort. I am not

proposing exactly what it will be here today but if someone is receiving a pension, and is

maintained well below the poverty line, then there obviously has to be some response by

government to that. A lot of these pensions, Mr. Speaker, were earned in a time when

inflation - before inflation had seriously eroded the amount of money they were receiving,

there had been a history and a practice, Mr. Speaker, of providing an equivalent increase

to pensioners as was provided to public sector workers, either negotiated up through the

senior levels of government - by government on an ongoing basis.

The Liberal Government, when it came in, in 1989, stopped the practice.

There has not been an increase since, and I call on this government now to recognize the

needs of all of our pensioners who have, by their working life, contributed to the benefit

of the Province and are now, in many cases, in hardship circumstances. All members have

received communication from their constituents and from organizations. I received a number

of letters - people letting me know exactly how much they are making, what their budget

is, how they are trying to cope with a very decreased circumstance, Mr. Speaker, in their

later years. It is a matter of this government trying to be more flexible with its

budgetary provisions.

We saw in the Budget the other day that this Province will probably be

the envy of most provinces across the country, Mr. Speaker, when we see a reduction in the

actual public debt. The direct public debt has been decreased by - I have not worked out

the exact number, Mr. Speaker, but it looks like about 15 per cent. A 15 per cent decrease

in the direct public sector debt in this Province, in the last three years.

The Reform Party would go bananas if they were here, Mr. Speaker, and

say, `Oh, this nirvana, this is heaven.' We do not need a Reform Party in Newfoundland,

Mr. Speaker, we have the Liberal Party. They have gotten rid of the public debt to the

tune of 15 per cent in three years. Never mind the deficit. A $10 million or $20 million

deficit does not make a difference. We have paid off, in Newfoundland, $900 million.

Preston Manning would say, `Who needs Reform in Newfoundland, we have the Liberal

Government.' We do not need Reform here. That is why you do not see anyone going around

campaigning for Reform, unless Sue Dyer is leaning that way.

What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a government that has not used the

financial flexibility that it has to increase programs, but in fact has paid down the

debt. There is an opportunity here, Mr. Speaker, to be fair to the 11,000 pensioners and

survivors who are dependent on public sector pensions which have been eroding away just as

surely as the social assistance payments, just as surely as the public sector workers who

are negotiating the 7 per cent increase, while at the same time perhaps benefitting from

step increases for the last number of years. They have been standing still in terms of

basic wages. Many of them have been moving forward in step increases, so some of them are

a little better off. The 2 per cent is on top of that.

The Public Service pensioners, on the other hand, are at a fixed

income. That fixed income has not increased in the last eight years, and it is time, Mr.

Speaker, that this government responded to their need.

I support the petitioners, I support the remarks of the Member for St.

John's East, and I hope that, despite the Budget, government responds to this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few comments with respect to the petition. Very few are

needed, because the issue, as the members don't need to be reminded, was debated in full

during a private member's resolution less than a week ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member who just spoke, being a

representative for the New Democratic Party, will never get to lead anything in

Newfoundland and Labrador. He was going to leave the party because he said he was tired of

being a voice in the wilderness, and wanted to try to run something, to try to run City

Hall, but he didn't quite get the chance. All I can say is, thank God he didn't get a

chance to run the Province. Because if what he just proposed in speaking to this

particular petition is any indication of how the New Democratic Party would run the

Province, then we would have a real problem.

He is even suggesting he is objecting to a government that has managed

to pay down debt. Because the advantage of paying down debt obviously is that if you have

less debt, then a smaller portion of your annual operating budget goes to servicing debt,

and therefore frees up more of your annual operating monies, Mr. Speaker, to bring in some

programs, which are the kinds of things that happened in the Budget just a few days ago.

Mr. Speaker, there is no other way to describe it, the myth with

respect to public sector pensioners, the myth of the hon. Member for St. John's East in

presenting the petition, and the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi in supporting it,

that these people deserve an increase. Mr. Speaker, the whole nature of pension plans is,

briefly, as follows. You pay a premium while you are employed. While you are employed, it

is described to you which benefits you will receive when you retire. In the Public Service

pension plans of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of the workers when working have had

opportunities to come forward to the government and include a provision for indexing the

pension after they are retired. It has been repeatedly discussed, year after year after

year.

If you want indexing, Mr. Speaker, you must pay an enhanced premium

while you are working. The workers over the years, who are now retired, chose, while they

were working, to not pay an additional per cent, or a per cent and a half, or 2 per cent.

That is what they would have had to pay for their five, eight, ten, twelve, fifteen or

thirty years of service in order to get an entitlement to an indexed pension. They chose,

Mr. Speaker, of their own volition, while working, not to pay for it.

The previous Administration, Mr. Speaker, prior to 1989, when the

Liberal Administration stopped the practice, for seventeen years under successive

Conservative governments, had actuarial studies done of the pension plans, all of them,

that said: You should not index the pensions on an ex gratia basis because it is not

calculated for in the premiums that are paid. It is not funded. You should stop the

practice.

Willy-nilly, Mr. Speaker, like they did with the rest of the finances

of the Province, they ignored the advice of all of the people who studied and administered

the pension plans and they gave increases anyway, which were not paid for when the people

were working, and which were putting the pension plans in debt, to the point now where

there is altogether just about $2 billion worth of unfunded liability in the teachers'

plan, the Public Service plan, the uniformed services plans and other plans. Because

people, for seventeen years at least, used to get an increase on their pensions which they

never, ever paid for while they were working.

The offer stands today, Mr. Speaker, from this government and has

repeatedly since 1989, that any group which wants to come to this particular government

and pay for indexed pensions while they are working, we will gladly engage in the

discussion. If you are going to pay out extra money without putting extra money in, all

you do, Mr. Speaker, is increase the unfunded liability to $2.1 billion, $2.2 billion,

$2.5 billion, $3 billion, and you make a bad situation, which we are now trying to

correct, even worse.

We do understand, as was discussed in the debate last Wednesday, Mr.

Speaker, that there are some pensioned seniors who have some hardships, but it is not the

role of the pension plan, which is currently underfunded and under great duress and in

danger of bankruptcy in the case of the teachers, to fix that problem. It is the wider

range of programs for the whole of the government that takes care of anyone who has

trouble making ends meet, whether they are pensioners, children, teenagers or working

adults.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is incorrect, it is the wrong approach, to suggest

that arbitrarily, when there was no provision for it while the workers were working - and

particularly that only the Public Service pensioners should be given an increase when, in

the case of my own district, Mr. Speaker, those who were pensioned from the mill do not

get an indexed pension. Who is supposed to give them an increase in their pension? Those

who are pensioned from other companies that operate in Central Newfoundland and in

Exploits district who had pension plans, do not get an increase in their pension. So, why

should the few people who worked for the public service, and who did not pay for indexing

while they were working, arbitrarily be given an increase just because the people who are

working are finally getting a raise after seven years?

When the representatives of the public servants working for the

Province, Mr. Speaker, want to come in and negotiate a paid-for, purchased indexing plan,

we will gladly entertain the notion.

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

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf the Holy Cross School

Council in Holyrood, and the petition, of course, is from people in the Holyrood -

Avondale - Chapels Cove - Harbour Main area which, of course, the Holy Cross School

services. Of course, their main concern is to stop the cuts to education, stop the cuts in

teacher allocations.

We get used sometimes to telling the Minister of Education, because he

is a former hockey player, that he is pretty good at stick-handling. He probably did one

of the best stick-handling jobs in the history of our Province a while ago when he

announced some 400 teachers would be laid off and then he cut it back to 200, which I am

going to suggest is probably where he wanted it to be in the first place, and really had

no intention of probably letting 400 go. He talked the other day about some of us using

scare tactics. Might I suggest that that was a pretty good tactic on his part.

Mr. Speaker, this `stop the cuts to education' points out some very

serious flaws in the Holy Cross School in my district. First of all, the non-teaching

principal has had to teach to keep some of the programs that this school offers on track.

The school council has hired an assistant of course to help in their library and their

computer lab, to make the program more effective. Teachers spend most of their time

setting up those computers and so on. Again, they ask this government to stop the cuts to

education.

The school council, of course, is a council that was formed under the

government's direction. They are certainly doing their part, Mr. Speaker, in aiding the

students in their school. They are (inaudible) status as an environmental green school,

and they are a stellar school. In other words, a high-speed educational network. They have

again, and I repeat myself here, Mr. Speaker, asked this government to stop the cuts to

education in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think they have gone far enough

and it's time they were stopped.

So, I present this petition today on behalf of the Holy Cross school

council.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole

on Ways and Means to consider the Raising of Supply to be Granted to Her Majesty.

Committee of the Whole

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to share a few words with respect to last week's Budget as it

was introduced by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. There are obviously a great

variety of issues that can be discussed, issues with respect to social concerns in our

Province; issues as they relate in particular to health and education and social services

changes; issues as they relate to post-TAGS, and what benefits may or may not be in store

for so many thousands of Newfoundlanders who are dependent upon a system of compensation

as a result of the failure of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, it may be called a social budget. However, when one hears

the term "social budget," obviously one would think that there would not be

words like claw back. One would think there would be significant assistance for those

people within the health system, and for significant improvements within the education

system in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget has been described by a variety of commentators

as a budget where there is something for everyone. It's a document which attempts to press

all the buttons. However, when you look closely and attempt to analyze exactly what's

there, -

MR. J. BYRNE: All fluff and no stuff.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - we find that, as my colleague for Cape St.

Francis says, it is a budget which may be aptly referred to as a budget which is all fluff

and no stuff. Thank you, I say to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, on the surface, and on quick reading, it appears this

Budget attempts to be a remedy, a panacea, for all the social ills in this Province. It

mentions social sectors like health, education and social assistance. It mentions the

resource sectors like fisheries and forestry, and in passing, believe it or not, mentions

the word mega-project. Mr. Speaker, notice I said "in passing." There is hardly

any reference to our mega-projects in this Province. It is unbelievable that a lengthy

budget document could be presented with hardly any attention being given to those projects

which presumably will be the safeguard for our Province in years to come.

Mr. Speaker, it mentions the infrastructure area of roads and ferries.

It appears to be positive. It appears to be uplifting in tone. However, there are many

things which are being overlooked, and I would like to just briefly review some of the

areas where, essentially, in the government's attempt to address social issues, it has

overlooked some very fundamental issues as it relates to social concerns in this Province.

Let's begin with: The social sector is suffering cuts; that the child

benefit deducted from social assistance; school closures. We have a breach of a

commitment, Mr. Speaker, to Memorial University of Newfoundland, where today, Mr. Speaker,

there is much less, being give to our University then was committed in the Budget Speech

of 1997. And the hospital wish - there are so many issues. Despite the fact it is been

labelled as a social document, when one carefully analyzes exactly what is in the

document, there are many omissions, there are many sectors of society, which are being

overlooked.

The resource sector is left floundering completely. The resource sector

has been virtually avoided by this government. It has attempted to deal, Mr. Speaker, with

social issues and social issues only. But the very heart and soul of this Province,

namely, its natural resources, has essentially been neglected and overlooked.

Not enough money, for example, for silvaculture, not enough money for

concrete actions and new developments and innovative thought with respect to our

fisheries, nothing, has I have indicated earlier on the Mega Projects, but there will be!

The infrastructure sector, Mr. Speaker, is coasting on federal dollars

for roads, and what one finds somewhat amusing is the fact when we read the specifics in

the Budget Speech with respect to expenditure on roads and our highway system in this

Province, it is virtually close to one hundred per cent with federal dollars.

In a Provincial Government Budget, in the Budget that was handed down

in this House of Assembly last week, a full

section on road infrastructure and improvement

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The full amount, was it $152 million or was it

$162 million, I believe?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is correct. Ninety per cent, at least as a

minimum - ninety per cent of the funding is federal government funding, Mr. Speaker. That

is the kind of announcement, that is the kind of information that was brought forward in a

Provincial Budget last week which relies solely on federal government dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It could be said that the Budget is a betrayal of

the reality because again it is labelled a Social Budget, it is labelled a presentation

which will in due course do nothing but only help Newfoundlanders in every way possible.

But again upon close analysis that is not the fact. Why would a government present a

Budget that goes on with pages of rhetoric, which are normally reserved for Throne

Speeches. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I first read the Budget, last week, we had the

opportunity to be in what is known as the - lock up - just for a few minutes prior to the

delivery the of Budget -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It read, Mr. Speaker, much like a Speech from the

Throne. It was general, it lacked specifics and it essentially did nothing only relay what

government wishes to do, what government aspirations are for the future. It read much like

a Speech from the Throne. It lacked the detail and it lacked the substance which one

generally finds in a budget document.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is a perfect sample, Mr. Speaker, this Budget

document is an example of government thinking that it can just say enough things and it

can sound good. It can be a touchy-feely document that people will be distracted from

knowing essentially what is found within. Again, Mr. Speaker, no substance. I would like

to use the analogy of the forest in certain areas. It is like a forest; all along the

highway, one can see beautiful trees. But if you venture from your car and you walk

perhaps six or seven feet off the highway, you see nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: You see the result of a devastating forestry

policy, you see the result of a government essentially trying to be full of frills and

full of gloss and glare, when again upon close scrutiny there is very little.

Where is the substance our Province needs as it faces the new

Millennium. In less than two years, Mr. Speaker, we enter a new Millennium, and one has to

ask: Where is the substance? Where are the goods? Where is the real basis upon which the

future of this Province is going to be founded?

We were promised, Mr. Speaker, a three-year fiscal and economic plan.

Where is it?

Mr. Speaker, one of the most serious problems which we face in our

Province today, and it has been a problem, of course, that has existed now for a number of

years, in this Province, is the very serious problem of out-migration. It is a sad

reality, as to what is happening in rural Newfoundland, when we go to communities and we

look at houses boarded up, one after another. We see industries dying. We see people, Mr.

Speaker, with absolutely no hope, no faith in the future, having no recourse but to load

up pickups, to buy plane tickets for Fort McMurray, to leave the Island, to leave the

Province which they love and where they want to stay. That, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, is

the reality of the situation which exists in our Province.

It would not be, perhaps, quite so serious and quite so tragic if we

could just point to a small number of communities where this reality is, in fact, the

case, but this problem is universal. Mr. Speaker, this is a problem which has affected all

communities in our Province, from the smallest to our largest city here in St. John's.

Just let me give an example of some statistics, Mr. Speaker, where this

is the case. I want to refer to the ten new school districts in our Province. The Avalon

East School Board, which covers the capital city and the area immediately surrounding the

city, has a decline of some 850 students, a percentage change of 2.5 per cent. Now, it is

true, Mr. Speaker, that there is obviously another factor above and beyond the

out-migration, and that is the low birth rate. However, if the confidence were in the

communities, and if the people of this Province felt that this were a place where one

could live and live comfortably, the likelihood is that if the out-migration issue were

resolved the issue of population growth would resolve itself as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Well, what would happen, Mr. Speaker, is the fact

that the confidence and the integrity of the community in which one lives is reinforced by

the fact people simply want to stay. People want to make their community a happy, healthy

and productive community in which to live. So, the out-migration issue is, I would argue,

fundamentally the more serious or more critical of the two problems.

The Avalon West School Board has a decline of 670 students. This is in

one year now, Mr. Speaker. This is a breakdown of the declining student population in

Newfoundland for 1997-1998. The student population has declined, the total, Mr. Speaker -

and this is quite a statistic - the total, 4,500 students less in our schools in

Newfoundland and Labrador next year than we have this year; 4,500.

In 1971 our total student population in this Province, from

Kindergarten to Grade XI, was approximately 165,000 students, some twenty-six,

twenty-seven years ago. Since that period of time we have increased our school system by

one year, so we now have from Kindergarten to Grade XII. Next year we will have a total

student population, from Kindergarten to Grade XII, of less than 100,000 students, a drop

of approximately 65,000 students in a twenty-six or twenty-seven year period.

Mr. Speaker, that is a sad statistic, when we have 65,000 students less

in a public school system, in a twenty-six or twenty-seven year period, in a society which

presumably is hoping to develop and prosper. It is a sad statistic. That is with an

additional grade, Mr. Speaker. That is with the addition of Grade XII, which, of course,

was only introduced back in the 1980s.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, one could make a further commentary,

and that is the number of school-age dropouts in the 1970s was significantly higher than

in 1996, 1997 and 1998. So, really, if we had the retention rate in our school system in

the early seventies that we have today, that number could easily be 20,000 to 30,000

higher. It is a sad reality, and it is something that this government ought to obviously

take very seriously.

Just to review the others: the Clarenville - Bonavista board, a

reduction of 320 students, 5.8 per cent; Burin, a decline of 400 students, a decline of 7

per cent; Lewisporte - Gander, 600 students, 5.8 per cent; a decline in Baie Verte -

Central Connaigre, 610 students, 5.7 per cent; the Stephenville - Port aux Basques board,

283 students, a decline of 3.8 per cent; Corner Brook - Deer Lake - St. Barbe, a decline

of 500 students, 5.5 per cent; Northern Peninsula - Labrador South School Board, a decline

of 215 students, 5.3 per cent; and the Labrador School Board, 134 students less, a decline

of 2.3 per cent. A sad reality, Mr. Speaker, as to what is happening in both urban and

rural Newfoundland today.

The population shrank, Mr. Speaker. The population in this Province

shrank by 3,128 in the quarter ending October 1, 1997. July, August and September of last

year, 1997, over 3,100 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians left their homes, left their

communities, for greener pastures, mostly in Central and Western Canada. The previous

record was for the three months ending July 1, 1997, when the population shrank by 2,126

people.

How long can this trend continue, Mr. Speaker? How long can a society

continue when we are losing the very essence of that society, our people? The cultural

cost, the cultural deficit, is alarming. Yet it does not appear, Mr. Speaker - certainly

from the Budget documentation that was released last week - that it is an issue which is

seriously being addressed.

We have a sad decline in the numbers of students in our schools but the

reality is, in addition to that, a sad decline in the numbers of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who, although they want to stay in this Province, feel they have no option

but to leave.

Mr. Speaker, the trend continues and the situation is worsening. When

there is an analysis done on a quarterly basis, the numbers leaving increase each quarter.

It is a trend which is a most unfortunate one. What will happen? I referred to it the

other day in the House and it was responded to by the Minister of Education, that our

Newfoundland communities are becoming communities of senior citizens. It now becomes

unusual to see young children playing in fields and gardens and on the side of the road in

this Province. It is unusual to see a school bus drive through the communities of our

Province, dropping off and picking up children at the various bus stops. It is becoming

unusual. The children are there no more. So what future does this hold with that sort of

reality facing government? What is reflected in the Budget document, Mr. Speaker, to

address perhaps what is the most serious social problem, and perhaps indeed political

problem, definitely cultural problem, that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador today?

What is being done?

Ireland has addressed the issue, it appears. Ireland has appeared to,

through educational initiatives, concentrate on IT development and IT initiatives. Ireland

has introduced new labour laws which welcome labourers and individuals from other Western

European countries and from North America as well. It is in a position where it can now

prosper, and its economy has developed to where it is now one of the top and leading

economies in all of Western Europe.

So, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we have something to learn, but it is a sad

lesson. It is a lesson to which this government has to give serious consideration. There

have to be ways, creative ways, Mr. Speaker, to find solutions to a very real problem,

because if it is not addressed we will not need a government in Newfoundland and Labrador

simply because, Mr. Speaker, there will be no people to govern. Yet, its absence is

deafening; no particular attention being addressed, no particular attention being given to

the fact that we suffer serious out-migration, that our communities are bare. And as the

problem continues and as time continues, and as our older population either move or die,

there will essentially be nobody left. Communities will have to close up and we will be

left with ghost towns, one after another.

Mr. Speaker, it was to me most unfortunate, upon reading the Budget

Speech, that out-migration issues were not addressed. We have other societies which have

addressed it and have addressed it successfully. This Province and this government have

failed to realize that if this situation continues we will be suffering a crisis situation

in this Province. It is as simple as that.

Our schools are being diminished in number. The numbers of students who

attend these schools are being drastically reduced. The people who live in rural

Newfoundland, numbers are declining. The volunteers upon which we rely, for example, for

our volunteer fire departments, for our service clubs, for even a Santa Clause parade, we

cannot find the people any more who ordinarily, if they were there, would be more than

willing to do anything to enhance the culture and the feeling and the sense of camaraderie

that would exit in their community. But no, Mr. Speaker, we are void of a population.

We have never been blessed with a significant population, certainly in

recent years hovering around one-half million, but when we lose 3,000 and 4,000 in a

particular quarter, totalling 12,000 to 15,000 in a particular year, how long can it

continue? When we look at the nature of those individuals who are leaving, it is those

people with children, preschool age, young children. So obviously the very institutions

that are required in our various communities to allow a community to continue to exist,

they are no longer necessary, and the institution and the very fabric of our community is

a thing of the past.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget Speech, as mentioned earlier, also lacked

significant reference to our mega-projects; for example, Hibernia, Terra Nova, Voisey's

Bay, Churchill Falls, essentially omitted. There is nothing wrong with attempting to pay

some tribute and attention to social programs and to some society reform. It attempted to

do that, it said it would do that, but in reality it failed to do that.

Mr. Speaker, surely, if there has to be any sense of hope for

Newfoundland and Labradorians, it must rest on what are called our mega-projects. It must

rest on the development of an oil industry. It must rest on our Labrador resource at

Voisey's Bay. It must rest as well, as was discussed today during Question Period, on

Churchill Falls development. Without that hope, that very problem which I addressed a few

minutes ago in terms of people leaving will only quadruple. Yet, despite that reality,

nothing was found in the Budget Speech; nothing was found.

The Atlantic Accord of 1984, which was introduced by this government,

attempted to provide hope for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who would, in partnership

with other Canadians, develop a mega-resource and a mega-industry. It was attempted in the

1980s and it was the philosophy of, at that time, a Conservative government which felt

that we would work in partnership with other provinces and our federal partners, but there

is not any reference to that in the Budget Speech of last week. There is no indication

that this government wants to share in development with any partner, simply because the

mega-projects and the resources upon which they rely were not found in the Speech of last

week. I say, the Budget Speech was a lot of rhetoric and very little substance.

In addition to those few points, Mr. Speaker, we have the whole issue

of rural renewal. What is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we see street

lights being turned off; we see councils resigning; we see roads being swallowed up by pot

holes; we see people hungry for work but unable to do so and very often, what the case is,

those who stay in their communities have to resort to social welfare benefits. The

Province, in its attempt to develop rural Newfoundland, set up economic zones. However,

again, where was the attention given to rural development in this Province? Regional plans

have been developed throughout the Province for decades but yet, are they being fostered,

are they being developed in a positive way? And again the answer, upon close review of the

Budget, is simply not present.

Mr. Speaker, if you look closely at the Budget and in particular page

30, I would just like to look at page 30 where it talks about Rural Revitalization.

It mentions about seven projects and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they are the only seven

projects, therefore, they were worthy of mention, and I will just refer to them:

"Eighteen of the twenty Regional Economic Development Boards have developed their

strategic economic plans. The Cabinet Committee on Rural Revitalization has met with

seventeen of them to determine the top five development priorities in each zone and work

on real opportunities for growth.

"These have included:" and they list them because, Mr.

Speaker, they are perhaps the only ones, so they had to list something. Here they are:

"snowmobile trails on the Northern Peninsula to extend the tourism season; a rural

information technology Centre of Excellence in Clarenville; eel aquaculture in Robinsons;

pharmaceutical applications for seaweed in Isle-aux-Morts; small-scale manufacturing in

Bishop's Falls; technology applications for mining in Labrador West; and, trade

opportunities at Gander International Airport."

This is government's commitment, Mr. Speaker, to rural revitalization,

providing opportunities for people in rural Newfoundland. This is it. This is the list,

they have exhausted the list and yet, it is this Budget Speech which presumably is to give

the people in this Province, particularly in rural parts of our Province, the confidence

upon which they ought to stay. Mr. Speaker, the people require more, the people demand

more and the people were sad to see, that in this Province there could only be a handful

of examples given to the people of this Province with respect to Rural Revitalization.

Equally, Mr. Speaker, post-TAGS. The real possibility continues, Mr.

Speaker, that in the absence o