November

20, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 37

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, the Chair would like

to welcome, on behalf of all members, eleven students in Canadian Law from the

Seventh-Day Adventist School on Merrymeeting Road in the District of St. John's

Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that

Burin Minerals Ltd. has been granted Economic Diversification and Growth

Enterprises (EDGE) status. Burin Minerals Ltd. is planning a public share

offering in the near future to finance the re-opening of the fluorspar mine and

mill at St. Lawrence, and EDGE designation should have a positive impact on the

company's ability to raise the necessary capital.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The fluorspar mine and mill at St. Lawrence

has been closed since 1991. In October, 1994, the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador invited proposals to explore and develop the fluorspar resources in the

St. Lawrence area. In January, 1995, a proposal was accepted from Northern

Resource Investments Ltd., the parent company of Burin Minerals Ltd., to conduct

a feasibility study on the St. Lawrence Fluorspar project. The results of this

study were positive and mining leases have now been issued; they were issued in

April of this year. The remaining assets at St. Lawrence have been purchased by

Burin Minerals, and environmental approval has been granted for the project.

Through the EDGE program, Burin Minerals will receive a

ten-year tax holiday from provincial corporate income tax, post-secondary

education and health (payroll) tax, followed by a five-year phase-in of these

taxes. The Town of St. Lawrence is also an EDGE participant, meaning that Burin

Minerals will be granted a ten-year holiday on municipal property and business

taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the EDGE designation for Burin

Minerals will assist the company in its efforts to raise the necessary dollars

to re-activate the fluorspar operations at St. Lawrence.

Once full production starts, and we expect and hope that will

happen in 1997, the operation will produce approximately 120,000 tons of

concentrate per year, and it should employ about 100 people.

I wish Burin Minerals every success in these efforts and look

forward to the reactivation of its operations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to join today - and I thank the minister for his

statement before the House opened - and I am pleased to hear this for the people

of St. Lawrence.

Of course in my own district we have a similar situation, and

this is one situation, on the merits of this mine and the situation in St.

Lawrence, where this works, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to commend the minister and the government on this

particular EDGE status for this particular mine. I wish them luck, and I hope we

get some people back to work in that area; but I would also like to add that

over all - and we all know, and the minister himself, who is not in the House

today, has, of course, referred to it also - that the HST and the equalization

payments from Ottawa have to be reconsidered now and, of course, the EDGE status

has to be reviewed.

In light of that, I think the smart thing for the Premier and

the Cabinet to do is to review them and to look at those very serious effects

and implications, but otherwise I am happy for the people in Burin and St.

Lawrence, and I wish Burin Minerals Ltd. every success in getting people back to

work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me

today to proclaim November 20, 1996, National Child Day in Newfoundland and

Labrador. This proclamation coincides with November 20, 1959, the day the United

Nations adopted the declarations on the Rights of the Child, and also with the

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that on this day, in

collaboration with my colleagues, Hon. Roger Grimes and Hon. Lloyd Matthews, I

can make a commitment which will benefit children throughout this Province. The

Departments of Social Service, Education, and Health, have agreed to commit

funding in the amount of $125,000 to establish child food programs which will

provide children with one nutritious meal each and every school day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In cooperation with the School

Children's Food Foundation, which will provide $100,000 to match government

funding -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - a Provincial Nutrition Fund will be

established on a two-year pilot basis. This initiative is consistent with

Recommendation 148 of the Royal Commission Report, Our Children, Our Future. It

is a commitment which will allow the establishment of up to 100 child food

programs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, serving up to 5,000 children each

school day.

The School Children's Food Foundation has established a

sectoral network of labour, business, community organizations, churches, and

government departments to address the problem of child hunger and its impact on

a child's ability to learn. The Provincial Nutrition Fund exemplifies

government's commitment to improve collaboration between government departments,

and to continue the development of partnerships with communities, groups and

individuals, for the benefit of all the people of this Province, including our

children. This commitment is also consistent with the view of the Canadian

School Boards Association, as I heard in the media this morning. It is a more

integrated approach which involves greater collaboration between government

departments, and more partnering with the community. We must all work together

to most effectively attack child poverty.

This government recognizes the important role of the family

and the community in the upbringing of children, and will continue to consult

with the people of this Province in the best interest of all our children. The

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is demonstrating its commitment to

children through several ongoing initiatives.

It has established a Select Committee on Children's Interest,

and has received its report and recommendations. It has commissioned a report

and received recommendations on Special Matters, dealing with the special needs

of children. It has appointed a Social Policy Advisory Committee to provide

input into the development of a provincial Strategic Social Plan, the first ever

of its magnitude in this country and in our Province. Our government, through

the Department of Social Services is currently conducting a comprehensive review

of all programming for children and youth, including the Child Welfare Act and

the Adoptions Act.

Mr. Speaker, we are working for all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and this is a day when we acknowledge the importance of children

and the needs of children in this Province and this country. I would like to

encourage the general public to recognize National Child Day today, but also to

consider the needs of children on every other day of the year.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, Ministers Grimes and

Matthews, I would like to comment our social workers, our nurses, our teachers,

our health professionals, our early childhood educators, and parents, and all

other people who work for and with children on a daily basis. Their dedication

and caring will provide our children with the guidance they need to become

contributing members of society. I would also like to commend the numerous

groups, volunteers and individuals throughout this Province, who today have

organized special events to celebrate National Child Day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to circulate ribbons to mark this day,

royal blue ribbons to recognize National Child Day, and I offer them to the

members of the Opposition as well as members of our own Party, and other parties

as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased

to rise today and to commend the minister and the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: When the minister is standing up for

children and for the youth of this Province, I can assure you that she will have

allies on all sides of this House.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Premier sat in the House of

Commons in 1989 there was a unanimous resolution passed by the House that said

that the aim was to eliminate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.

Unfortunately, in 1996 we have 500,000 more children in poverty in Canada than

we had in 1989. Child poverty must be the central focus of social policy and of

social reform. We know that undernourished children are less physically active,

they are less exploratory, they are less attentive, and they are more apathetic,

irritable and tired, and that is reflected in their performance not only within

their homes but in their schools and in their communities.

We know as well, from the studies that have been done, that

poverty is the fundamental issue facing children in Newfoundland and Labrador

today. When families are poor, children are poor, and the whole structure and

the fabric of our society is negatively affected. I say to the minister, this is

a wonderful initiative, but I would like to have one other commitment, that this

initiative will not be subject to this great review and restructuring, and we

don't see it lost next spring when the cut, cut, cut time comes. Let's not cut

the program that we are introducing today. Let's keep it positive; let's make

sure we stand up for children this day and every day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: They must have watched the news last night.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the minister and the

Opposition House Leader in recognizing the national day for the welfare of

children. I think some of the recommendations or some of the announcements made

today are, in fact, similar to exhortations that I gave the government on

October 17, when I released a program for the elimination of poverty. So I

commend those efforts in recognition of those needs, particularly the Royal

Commission on Education, recommendation 148, but I will say this: The amount of

money that is being directed towards this will do some good, but when we have,

in this report released the other day, 40,000 children in Newfoundland living

below the poverty line, and one-half of our school population at risk of low

educational achievement due to poverty, then to say that 5,000 children will be

able to have one nutritional meal today certainly does not do the job. So I want

to say to the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - this is a start, but ask that the

government adopt a commitment to a universal school lunch program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the results of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) are being released today, concurrently

with the national and international release of this major study of achievement

in more than fifty countries. Newfoundland and Labrador, along with four other

Canadian provinces, has participated in this international study to show our

commitment to achieving world class standards in education. I am pleased to see

that there has been considerable improvement in mathematics and science

achievement since students last participated in international testing in

mathematics and science five years ago, in 1991.

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study is the

largest and most ambitious study ever conducted under the auspices of the

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

The report being released today focuses on students who are at approximately the

grade VIII level, or who are about thirteen years of age.

Mr. Speaker, in mathematics, Canadian students did as well as

or better than students in thirty of the fifty countries, with a score of

fifty-nine. Newfoundland students had a score of fifty-six, which meant that our

results were similar to those of Canada as a whole, and our scores were better

than the Provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland also placed ahead

of counties such as Australia, the United States, Germany, New Zealand, Ireland,

Scotland, and England.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: In science, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland was at

the Canadian average, having 59 per cent of the items on the tests correct.

Again Newfoundland scored higher than Ontario and New Brunswick, and nine of the

fifty participating countries scored higher than Canada. As with mathematics,

Newfoundland placed ahead of countries such as Germany, the United States, New

Zealand, Ireland and Scotland.

Mr. Speaker, even though we seem to be achieving better than

ever before, this is not the time to be complacent in our efforts. In order for

us to be economically viable and globally competitive, we have to strive

continuously to be amongst the best in the world. We still have some distance to

go to be at the level of countries such as Japan, Korea, Singapore and the

western Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, but there is

evidence that our education system is making improvements steadily. This

government remains committed to measuring performance and addressing areas of

weakness in our school system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While it is always a pleasure to see that there are

improvements within our educational system and how that improvement directly

affects certain students within our Province, we have to carefully scrutinize

the type and the nature of evaluation which is being done here. I pose the

following questions: Is this a selective sample, or is it all-inclusive? Does it

include all thirteen-year-olds, for example? Is it just particular programs

within particular schools? Does it include all schools within the Province?

Mr. Speaker, there is a line within this announcement which

is worthy of comment, and that is that this is no time to be complacent. I agree

with the hon. minister, this is no time to be complacent. When we see this

report which was tabled in this House on Monday past, and when we see that there

are over 200 recommendations with respect to education in this Province, when we

see students who are suffering as a result of poverty, when we have low results

in reading with respect to remedial reading, for example, when we see students

suffering who require special needs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - who require special disabilities, Mr.

Speaker, indeed this is no time to be complacent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today for the Premier revolve around the perils

of procrastination.

The Premier during his recent travel mission has been

outlining the unfairness of the Churchill Falls deal. Yesterday in a speech to

the Empire Club in Toronto the Premier made a very telling comment. He was

pointing out that one reason for the bad deal was that no contract was in place

during the initial development phase of Churchill Falls, only a letter of

intent, and because we did not have a written agreement of some sort, we were

sort of left snookered with no ability to negotiate.

Will the Premier admit that what he finds wrong with the

process of documentation in this Upper Churchill Falls deal is exactly our

concern for the process of documentation with the Voisey's Bay deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm very surprised to hear

the Leader of the Opposition make the comment he has made, because the Leader of

the Opposition I know always does his homework, and the Leader of the Opposition

will know that in the case of Churchill Falls, based on a letter of intent, some

$150 million was spent by BRINCO and by its partners toward the development of

the Churchill Falls project. The letter of intent was signed in 1967; by 1969,

$150 million had been spent.

In addition to the $150 million spent, there was another

quarter of a billion dollars of commitments to contractors and sub-contractors.

In today's terms, there was a commitment of some $668 million based on a letter

of intent. At that stage, having spent that much money, BRINCO then went to

Hydro Quebec and sought a firm power contract before completing the project. At

that stage, Hydro Quebec, recognizing the tremendous advantage it had, pressed

for what has now become the infamous Churchill Falls power contract.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no similar situation today with

respect to the development of Voisey' bay. There is no capital construction

project ongoing at this moment. What there is - I know the Leader of the

Opposition has very carefully examined this - is an application for an

environmental assessment today deposited and a development plan deposited with

the national government for a joint environmental assessment on the mine and

mine mill. That is going to take - you know, we cannot interfere with the

process - but it is going to take a year or more to conclude. So there is no

project started at the mine site yet, there is no construction of a mine mill

yet. There can't be until an environmental assessment is done. Sorry Jack?

AN HON. MEMBER: They spent $4 billion (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Just on acquiring the properties, but

there is no capital construction. That is Inco's risk, not the Province's.

Secondly, there is not even yet a site identified for a

smelter and refinery complex, and there is no application even filed yet on the

smelter-refinery complex. Once that is filed, that will take another period of

time for review.

So I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he were talking

about a circumstance where several billion dollars were already spent, or $1

billion dollars was already spent, then his comparison would hold water, but for

the moment his comparison is completely - well, it is completely improper, it is

wrong.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I advocate, the Premier's comparisons are all wrong.

There were a number of visions presented here in this House

yesterday. In fact, the Minister of Mines and Energy was so visionary yesterday

that he could announce that Inco knows it will not get a tax break to which it

is entitled by law. The minister said that yesterday. The minister even said: he

no longer needs even a letter of intent because he knows that Inco knows that we

all can have a vision of a good royalty regime.

Now, I ask the Premier: Will he make changes to the Mining

and Mineral Rights Tax Act to offer written protection for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled and I know that

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are appalled to hear the Leader of the

Opposition stand in this Chamber - and I have just been briefed by my colleague,

the Minister of Mines and Energy because I was not here yesterday - and complain

that a company as big and as powerful and as wealthy as Inco, with a property as

rich as Voisey's Bay, is not going to get a ten-year tax holiday. We make no

apology for not giving them a ten-year tax holiday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We say to Inco, Mr. Speaker, that there is

going to be no ten-year tax holiday. We expect to maximize benefits here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, we expect to maximize revenues, we expect to maximize

jobs and we want a revenue flow to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as

quickly as possible. There will be no holidays from their responsibilities to

the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

PREMIER TOBIN: I am amazed that the Leader of the

Opposition would be pressed into standing, cap in hand, on behalf of Inco,

begging for a tax holiday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am quite amused. The

legislation, the laws that his government have on the books here, give them a

ten-year tax holiday. The Premier, when he came here, scuttled the one that was

going to take away the tax break, and now we are sitting under a tax break.

I ask the Premier: What will you tell the people of this

Province, if a satisfactory agreement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - cannot be reached because you waited too

long to change the act? Would the Premier continue to claim ignorance and say we

are unfairly treated, because Inco knew they were not entitled to a tax holiday,

even though the laws of our Province said they were?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of this

Province are entitled to know, clearly, and I think the Leader of the Opposition

owes the House a clear statement: Is he for a tax break for poor, beleaguered,

beggarly, tired, misbegotten Inco, or not?

We have come to the conclusion over here that Inco is big

enough and strong enough and wealthy enough and healthy enough to afford to be

able to pay its way. And I want to share something with the Leader of the

Opposition: I think that Inco is a responsible corporate citizen and they expect

to have to pay their own way.

I am not sure what the point of the Leader of the Opposition

is but if he is asking this government to do anything less than ensure a full

and fair share of the revenues and the jobs for the people of this Province we

can do no less because there will be, never again, another Churchill Falls in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the

Minister of Mines and Energy, when he was covering for the Minister of Finance,

who apparently does not want to take the lead in areas of taxation, said: Inco

knows that they do not get a tax holiday under the act but they are subject to

the rest of the act. So I now want to ask the Premier: Does he knows if Inco

will be subject to changes in other parts of that act, specifically the Mining

Tax Review Board that was also changed in amendments of 1994?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what happened

to the Leader of the Opposition during the break, but since he has come back he

has done nothing but warn of dire consequences for the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the

Leader of the Opposition, in all seriousness, is that the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, well

recognize, as does the Leader of the Opposition - and I think this is the point

the Leader of the Opposition is making, and I accept this point - that the

Voisey's Bay development is important to every one of us in this Province

regardless of our political stripe and regardless of which side of the House we

sit on. It is important to this generation, to those who have responsibility

today and those who will have responsibility in the future.

Maybe the day will come, sometime in the future, when the

Leader of the Opposition will sit where I am sitting now, maybe that will

happen, but I will assure him of one thing, when and if it ever does happen - we

shall see, only the people can say - he can rest assured that those who sit on

this side of the House at this time in our history will act responsibly in our

negotiations, in discharging our duties as a caucus and as a Cabinet, to make

sure that the people of this Province are well served and that there is a full

and fair share of the resource for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There will be no sellouts.

The Leader of the Opposition is not being serious, Mr.

Speaker, I submit, and he knows he is not being serious, when he asks the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the floor of the House of Assembly,

to try and conduct a complex negotiation in a way that would disadvantage the

position and the role of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. When the

time comes all will be known, all will be transparent, and all will be public,

but for goodness sake let us not put the cart before the horse. We do not have

an environmental approval yet for the project let alone the completion of a

technical and detailed negotiation. In due course all that will happen.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want the same mistakes made, because we were not

informed, the public, that were made by your predecessor in Churchill Falls.

That is the very reason we want the protection, and not in secret behind closed

doors I say to the Premier.

Now, the 1994 amendments that eliminated the Mining Tax

Review Board - considering this government's desire to put at arm's length

regulatory bodies, does Inco know, I ask him, that this also does not apply to

them, which is in the act, and will the Premier admit that this removes the

arm's length independent approach to tax appeals and leaves it open to political

pressure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect,

I will have to go back later in the day or tomorrow, and look at the transcript

of the questions and the sequence of questions by the Leader of the Opposition

so that it is clear to me the points that are being made by the Leader of the

Opposition. I do not dismiss the seriousness with which he makes his points, and

I do not dismiss the importance of the points that are being made, but I quite

frankly am having difficulty following the Leader of the Opposition's argument

here. I do not know whether he is for a tax break for Inco, whether he is

complaining that a tax break that Inco might otherwise have expected is going to

be removed.

He has asked the question: Is it the intention of government

to remove a tax break, a ten-year tax holiday, that was put in place and

envisaged to be used by small marginal companies operating small and marginal

mines in the Province? He is saying: Is it fair to have such a proposal on the

books, and then after the fact take it away from the company? That is his

argument. He is saying we are being unfair to Inco, but, Mr. Speaker, Inco has

such a rich and viable deposit with such a massive rate of return that, in line

with the philosophy on Churchill Falls, when the circumstances change the

contract is changed, and in this case there will be no ten-year tax holiday for

Inco. We will expect them to pay their way and pay their freight as soon as

possible.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier does not understand the questions, I can give

him a copy of the act and the amendments in Clause 16 in the Bill in 1994, and

he might understand what my questions are.

Now will the Premier, or one of his Ministers of Finance over

there, table in this House a document that spells out what areas of our law that

Inco is not subject to, and perhaps some exemptions from the courts spelling out

how they know that Inco knows.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon.

member that the confusion grows. I want to assure him that Inco is subject to

all the laws of the Province.

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

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

I rise today to address what I consider, and what I think

most member would consider, a pretty serious matter that is taking place now at

the Hibernia site. It has been raised in the public a number of times, and I

asked questions in the House last spring on it, but I would like to ask the

Premier today: Is he fully aware of the discrimination currently faced by

construction workers in this Province who are being wrongfully denied work at

the Bull Arm site, and being told they do not qualify for such work, while

out-of-province and out-of-country workers, specifically in this case

electricians presently - and the future implications for not only job transfer

but technology transfer, who are no more qualified; is he aware that this is

taking place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, representation has been made to

the government with respect to the situation, or the alleged situation, at

Hibernia. I met with the company last week, Minister Aylward and I, and I also

met with representatives of the IBEW and the ODC. They have raised what I

consider to be some important issues, and we have taken it upon ourselves to ask

the CNOPB to investigate the allegations that have been made. Of course, it is

the CNOPB who has responsibility for ensuring that the Atlantic Accord is

adhered to.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand that meetings have taken

place, and I understand that representation has been made to the minister, but

it is ultimately the responsibility of this government, this House of Assembly,

to ensure that people who are qualified for jobs with resect to the offshore in

this Province get them. That is who is ultimately responsible.

Let me ask the minister or the Premier, or whoever feels fit

to respond: Why is it taking the government so long to respond to the situation?

I think you should move now, move immediately. Even George Baker, former

colleague of the Premier, has seen through the deception and lies being put

forward by the company. And are you going to allow the oil companies to get away

with such obvious discrimination that is detrimental to our capacity to compete

competitively now and in the future, and by doing so giving the edge to

out-of-province contractors and workers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed moving immediately

on this. As I mentioned, we meet with them last week. I did not have a request

for a meeting from either the IBEW or ODC. I instigated the meeting myself once

I saw the news in the news media. We met with them. We have asked CNOPB to move

immediately on this. The company has indicated that they are certainly willing

to comply with our request, so we are moving immediately on it. The Premier, in

fact, is having a breakfast meeting tomorrow with the ODC to address this and

other issues.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's

response. This issue was raised over six months ago by this particular member in

this particular Legislature, and no action was taken. I have a document here, a

presentation that was made to government on behalf of the workers, that clearly

shows that one company in particular has hired nine Newfoundlanders and, at the

same time, has hired forty-five people from outside the Province who are no more

qualified than the people in this Province who have the same level of skill, who

have the same level of training.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: My question to the minister, in light of

her last answer, is: Can you be more definitive? Can you say that by this time

next week you will seize control of the situation, that you will get to the

bottom of it, and that by this time next week qualified Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who should be on that site will, in fact, be on that site?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I have that the CNOPB report back

to me in ten days, and as soon as we get the report back and all the allegations

have been investigated the government will move on it if, in fact, there is any

truth to what is being alleged.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Minister, will you confirm that the Province, since

February, has spent over $200,000 of public funds to place advertisements in

The Globe and Mail and other national publications featuring the Premier and

ministers? Will you tell the House the total number of these `Think Again' ads,

and the amount spent?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is within the

budget of the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology. I do not have the

figures available. It is part of the general promotional thrust of the Province,

for which the Province commits to considerable resources each year, both in ITT

and the Department of Tourism. It is a matter undertaken by government, one that

we think will yield fruitful results.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well maybe I should direct this question to

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, but I will stick with the

Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right; I cannot refer to that. I am

not permitted to refer to where he may or may not be.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the two-page ads in

The Globe and Mail , entitled `Think Again', have cost approximately

$25,000 each? Will you table in this House the evaluation process used to

determine the benefits, if any, of these advertisements? Maybe the money could

be better spent on a child advocate.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of my colleague I am delighted to see that the

hon. member is actually perusing the ad. I think the ads, frankly, have been

very effective. I think it is money well invested. I have heard comments

nationally by people who have noticed these ads. They have focused attention. I

think what is interesting is that the fastest growing sector in the Newfoundland

economy is the manufacturing base at some 8 per cent. I think that is a result

largely of the efforts of this government in trying to rationalize its tax

structure to attract industries here. It has been effective, and I think this is

an important part of our program.

I think one thing that the people of the Province realize,

whether the hon. member does or not, is that Newfoundland is basically the size

of a small or medium-sized North American city. When people come to the Province

they want to deal with, in our case, what is the equivalent of a mayor of a

large city, and that is our Premier. We have a lot of authority, but when people

come here they have to have a sense that the government is committed to making a

success of businesses and ensuring their survival for the people of the

Province.

All things considered, I disagree with the member across the

way if he is suggesting that we should sit back and do nothing. If we don't get

out there and try to do something and compete in what is a global international

market, realizing that 83 per cent of what we produce in Newfoundland is sold,

for instance, into the American market, we are not going to survive.

Is this a good idea? Yes. Is it money well spent? Yes. Do I

have the numbers? No. My colleague in Industry, Trade and Technology is busy

doing exactly what I speak of at this very moment and I am sure, as part of his

report back to the House on his travels, he will be delighted to provide the

hon. member with comments as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I should

request the information under our Freedom of Information Act. Maybe I would get

the answer then.

Can the government really justify placing these ads, entitled

`Think Again', to tout the benefits of the EDGE program when the Industry

Minister himself said a few weeks that: EDGE now has to be completely rethought

in light of the harmonization sales tax agreement, an agreement that was signed

in principle by the Premier several months before you even placed the ads. How

much is budgeted - you should know; you are the Minister of Finance - from

provincial dollars to promote the federal government's agenda on harmonization

tax? With these new ads that are going in, these full-page ads, I say to the

minister, how much is being budgeted under the Department of Finance for these

new ads?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the

minister is complaining about the fact that we are advertising the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, or the fact that the mug shot of the Premier of the

Province is not an attractive part of the advertising package - and if that is

true we will take a look at it and remove it - but surely the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: The member could be right; maybe we should

put the member's picture on the ad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if we did people might think

again indeed! Surely the member is not seriously -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am trying so hard to be

heard. I don't get nearly this much attention from the ads.

Mr. Speaker, the member is not seriously suggesting in the

Legislature that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, should not be out there with every other province

of Canada, and every other province of Canada -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - is out promoting the fundamental

benefits and strengths of their respective provinces. Surely he is not

suggesting that we should not be out there as well telling people - and look at

the full range of the `Think Again' ads campaign - telling people, for example,

in the information technology sector, that the number one province of Canada for

fibre optics per capita is Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Is he saying we should not be out there

telling the people of Canada that the only province of Canada with every single

school on the Internet is Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Is he saying we should not be telling the

people of Canada that the business school at Memorial University, for four of

the last five years, in a national and international competition, has come

number one at the business school competition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to quickly conclude his answer.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier

with great respect, the ad says `Think Again'. Maybe he was referring to EDGE.

My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. In light of

not only the Cabot 500 celebrations but also the anniversary of the Vikings, the

upcoming Winter Games, and the 50th Anniversary of Confederation, as well as

other tourism potential in the upcoming years, even the threat of a strike by

Marine Atlantic would have serious implications on the numbers of people

visiting our Province, as was seen by the threat of strike last year. I ask the

minister what she intends to do to ensure that Marine Atlantic is designated an

essential service, and that there is proper protection put in place for the

labour force of Marine Atlantic, similar to that of other essential services,

such as the fire and police departments.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, we of course, as government, have

been dealing with this for many months. My colleague, the Minister of

Environment and Labour, has already requested of the federal government that we

enter discussions about the essential service aspect of Marine Atlantic. But we

all know, we have all read in the media in the past months, that Marine Atlantic

has a signed labour agreement for the upcoming two years. I am meeting with

Marine Atlantic, I think in about ten days, and we will be discussing that. So

all is proceeding very well. We are very comfortable that we are well prepared

for next year's celebrations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: I say to the minister, that is wonderful

news; however, we cannot renew on a two-year basis, a biannual basis, every time

the contract runs out. We need an essential service.

Under Term 32 of the Terms of Union with Canada, Newfoundland

is guaranteed a freight and passenger service from Port aux Basques to North

Sydney. This is our link, our highway to the rest of Canada. I'm asking the

minister what exactly she intends to do to ensure that this is made an essential

service, and more importantly what she intends to do to make sure the labour

force is protected, similar to that of other essential services.

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have just outlined that this

government is actively working with the federal government on this issue, and

that we do have a labour contract in place for the next two years, and that we

have that space of time that we are actively working with the federal

government. We recognize that this is a very important link. This is, across the

Gulf, our Trans-Canada Highway, and we are very actively working on this issue.

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Exactly right, I say to the minister; this

route is our Trans-Canada Highway to the rest of Canada, and no other province

in Canada would stand to have their highway blocked or severed. So I am asking

the minister: Can she guarantee us that, by the time this two-year contract is

out, Marine Atlantic will be designated an essential service, and that the

federal government will be held responsible to their constitutional obligations

to ensure that this service is always maintained?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have given a very

adequate answer to that, and that this is a federal government issue that we are

working hand in hand with our federal colleagues to solve. There is no different

answer to it other than that we are doing our best and working on this issue

very actively.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Recently he has

been quoted as speculating about the possible privatization of the Newfoundland

Liquor Corporation. In Alberta when this happened prices went up, wages went

down, and many hundreds of people lost their jobs. I wonder, would the minister

end this speculation and ease the fears of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation

employees by assuring them that he and government does not share the views on

privatization of the Leader of the Opposition, and that he will not, and his

government will not, privatize the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the hon. member's question, I believe he is

referring to an

article that I did in response to a reporter with The Evening

Telegram some weeks ago. I am glad he has finally gotten to the question.

What he said in that

article was that the government had not decided to

privatize the Liquor Corporation. Unfortunately it has been construed that we

have so done. Having said that, every government program, every government

agency, every government Crown corporation, is under review to see whether or

not we should continue that particular service, or what is in many cases a

private sector type enterprise, or whether we should modify it in some way. What

I said was that it could not be ruled out. We will examine it the same way we

will examine every other aspect of government during and subsequent to program

review. If and when we make a decision we will advise this Legislature and the

people of the Province and the employees concerned, if any, accordingly.

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

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to emphasize that last year I was made aware of

a family situation where the breadwinner worked for the corporation, they lived

in subsidized housing, and still the family had to go to food banks to provide

proper food for the family. I would like to have the minister provide some

assurance to such families and other employees that at least they can have some

security, and not have to worry that their position will be undermined by a

threat in privatization. Can he give them that assurance?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any person who works for government understands that things

change, and a position which he or she now holds may or may not exist next

month, next year, or ten years from now. But, having said that, I think that

whatever the final decision of government is, I am quite sure that the people of

the Province do not intend to give up drinking alcohol in some form or another,

and that someone will provide that service, whether it is going to be through

the agency of government or in some other form or fashion. I can no more give an

absolute assurance to any person who works for government than Mr. Curtis, from

whom the hon. member gets his questions, can give his employees an assurance

that they will also have absolute job security.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I rise today to give notice that on tomorrow I will introduce

the following Private Members resolution:

WHEREAS the Progressive Conservative Party's policy on

construction has already recognized the significant contribution that that

industry makes to the economy; and

WHEREAS all Members of the House of Assembly are committed to

investing in the construction workforce such that onshore and offshore resource

developments use skills and technology from this Province; and

WHEREAS we, as members of this hon. House are all committed

to maximizing the development of oil-related industries in this Province to

create well-educated, well-trained workers for the oil industry and bring in

equitable revenues to the Province; and

WHEREAS the Progressive Conservative Party is conscious of

the fact that workers on the Hibernia project have proven themselves as second

to none in the world, and that we, as a Province, must build upon that

experience gained from construction of the GBS structure and move towards full

development of an offshore oil industry capacity; and

WHEREAS it is incumbent on the provincial government to be

proud of and promote the excellence and the performance by the construction

workers in Newfoundland;

THEREFORE the Progressive Conservative Party greets with

dismay and alarm the discrimination against the Province's construction workers,

and calls upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take the following

steps immediately:

Investigate what is happening now with qualified, local

construction workers being denied commissioning work at the Bull Arm site;

insist that development companies present a much more detailed and transparent

employment and training plan for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, both

presently and for pending and future developments; and enforceable regulations

need to be created to protect our construction workers from the discrimination

and abuse currently experienced where they are being treated as second-class

workers.

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Premier, in collaboration

with the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister of Education, the Minister

of Development and Rural Renewal, insist immediately that the developer, HMDC,

with its contractors, together with the unions through the oil development

council, address the escalating employment and future preparedness concerns at

the Bull Arm site, and together form a collective will and determination to

ensure qualified, local construction workers get an equitable and just number of

quality construction and commissioning employment opportunities at the Bull Arm

site, specifically by doing the following, Mr. Speaker:

That the Minister of Mines and Energy insist that both HMDC

and their contractors detail human resource plans for both construction and

production phases of their operations such that all trade, technical and

supervisory occupations are outlined in full, and where shortfalls exist in this

Province a corrective plan is instituted to address a shortfall by local

workers. Furthermore, the Minister of Mines and Energy, through his federal

counterpart, immediately convene a meeting of all governing parties signatory to

the 1989 Memorandum of Understanding that was charged with the responsibility to

ensure the present situation would not happen, that employment, training, and

technological transfer would happen, and now address and correct the issues that

have been recognized.

The Minister of Education, the Minister of Environment and

Labour, along with the minister responsible for employment, ensure that

enforceable regulations exist, or existing ones modified, to provide present

construction workers with fairer benefits from the construction and

commissioning phase of the Hibernia's development, and these workers are better

prepared for other present and pending resource development opportunities, and

that the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED - it is a big

issue, a complex one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carry on.

MR. E. BYRNE: That the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology address the issue of more local contractors on commissioning now at

Hibernia so as to capture the required management and technical skills presently

giving the edge to offshore contractors for future developments at the expense

of local contractors and their employees.

Finally, that the Premier identify, and the entire Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador support, refocusing of efforts with all parties,

developers, companies, governments and workers to recapture the policy of

Newfoundland and Labrador first, and technology transfer must be for all present

and pending resource developments.

I call on all members of this hon. House of Assembly to join

with me and wholeheartedly endorse this resolution when we debate it as

presented, make it unanimous, and implore this government to act promptly and

decisively on the issues that we have raised.

Thank you.

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition similar to that of

yesterday's, and I will again read the prayer of the petition:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to

petition the House of Assembly to voice our opposition to the changes to the

City of St. John's Act,

Section 284, which will repeal the funding of $10,000 in

funding for Bowring Park and $10,000 in funding for road repair. While this

funding repeal may not seem significant, it is our understanding that the

Liberal government has cut millions from the municipal budget over the past

three to four years and the overall cuts are quite dramatic.

Mr. Speaker, Bowring Park is a regional park. It is within

the boundaries of the City of St. John's, but it is a regional park that is

utilized and enjoyed by many residents from other areas: Topsail, Seal Cove,

Foxtrap, Torbay, Outer Cove and so on, and Mount Pearl, our largest neighbour.

So it is unfair to the residents of the City of St. John's to bear the burden of

the taxes utilized to maintain and keep up the park without any input at all

from the provincial government.

Ten thousand dollars as it stands is very meagre. The

provincial government should almost be ashamed to have only been providing

$10,000 funding for Bowring Park; but, in the meantime, it is even more petty to

take this $10,000 away. Bowring Park -

MR. GRIMES: Why don't we provide $10,000 for a park in

every town? Why only St. John's? What is wrong with giving $10,000 to 600

communities, $10,000 each. (Inaudible) park.

MR. OSBORNE: It is a historical agreement, I say to the

Minister of Education, as is the $10,000 given for road repair. That $10,000 is

even more shameful, I say, because of the fact that the provincial government

made an agreement with the City of St. John's that the provincial government

would take over the task of providing motor vehicle registration and charging

for that, when this was a task that was done by the City of St. John's and a

revenue generator for the City of St. John's back in the 1920s. This task was

taken away from the City of St. John's, as was the revenue base.

So this $20,000, while I say it is quite petty, it is an

embarrassment to say that we are going to cut and repeal this funding to the

City of St. John's after the millions and millions we have cut in the municipal

budget to the City of St. John's. So I ask the House to accept this petition,

and I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to give serious

consideration to the contents and meaning of the petition, and to reconsider his

decision to repeal the $20,000 under

Section 284 of the City of St. John's Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. TULK: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Can we get a copy of that petition so we can

see what it is, just what it says?

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is some point of order. Why didn't you

wait for the Clerk to come and pick it up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I rise in my place today to support the

petition presented by the Member for St. John's South. The government today is

cutting the City of St. John's another $20,000. It doesn't sound like a large

amount of money, but in due course $20,000 here and $50,000 there and $100,000

there adds up. Since 1989 the City of St. John's has been cut some $5 million to

$6 million by this administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his place. It is now Wednesday,

3:00 p.m. It is Private Members' Day, and we move on to the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: I believe today it is the hon. Opposition

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise

today to present a private member's motion that has been printed in the Order

Paper for today. I do not intend to read it verbatim, however the intent of the

resolution is to draw attention to the need for a child advocate in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon in this House we

recognized that this is National Child Day and I thought it would be appropriate

if this House, on this day, were to focus some of its attention on the needs of

our young children in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that there has been many reports

that have been written by various groups and various agencies relative to the

needs of children. We know the studies have been done on child poverty; they are

mentioned in the Royal Commission on Education entitled Our Children Our

Future . We know that the Department of Social Services has done studies on

the issues of children as it relates to child welfare, sexual abuse, physical

abuse, poverty and many other issues. Mr. Speaker, we know that the Department

of Health has been involved in examining the ways in which they can greater

service the needs of children by making sure we have healthier children in our

Province, because the essence of good health and good education and good living

in our families is early intervention.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased in the time from December of

1994 until June of 1996, to be part of the Select Committee of the House of

Assembly on Children's Interests. Part of that examination was to look at the

need for a child advocate.

Mr. Speaker, I know as well that the minister is very serious

about her responsibilities in this area. I know she does not take her

responsibilities lightly. I would publicly say that, because I do believe that

when it comes to children we should be straight forward and honest, and on the

issue of children we should not be partisan nor should we play party politics.

Mr. Speaker, the children of our Province are our most

vulnerable citizens. Vulnerability is part of childhood. Mr. Speaker, they are

vulnerable to neglect and abuse, neglect by adults and neglect and abuse by

agencies. Children have no political power. They do not vote, they do not pay

taxes, they depend on us, the adults in the communities, to speak up for them,

and to do so aggressively, consistently, with passion and with full

understanding of their vulnerability.

Mr. Speaker, we know as well that as budgets decline children

are at risk because they have to compete with all the other government services

and the government agencies to make sure that services to children are

maintained adequately and consistently.

Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that the government is trying to

promote a very efficient public health program. Well, let us make no mistake,

that the wellness of children is assured pretty well during infancy. It is a sad

commentary when there is no further mandatory or universal intervention in the

health of children until they reach school age.

I quote from the Royal Commission on Education where it says:

Investments in early childhood programs will result in substantial savings of

latter years because prevention is always less costly then repairing the damage

once it is done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we went across this Province and we

listened to more than 200 presenters to the Select Committee on Children's

Interests, and when we had people come before us, in total over 800 individuals,

one of the most consistent themes that came forward was the need for an advocate

for children. That is why the committee was unanimous in its recommendations

when it comes to the need for a child advocate.

Mr. Speaker, we are following the lead of other provinces. I

have before me the legislation as it applies to the Province of British

Columbia. In fact, the legislation of British Columbia formed the basis of the

resolution that I put forward to this House today. It was the province of

British Columbia which was followed most closely by the Committee on Children's

Interests when they were writing their report.

So, I say to the House and to all government members, and to

the minister in particular, that we want to follow the lead of British Columbia,

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Unfortunately, no Atlantic

Province has appointed a child advocate to this date. This is an opportunity and

a realization of our responsibility, when we as a Province will say: We will be

the first province in Atlantic Canada to appoint and to give the powers that are

needed to a child advocate to do his or her work.

Mr. Speaker, we also note that in the resolution today I have

said that the child youth advocate would function as an absolutely independent

officer of the Legislature, with a clear and unimpeded mandate to review and

comment upon the operations, the programs and mandates of all government

departments. Mr. Speaker, that is a step forward from some provinces. That goes

further than what is happening in the Province of Manitoba. That goes further

than what is happening in the Province of Saskatchewan, further than the

Province of Alberta, because in these provinces there are restrictions. In fact,

in these provinces, particularly in the Province of Manitoba, the child advocate

reports to the Minister of Social Services and that has been found not to be

satisfactory.

It is my position that the child advocate should have the

same powers, or similar to the powers that are granted to the Auditor General,

the powers to really truly comment on the policies of government and its

actions, without fear that they have to report to some line minister.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying today that we, as a Province, need

to take this initiative. We need to take it because our children need the

protection. They need the independent voice that we all recognize from time to

time that children lack in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I would also say to the minister today that as

she is hopefully commenting on this particular resolution, that she will assure

the House that she is receiving this resolution in the same sincerity with which

I am putting it forward. I know that she herself has read the report of the

Children's Interest Committee. I know she has examined it and discussed with her

colleagues, and we want to say that we should not have to wait until we get the

Strategic Social Plan presented. We would like to have an indication today of

the direction we are going in on this particular issue.

We do not need to go across this Province again to ask people

what their viewpoints are on a child advocate. That has been done. We have

spoken to more people than the Strategic Social Plan Review Committee has spoken

to, so therefore that has been finished. The people have deliberated on that and

they have said: Yes, this is the way that we want to go.

I quote from Trudy White of the Strait of Belle Isle area

child protection team, when she said, `Children do need someone to speak up for

them. They are too scared to speak up sometimes. An advocate who has the

responsibility and is specifically dealing with children's issues and can focus

their time on something like that, I think it would be great if we had someone

in that position. Mr. Speaker, that is an example of the commentary that was

received in our public hearings held over a twelve-month period.

We can comment, as well, to say that a child advocate would

help us become more child-centred in our approach to government. There isn't a

minister, there isn't a teacher, there isn't a person I know who deals with

children, who believes that they themselves are not child-centred, but what we

have is the gap between theory and practice. In theory the Department of Social

Services is child-centred, in theory our school system is child-centred; in

practice sometimes there is an awful gap between what the theory says and what

the practice really is.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in the departments of government

where there is a great lot of rhetoric, a great lot of commitment to trying to

get the system to work, sometimes the needs of individual children, and even

specific groups of children, get lost. They get lost in the day-to-day practice,

they get lost in the way things get done, and they get lost when bureaucrats

adopt policies according to the book. So I'm saying to you that we have to

narrow the gap between theory and practice. In theory we all agree that we, as a

society, should be child-centred. In practice we know that very often systems

often become more closely adhered, or adhering to the system itself, than they

are to the mandate of the particular department. In other words, they become

departmental-centred rather than client-centred. That is certainly a very common

theme.

Mr. Speaker, as well, we need a child advocate so we can have

a person who can comment on all aspects of government. I don't mean today to say

that this is the sole responsibility of the Minister of Social Services. It

isn't! Children are the responsibility of every government department. We know

that children interact with all government departments. In fact, in the Province

of Alberta they have a family grid policy, which means that every single piece

of legislation has to be vetted through a committee that examines it in terms of

its impact on children before it is allowed to be presented to the Legislature.

That is the kind of commitment to children that we want in this Province. We

want the government to say that we are going to be family-centred, we are going

to be child-centred, and we aren't just going to say in theory, we are going to

adopt practices that move it from the written word into the reality of

children's lives.

Mr. Speaker, when we were having discussions on these matters

we recognized four government departments that interact with children. We talked

about the Department of Social Services, but it isn't the only department that

interacts with children. We talked about the Department of Education, we talked

about the Department of Health, the Department of Justice. These are the primary

departments. Let me just say to you that when it comes to the Department of

Criminal Code in the Canada Evidence Act, known as Bill C-15. It expanded

opportunities for courts to receive children's testimony and to utilize

courtroom procedures that are child focused, particularly for young children.

Some of these procedures included the use of videotaping children's testimony,

and I have a whole list of items here that were included in that particular Bill

C-15. In our Province some of these procedures have been used; however, our

experience is that they have not been used frequently, or they have not been

used routinely. This may be due to lack of understanding by the court of

different developmental stages of children. It may also be due to other

circumstances, but too often the decisions in courtrooms are based on the

tradition of the legal system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: If I could just continue for a second.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Too often decisions in our courts are

based on the traditions of the legal system, the adversarial approach, and not

on an understanding of the best ways to obtain evidence from children.

Mr. Speaker, we strongly recommend that the government look

at the legal system and how it interacts with children. We strongly recommend as

well that the Minister of Social Services, when we consider the need for a child

advocate, look on the advocate as a person who can promote the interests of

children, who can make sure that we have policies in place that will lead to a

better understanding of children. As one of the leading researchers told us when

we were conducting our hearings, we have to be very much conscious of the age of

a child, the child's sense of time, and the need to understand the court system

through the viewpoint of a child. When we find that court proceedings are

ongoing for nine and ten months, and sometimes ongoing for several years before

they reach a resolution, I can only say to hon. members: What does that say

about our court system and how child focused it really is?

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to all hon. members that I put

forward the resolution today with the intent that we, as a Province, will offer

it some sincere consideration and that we, as a Province, will move forward to

make every day a child day, not just when we have one day set aside every year.

As the minister said today in her statement to the House, she would like to have

every day a child day. I commend her for saying that because that is important,

and that is the essence of where our commitment should be. While we think of the

child on this particular day, it is the long-term strategy that makes a

difference and will move us from what we believe to be theoretically correct to

being an operational guide that will guide our government in making its

decisions in the future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): The hon. the Minister of Social

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to amend

the resolution in the following manner:

That the words `immediately establish', after the words `that

government', in the resolution be deleted and the following added, `consider as

part of a comprehensive response the establishment', and the words `AND BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED', be deleted, and that the following be added as sub-paragraph

(e), `and that the Office of Child and Youth Advocate function as a independent

office of the Legislature with a clear and unimpeded mandate to review and

comment upon the operations, programs and mandates of all provincial government

departments and agencies.'

This proposed amended resolution is seconded by the

Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Can the Chair have a copy of the amendment?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: We will recess for a few minutes to review

the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

After consultation with the Clerk's Table we find that the

amendment meets the requirements of Standing Order 36 regarding the amendment of

a motion, so the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

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

I would like to speak in favour of this amendment today

because, as I have stated previously in the House, we have a number of

initiatives under way. We have the Social Policy Advisory Committee, which I

might add is still receiving hearings and consultations until November 23. In

addition to that, we are in the process of conducting our own internal program

review.

I think by the intent of the amendment it is clear that as a

government we are very supportive of children's issues. We are very supportive

by nature of putting in place a Select Committee on Children's Interests, and we

look forward to addressing all of the recommendations and not just identifying

one recommendation at this time.

My hon. colleague earlier spoke of the need for early

childhood programs. As a very persistent and interested member of the Select

Committee on Children's Interests he would know, of course, that there is a

recommendation in the Select Committee on Children's Interests for early

pre-school child health checks. So this is just one example. In addition to that

there are other recommendations talking about youth advisory committees, and the

role of youth advising municipalities in particular, as well as other government

departments. In addition to that there are recommendations on a youth in care

network which would advise government departments, as well as community groups,

on how children's issues should be handled.

There are other recommendations concerning very serious

issues such as fetal alcohol syndrome, and recommendations on how this very

serious disease, alcohol induced during pregnancy, should be addressed. There

are other recommendations pertaining to education in the schools, bringing

forward speech pathologists. There is another very important model which was

pilot tested in this Province, the family group decision-making model. All of

these are very important recommendations, and each one has to be addressed in a

very serious way.

By putting forward this amendment today we are in no way

minimizing the issues raised, and I would like to commend my colleague for

raising such an important resolution on National Child Day. I think it is very

important to recognize the needs of children and I think, based on our

ministerial statement today, that we are concerned about the issues that are

before us as they relate to children's poverty, as one, in addition to other

issues.

I think as part of an overall, more comprehensive approach to

how we deliver services to children we have to allow that part of the process to

continue. I would like to state that we are not saying that we will not very

seriously look at this recommendation. We see it as one that has a lot of merit.

It is one of many related to the needs of children, as I pointed out. Another

one that was mentioned was a secretariat for children.

I think it is also important to note that, as a government,

we are very concerned not only with addressing immediate issues as we see them

but in looking at the whole issue as it relates to child care and how we deliver

services to children, both from a public consultation perspective as well as

from an internal perspective.

We know very clearly from listening to the media recently, as

well as consulting with very well-renowned child care advocates in the Province

and in the country, that there are many differing views on even how to establish

such a centre as a child advocate, whether this should be specifically

identified as a case policy advocate or if it would be an advocate that would

deal with policy issues. There are many important parts that have to be

addressed, and I think as a government we are very committed to having the

necessary process in place, and the necessary mechanisms, and not just only

identifying a role without knowing how it would work.

I would like to say that we are committed to children's

issues and I think, based on the commitment we have given, we will look at each

of the recommendations in the Select Committee on Children's Interests. We will

look at the overall recommendations that come forward from the Social Policy

Advisory Committee to help us put together a plan that will identify how we need

to direct all social issues with respect to family as well as children in

particular.

We are very committed, as I said, to children's issues, and I

speak today, and ask my colleagues to support the amendment, to allow the

process to be completed. We are in no way undermining the value of the

particular recommendation, but it is one of forty-three recommendations, each

one having very significant impact on children and on children's families, and

how we deliver services. We would not identify this one in particular to

implement in an immediate way without looking at how it can be set up and how we

can put in place a process that will make children safe, whether they live in

Nain or whether they live in St. John's. I think there is a lot of work that has

yet to be done to try to identify the most effective and efficient way of

bringing forward these recommendations.

In addition to some of the recommendations that have been

made in the children's report we also had other suggestions; for example, a

1-800 crisis line for parents to use to consult on various issues in helping to

deal with their challenging needs for children. As part of the full package,

what we would like to do is combine all the information we have from our own

internal program review focusing on, as we have said earlier, trying to improve

our collaboration among government departments, looking at every service and

every program, so that we can provide the most comprehensive care to children

and to their families.

We also want to give credit and give the process, the Social

Policy Advisory Committee, an opportunity to complete their mandate. While this

particular issue has been discussed in detail through the Select Committee, we

know that it will also be discussed as we go forward with the Social Policy

Advisory Committee as one component of the total change that will be required.

I ask my colleague today to support us in this amended

resolution as we move forward to put in place a very comprehensive process to

deal with children's issues, and their families, in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. Member for

Kilbride I would like to welcome to the public gallery, on behalf of hon.

members, the former Member for Green Bay, Mr. Alvin Hewlett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to make some comments today with respect to the

resolution which has been brought forward to this hon. House by my colleague,

the Opposition House Leader. The resolution as put forward by my colleague shows

that this is an issue which requires immediate attention, and it is an issue

which, as a result of many of the studies and investigations, as the hon.

minister has indicated, is a result of recommendations of these studies. It

seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is an issue which requires immediate

attention.

I am somewhat disappointed with the spirit of the amendment

which has been put forward by the members opposite, because what it does is

water down the importance and the integrity of this resolution. It gives the

impression that we can again wait, we can again delay the response in dealing

with what is in the interest of young children. That is why the spirit of this

amendment is somewhat troublesome, because the resolution deals with immediate

action. The resolution makes it quite clear that the government must establish

immediately the Office of Child and Youth Advocate, "to ensure that rights and

interests of children, youth and their families, relating to designated

services, are protected and advanced, and that their voices are heard and

considered in the establishment of government policies."

That description, Mr. Speaker, makes it quite clear that this

is something which requires redress immediately; not after more deliberations,

not after more review, not after more study and investigation.

To "ensure that children, youth and their families have

access to fair, responsive and appropriate complaint and review processes at all

stages in the provision of designated services". We see on a daily basis issues

dealing with court cases, whether that be in youth court or whether that be in

Unified Family Court, in cases dealing with the office of Child Protection

Services. We can no longer wait for an independent review body such as the child

advocate through the office of child advocacy to be established before these

critical issues are addressed. As I have previously indicated, they require

immediate attention.

The office of the youth advocate or child advocate would also

"provide information and advice to the government and communities about the

availability, effectiveness, responsiveness and relevance of designated services

to children, youth and their families". Again, we cannot wait for that. The

amendment again puts this whole issue of child advocacy, which in and of itself

is a recommendation of government's own studies and government's own

documentation, it places this whole issue on the back burner.

Again, the resolution calls for a promotion and coordination:

in communities for the establishment of advocacy services for children, youth

and their families.

We have too many examples of situations in this Province,

whether it be in dealing with Department of Education, or Justice through our

court services, or Social Services through Child Protection Services, where

young people are crying out for attention and for help.

We see it in our school system, We have seen it in the past,

for example, where we have had situations of swarming - we will remember that

term - where, in the past spring, as a result of inadequate services being

provided to school boards and to various schools within our Province, we have

young people with severe behavioral problems and personality disorders who are

not getting the attention and the help that they are entitled to, resulting in

this sort of negative behaviour and negative activity.

The office of a child advocate would be able to intervene and

to assist young people, whether it be through the Department of Social Services

or through the Department of Justice, or through the Department of Education, to

make recommendations to government, to the appropriate agencies, and offices,

and departments, to have intervention when intervention is required. That is

what this is all about. That is why on this particular day, which was indicated

at the beginning of proceedings this afternoon as a special day for children in

this Province, that is why this particular resolution has been brought forward.

It is unfortunate that the amendment does nothing but put everything on the back

burner. We again must wait for further investigation and review.

It is not unlike the response that has been given by the hon.

Minister of Education in dealing with the report of the review of special

education entitled Special Matters where, for example, it states that:

"Newfoundland and Labrador experiences the highest rate of

both family poverty and adult illiteracy of all provinces in Canada. In 1992,

the poverty rate for Canadian families was 13.3 per cent. In Newfoundland, over

18 per cent of families, representing" - and this is an astonishing figure -

"over 38,000 children, lived below the poverty line. The poverty rate for

children living in single-parent homes was estimated to be 73 per cent.

Furthermore, the incomes of most low-income income Canadians are substantially

below the poverty line cut-offs. This is especially true, the report states, in

Newfoundland where the Canadian Council on Social Development estimated that in

1991 the average poor household in Newfoundland would need over $5,310 to bring

its income up to the poverty line.

"In addition to almost 40,000 children in Newfoundland who

live below the poverty line, many more children live in families whose income is

just above the poverty line cut-offs."

Mr. Speaker, this particular report goes on and on in making

recommendations that deal not only on issues of poverty, but as the minister

well knows, dealing with deficiencies in reading, illiteracy and other

disabilities with respect to young children.

The minister's response, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the

recommendations of this report are not unlike the very amendment that is being

put forward today by the hon. Minister of Social Services: Let us wait and see.

That is the theme, Mr. Speaker, of the minister's response. That is the theme of

the amendment today: Let us further review it; let us further subject the

evidence which has been long established and collected; let us see what we can

do. The minister in response to the report of the review on Special Education

said: Let us wait until next fall.

Mr. Speaker, I say to this House that waiting for next fall

is simply not good enough. Waiting for next fall is simply not acceptable. The

young people of this Province require more than waiting until next fall. The

young people of this Province who would be entitled to the benefit of the

establishment of a child advocate, Mr. Speaker, require more than waiting for

further review and further study. This issue, Mr. Speaker, is a critical one,

which is why it is being put forward today in the fashion that it has been.

We are talking about the protection of young people. We are

talking, Mr. Speaker, about an independent voice; that is what an advocate is.

An advocate is counsel, a lawyer. In fact, the word advocate in French is very

similar, advocat; in Spanish, advocado. That is where the word advocate comes

from. The person who is appointed or assigned with that responsibility, Mr.

Speaker, is the person who will represent the best interests of the young people

of this Province. Mr. Speaker, we must not treat this issue lightly. We need an

independent voice for young people in our Province. We need to insure that young

people's rights are protected and upheld at all times. All we have to do is look

at how young people on a daily basis are brought into the fourth floor of

Atlantic Place, in courtroom No. 5, I believe, which is Youth Court; and the

docket is full.

We only have to look, Mr. Speaker, at any other provincial

court throughout the communities of our Province, whether it be in Stephenville

or Grand Falls or Gander or Harbour Grace or any other location where there is a

provincial court. The dockets are full with not only adult matter,

unfortunately, but with young offender matters as well.

Mr. Speaker, we only have to look at the Unified Family Court

where it has become necessary to now have the services of a second Supreme Court

judge to assist the full-time Unified Family Court judge in the growing number

of cases dealing with the custody and access of young children, dealing with the

issues of support of young children, dealing with the issues of wardship and

adoption, dealing with what are called peace bond applications, obviously the

result of which have a dramatic effect upon young children.

So clearly, within our society, we have agencies, whether it

be the schools or the hospitals or youth courts or family courts, that deal, Mr.

Speaker, on a regular basis with the well-being and welfare of our young

children. Because of the extent to which our agencies and departments are

devoted to the well being of young people, we need an independent advocate. We

need a person who will be charged with the responsibility to ensure that a young

person is protected at all times and is not lost, Mr. Speaker, in the

bureaucracy, is not lost in that jungle of confusion which often happens.

We saw a case last week, for example, which gained some

publicity. An independently assigned child advocate would be there to ensure

that the rights of young people are protected. Whether it be in a dispute

concerning parents or those people who wish to act as guardians, whether it be a

matter in youth court or come other provincial court, if it is a judicial

matter, if it is an educational matter or matter with respect to social

services, the office of the child advocate is an essential one.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the resolution as put forward

and I am disappointed with the spirit of the amendment which has been but

forward by the member opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate this

afternoon on the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Waterford

Valley. He and I had occasion to work for a number of months on a committee

which produced for this hon. House the report Listening and Acting, A Plan

For Child Youth And Community Empowerment , the report which I hope in time

will provide the framework for a comprehensive approach to dealing with all of

the problems confronted by children in this Province.

It is no surprise to me, knowing the commitment of my good

friend from Waterford Valley to the cause, to know that he would bring this

resolution forward. However, I feel that the amendment put forward by the

minister is certainly in order because one of the difficulties that I have in

terms of - and I as much as anyone want to see this report, all of it in its

entirety, I would hope in time implemented by this government.

I think we have to be careful if we are going to be

responding to crises because I think it is pretty obvious. In the last number of

days we have seen here in the city and throughout the Province, a real

outpouring of concern and emotion, well founded emotion, on the part of the

people of this Province in response to a news item which was carried by CBC.

Indeed it is the type of story that gets to us all, it hits us where it really

hurts. We see children who are suffering, who are put in positions of

helplessness. We see children put in situations where they need someone to

intervene for them. It appeals to all of us, and indeed the human response is to

reach out and try to immediately, at that point in time, deal with that concern

and provide for that individual what he requires.

Certainly, I saw the particular program and my response was

the same of that of everyone else in this Province. I was personally appalled

that this type of situation could exist. But having had the opportunity, along

with the member for Waterford Valley, to travel the Province and to hear

firsthand from many quarters the types of situations which do exist, it did not

come as a complete surprise. We had heard stories in other areas of the

Province. We heard from teachers, we heard from social workers, we heard from

parents and indeed we heard from children themselves, experiences which they

have had which said to us and spoke volumes, loudly and clearly stating, that

the system as it presently exists had failed them. That is why the report which

the committee produced tried to address these concerns and put forward a number

of resolutions which we felt, if implemented, could in time redress the problems

that exist with the system as it presently exists within this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the report in question was the result of a

comprehensive piece of work and review by the members of the committee. The

committee travelled extensively throughout the Province, both on the Island and

in Labrador. We attended a number of public meetings where people came forward

and shared with us, quite openly, their concerns with regard to the situation as

it existed and were quite open and candid with us in offering suggestions as to

how they thought we could improve the situation for children within this

Province.

The resulting report, in addition to the one recommendation

which we are discussing today and which has received a significant amount of

attention in recent days, dealing with the office of the advocate, was indeed

just one of a number of recommendations. There were a total of sixty-four

recommendations contained within the report and indeed these were, we felt,

pretty well all encompassing in terms of the problems as we found them within

the Province.

I was pleased today to hear the Minister of Social Services

stand and read this Ministerial Statement dealing with one of the very issues

that we had, in fact, encountered and tried to reflect and react to within our

report. That dealt with poverty and the lack of nutrition among many of the

children of the Province. This issue is one of many, as I said.

The issue that we heard, the abuse case which was carried in

the media - on any given day, if you pick up the newspaper or you listen to

radio or television, you will hear of any number of factors which you can go

back to in this report and find that we heard about wherever we went. There are

recommendations here dealing with these.

So it is encouraging to see that government is trying to

respond. It is a matter of question in terms of the timing. The immediacy - I

guess for all of us, as I said, the natural human response is to try to reach

out and respond, right away, to rectify, to remediate and to redress the

situation as it presently exists, to get in there and do it right away, but

sometimes moving too quickly is not always the best way to go. Slow and steady

sometimes is the course of action that is in order. It is indeed the course of

action that we should subscribe to. In this instance government has decided that

the Children's Interests Report and the recommendations within this report,

should be considered as part of the overall review which is presently ongoing.

The Social Policy Committee which is, at this point in time,

travelling throughout the Province consulting with individuals and groups,

allowing them input into the process, at some point in time we will produce a

report which will incorporate what is contained within the report of the

Children's Interest Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it also should be noted that within the report

itself, the committee did lay down a time line for the implementation of the

child and youth secretariat and also the office of the advocate. With regard to

the office of the advocate, while the report does suggest that work begin

immediately with preparation of the legislation, the mandate of the office of

advocate under the report is not scheduled to begin or was not recommended to

begin until May or June of 1997. So basically government is not being remiss, at

this point in time, in not establishing this office. The report itself indeed

says: Let's make sure we do this properly. Let's structure it properly to make

sure that when it is in place, it is something that we can all support and it is

something that adequately responds to the problems that exist within the

Province.

As to the office of the advocate itself, there is no doubt.

Personally I feel that this is something that needs to happen in this Province.

I think it is an action that this government needs to undertake, and I feel

confident it is something we will be undertaking as part of this overall review

in the not-too-distant future.

At the present time there are a number of these offices which

exist throughout the country. There are six provinces that have the office of

advocate. They exist in British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario,

Saskatchewan and Quebec, and also there is one municipality, that of the City of

Vancouver, which has an office of the children's advocate as well.

As part of our fact-finding, part of the work of the

Committee, we had occasion to visit a number of areas throughout the country and

to see firsthand the workings of this particular office. I have to say the

reason why this recommendation does end up in our final report is that we were

impressed by what we saw and what we heard. While the system is not perfect, and

while the system as it exists elsewhere in this country at the present time is

not the ideal, it is a system that we felt, as a committee, does have merit. It

is a system we felt that we could take and possibly improve upon, and that in

time it could be a tremendous addition to the efforts within this Province to

address the needs of our children.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, as we travelled throughout the

Province on the work of this Committee we heard of many, many problems. We heard

of the poverty and we heard of the problems with nutrition. As referenced here

today, we heard reference to the need for early intervention, that we have many

children in this Province whose ability for success in later school life is

being threatened by virtue of the fact that they need an early intervention,

that they need to be exposed to stimulation at an early age, that by the time

they begin school, in the normal time in kindergarten, at age four-and-a-half or

five, for a lot of these children it is too late.

This is another issue that we could say requires immediate

attention, and indeed it does. As a matter of fact, the interesting thing with

that particular issue, one of the things we found was that throughout the

Province this was an issue that the people of the Province recognized. Instead

of waiting and saying to government, `we want you to do this,' they got out and

started doing it themselves. We found instances - and I'm proud to say that in

my own capacity as an elementary school principal I had occasion in my own

school to institute, some eight years ago, a preschool program whereby all of

the children served by that school were attending school a year earlier; all of

the children. It was universal.

We really went out and made it a point to get all of these

children in school. It was offered in such a way, and made so attractive in

terms of transportation and in terms of support that was provided, and in terms

of programs, that it was virtually impossible for parents not to have their

children there. In effect, we were so committed to the program that when we did

encounter situations where parents did not follow through and did not ensure

that their children were enroled and were attending these programs regularly,

then we made efforts to get in and get after these particular children. By not

providing that service to these children we recognized that their chances for

success in later school life were being seriously hampered. In a sense you could

argue that any parent who would choose, with that service being available, not

to opt for it and not to make sure that their children were availing of it, was

being negligent, because by not doing so they were making it -

AN HON. MEMBER: No excuse.

MR. SMITH: Well, lots of excuses were given, but really

the ideal was to try and make the program so attractive and so available that,

really, there was no reason, no excuse not to be there.

The thing about this is that while I was aware of the efforts

we had made in my own area of the Province, I was surprised and really pleased

to learn that everywhere we travelled in the Province - we found it down on the

southwest coast of the Province, we found it on the Burin Peninsula, we found it

in the Bay of Islands, we found it all over - that this was an issue that people

had recognized, saw it as a priority, and had started doing something about it.

I mention that, Mr. Speaker, by virtue of the fact that if

you go through this report there are any number of issues here that any of us

could pick up and say that this is something that should be a priority, this is

something we should act on right now. But to me the more responsible manner in

which to deal with this is to deal with the entire report, and deal with the

report in its entirety, to deal with the document as it stands, and hopefully to

implement all of the recommendations that are there.

If we were to do that - and certainly no question, in my

opinion, the office of the child and youth advocate is an important part of that

response. It is an important office that we should create because it will ensure

that the children in this Province - some of the problems that we have seen,

that we have witnessed over the last few days, the existence of this office at

least will provide another mechanism and will provide another avenue whereby the

possibilities of this sort of thing existing will become less and less. The

thing is, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the creation of this office would

absolutely eliminate that, that remains to be seen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: With leave to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, with leave.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't go on much

longer.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the creation of this

office is something that I think we all look forward to seeing and, as I said

earlier, I hope it is in the not-to-distant future. I hope it is something that

we will adopt as part of a comprehensive plan to deal with the needs of the

children in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as a parent and as a person who has spent much

of his life working for and advocating on behalf of children, there is no doubt

that all of us here today - certainly knowing my colleague from Waterford

Valley, I know the sincerity with which he brings his resolution forward and

that it is prompted by a genuine concern and desire to do what is best for the

children of this Province. We are all upset, as I said, when we are confronted

by cases like that which we saw with Jamie Batten in recent days.

Government is actively examining the recommendations and is

seeking to determine, through the social policy review process, the most

appropriate ways in which to respond. As I stated already today, I strongly urge

government to make the office of advocate as part of that response.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, rushing into any

action as a response to a crisis is never the most appropriate thing to do.

Personally, I favour a more comprehensive approach and look forward to the

completion of the review which is presently ongoing and the outcome of which I

feel will have our children front and centre and, for the first time in this

Province, will accord them the recognition which they so truly deserve for they

are indeed our greatest resource.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise to support the motion put forward by my colleague from

Waterford Valley and say that it is more than timely. I do not believe that

right now, if government or the House of Assembly moved to enact a child

advocate immediately, that it would be rushing in.

In 1992, for example, Mr. Speaker, the Child Welfare League

of America, at the request of the Department of Social Services, conducted an

evaluation of child protective services in the Province. Following this report,

the division of child welfare prepared a child welfare strategic action plan

called, `Breaking the Cycle of Child Abuse,' which proposed approaches to

improving services to children and the greater community involvement in

assessing and addressing needs. The action plan, to this date, Mr. Speaker, has

not been presented. It is important to understand that, that that action plan,

which was requested by the Department of Social Services, from the Child Welfare

League of America, has not been presented.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments put forward completely changed

the intent of my colleague's resolution because what he called for today, and

what he wanted debated today, was that this government and this House institute

immediately a child advocate with broad-sweeping powers that would ensure the

protection of children in this Province. Now this debate would not be happening

if the need, perceived and real, did not exist.

This is a brief that was submitted - and I want to just go

through some of the things that we lack, I think, as a Province in dealing with

child welfare - and presented to the Committee on Children's Interest, of which

my colleague was a member, that highlights clearly and succinctly why we need a

child advocate in Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, the Day Care and

Home-makers Services Act in this Province dates back to 1975. It is loose, and

it is open to

interpretation. One of the recommendations made was that a new

child care act has been expected, but has not yet become a reality. Training and

certification of early childhood educators has progressed, but day care

operations are often so financially marginal that staff are poorly paid,

resulting in high turnover. That is absolutely true. This Province provides the

lowest amount of any province on child care per child under twelve, i.e. $15.40

annually per child, compared to New Brunswick, the next lowest which provides

annually per child and per capita about $28.17, and in the Yukon -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: This was a brief that was submitted to the

Committee on Children's Interest.

Mr. Speaker, also, this is the only Province where there is

no licensed day care for child under two years of age. This is the only Province

also where there is no licensing of family home day care, i.e., where small

numbers of children are cared for in a private home; no regulations, no

legislation governing that. This is the only Province where no grants are

available to child care programs. Social assistance recipients can only receive

a daycare subsidy for the purpose of training for work if the eligibility

criteria of income are met. So the focus in this instance is not on the child

and what is best for the child; the focus is on some sort of criteria that has

nothing to do with the protection or the care taking of the child. There is no

licensed care available for children, for example, whose parents work late

evenings, overnight, or weekends, thus reflecting the reality of working people

today: twenty-four hours around the clock, shift work, find work wherever you

can get it to pay your own way.

Day care subsidies to social assistance recipients are often

too low to ensure equitable service since the subsidy rate of $325 per month is

well below the average rate of care, which is $450 per month, and that is a very

conservative estimate. As a parent who has a young child, three-and-a-half, in a

day care operation three days a week, that is a very conservative estimate.

Day care subsidies are not available to marginal income

families which are not in receipt of social assistance, a growing trend in our

society called the working poor. Families with two parents working do not

qualify for subsidies at all, even if total income is at or below the poverty

level.

That is a shocking statistic; and for government to say that

they are in favour of a more comprehensive approach when, since 1992, one study

was done, an exhaustive approach completed last year by the Children's Interest

Committee, chaired by a former minister. The Member for Port au Port sat on it,

and the Member for Waterford Valley, and to say that we need to study it more,

that we need a more comprehensive approach, flies in the face of what government

actions have been instituted to date and completed to date, because what it says

is that the recommendations concluded and recommended in the Children's Interest

report were not exhaustive enough, were not extensive enough, were not to the

point, not comprehensive enough. That is what amendments to my colleague's

private members resolution are effectively saying.

What does not comprehensive enough mean anyway? Have we not

seen the need, in a very detailed and graphic fashion, recently provided by

Jamie Baker and the case surrounding that three-year-old?

AN HON. MEMBER: Jamie Batten.

MR. E. BYRNE: Jamie Batten, sorry. - surrounded by what

happened, or the lack of what happened on behalf of that child? That is an

example. There are more out there.

To put forward the notion that what we have to do now is to

study it even more, get more in-depth analysis, is a political cop-out in my

mind. I think that, more than ever, this being the International Day of the

Child, it is quite appropriate that this resolution is put forward. I welcome

certainly the debates that have happened, but more than ever we have more

evidence, a body of evidence as large - the cases before the public have been

submitted through the Children's Interest Committee; the recommendations are

clear: We need a child advocate in this Province, we need it in the worst type

of way, and this Province more than any other province in Canada should be

moving ahead right now because of the alarming statistics that have been put

forward, the alarming rates of incidents where children, whether it be through

the judicial system in the family court, are falling through the cracks, and an

example came last week.

The Director of Social Work said: When it comes to the child

welfare department - and when asked about what she felt about it, said: Well,

there is really no consistency. It depends on what I call, she says, `the

flavour of the month'. This month it seems to be that child welfare is focusing

on getting children back in their homes, an admirable and laudable goal, but

there are many situations, each and every one of us know, where the home is not

the safest place for the child, is not the safest place for the child by any

stretch of the imagination.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the power of a children's advocate

or a child advocate, what we need, what would it do? Our contention is - and we

certainly believe and stand by the recommendations in the Report on the Select

Committee on Children's Interest - that an advocate be granted the right to

request a child impact statement from any government department or agency or

municipality. This is the power that is needed now for the sake of children in

the Province. I think it is a timely resolution. I support it wholeheartedly.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls -

Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my

colleague, the Minister of Social Services, on her amendment.

When I was driving in this morning from Grand Falls - Windsor

to Gander to catch a flight, I heard on the radio the proclamation saying that

this is National Child Day; but, really, isn't every day child day?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: You ask any family: Isn't every day a child

day? It certainly is.

AN HON. MEMBER: In every family.

MS THISTLE: In every family. Our lifestyles are changing

today. The family unit is not as it was twenty years ago.

As I go through my district I am seeing concerns that I did

not really know were out there, but there are all kinds of concerns. When you

look at the reasons for wanting a child advocate, they are numerous, I guess;

and is this the mechanism that we want?

Recently I attended a conference in Grand Falls - Windsor

that was headed up by Penny Rowe, the Advisory Commission on Social Policy, and

during that evening we went into what I call overtime. There were so many

different groups there airing their concerns not only on children's concerns but

all types of social concerns.

When you look at the concerns of children, I heard recently

that the 1-800 line that is set up answers more calls from the Newfoundland

population per capita than any other part of the country. That is a concern that

we, as a government, are addressing in different ways. We have all kinds of

agencies out there that we feel may or may not meet all the special needs. It

depends on what community you live in, because the agencies that we can go to

probably in the urban centres far outweigh the agencies that would be in rural

Newfoundland. In rural Newfoundland what do you have? You have your church and

your school, and probably that's it, so lots of times the concerns of a child

may not be met. That is probably one of the reasons why they are using the 1-800

line.

Really, when you think about setting up an office for a

consumer advocate, what are you looking at? Are you looking at an office that

would be set up in St. John's? Because if that is the case it is of no benefit

to rural Newfoundland, and this is what we want to avoid?

I have looked at some of the concerns in my district and I

have noted a few. They are not all related to sexual abuse or child poverty, or

educational needs and so on. I recently visited the Buchans stadium, and the

biggest concern they had in their stadium with their young people playing hockey

was the fact that they do not have a glass going around the perimeter of the ice

rink. All they have is the wire that was placed there by the Buchans Miners, the

hockey team years ago, and that is right now full of holes. So the children in

that area, when they are playing hockey, lots of times get their helmet caught

in that wire and it is a big safety hazard, so that is a need there that needs

to be met.

We also have seen children in Grand Falls - Windsor being

sent to Gander for physiotherapy needs, so maybe that is another need. It is not

all related to the items that hit the media all the time. Of course the issue we

have all been speaking about recently, the Jamie Batten case, that just tore the

emotional shreds from all of us, when we saw that on TV, and are hearts were

open to the needs and concerns of that little boy, but that is only one level of

concern that is facing the children of this Province. There are many more.

During a recent visit to my district I was part of another

committee that heard from a group about the hearing impaired children. They have

a lot of problems. There is a student out there who told me that he could go to

school on the Mainland or down in the United States and everything would be

looked after; his student loan would not be any problem - in other words he

would have a grant - but if he wanted to go to school in this Province he would

not be able to get a student loan; I mean it would be a student loan and not a

grant. These are the types of needs that are complex.

I think what the Minister of Social Services is saying today

is that there have been several studies, particularly the one that was done on

children's special interests, and the road show, as you might want to call it,

that is going around the Province right now, the Social Advisory Committee, that

is addressing not only children's needs but the needs of social concerns

throughout the Province.

Right now there is a complex network out there that children

can access, and adults, regarding their social needs, but are they adequate? We

do not know that, and we are not going to rush off and appoint an advocate just

to satisfy a media need right now.

Of course I know you are sincere, my colleague across the

House, in putting forward this resolution today. There exists a great need out

there in the Province today for our children, but we want to make sure that we

are going to do it right. This is one of the most important tasks, I think, that

we have taken on in recent months as a government, and we want to make sure that

when we do put this office in place, if it is going to be a consumer advocate,

it will address all the needs and all the concerns that children have out there

today. If you are going to do it, it has to be done right.

After many months of looking at different committee work,

recommendations and so on, there are a lot of problems that we want to make sure

are included. In fact, I had a visit from someone today in my office just before

I came into the House. He isn't a young person, nor is he an older person, but

he is telling me that he is on a haemodialysis machine. That machine now is only

in Corner Brook and St. John's. That means that he is now having to come to St.

John's every three days for treatment. Now, he is leaving his children at home

to do that, so that is affecting children, isn't it? Having their father away

from them all that time. This is something that I need to look into as the MHA

for that area. I heard today that we did have those machines in the Grand Falls

- Windsor hospital and they were later sent to St. John's. I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two were.

MS THISTLE: Two of them. I heard that. I want to see if

that is correct or if it isn't. Because these -

AN HON. MEMBER: I am very familiar with the case.

MS THISTLE: You are familiar with that case.

I recently heard another case in my area of a child who has

ADD problems, and has home care right around the clock, at a considerable

expense. Those hours unfortunately had to be decreased somewhat, but not to the

detriment of the child.

So these are concerns. As we know, and we can look at all the

reporting that is being done, it is a very complex issue. That is why I'm quite

happy with the amendment that the minister has put forward today. We aren't

going to jump in there and just cool the waters right now. We are going to make

sure of what we are doing we are going to do it right, and I commend her and I

support her in this action.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will take a few minutes to conclude our discussions this

afternoon on this particular resolution and then I will ask the Speaker if he

would put the question.

I want to thank hon. members for coming today and

participating in the discussions. I do believe that our hearts are -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman is now closing the debate on

this issue, and after he is finished in a few minutes we will put the vote. Is

that what we are doing here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody else on this side wants to speak.

MR. TULK: Okay. Nobody else wants to speak. That is fine.

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

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

That would be my intent. I was waiting for any other hon.

member to rise. It was our side, and all of our colleagues who wish to speak

have spoken this afternoon. Earlier, in discussions with the hon. House Leader,

we agreed that if there were no members who were willing or wanted to speak

further, then when I would stand I would conclude my remarks and then the

question would be put.

I want to thank all hon. members for listening to this

particular resolution. I also want to acknowledge that I do believe that all the

members of this House wish to address this issue. We wish to develop policies

that are going to address the issues that were raised by the Child Welfare

League of America when they wrote the report in 1992. We want to address issues

raised in the Royal Commission on Education. We want to address the issues

raised in the report released a few days ago by the Minister of Education,

Special Matters . We want to address the issues that were raised by the

presenters to the special committee of the Legislature on children's interests.

We acknowledge that there is a multiplicity of forces that

compel the minister to say that she wants to look at it in a comprehensive

manner. We want to make sure on this side of the House, and I speak for myself

and for my colleagues when I say that we want to assure that the government of

the day does not lose its central focus on the need for an advocate. Because I

do believe that in my discussions with the minister, and I do believe that she

is very sincere in her responsibilities, and I say that. I don't always agree

with the measures that she takes, but I do believe that she has a focus of

sincerity and honesty and that she will come to this matter of dealing with the

recommendations we are making today in a manner that I do believe will be

child-focused and child-centred.

We want to commend to the House as well the fact that we

believe that this particular child advocate, when the child advocate is

appointed, if appointed by the government, that that advocate have absolute

independence. There isn't any point in having a child advocate if that child

advocate is going to be answerable to some p