November 26, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 49

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on a report released

today by the Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology which was presented to me a

little earlier in the day by the Chairman of the Advisory Council, Mr. Peter Woodward, on

an appropriate regime for a benefits policy for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think we are all aware that Newfoundland and Labrador has very

substantial resource wealth, and as these resources are developed we need to ensure that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are well positioned to receive full and fair benefits.

With that in mind, earlier this spring, indeed in May, I met with the Premier's Advisory

Council and asked the Advisory Council to consider the question of benefits across all of

the appropriate resource sectors and to give advice to government both as to the current

arrangements in place and suggestions as to what new measures ought to be employed to

ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, both now and in the future, capture the

greatest possible opportunity for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Earlier today the Council presented its report, which will be tabled in

the House today. It is a report that points out the necessity of ensuring that we capture

full and fair opportunity in a couple of resource areas. In particular, I refer

specifically to mining, to the oil and gas sector, and to the development of

hydroelectricity; but these sectors, of course, are not the only ones with which

government must be concerned in the area of capturing opportunity.

The Advisory Council represents a cross-section of women and men from

all over Labrador and Newfoundland who represent both the business community, the labour

community, sectorially come from oil and gas, from mining, from construction, from big and

small business, and from labour. The message, I think, in a word is clear, and that is

that Newfoundland and Labrador will reap the benefits, depending upon the quality of the

benefits regime that we put in place.

I am referring the report which has been tabled today - and I will not

go into all of it again now - to the Minister of Mines and Energy and to the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology. I am asking ministers to bring before Cabinet, before the

end of this year, a work plan for an appropriate level of consultation on this benefits

policy with the major stakeholders in the Province and with members of the public.

Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of government to respond to the

Advisory Council's report as early as possible in the new year with a comprehensive

benefits statement by government.

This Administration has come into office committed to capturing for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador the greatest measure of benefits possible from the

development of the resources that we own as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The work of the Advisory Council contributes significantly to

fulfilling that commitment. I want to acknowledge the work of the Chairman, Peter

Woodward, who is here today, and ask members to join me in acknowledging the work of both

Mr. Woodward and the Council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I undertake to the people of the

Province, through this House - and I suspect will be aided in the examination by members

of the Opposition - to giving this report, which has been made public today, a full and

thorough review and to giving it a timely, adequate, and thorough response.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, let me join with the Premier in congratulating members of

the Advisory Committee, as the Premier as outlined. I understand they are a group of

volunteers, committed Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who, upon request of the Head of

State, the Premier of the Province, have agreed to work with and on behalf of the people

of the Province to provide their independent advice on matters related to the economy in

our ever continuing search to improve our lot, to improve the economic opportunities

available for each and every one of us.

This is not a time in terms of this Ministerial Statement to get into

the debate about what is within the document. That will come through Question Periods over

the coming weeks.

I want to say as well that while policies are important, while policies

set out the direction with which a government expresses its clear intention on behalf of

how they want to seize benefits on behalf of people within the resource sector,

particulary related to this statement, the implementation of such policy is equally

important. While we may make strides, and great strides in terms of outlining a general

policy thrust that each and every Newfoundlander can agree with, if we do not seize the

opportunities each and every day to implement such policy then failures will occur. It is

within the implementation stage that we have to be very vigilant in seizing opportunities,

creating opportunities that will maximize benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

To that extent the Premier is right, that over the coming weeks we will

have an opportunity to have a look at the document, which I have not yet seen. We will

have an opportunity to debate what is contained in the document with government. I look

forward to doing that. Finally, to say in closing, I will just offer our congratulations

as the Official Opposition to the Advisory Committee on the Economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Sadly today I stand to address a tragic incident which occurred

yesterday, resulting in the death of a young man at St. Clare's Hospital here in St.

John's. I would first like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of this man. I am

also thinking about the staff of the hospital today as they too deal with this tragedy.

I have spoken to the CEO of the St. John's Health Corporation, Sister

Elizabeth Davis, who too conveys her sympathies to the family. I have been told that even

before the investigation of the Chief Medical Examiner is completed, immediate action will

be taken as a result of this incident. All windows at St. Clare's will be secured

temporarily until locking devices from the United States are received in December and

installed as a permanent measure.

No two incidents are alike and each has to be dealt with on its own

individual merit. The normal process which is followed after a sudden death in one of our

hospitals includes an investigation by the Province's Chief Medical Examiner as related to

the Fatalities Investigation Act. Where one or more suspicious deaths occur in a facility,

the medical investigator may recommend to the Minister of Justice that an inquiry be held.

This recommendation must be in writing and accompanied by appropriate documents. The

Minister of Justice reviews the medical investigator's report and may order that a judge

conduct a public inquiry. If a judge conducts an inquiry, the findings are given to the

Attorney General who determines whether they become public.

Since the time of another tragic death at St. Clare's earlier this

year, the Health Care Corporation has taken certain follow-up actions. A decision to

purchase and install safety devices was made. These mechanisms were ordered for more than

150 windows, with delivery and installation due to be completed by the end of this year.

Other measures may be outlined in the report of the Chief Medical Examiner to the Minister

of Justice.

The Health Care Corporation currently offers a two-day suicide

intervention workshop to staff within and outside the Health Care Corporation by a

certified trainer in suicide prevention who has received national recognition. This

workshop is offered on a regular basis and is well attended. The Health Care Corporation

has developed a suicide assessment tool for patients within the Mental Health Program. The

Health Care Corporation is in the process of developing protocols for suicide assessment

for nursing and other staff working on medical and surgical nursing units in community

hospitals. Education sessions will be held expeditiously for all staff.

Earlier this fall, the Health Care Corporation had commenced a process

of engaging a team of mental health professionals from outside this Province to review all

suicides in St. John's hospitals during the last ten years. This team will include a

psychiatrist, and will evaluate the approach of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's

in these types of circumstances. The process will begin earlier in the new year.

Sadly we cannot change the outcome of yesterday's tragedy. Again, I

express my heartfelt sympathy to the family involved. I am confident the staff and

management of St. Clare's Hospital provide the best possible care for their patients and I

also sympathize with them today. While we will never prevent all sudden deaths in the

Province, Mr. Speaker, we must continue to work very hard towards that end. Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, send condolences to the family on this very tragic event that

occurred yesterday. While this tragic event occurred, I feel it was an unnecessary death.

Less than four months ago, I say to the minister, a person fell to his death from the very

same institution, entrusted with the care under this department and under the Health Care

Corporation of St. John's. The necessary action was not taken despite repeated pleas from

the family of the late John Careen and nothing was done about it.

To turn around now and tell us that an order form, a request to a

company, four months later to have something done is an acceptable procedure, well, that,

Minister, is not acceptable. Something should have been done immediately to temporarily

secure these until appropriate devices could be put in place. You do not have to go to the

United States to do that. You can talk to any machinist and fabricating company in our

Province and that could have been secured.

It was

an act of negligence on the part of this department, on the part

of the Health Care Corporation, in not preventing this unnecessary death. To look at a

team now to come from outside? What we need in this case is a judicial inquiry, an

independent, arms' length inquiry that is going to look at the causes and circumstances

surrounding those deaths, and to put recommendations in place, Minister, to secure they

will never happen again.

While I am speaking on that, a judicial inquiry recommended - in

another instance of a person from my district who was sent home from hospital and died at

his home - recommended that when people go to hospital with suspected heart problems they

should see a cardiologist. Your department has to this day not ensured that that

recommendation of that inquiry has been put in place. Until we take concrete action and do

something about it, it is going to happen again, Minister. It is your department and your

responsibility as minister in charge of people in this Province to see that gets done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I am pleased today to inform hon. members that government is providing

$300,000 to the six regions throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to employ six new Child

Care Services Coordinators. There will also be a $100,000 allocation for Early Childhood

Educator Certification and Training. This funding is part of the implementation of the

National Child Benefit Reinvestment Program.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge in the gallery

our Early Childhood Educators who join us today for this announcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Government is fully aware of the need to support

and promote high quality child care services, both the existing models and those that will

be available upon proclamation of the new Child Care Services Act and regulations. This

direction is consistent with the provincial Strategic Social Plan. High quality child care

services promote and enhance healthy child development. This is particularly important for

families who may not have the resources to provide a sufficiently stimulating environment

for their children.

Mr. Speaker, all models of licensed child care will provide programs to

meet the developmental needs of the children. Families will be able to select the model of

child care that best meets their needs and the needs of their children. Currently centres

are licensed to provide care to children ages two to twelve years. However, upon

proclamation of the Child Care Services Act, passed in the last session of the House, the

models of licensed child care will be expanded to include infant care and those family

home child care providers who choose to be individually licensed or approved by a licensed

Family Home Child Care Agency.

Employment of Child Care Services Coordinators is a service enhancement

which is necessary in continuing to strengthen the capacity of this Province to promote

and provide quality child care services for children.

Child Care Services Coordinators will be qualified and experienced in

early childhood education and in child care services. They will provide expertise to

assist regional staff, communities and operators of child care services centres with the

promotion, establishment, development, support, and the monitoring of child care services.

Licensees of child care services will be supported by Child Care

Services Coordinators in the ongoing process of program development to meet the needs of

children and their families.

High quality child care is most likely to exist where certain

conditions are in place. One of these is staff qualified in Early Childhood Education.

Certification of Early Childhood Educators will give official recognition to the academic

levels of those working in child care situations and will establish equivalencies for

those who may have a variety of types of qualification.

Our Province is proud to have over 500 Early Childhood Educators who

work as a key element in the licensed child care system of this Province. Early Childhood

Educators are professionals who are involved in all aspects of the child care system.

Their presence is crucial to the effective and efficient delivery of child care to the

families of our Province.

To assist them in meeting these challenges, the certification system

will provide information to each individual on their place on the career ladder,

indicating what the next step might be and explain how that may be achieved. Through

continuing support to Early Childhood Educators, government is contributing to the

development of quality child care services available to children and their families.

This government is committed to children and families. Child Care

Services Coordinators and Early Childhood Educator Certification will play an important

role in increasing the capacity of the Province to provide child care services and in

promoting quality care for all our children.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I continue to wear the blue ribbon in recognition

of National Child Care Day because for our government in this Province, every day is

National Child Care Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I wonder when the minister is going to run out of announcements, or

will she continue to wear the blue ribbon every day?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: It is semantical but it is a little twist on

something that the Leader of the Opposition announced about two weeks ago: For the PC

Party, 365 days a year will be child day. So it seems to me that I have heard that before.

I would like to welcome the Early Childhood Educators to the gallery

today. It is nice to see that their careers are being put into the system and that they

are being systemized, I guess you could say, so that they will know where they stand on

the ladder and that they can develop their careers in a professional manner, because

indeed they are all professionals.

I am wondering if this $300,000 is new money, or is it money that has

been announced before with the $10.5 million? Is it just more money that is being

announced?

I am glad to see that the National Child Benefit Reinvestment Program

is being utilized without a clawback to the social assistance recipient families in this

Province who are threatening to have this money taken from them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: This is not being negative. I am glad. That is not

negative.

I am glad that this money is being utilized without having clawed back

the money from the social assistance families in this Province who were threatened to have

the money clawed back from them, because the children of the social assistance families

are just as important as the children of the rest of the working families in the Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

A sound democratic statement must be founded on the principle that good

government depends on adequate independent safeguards, adequate independent checks and

balances, to ensure that the exercise of power is always under the glaring spotlight of

independent scrutiny. That is why we have an Auditor General, that is why we have a

Consumer Advocate, I say to the minister. It is for this reason that our party has just

announced that we believe an independent child advocate is an essential safeguard that our

Province can no longer afford to do without.

My question is this: Minister, would you agree that the establishment

of an independent child advocate would help government spend its money even more

effectively, to adjust programs that are failing, to focus resources on areas where the

advocate finds a need, and to make those adjustments quickly as the need is identified?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think, by way of

answering the question, a bit of background information is necessary.

When we were given the recommendations from the Select Committee of

Children's Interests about a child advocate, those recommendations were based on a piece

of legislation that was fifty-four years old. It was before we had integrated any of

services. It was before we had coordinated any of our programs and services for children.

In the last two-and-a-half years we have integrated services for

children; we have coordinated services within departments; we have introduced a new

proposed bill to this House, which was fifty-four years old. As I said, when I came to the

Department of Social Services it was really out of fear of what I had heard from the then

deputy minister that I immediately set forth to try and pull all of this information

together because I really felt that it was long overdue.

In addition to that, we have put forward a Strategic Social Plan, one

that is based on prevention and early intervention. We did grapple over the child advocate

and we still - I have said this quite publicly and I will say it again when I speak to

this bill this afternoon - have not ruled out a child advocate. What we have said - and

also, I might add, some of our very well-renowned and respected community leaders have

also made the comments public and in consultation - let's give this new legislation a

chance; a piece of legislation that is child centred, focused on prevention and early

intervention.

If we want to spend millions of dollars, and we might well have to, let

us be sure. In the meantime, we are committed to spending them directly on children and

their services. If we need to set up a bureaucracy and spend millions of dollars, let's

wait until after we have an independent report from the minister's advisory committee come

and report to this minister perhaps, or another minister, and then to the House of

Assembly, and make those recommendations.

If you are looking at reviewing a systems advocate, which is what the

Select Committee recommended, this committee will have the same role; it will report to

this House of Assembly. At the time we will have to be open to those recommendations, but

at the time now with all the changes we have implemented, we believe that if we have money

to spend, we will choose children over bureaucracy every time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the

establishment of a child advocate's office is not a bureaucracy, or adding to it.

Actually, in six other provinces it has shown to save government money, to redirect

resources where situations have occurred where neglect and abuse for children have

occurred; that it responds effectively.

The way the system is arranged today leads to a devolution of

responsibility and a diffusion of accountability, I say to the minister. We see examples

of it in this House every day, where some minister suggests we go to another board for an

answer for which they should really be accountable. That is the issue. Wouldn't you agree,

Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Wouldn't you agree?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to ask the question. Wouldn't the minister

agree that in a system where responsibility is diffused as much as it is in the system we

presently have, that the need for an independent safeguard such as a child advocate's

office is more important now than ever?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the Select Committee for

Children's Interests, if the member was to read it, he would also read the caution that

was put by that non-partisan committee of this House of Assembly: the fact that they were

concerned that the money that would be put in place to create this bureaucracy would be

taken away from the money we would spend for children. It is actually in here.

What we are also saying, and I think it is important because this bill

is before the House and we have not had a chance to fully debate it, and I look forward to

doing that, but one of the things that is very obvious in answering the question is that

this old piece of legislation, admittedly fifty-four years old, was not a transparent

piece of legislation. If you look at the system of accountability and transparency in the

proposed new piece, I think it will clearly speak to our direction right now.

We have said is: Let's give the new piece of legislation a chance.

Those six regional directors with a closer-to-home model of care for these children -

let's see how this works, in addition to our provincial directorate. A continuing review

of every child in care each year to be reported to the minister - let's see how that

works. Let's see how the minister's advisory committee, comprised of people outside of

government and outside of the system, has a chance to review this; and let's see what they

have to say before we spend the valuable money that we have for children in a system which

at this point in time we are not convinced - because those recommendations were made at

another time.

To quote Judge Wicks, who I think is a very well-renowned and respected

advocate in this manner: This new legislation is well prepared to take us into the new

millennium. The old legislation was fifty years old but it spoke to how we looked at

children 100 years ago.

We have taken a child-centred approach, and we are open to it, but we

want to make sure that if we are going to spend the precious money we have, that it will

first go to children and to the services that we are able to provide them and their

families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister, in an attempt, I

suppose, to deflect the situation... We are not adding to the bureaucracy. If she would

take the advice or the instruction or what has come out of six other provinces, she would

have to acknowledge that an independent child advocate actually saves government money. It

does not add to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I have taken the time to read the Select Committee's

Report on Children's Interests, and the distinction that she raises is not necessarily or

entirely correct. They raised the concern about a case advocate compared to a system's

advocate.

I would like to ask the minister this: Wouldn't you agree that there is

no independent non-partisan body that has independence, research capacity, funding

authority, and power to review documents, to call witnesses, and have a specific mandate

to review the decisions of government as they regard children? Why is this Province not

taking the lead or following in the example of six other provinces where children's

advocates have been put in place and have found unequivocally that they work in the best

interests of children in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Very simply: Because we do not follow the country;

we lead the country in our policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have to comment because I think it

is important. What other province in the country can show the type of proposed legislation

we have introduced into this House with the number of transparencies? What other Province

has used its community-based system to deliver services to children closer to home? What

other province can show a social audit of accountability for all of our programs and

services that are publicly funded? I can answer all of those questions; none of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this

government leads the Province in rhetoric, public relations, image politics. That is the

reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: What I am talking about today is the need in this

Province for an independent advocate. The bill before the House, the piece of legislation

before the House we will be debating this afternoon and throughout the next coming weeks,

is not a problem. I want the minister to stick to the questions and answer the questions I

am asking.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to his question; he is on

a supplementary.

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

The government has agreed to look out for the best interests of power

consumers by appointing an independent consumer advocate, but has rejected its own

legislative committee's non-partisan recommendation to do at least as much for children in

the Province. Why the double standard, I ask the minister? Surely children are as

important as power rates. If we need a independent consumer advocate to fight higher

electricity rates - and surely we do - then shouldn't we be placing an even higher

priority on establishing an independent advocate to fight for the best interests of the

children of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I can understand the political perspective that is

being raised in this House of Assembly because I have seen it more and more over the last

couple of years.

I think what is very important is to note that we have had extensive

consultations with our front-line workers, our social workers, all of our community

advocates - many of whom are sitting up in this gallery today - in addition to the

judicial system. We actually went to Judge Gove who conducted the Gove Inquiry in British

Columbia on behalf of the government there. We had him come here and speak to ministers

and our staff. He has recommended a number of these very pieces and articles that you will

see in this proposed legislation.

We are not afraid to say that we would need a child advocate, if that

is what is determined. What we are saying, and we will say it time and time again, and it

has been brought clear in every report we have, even though we have doubled right now the

budget for child welfare, which is currently $13 million, because of our initiatives with

the federal government to the National Child Benefit and our own provincial commitment, we

still believe that every cent of that should be spent on children.

If we are going to move to create another system, another bureaucracy,

that may or may not serve the Province in the best interests of children, we want to be

sure. I say, if all of the advocates and the people we have consulted with are willing to

go that route, what is the premise behind this member's question if he does not want us to

see this legislation fulfilled in a progressive way for children? It is beyond me, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

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

It needs to be said again that the experience of six other provinces

shows that the introduction of a child advocate's office actually saves government money

so that scarce resources can be redirected back to where the priority should be.

The last question I will ask, Minister, is this - that what we are

proposing would enhance, I would think, the legislation before the House of Assembly. It

would raise the bar. It would put in place an adequate safeguard, an independent office

that would protect and ensure the interests of children are protected.

I am asking you this again: Wouldn't you agree, Minister, that such an

independent, non-partisan officer to look out for the interests of children would enhance

the legislation that you have now before the House of Assembly?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have not created this piece of

legislation in isolation. In fact, as I was introducing this piece of legislation the day

before yesterday, I went through all of the various inquiries, the reports, the

consultations, the Select Committee of this House, our Social Advisory Policy Committee,

and our own strategic plan.

Mr. Speaker, this has probably been the most consulted - it has

certainly been a long time in coming, fifty-four years. If all of the advocates in our

Province and across the country can support the direction in which we are going, keeping

in mind that we at no point ever said, `no child advocate'...

I think the Province and the people of this Province would commend us

for trying to be as evidence-based in terms of where we are going to spend our money for

children.

We will create an advisory committee that will review, really, a

systems approach to the application of this legislation. If they say, at the end of that

time, that our six regional directors, our one provincial director, our ministerial

department, our custodial reviews, our pre-interventions with the judge, our ability to

give children more opportunity to represent themselves, and all of the other safeguards,

if they are saying that is not transparent enough, we will have to look at those

recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: The six other Provinces that the

member refers to does not have a piece of legislation that is progressive; they do not

have community delivered services in the same capacity as we do; they do not have a

minister's advisory committee; and they do not have the level of consultation of work that

we have had in moving in this direction.

I repeat again, we have not said no to a children's advocate, but if

this government is going to spend money creating a systems approach, a high-cost

bureaucracy, it has to be something that is proven with evidence-based decisions, which is

the direction we are trying to go, and then we will consider it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

I want to ask the minister what measures were taken after the death of

Mr. Careen of July 28, to ensure that future deaths of this nature would not occur in

hospitals under your department's responsibility?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as was discussed yesterday, and as

has been discussed with the staff and with the family involved, they have had an

opportunity to go through the measures and all of the things that came out of the report

that was submitted to the Minister of Justice from the chief medical enquirer. He did

submit his written report to the minister. The minister, I know, would have made a

recommendation to do an inquiry if that was what was recommended by the chief medical

officer.

The Health Care Corporation did take the recommendations that were

made. One of those recommendations was to ensure that the proper fixtures and the proper

appliance were required to secure the windows. That process was in place. In the meantime,

a temporary placement of security was put there in terms of not the proper type of

fixtures but something that would temporarily address the problem within the immediate

environment of a room. Not all windows had been secured, I think as was pointed out

yesterday in the press conference by the chief executive officer.

In addition to that, we know that we do have a suicide prevention

program that is available to the staff of the Corporation by a nationally renounced

accredited person who does this program. Again I say that I think it is important for

people who are listening outside of this House of Assembly, that each case, each incident,

must be treated individually in terms of how we look at the outcomes and what has to be

done.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has admitted here today that her department has not gone

far enough in addressing this concern and preventing a second death. She has admitted

that. They did it in certain ones, certain areas. She did not do it generally.

I ask the minister: Will she confirm that this man who died tragically

yesterday was at risk and under constant care twenty-four hours a day within one day prior

to his death?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, again, I think it most unfortunate

that the member opposite has to ask questions about an individual in this manner. I think

he is well aware of this. He mentioned information yesterday that I believe was most

disturbing. Because if he really was keeping abreast of what was happening he would know

that the family has asked that their wishes be respected. He talked about information here

yesterday that I think was certainly inappropriate, talking about the type of care

afforded to an individual.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to confirm the type of care an

individual was ordered by a physician. He knows the difference.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it would be most unfortunate for this family and other families

if a matter of such importance was not raised to prevent a third death from happening in

the same institution, Minister. It would be very unfortunate. I consider it quite serious.

I do not want to see another day go by with the potential of this happening again.

The minister made reference in her ministerial statement today that the

medical investigator may recommend that an enquiry be held. We do not need a medical

investigator just to recommend. The Minister of Health can recommend to the Minister of

Justice that an enquiry can be held.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will she recommend today to the

Minister of Justice that a judiciary enquiry be held into the death of these two

individuals at St. Clare's Hospital within a four-month period?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, whenever an incident happens like the

tragedy that happened yesterday, or previous tragedies, there is a process in place

whereby the Chief Medical Officer in consultation with the police and staff conduct a

complete investigation and make a formal written report available to the Minister of

Justice.

I think any death is a tragedy. I also have to admit that I do not ever

think we will ever be to prevent all tragedies in this particular case. I think if the

member opposite was to listen to Dr. Simon Avis today speak about this type of incident he

would also know that that, in fact, is the information, that you cannot always prevent

these incidents from happening. It does not undermine in way the sympathy and condolences

we send to the family at this time.

I believe in the process. I also believe the Health Care Corporation,

and particularly the staff, did everything that was able to be done at this time. I know

they are to open to any other recommendations that may come out of this report. Mr.

Speaker, we stand by that process.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have questions for

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

There has been some controversy regarding the new design of the

Whitbourne intersection and the Trans-Canada Highway in that area. Not only is this a

local issue, I say to the minister, but it is a provincial issue. The Trans-Canada Highway

is used by many residents and visitors. It is also a landing over which goods must travel.

Would the minister agree that safety, efficiency, expert advice, common

sense and consistency should be the criteria for

construction of a modern highway?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would agree that all of the

qualities that the member just outlined and others are important elements in making those

decisions.

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

Francis.

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

I say to the minister that government's own highway designers and an

independent consultant recommended the original design, which was one of three options.

This new proposal is not one of the three options. Will the minister admit that political

interference and patronage were reasons for the change and that this new design is not as

safe as the original design?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the sake of the record, there were not three recommendations,

there were nine recommendations, nine possible options put forward when this issue was

brought forward, I think, in the days of the previous, previous Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

The issue regarding the Whitbourne intersection was an issue that we

wanted to address on a couple of bases. We wanted to ensure first of all that Routes 80

and 81 were taken care of in terms of the safety issue there. There is a light there, as

you know, at the moment, and it is a four-way stop. We also wanted to take into

consideration the best way to realign the highway in that area. We also wanted to, and we

did in fact, take into consideration the views of the town council of Whitbourne and

others in the area. We also took into account the views of the business community there

that employs up to 150 people at any particular time.

In the considered opinion of the government, in the considered opinion

of the officials and myself, I would say that it was appropriate to revisit where we ended

the four-laning of that highway. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there was no

magic in and there was no particular agreement signed that indicated we had to go right to

the Argentia intersection with that four-laning. We could have stopped the four-laning at

Roaches Line. We could have stopped it at Hodgewater Line.

MR. J. BYRNE: You did not have to start it if you didn't want to.

MR. MATTHEWS: We did not have to start it if we did not want to.

The member is more or less right. The fact of the matter is we decided to end it at a

point where we could address the safety issues and meet the concerns of the town council

of Whitbourne, and also address the significant economic issues that were brought forward

by the businesses in the area. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we are more interested in

preserving and creating jobs than we are in eliminating and discouraging jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Francis.

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

I ask the minister: What happened in Grand Falls-Windsor? That was a

change of attitude, I would say. With respect to the three options, there were not nine.

Three were presented to the public in the area in the first time around.

Shouldn't government ensure that we get a highway that is built for the

future? The current construction costs will be $3.6 million which will be paid out of the

Roads for Rail Agreement. A letter dated October 6 from the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne states that: This new plan does not preclude the future bypassing of the

Whitbourne Intersection.

Also, why waste $3.6 million now when we know in the future they may be

bypassed? Why not design a highway now that is built for the future? Why waste $3.6

million now, Mr. Speaker?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is precisely right. We should build a highway that takes

into account what might happen in the future. For that reason we have done two things. We

have designed an interchange at the old Brigus Road intersection that will be totally

usable and completely accommodating of a four-laning situation, if we want to go by that.

We are spending a lot less money today than we would otherwise have spent if we had gone

with a further four-laning situation. We are providing an interchange that provides a safe

solution to Routes 80 and 81. The interchange can be used if we ever go further with our

four-laning.

At this point, as the member says, we need to look forward to a

four-laning across the Province. We look forward to the day - probably not in my day and

his day - when there will be a four-lane highway across the Province, but what we are

doing now is the appropriate thing for safety purposes, for economic purposes and for

meeting all of the needs that have to be addressed with respect to trying to make that

intersection safer.

The hon. member knows we are making the right decision. The hon. member

is trying to allege that there is some political reason why we did it. There is no

political reason, but I can tell you there is a very sound economic reason. We want to

keep jobs, we want to make sure that our Province prospers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and that we do nothing in road construction that

will mitigate against that principal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Minister, this morning you and some of your colleagues, along with

myself, met with the advisory council put in place to advise the national heritage

minister, the hon. Sheila Copps, on the possibility of establishing a national marine

conservation area in Bonavista and Notre Dame Bays.

Minister, I know you have concerns about the establishment of such an

area, as I do. Since the committee was looking for a definitive answer from provincial

representatives and government, I ask the minister when his government could be expected

to provide an answer as to where you stand on this particular issue.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I knew that question was coming because I

provided the forum for the hon. gentleman to get it this morning.

Let me just say to him, quite simply, that this government's stand is

very clear. If this process does not adhere to and get the wishes of the people involved,

and does not abide by them, this government will not be apart of it.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, Bill C-48,

An Act Respecting Marine

Conservation Areas, is presently before the House of Commons in Ottawa for second reading.

If you read this bill, it speaks of such things as conservation, setting of fees and

licenses, and management plans.

I ask the minister if he agrees with extra fees and licenses being

charged for the use of this particular area of our coast, and if he would also agree that

conservation is already being practised by the mere fact of licensing, opening and closing

of seasons, as well as total allowable catch, as it relates to the fishery industry.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate something to the hon.

gentleman. I say to him that yes, while Bill C-48 is on the Order Paper in the House of

Commons, that does not necessarily mean it is going to be passed, any more that it does

here. Let me just say to him that I agree with him that the people of the area are very

good conservationists, and the people living around the coast of Newfoundland are very

good conservationists.

If their wishes and if the respect for their way of life is not built

into it, and if they are charged for being where they are now any more than they are

presently, then of course this government will not be a part of anything that they do not

desire to be a part of themselves. It is that simple.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, it is my understanding that approximately

$400,000 of taxpayers' money is being spent on this feasibility study, a study that most

people do not even want to see conducted since they are not interested in seeing another

form of bureaucracy and extra fees charged and implemented.

I ask the minister if his decision to support or reject this project is

going to be swayed by the fact that our very own Premier, along with Sheila Copps, were

the two people who asked that this same study be conducted.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the

member opposite suggest that the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, who more than any

other coastal community on the planet suffered the devastation of a lack of proper

conservation practices - both by fleets of vessels, foreign vessels fishing beyond the

200-mile limit, and at one point both by our own fleets operating inside the 200-mile

limit - that this government of all governments should refuse to spend the money necessary

to understand whether or not a proposed conservation regime is going to achieve the

objective of conserving our ocean resources for the benefit of our own people. We do not

think that is a bad investment. We think that is a prudent investment for Newfoundland and

Labrador and we have no hesitation in making it.

I think the member should listen carefully to what has just been said

by the minister who has spoken, that any proposed conservation regime, any proposed marine

conservation area, is something we need to understand very well. That is why we are

prepared to invest in a study. Secondly, if a marine conservation area cannot attract and

keep the interest and the approval of the people who are going to be most directly

affected by it, it should not be established.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Our purpose, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, is to

understand all of the parameters, to make sure that the people in the areas affected are

heard, and to make sure we have their support before we undertake any commitment to

proceed.

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 Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow

ask leave to introduce the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS pursuant to

Section 38 of the Memorial University Act, as

amended in 1993, and the Auditor General Act, the University is required to give the

Auditor General access to all books, accounts and records of the University; and

WHEREAS the University since 1992 has repeatedly refused to give the

Auditor General access to all books, accounts and records to which the Auditor General is

entitled access by law; and

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Newfoundland ruled on March 11, 1993, that

the Auditor General Act imposes on the University an obligation to give the Auditor

General access to all of its books, accounts and records, and that the University has not

fulfilled this obligation, and that the only avenue available to the Auditor General under

existing law is to report to the House of Assembly that the University has denied the

Auditor General full access; and

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are providing

enormous amounts of funding annually to the University from the public treasury expect and

demand accountability for the expenditure by the University of that money; and

WHEREAS it is appropriate that the Auditor General as the chief auditor

in this Province of publicly funded institutions and as an independent arm of the

Legislature which votes the funding for Memorial University should have access to all

books and accounts and records of the University; and

WHEREAS imposing on the University to demand that the Auditor General

must have access to all its books, accounts and records is reasonable and does not

compromise the integrity or customary autonomy of the University;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to take whatever action is necessary, including legislative

action if deemed appropriate, to ensure that the University without further delay, and

promptly whenever requested, effectively gives the Auditor General full access to all

books, accounts and records of the University to which the Auditor General is entitled

access by law.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on an issue of great importance to thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have now, for a significant period of time, pleaded

with government to deal with the issue of pensions as it relates to the pensioners of our

public service.

In recent date, and again in the upcoming days, there will be

aggressive representation taken by members of the Newfoundland Public Service Pensioners

Association to have their concerns and their needs hopefully addressed by a government

which up until now has not paid any attention whatsoever to the expressed concerns and

problems as experienced by 11,000 retired public service pensioners in our Province.

I would like to read briefly the petition which is being presented

today on behalf of the retired public service pensioners. It reads as follows:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

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

increase in their pension since 1989; and

WHEREAS some 11,000 retired public service pensioners are directly

affected; and

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime

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

WHEREFORE your petitioners and those represented by the forms attached

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide adequate increases in benefits

to public service pensioners which reflect the increases in the wages of public servants.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated, this particular petition is signed by some

twenty pensioners, but I would like to refer in a moment to another form that has been

signed by close to 1,000 public service pensioners in our Province.

In a recent publication - it is simply entitled Pensioners'

Publication , dated October 1998 - the president of the association stated in part

that:

"It has been stated recently that the average public service

pension is $11,000 per annum. This statement has not been challenged. The last pension

increase provided to pensioners was in 1989. The cost of living has increased

significantly since then. The question has to be asked: What has government - particularly

this government - done, or what is being planned to address this problem of pension

indexation or ad hoc pension increases? The answer to that very direct question is, sadly,

nothing.

Mr. Speaker, there comes a point when 11,000 Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have to be heard by this government. We are talking about people who have

dedicated years of service, loyal service, faithful service, to the government -

regardless of political stripe - of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. To this very

day, there is absolutely no indication from this government that it takes the pleas and

the requests and concerns of 11,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians seriously.

There was an attempt a couple of days ago when the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board indicated that the Province would consider indexing the pensions of

retired public servants if unions are on side. Well, these pensioners do not have a union.

There are many civil servants, retired civil servants, who were never members of a union;

so the minister cannot deflect the problem and say that this is now dependent upon the

existence of a union. This is a non-union issue. These are individuals in good faith who

come to this government and say: Please adhere to our concerns. We are thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who simply want to be given consideration for something

that over the years we have dedicated our lives to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, 905 of what are

called ballots - they are simply forms that I am attaching to this petition - have been

signed by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, retired pensioners, who have taken the time

and who have shown the interest in the support of their association to hopefully show

government - this, for some reason, heartless government - that they are serious about

this, and that this is an issue that will not go away. They will be aggressive in the

continuation of their plight -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and

represent their interests. I would now simply add, as an appendix to this petition, these

905 forms.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to stand today in support of this petition. What we are

asking for here is for a basic consideration for our public service pensioners, to our

people who have made a very significant contribution to our Province.

These 11,000 people are all retired. Some retired as planned - they had

planned for their retirement - but many retired because they were forced into retirement

when this government had job cutbacks. So, the money they are receiving is not as nearly

as high as what they had anticipated they would receive when they were working.

They were working in government jobs, they looked forward to

retirement, and they were expecting to receive x number of dollars, but they were forced

into early retirement, unable to find jobs, and here they are receiving not nearly the

amount of money they had planned on. Whether they planned their retirements or not, none

of them anticipated that the cost of living would rise, that there would be such a

increase in the cost of living. Here they are; the cost of living keeps going up and up

and up. Their light bills have gone up with the HST, their fuel bills have gone up with

the HST, their gasoline bills have gone up with the HST, but their pensions have remained

the same. What they are asking for is a basic right, a right to be able to live their

retirement years in dignity; and this cold and heartless government is refusing them that

right.

I say here now that I will stand behind them every step of the way in

their fight. I look forward to their fight, and I look forward to a successful resolution

to it. It is my pleasure to second this petition. I say to the pensioners: Keep up the

good work. We are behind you all the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of students who are

studying at the private colleges in this Province. Today's petitions are from Academy

Canada, the St. John's Campus, and we have petitioners here in total number of about 400

students. The prayer of the petition reads:

We, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly to not

discriminate against students who choose to attend private schools. We ask that we be

eligible immediately for the Awards Program as announced by the Minister of Education in

the March Budget and re-announced by the minister on September 24.

The prayer of the petition asks the Minister of Education to change the

criteria he is using for the Awards Program in this Province today, the interim funding

that has been made available, and also that he ensure that he approach the federal

government to ensure that private college students are included in the Millennium

Scholarship Fund.

We have attempted in this House in the last few days to bring this

matter forcefully to the attention of the Minister of Education. The 400 students who have

signed the petition from the Academy Canada campus here in St. John's believe that they

have not been treated fairly.

We have said, and we say again today, that the Awards Program is an

excellent program - with the exception that it has not been extended to include in this

eligible listing, students who are attending private colleges.

We say to the minister that he has established two official criteria.

The first part of the criteria deals with need. It can be established that students of

private colleges have the same need for assistance as those who are in public colleges.

The second criteria is that of scholastic achievement. Certainly the

students who are going to private colleges can show that they are completing programs and

that their scholastic achievement can be measured and compared to any that occurs in the

public colleges.

This party is supporting the students who are saying that the

minister's initiatives really do nothing to reduce the barriers that students of private

colleges face in their attempt to get a meaningful education, an attempt to be able to

complete their program of studies.

Mr. Speaker, we say this is wrong because the funding comes from all

the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, where only some students are eligible to

receive the benefits from that. That is unfair. You cannot take the money from all of the

mothers and fathers and then say to them: We are only going to spend that money and make

these scholarships available to students who are attending Memorial or those who are

attending the College of the North Atlantic and we are going to exclude sixty-four private

college institutions in this Province.

There are 7,000 students who are deemed to be ineligible. That is

fundamentally unfair. The source of money is from all of the taxpayers. Therefore, all of

the students in post-secondary institutions should be eligible to apply.

I say to the minister - I say to the House - that this issue will be

coming forward almost every day in this session, because this is a fundamentally unjust

action of this government.

Today the students from Academy Canada want their voices heard here in

this Legislature, because they believe they should be eligible to have an application

presented, or they should be eligible, as now it is done, through the Student Loan

Program, whereby the institution identifies needy students and assures that their academic

standings are in place. Then the student is awarded the bursary or the Awards Program

monies.

Mr. Speaker, we want to say again that if the minister is concerned

about the private colleges -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - and their curriculum and their standards, they are

quite prepared to enter into a dialogue with the minister to resolve those issues. Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to stand

briefly to support the spirit of the petition as presented by the Member for Waterford

Valley.

It occurs to me that what is being practised here is politics of

exclusion as opposed to inclusion. Because essentially there are some 7,000 students who

have been denied even eligibility for these post-secondary scholarships, I am speaking of

the 7,000 students who have applied to and are enroled in our private colleges in the

Province.

Certainly education is a right. It is not a privilege. Therefore the

possibility of award and recognition for success within a person's educational process

also should be a right. Therefore that right can be best recognized when there is an equal

opportunity for the recognition of such an award when distinction occurs. Really there is

a philosophical issue here which seems to me has to be addressed by members opposite in

terms of ensuring that there is an equality of opportunity for students, regardless of the

nature and basis of the educational institution in which they are enroled.

I support the petition as presented by my colleague. I would ask the

Minister of Education to revisit this issue, in consultation with his federal counterparts

if necessary, because it is fundamentally a federal program, but to revisit the allocation

of these awards, to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, regardless of

educational institution, have equal opportunity in terms of being recognized for successes

throughout the educational program.

It is an important petition, Mr. Speaker, and I support it

wholeheartedly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the House. It is from the

residents of the Labrador Straits area. It says:

To the hon. the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislative session convened:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS we, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, condemn the

provincial government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process

Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there is a number of signatures are on this petition, and

no doubt all of them come from outside the Labrador West area, but no doubt they are still

from a part of Labrador. There are some things in Labrador we share in consensus, and one

of those things is resource development. Although we have our differences in terms of how

each of us perceive the environment and development and so on, and sometimes we have

disagreements on issues, there has always been a consensus, and one that is based on

principal. That is, we always look to get maximum potential from our resources and to see

that the benefits from these resources accrue to the people that are adjacent, and

especially to the people of Labrador.

When the people of the Labrador Straits signed this petition, what they

were signing was their stand on resource development. Their stand is that any resources

found in the area - whether it be minerals, whether it be fisheries, whether it be

forestry, or some other industry - that the maximum resources that can be derived from

that particular industry, from that particular resource, then those benefits should accrue

to the people who are there.

That is what these people are saying. We in Labrador have seen

exploitation of resources for years. We have seen it in the mining industry in the past.

We have seen it in other industries, especially in our fishery, issues that we are still

dealing with as communities and as people. Once we see something like this happen to a

specific part of our region and part of Labrador, whereby you have a resource that is

being taken and shipped somewhere else to be smelted, refined or whatever the case for the

benefit of other people, creating employment in other provinces, deriving revenue in other

provinces, well then that always hits a sore spot for all of us in Newfoundland and

Labrador, but especially for the people in Labrador, and in this case the people in

Labrador West.

The Iron Ore Company of Canada, which operates out of Carol Lake and

Wabush, has been one of the largest mining operations in this Province and probably one of

the largest iron ore producers in the world. Over the years it has contributed

substantially to the local economy of these communities. It was built up over years, since

1950. What started out as an exploration project in that area turned into a full fledged

mine. It was only, I think, in 1996 or 1997 that they extracted their 1 billion tons of

iron ore from this particular facility.

The company and the resource itself over the years have built up the

economy of Labrador City and Wabush. It put the schools there, it paved the highways, it

created employment for people all over our Province who moved there and worked there.

Right now I think what they are feeling is that they are in a very vulnerable position.

They fear for what will happen in the future. Right now the industry is good, it is

prospering, it is deriving good benefits there, but what happens when it is no longer that

feasible, when it is no longer that viable? When it starts to fail, there are no

assurances in this contract. There are no guarantees. There is nothing that says that the

facility in Labrador West will survive any kind of downturn in the economy.

I think that is what the people here want. They want security on what

they already have. They want to feel that the industry, as it is, is going to continue to

support the economy, and that a facility going somewhere else means they are not only

seeing their resource taken out, but also they are seeing any guarantees or assurances for

the future being taken out with it. That is very frustrating.

The people in Labrador City and Wabush who worked on this particular

issue - the councils, the unions, development associations and others, and even the Member

for Labrador West who worked closely with these committees and these groups - did it to

try and ensure a sustainable future economy, not only for people in their community but

for people all over this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: - who have gone there, who have worked there, who have

benefitted from this resource and this development. We should continue to support it.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the petition so

capably put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. She talks about the

decision of government to allow IOC to carry on production of its processing pellets of

iron ore in Sept-Iles instead of Labrador City. I can understand full well where the

people from Labrador are coming from. It is not only a Labrador City-Wabush issue, and not

only a Labrador issue.

If you pick up the papers and read the letters to the editor, read the

comments being put forward by some journalists, some of The Telegram journalists,

you find that it goes much further than that. It is all about keeping what we have here in

this Province for the good and the benefit of Newfoundlanders. It is all about allowing us

to be able to live and raise our families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

One thing that I found in talking with Newfoundlanders, when they are

looking for a job, they don't care if that job is in Labrador or Newfoundland as long as

it is somewhere. As long as it is somewhere within the Province they are willing to travel

and go to it. They do not want to go out to British Columbia or Alberta, but many of them

unfortunately are forced to go that distance.

If this decision by the Iron Ore Company of Canada to process their

iron ore pellets at Sept-Iles had happened thirty years or twenty years ago, there

probably would not be nearly the attention brought to it as there is today. Because people

went to Labrador City in those days to find a job. It was a temporary move. Nobody looked

at Labrador City as their home. I remember going to Wabush in 1965. It was a place to go

and earn a few quick dollars to return back to your own hometown.

Today when you talk to people and find out they have retired, and you

ask them where they are living, they are living in Labrador City. They are living in

Wabush. People have made it their home because this is where they have raised their

families; this is where they have worked all of their working lives.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have built a fantastic community.

MR. FITZGERALD: They have built a fantastic community there, that

is right. People today call it home, and that is why it is hurting when they see the

government of the day allowing our own resources to be taken out of not only their town

but out of our Province altogether and processed for the good of other people in other

provinces, especially when you look at an unemployment rate of 20 per cent.

I say it is being very conservative when you talk about an unemployment

rate of 20 per cent. I always say: Show me the employment rates, show me the number of

people who are working, because the number of people unemployed does not give you a true

reflection of the number of people who are out there today looking for a job. In many

cases the numbers do not show up because people have given up looking for work; people

have given up trying to get up every morning and knock on doors and fill out resumes. Tell

me the number of people who are employed. That is when you will get a true reflection of

the problems that are being experienced in this Province today.

It is something that I think the people in Labrador City and other

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expected the government of the day - their government,

the people that they went out and elected to represent them - to get up and fight for

them, to make sure that they maintain those jobs within the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador for the good of Newfoundlanders.

That is why people find it so hard to accept. They find it so hard to

accept that just up the coast there is a firm decision made that we must have a smelter

and a refinery here in this Province or the ore stays in the ground. You come a little

further down the coast and turn west, and you will find that it is a different decision

altogether. That is what people find so hard to accept, and that is what I find hard to

accept as well.

People have suggested to me that maybe this is part of the bigger

picture. This might be part of the big announcement that our Premier, Mr. Bouchard, made

on the Lower Churchill some months ago. This might be all part of it. It is probably all

tied in together. It is now unfolding. The deal that we thought we were getting with the

Lower Churchill, maybe there are payoffs somewhere else.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: There are payoffs somewhere else, I say to members

opposite.

The people in Labrador City, the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

are unemployed, are probably some of those people who are going to be witnessing, and the

people who are hurt because of those payoffs.

That is what I fear is happening. I fear that is what is happening as

we see this thing unfolding here today. It is certainly not being done by a government

that people elected to represent them, to support them, to fight for them, to maintain the

jobs here in this Province.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I remember the Government House Leader going around

with a trunk full of buttons that nobody wanted, that were left over from the last

election. On the button was: Tobin and Tulk, T and T. Mr. Speaker, T and T is a very

highly explosive substance, and that is what people expected. They did not expect a

government to lie down and play pussy cat with the people. They did not expect the

government to give in to the giant, IOC.

The Premier went to Labrador and made the big announcement on the Lower

Churchill, what a wonderful thing it was going to be. I saw, shamelessly, a board of a big

roller yesterday, because it was good news -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - but when it came time to face the people he was

nowhere to be seen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a couple of comments just for the record with

respect to the petition presented by the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and

supported by the Member for Bonavista South with respect to the premise put forward by the

Member for L'Anse au Clair in error. I just want to correct the errors in it, to make sure

that the record shows that somebody actually presented the facts in this Legislature

instead of getting on with a pile of nonsense and bogeyman tactics about things that may

or may not be.

The Member L'Anse au Clair, in presenting the petition, suggested that

the government had given some permission to the Iron Ore Company of Canada to ship

concentrate out of the Province; that the government has been all part of this and that we

have actually now given permission to IOC to ship concentrate out of the Province. Maybe

she does not know much about it, but for the forty years or just about of the operation of

IOC, part of their whole operation as a finished product has been the shipping of

concentrate out of Labrador West. They did not need or require any permission from this

government to ship concentrate out as a part of the expansion and the investment of the

billion dollars that they are going to put into their operation in Labrador West.

Why she would suggest that there is something wrong here because the

government is giving permission to ship out concentrate, it has been happening in Labrador

West for forty years just about - not only with the Iron Ore Company of Canada; but it is

the only product that is shipped out from Wabush Mines. So anytime that anybody is going

to suggest there is a problem with that, then they are by inference, by direct

implication, suggesting that if the answer for the government is to say you cannot ship

concentration out of Labrador, it means that Wabush mines shuts down. I am sure that

nobody is proposing that should be the answer.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair

on a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that concentrate was not being

shipped out. I did not say that government should revoke permission for them to ship it

out. I realize it has been shipped out for the last forty years, that it contributes to a

number of jobs in Wabush and the Labrador West area. I say to the minister, that was not

what I was suggesting.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. member was

engaging further in the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to have that clarified for the record so that the Member

for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair agrees that one of the products - not raw ore but one of

the products - that is appropriate to be shipped out of Labrador West, and has been for

forty years, is concentrate, so that Wabush mines can continue operate. About one-third of

the finished product of IOC has always been concentrate instead of pellets. At least the

record is clear, and she agrees, that concentrate is a product that should be shipped out

of Labrador West, as long as that is a point.

The other thing is, we have heard the Official Opposition state that

there are two choices for the government; that we could have intervened by suggesting

first of all that if they are going to do pellets anywhere else other than Labrador City

that it should be left in the ground - they have stated that clearly - which again

concludes to the closure of Wabush; because I am sure they would not put any government,

even if they were the government, in such a compromising position to suggest that you can

ship concentrate out of a mine on one side of Carol Lake but you cannot ship concentrate

out of a mine on the other side of the same lake. Either you have to leave it in the

ground or you have to mine it, process it into either pellets or concentrates. It is the

inconsistency in the position.

As well, the other point that the Official Opposition has always been

saying, I guess in line with the Chamber of Commerce for Labrador West, is: Never mind the

economics of it. If there is $200 million or $300 million or $400 million difference in

terms of expanding the pellet plant in Labrador City and reactivating one in Sept-Iles,

their representation is that the government should give the difference in cash to IOC and

buy the expansion, and that it is worth it because it is going to go on for another 100

years and so on.

The difficulty - and this is why it is convenient for them as

Opposition because they have to do nothing about it - is to suggest that you can amortize

it over the hundred remaining years of life of proven reserves in the area. The problem,

though, is that any government of today, to give effect to what they are suggesting, would

have to go out and immediately borrow almost $300 million in cash and give it to the Iron

Ore Company of Canada so they would put the expansion of the pellet plant in Labrador West

instead of Sept-Iles.

They know that cannot work. They will not admit it because it is not

politically to their advantage to admit it. They have to say otherwise, half in jest I am

sure. Then you get into the unsavoury type of comments that characterize the Member for

Bonavista South. He must listen to Jim Morgan a lot because he wants to drag some kind of

gutter politics into it by suggesting that there must be some kind of a payoff in this for

Premier Bouchard in Quebec; that this is somehow linked to the hydro project that we are

trying to put together, and that in order to get Quebec to agree to the hydro project, the

Premier must have already agreed to let this go in Quebec some months ago. Pure gutter

politics -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - as well as the idea that there are political

contributions from the Iron Ore Company of Canada and so on. It is unfortunate that they

do not stick to the facts and debate the case on its merits.

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health adjourned the debate

on Bill No. 37, "An Act Respecting Child, Youth And Family Services", and we

need a minute for her to get back. I think she had to run out.

Before doing that I would like to call Motion 3, which is first reading

on a bill, so that we can distribute it. The bill is in the name of the hon. the Minister

of Government Services and Lands, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act

Respecting Security Interests In Personal Property." (Bill No. 39)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to

introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Security Interests in Personal Property",

carried. (Bill No. 39)

On motion, Bill No. 39 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think the Opposition will agree that while

we are waiting - the Minister of Health had to run out for a few minutes, she told me, and

she would be back -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Of course, and she does it very, very well. She is one of

the best that I have ever seen in this Legislature, one of the very, very best people ever

I have seen defending the government's actions, and she does it very well.

While we are waiting, though, maybe the Minister of Education might

like to introduce, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And

Occupational Certification", Bill No. 5, Order No. 9.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law

Respecting Apprenticeship And Occupational Certification." (Bill No. 5)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take a few minutes if I can, at this point, to give some

background information with respect to the introduction of Bill 5, and maybe just a few

points to be read into the record of Hansard. Then, as the debate continues over the next

days and weeks, I will certainly make note of the interventions made by members opposite

and we can conclude, as we usually do, in clause-by-clause examination of the bill in

third reading, to look at the real details of the act.

The background of it basically is that the Apprenticeship Act, as it

presently exists in the Province, was last revised in 1990. Since then, I think most

people would recognize that there have been significant changes occurring within the field

of apprenticeship training and certification. Basically to determine if the act, as it is

written and was revised in 1990, continues to be relevant in light of today's industrial

involvement and environment, the Chair of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board was given

the task of reviewing the existing act and the industrial training process.

The review consisted of consultations throughout the Province with

stakeholders, consultation with the provincial trades advisory committees on a wide range

of issues affecting the quality and efficiency of apprenticeship training in the Province

as it exists today. There were several recommendations then that arose from the report of

the Chair of the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board, and among the

recommendations arising from this report was the need to refocus the objectives of

apprentice for starters.

At present the system serves the needs of training as well as the needs

of labour in the apprenticeship act. Since the intent of the apprenticeship program,

however, is to train and certify individuals, it was deemed as a result of the review that

this must become the primary focus, and that the needs of labour itself in terms of

workplaces and the workers they needed would have to be secondary. The individual needs

for the training had to come first and foremost and needed to be the primary focus of the

provisions of the act.

Also, it was clear that efforts needed to be made to expand the system

to include occupations that lend themselves to the apprenticeship model that were not

currently included. Because the present act specifies exactly which trades for which there

will be apprenticeship in the Province and thereby, by not mentioning the others, by

exclusion, leaves the rest from being considered in training periods for the

apprenticeship model.

The review since 1990 in the past eight years has indicated there are a

number of different types of occupations today that are not listed in the 1990 act that

might best be served, for the workers in their training, by having an apprenticeship

period and apprenticeship model to follow.

The apprenticeship system needs to be dynamic, reflecting the needs of

the labour market, offering flexibility in course design and delivery, and certainly with

a shift in emphasis from time served in apprenticeship, which is the fundamental premise

of the current act, to proving that you have actually achieved the competencies for the

occupation or trade in which you are apprenticed.

The focus clearly in this new act, Bill 5, is to shift the emphasis

from successful completion of apprenticeship based on how many hours you have been an

apprentice, to at some point, at the conclusion of your apprenticeship period, being able

to demonstrate that you are actually competent in the trade or occupation you have entered

into apprenticeship for.

The review as well recommended that an accreditation process be

established with the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board holding the

accreditation and certification authority. Those are the kinds of things that are spelled

out in this Bill 5.

These things are necessary to ensure quality and relevant courses in

all institutions, a full range of relevant experiences in the workplace, full monitoring

of all institutional and workplace training, and high-quality testing and certification at

the end of the process.

It is increasingly more difficult for industry to offer the full scope

of the training and conditions now set forth in the plans of training under the current

apprenticeship act. As an accreditation and certification authority, the new board will

review recommendations from industry and institutions for training programs, and then

consult with appropriate groups to ensure the training is timely and relevant and

delivered by institutions that can offer quality apprenticeship programs.

Concurrently, the Regulatory Reform Commission that the government had

established a couple of years back recommended that regulations be repealed and replaced

with policy established by the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board. The

board is currently going through a process of addressing this change as well.

Unless a matter needs to be put into a regulation, the act would give

the basis and foundation on which apprenticeship training would occur in the Province. The

Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board, which is going to oversee the whole of

the apprenticeship training area and try to keep it dynamic and fluid and able to respond

to industry needs, would deal with matters through policies of the board which they can

change on a timely basis to reflect what is happening in the Province and in the

industrial sectors, rather than have to come back to a Cabinet process or go to the

Legislature to adapt to the changing environment in the workplace.

The new act will enhance the flexibility of the minister and the

Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board to ensure that the training of

apprentices reflects the changing needs of industry. The key to it is to try to be much

more responsive on a much more timely basis through the Provincial Apprenticeship and

Certification Board, rather than spelling out the specifics of exactly what is going to

happen in legislation and/or regulation.

We would have an legislative basis for it, a legislative framework

which would be in this new Bill 5, and then the Provincial Apprenticeship and

Certification Board, I guess, with some issues being referred to the Minister of Education

or the minister of whichever department this board answers to at some point in the future.

Because that has changed from time to time. That issue would be resolved at that point.

The apprenticeship and occupational certification bill I am tabling

here today provides the flexibility and authority for the minister and the Provincial

Apprenticeship and Certification Board to implement the recommendations that resulted from

those provincial consultations that were conducted by the chair of the current

apprenticeship board. It points out the need for several changes to bring that needed

flexibility and adaptability to the apprenticeship program so that it can be responsive to

needs in industry, and responsive to the individual training needs on a much more timely

basis than the current Act permits. In some instances as well, it does reflect the

direction provided in the regulatory reform review that said: Stay away from regulations

unless you absolutely need to have them for monitoring purposes, and let the board get its

work done through policies if we can at all.

I will not refer to any of the clauses and their specific intent, other

than to suggest that is the general intent of the bill. As the debate continues in, I say,

the next few days and weeks I will listen intently to the representations and

interventions made by any members that participate in the debate. We will do the details

of it in clause by clause.

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment to the debate

on this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 37, Order No. 21. Second reading of

a bill, "An Act Respecting Child, Youth And Family Services."

I believe the debate was adjourned by the Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting

Child, Youth And Family Services," Bill 37.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now to the more important issues at hand.

What I would like to do is to recap. I had an opportunity to briefly

introduce the bill the last day, so I would like to recap, because I think it is

important, and I think it will set the stage for the discussion and questions that will

follow because of this very important new piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficulty hearing the hon. minister.

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

attention on this very important bill.

First of all, I would like to talk about the process that allowed this

bill to come forward this year, after fifty-four years with the old Child Welfare Act. We

had numerous consultations. We started off back in 1996 trying to coordinate all of the

various reports that were made, and at this point had not been brought together to move

forward with a new direction in legislation.

Our old legislation was very much focused on one of apprehension, very

much focused on a system, and very much focused around the needs of adults. It was

certainly a piece of legislation that prevented the fine work that is being done today by

our social workers and other health care professionals because they did not have the

legislation required to do the type of work they were doing. In fact, much of what they

were doing was done by regulation and policy, while today this new piece of proposed

legislation is definitely a totally different direction from where we have come. As many

of our community advocates have said, it will quite adeptly lead us into the next century

in terms of how we focus our interests on children.

We looked at a number of reports, such as the Classroom Issues Report,

and particulary the Gove Inquiry. I want to take the opportunity again to publicly thank

Judge Gove from British Columbia who made a number of recommendations to his government

that we were fortunate enough to put into this piece of legislation.

In addition to that, we used reports from the provincial strategy

against violence. We used our own Program Review where we looked at how we could improve

the services within government and integrate, particulary, services for children in this

Province. As a result of that Program Review we moved to create a new Department of Health

and Community Services with an integrated approach to service delivery.

Our Select Committee Report on Children's Interests that was reported

to this House of Assembly in 1996 was also used, and in fact, many of their

recommendations have been met and exceeded. Those recommendations were based on a piece of

child welfare legislation that was fifty-four years old, and again one that was at a time

when there were a lot less transparency and accountability mechanisms in place to address

issues.

As a result of our Social Policy Advisory Committee Report in 1996, we

were then able to pull together even more information to create our own Strategic Social

Plan, which was released earlier this fall. In our ability to look at all these reports,

we move forward.

If there was one phrase to describe how we are moving forward with this

new piece of legislation, it is that it is called `child-centred.' No longer are we

focusing on the needs of adults, or the courts, or other systems. We are very much focused

on providing services to children, and particularly services to youth.

You will find in the old legislation that there is no recognition of

youth and the definition of youth. In this particular legislation we are looking at adding

our sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds to the legislation in a voluntary capacity. We are

very proud of that, because it has been a recommendation made by so many different reports

and enquiries over the years.

Our implementation plan for this new piece of legislation will be a

phased-in approach. We will be moving towards implementing most of this legislation as

soon as it is proclaimed. Because of the new direction, because of the major accountably

factors involved, particularly as it relates to our front-line social workers, we will be

moving forward with our training in a very comprehensive way, and also program

development. We look forward to having numerous meetings with the public through our

boards to inform them of this new direction.

We hope to reach a target of all of the children in the Province who

require assistance in some way, and that is one of the new directions of this piece of

child welfare legislation. We are moving away from a crisis intervention mode to one of

early intervention and prevention.

In addition to our 700 children that we have in care on average, we

will also be trying to meet the needs of a larger group of children within their families

that we provide services to every year in this Province.

This new legislative regime is very much in keeping with the current

themes that we have adopted through all of our new pieces of legislation in terms of

prevention and early intervention, and very much in keeping with our Strategic Social

Plan.

In addition to prevention and early intervention, we are very much

committed to community involvement on an ongoing basis. In addition to numerous

consultations, we continue to work very closely with our own social workers and front-line

staff. We also continue to work with our advocates, to make sure that we are able to

implement the belief and actual articles within this legislation to meet the needs of

children and youth. We are very much looking forward to continuing working with the groups

and also to working in advocacy roles through our community health boards.

I want to say that because of our six regional community health boards,

we are now able to deliver this service to children in the Province in a closer-to-home

model whereby we know in fact that many of our regions know the intricacies and the

specifics of the family needs within their region.

We believe, rather than dealing from this as an employer perspective

from St. John's in this Province, that we are now able to move out to six regions within

the Province, knowing and recognizing that the regions have a much better understanding of

their own issues and concerns on many issues, including child care.

One of the reasons we are able to make this happen, and we are very

proud of the initiatives that we have announced - I can recap those as well because I

think they are important and very complimentary to this piece of legislation.

On National Child Day, last Friday, November 20, we were able to make

an announcement of $1.2 million for addressing the long waiting lists of children

requiring licensed child care. That eliminates the current waiting list. Again, we are

very committed to trying to do our best to meet ongoing needs as well.

In addition to that, we have announced $75,000 for maintaining day care

centres within our high schools, and today we made another announcement of $400,000 for

providing coordinators to make sure that this new concept of early childhood education and

qualifications and licensure will be attained. This money has been made possible not only

from our own Province but from our National Child Benefit. In fact, we are very pleased

and proud to say that our child welfare budget today of $13 million has in fact been

doubled because of these new initiatives. New money for new programs for children in a

child-centred piece of legislation.

In addition to that, we have more announcements to come, I can say to

the member opposite. We look forward again, as I wear my blue ribbon today, to recognizing

National Child Day. For this government, every day is National Child Day.

Other complimentary initiatives which are important include the

National Crime Prevention Strategy which will give to this Province a significant amount

of money for the next three years so that we are able to continue to work on a community

development basis to work with communities to prevent crime, particularly with youth. We

think this is also a very important initiative to enhance this new piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague in the Department of Human Resources and

Employment is also working very stringently to make youth employment strategies as

successful as possible. She, in her capacity, is working with HRDC to ensure that a new

youth employment strategy will address employment issues for our youth. As well, she has

undertaken an income support redesign which we believe will enhance the care of children

and families in this Province so that they can focus more on the delivery of services to

their children and focus less on other issues that may be of concern to them.

Mr. Speaker, our integrated services delivery model and our model for

service coordination again will allow us to deliver services in a closer-to-home

perspective. Again, we see this as an enhancement to the services being provided to

children. Through our health and community services boards, and through our six new

directors - soon to be appointed - and with our provincial director reporting to the

minister, we believe we have created a number of new transparencies in this new piece of

legislation.

We are moving away from the old days of crisis intervention to ones of

prevention and early intervention. Particularly important to us is our sixteen- and

seventeen-year-olds who have been added to this legislation on a voluntary capacity, where

we are able to provide a whole host of services from early intervention to family services

that might allow, for example, a teen to stay in their own home. But we are very careful

not to let the pendulum swing the other way. We still will retain the right to remove that

child, if in fact it is deemed appropriate by the people who would make the assessment,

and move that child into some other residential care capacity.

With respect to the courts, we have also moved in a very progressive

way to try to keep children out of courts and to make sure that children are in stable

environments as soon as possible. We have now allowed pre-trial settlement conferences to

occur outside of St. John's because currently they are only able to be done in St. John's

under our Supreme Court system, under Unified Family Court. So this will allow the rest of

the Province as well to try to resolve issues around children sooner than they previously

could.

With the introduction of mediation and voluntary agreements on behalf

of parents and social workers, we believe again we are addressing the best interests of

the child in this new piece of legislation. Family group conferences, which was piloted in

our Province through assistance from the Department of Social Work, is also a technique

that we will use again to keep children within a family environment before we go outside

the family unit, whether it be nuclear or extended family, to try to provide a safe and

secure environment for children.

Again, we believe that this legislation will move us towards providing

continuity of care for children, supporting families in a way that we have previously been

unable to do for a number of reasons, and allow children who have been removed from care

the option for counselling.

Our accountability measures again, as I alluded to earlier, are really

based on a number of consultations and really based on the fact that we are coming from a

piece of legislation that was written fifty-four years ago and was one that was not

transparent. We believe that with the introduction of our services through the regional

boards, and our minister's advisory committee, which will be comprised of people who have

received services under our system previously, as well as people who have a legal

background and will report to the minister - and that report will be forwarded to the

House of Assembly within thirty days or, if the House is not in session, within fifteen

days after the House should open.

In addition to that, for the first time we will be doing what I think

is a very progressive move, and that is an annual review of every child in care. Over 700

children, on average, are in care in our Province and we now will be able to provide an

annual report to the minister outlining the care plans for those children, because it is

something of concern to us. Right now we know that a child has to be in care for

thirty-six continuous months before we are able to look to provide a permanency order for

that child. Now those times in care will be reduced, and those times are based on the age

of the child; very much aware that the younger the child, the sooner that child needs a

stable environment. We no longer need to look at a continuous amount of time and care.

Again, we are very pleased with this because our view is that we need to do what is in the

best interest of the child and not what is in the best interest of the family.

In addition to that, we have a Premier's Council on Social Development

which has a social audit component which I believe is the most progressive in the country.

In fact, we are the only Province who have put ourselves forward in terms of this level of

accountability on how we administer programs and services with publicly funded money.

Again, we believe this is the right direction in which to move.

As well, we have a youth and care network which we have been funding

for the last number of years, and we recognize their need to continue to have input into

our new legislation and to make sure that the systems that are using this, in fact, make

it work.

We believe that this piece of legislation again is very progressive. I

want to say, in response again to the child advocate, we believe, because of the

accountability mechanisms that are built into this new piece of legislation that was not

there at a time when previous recommendations were made by the Select Committee, that we

have chosen to spend the money right now that would be used to create a new system or a

new bureaucracy at this point in time on services to our children.

We have, though, made it quite clear that we have not said no to a

child advocate; but we, as well as many of our child advocates in the community, people

who we have confidence in because of their expertise and because of their intentions with

respect to this new piece of legislation, we believe they have the expertise and they have

the right initiative when they say to us that they are willing to wait, they are willing

to see how this new advisory committee is able to oversee and evaluate the implementation

of this new piece of legislation when it reports to this House of Assembly within two

years.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said with the inclusion of sixteen- to

eighteen-year-olds, with our social audit, and with the other accountability mechanisms,

and most important with the focus moved from a systems approach to a child-centred

approach based on prevention and early intervention, we look forward to answering

questions on an article-by-article basis as we move forward to recognize children,

children who are over twelve and who, for the first time ever, will have an opportunity to

appear before a judge and make their own case.

We look forward to talking about the other initiatives we have put in

place to ensure that a child in care stays there as little time as possible before they

have the proper safe environment to ensure that they grow up to be productive adults.

I want to thank you for the opportunity for speaking about this bill.

Again, I look forward to answering any questions as they should arise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the Member for St. John's West, it being close to

4:00 p.m. on Thursday, I would like to announce the questions for the Late Show.

The first question for today's Late Show is from the Member for

Bonavista South. I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Development

and Rural Renewal regarding my question on marine conservation areas.

The second one is from the Member for Waterford Valley. I am

dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Education regarding my question

on the post-secondary scholarship funding.

The third is from the Opposition House Leader. I am dissatisfied with

the answer provided by the Minister of Health and Community Services on the department's

responsibility regarding the tragic deaths at St. Clare's Mercy Hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many questions?

MR. SPEAKER: There are three.

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

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

I, too, welcome the Child Welfare Act. It is long overdue.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

MS S. OSBORNE: The Child, Youth and Family Services Act. Thank you,

Madam Minister. I, too, welcome this Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

For too long our children have been overlooked and they have been

victims of the system. There are several aspects of this report that I would like to

address.

The minister says that the act is not something that is developed for

the system, and not something for the bureaucracy, but we see the setting up of a system

where Cabinet will appoint the provincial director and then there will be six regional

directors and an advisory board which will report to the House every two years. That

sounds like bureaucracy to me. Each of these directors will report to the respective

health and community services or integrated health boards and so on. This system sounds

not just like a bureaucracy but like a complete devolution of power.

We have witnessed here in the House of Assembly on many occasions the

Minister of Health and Community Services, when asked a question, that she responded to

the question with: Well, that is the responsibility of the Health Care Corporation, or

that is the responsibility of the Nursing Home Board. She could not be held accountable.

We have heard questions asked of the Minister of Education and he has

referred these questions on to the school boards. He could not answer them.

With the setting up of a provincial director and the six regional

directors who will report to their respective boards, I can see problems which are raised

in this House regarding children, youth and family services, and the Minister of Health

and Community Services can get up and say: No, we are not responsible for that; the

regional board is responsible for that.

It seems like the power has been devolved down into the boards again.

It is a devolution of authority to the appointed boards, and their responsibility will be

diffused for carrying out this act.

The line of authority from the minister, through the provincial

director, through the six regional directors, to the appointed board, provides for ample

opportunity for confusion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: This provides for ample opportunity for confusion to

exist and to weaken accountability. In the area of child protection, we cannot afford

weakened accountability. Direct accountability to elected officials should exist.

The minister, of course, will retain authority to direct the board on

the activities of the regional director and the board must comply. This would occur upon a

report from the provincial director. This provides some measure of ministerial

responsibility; however, it is not direct responsibility. The minister, once this act is

legislated, will not be directly responsible and therefore not directly accountable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, would you like to give that member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you. I do not mind sitting down and giving him

a few minutes.

Cabinet will appoint the provincial director. Clearly, accountability

is confused and diffused. Protection of the public interest is best achieved when there is

clear and direct accountability specified in law. Under the current bill, accountability

is to a variety of positions, each appointed differently.

In the case of system failure, or in the case of personal failure, it

would be extremely difficult to assess responsibility. Then there will be the appointment

by the minister of the ministerial advisory committee. This committee will review the act

every two years and report to the House of Assembly.

The first problem that I see with this situation is that the committee

is an appointed one and not an independent one and will not receive remuneration.

Secondly, the committee is not granted any power or any authority to review documents or

reports. Its mandate is not spelled out and therefore its review can be as brief as it

wishes, or it can be as exhaustive as it decides. It can only be assumed that support for

the committee will come from the department and this will further undermine the

independence of this committee.

If this committee is appointed by the department: the department

appointed us, therefore we are responsible to the department, and therefore it will

undermine its independence. It won't really be at arm's length. It won't be independent of

this government. What we are talking about here - we need something at arm's length,

outside the House of the Assembly, not having to report to the minister, not having to

report to Cabinet, an independent person completely outside of this House.

For these reasons this new act respecting children, youth and family

services should have included the appointment of a children's advocate. I cannot

understand why the minister keeps avoiding a children's advocate. She has discussed

accountability measures. The one measure that would provide the most accountability on

behalf of the children, she has avoided. That is the children's advocate.

Is there a fear that a child advocate would focus on the shortcomings

of this government? Is this government afraid of the spotlight being focused on the

deficiencies that exist within it? Why do they continue to avoid the one step that would

allow for true accountability?

The minister says that the Select Committee on Children's Interests had

concerns about the cost that a children's advocate would have to the system. Now, the

Select Committee in fact recommended an advocate, and I quote: An advocate that would be

tailored to the financial position and democratic traditions of this Province.

The costs that they were concerned about were those that would be

entailed by the creation of a case advocate, which is why they strongly recommended a

systems advocate - one which would address the larger problems found within the government

system.

A case advocate would advocate on behalf of individual cases, one at a

time; so that if a person was out there and they felt that they needed the services of an

ombudsman-like office, they could go there. If we had a system's advocate, then that could

address the larger problems in the system, and problems outside of the government, too.

There would be lots of things going on in the community that a system advocate could

address.

The cases that are presented, in many cases, are presented to the MHA,

one on one. The MHA then acts as the advocate within the system for the children. The

Select Committee saw more of a need for a systems advocate, one which could address the

larger problems that exist within government and, I would say to the minister, outside of

government.

The Select Committee on Children's Interests heard in the majority of

presentations at the public consultations that there is, at present, no effective

mechanism to represent the interests of children. The majority of presenters expressed the

necessity for a children's advocate. Not that it would be nice, but that it was an

absolute necessity.

A member of the Straits area child protection team who was a presenter

summarized the feeling of these presenters, and I quote from her: Children do need someone

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

responsibility, and specifically dealing with children's issues, can focus time on

something like that. I think it would be great if we had that someone.

The report from the Select Committee also cites Rosenbaum and Newell in

their publication entitled, "Taking Children Seriously: A Proposal for a Children's

Rights Commissioner," who summarized as follows: There has been an international

trend towards (

a) recognizing the lack of input from a children's perspective into many

decisions which affect them, and (

b) consequently, the creation of institutions to promote

children's interests and rights at national or local levels with the following important

characteristics: one, the institution is established by a public authority and has some

sort of official status. It is substantially, if not completely, independent in actions

and attitudes.

This is where, once again, the advisory committee, the regional

directors and the provincial director cannot be independent in actions and attitudes

because they are all part of the government system. They are not removed from government,

they are within government reporting to the minister, reporting to Cabinet,

whereas the

advocate would be totally and completely independent and enjoy the same privileges as an

Auditor General, answerable really to no one.

The third important characteristic is: it has a wide-ranging remit

across different policy areas, substantially if not completely independent.

The Committee also recommended that the advocate report to the

Legislature as opposed to Cabinet, and that the reporting would be structured similar to

that of the Auditor General. An advocate would be empowered to review and comment on the

operations, programs and mandate of all provincial government departments and agencies.

I feel that basically this is where is the problem lies. Not with

finances, but that this advocate would focus on the shortcomings of this government. The

spotlight would be on the downfall and on the deficiencies that exist within all

government departments, many that we are not even aware of. Deficiencies that exist which

have a detrimental effect on the lives of our children. This advocate would focus on that.

Maybe that is why this government is shifting away from an advocate or is very hesitant to

appoint one. The minister says they have not said no, but they have not said yes. What is

the problem here?

The minister refers also in her statement and in this bill to the input

of social workers. Our social workers are an invaluable part of the system. They are the

people who the children, and who the moms, dads and the families of the children, rely on

almost like a teacher, like another parent, like somebody they can go to. They depend on

the social workers and they trust the social workers, because once they are in the system

the social worker is ultimately responsible for the direction these children will go.

It was only a week or so ago that there was a demonstration by social

workers who are involved in the area of child protection. This demonstration was to

protest the heavy caseload that these social workers have to endure, and how they feel

they are unable to give adequate attention to the children who are placed in their care.

These social workers are in a position of trust and have a heavy responsibility, they have

heavy caseloads. They know that the children who are on their caseload are dependent on

them. Because the caseload is so heavy, many times they cannot get back, they cannot

address the needs of the children in any one day. Many times they spend extra hours, after

regular working hours, dealing with these cases. Because of their conscientiousness, they

are hesitant to go home and leave something that they can address unresolved. What we are

seeing here is burnout.

These social workers had a demonstration telling us that they were

burned out, that they need more social workers. As good as most of this bill may be, it is

only as good as the paper it is printed on unless