December 3, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 39


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize eight volunteer rescuers, and one member of the Canadian Coast Guard, who were recently awarded medals from the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.

The recipients are: Charles Roberts of St. John's, who received the Administrative Excellence Medal; Aubrey Wells of Fortune and Arthur Pierce of Harbour Breton, received the Operational Merit Medal; Winston Pitcher of Burin Bay Arm and Harry Strong of Old Perlican, both received Leadership Medals; Hugh Pittman of Englee and Steve Daoust of Prescott, Ontario, both received the Exemplary Service Medal. Mr. Daoust was also presented with the commendation by the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, Mr. John Adams.

Also, Mr. Speaker, each year there is a Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary Competition in which members from all over the Province compete in a series of events to see who has the best rescue and survival skills in the Province. The participants would have to participate in a series of events, which included first aid, rescues at sea, searching for missing persons at sea, and how to react in emergency situations. This year, the winners were a team from the Northern Peninsula. The team consisted of Wade Saunders of St. Lunaire-Griquet, Chris Foley of Conche, and Randy Patey of Port au Choix. All of these awards were presented during an award ceremony in Marystown earlier this fall.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Members of this House to join with me as I extend my congratulations to these individuals for their recent awards for their work with the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate the Britannia United Church on the occasion of their 100th Anniversary.

The Britannia United Church has been a magnificent landmark as well as the centre of worship in the community of Britannia on Random Island for the past 100 years. When it was built in 1902, the approximate construction cost was a mere $2,000. By today's standards that would seem like a very insignificant amount, but in 1902, considering the size of that community when they had to do community fundraisers, it was a significant amount.

Looking back over the history of Britannia United Church we see that it was without a bell until 1905, and without any electricity for the first thirty-eight years of its history. It was not until 1930 that a new lighting system was installed.

A few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of being able to attend their 100th Anniversary dinner celebration. This church has been, and continues to be, a very special sanctuary for all who have been a part of it throughout the years. This was particularly noticeable when I talked to the many former residents who had returned from different parts of Newfoundland and Labrador to share in the weekend celebration. The ways in which this church have enriched the lives of generations of parishioners was very evident that night as people shared their memories of the special events in their lives that all centered around this place of worship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of the hon. members in this House today to join with me in congratulating Britannia United Church on celebrating their 100th birthday and 100th Anniversary and contribution to the community of Britannia on Random Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Marine 2002 show is the largest fishing and marine industries exhibition in Atlantic Canada, and it was held in St. John's at the Mile One Stadium on the 21, 22 and 23 of this month.

This years show was the biggest ever, with 172 booths, and it attracted exhibitors from Iceland, the United States, and all across Canada. It consisted of an impressive range of products and services, which varied from a pair of rubber boots right up to the big ticket items such as diesel engines and sophisticated marine technology. It also showcased a boat display, in which tours were provided of the vessels at the waterfront. The purpose of this was to show the public the newest fishing vessels in the Province.

This show offered those involved in the industry and the general public an opportunity to view many products and services. Shows like this highlight the importance of marine industries to the economy of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the members of this House to join me, as I congratulate the organizers of this show on another successful year and I wish the organizers all the best in the upcoming new year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the students and teachers of St. Boniface All Grade School in Ramea.

This past weekend I attended the Ramea Economic Development Corporation, Annual General Meeting. While there, I spoke with a teacher, Mr. Clyde Domine, who told me that the eighty-seven students and ten teachers are completely smoke-free. This was later confirmed by the school Principal, Mr. Leo Freeborn.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the hazards of smoking. They are undeniable, but unfortunately some young people still choose to take up this harmful habit.

In Ramea, the students have decided that smoking is not for them. They have chosen a healthier lifestyle and in turn a longer future.

Teachers are educators of academics and life skills. I would like to commend the Principal and teachers for setting a healthy example for the students to emulate.

Studies show that 85 per cent of adults who smoke, start before the age of sixteen. In choosing not to smoke as young people, these students have a better chance of never starting.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that all members of this hon. House will join me in congratulating the students and commending the teachers of St. Boniface All Grade School in Ramea for choosing to be totally smoke-free.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to advise hon. members that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, known as the C-NOPB, has granted an increase to Terra Nova's annual production rate. This production increase will see Terra Nova's average daily oil production rate of 100,600 barrels per day increased to 150,000 barrels per day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The decision also allows the C-NOPB to further increase the daily average rate up to a maximum of 200,000 barrels per day after the consideration of appropriate regulatory, administrative and technical criteria.

This production increase for Terra Nova will be a positive thing for this Province. The Terra Nova royalty rate increases as production increases, or as the project becomes more profitable. This production rate increase will trigger the higher royalty rates earlier than expected, and result in substantially more royalty revenues for the Province. Under the current assumptions -

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I would say, stayed tuned.

Under the current assumptions this is estimated to be an additional $300 million to $400 million over the life of the project, and this does not include any potential new discoveries in the Far East Block of the field. In addition, improved profits will likely result in higher provincial tax revenues and increased investment in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in their application to the C-NOPB, the Terra Nova proponents have stated that this production increase will have minimal effect on the life of the project. After reviewing the application and the facts, government agrees with this position. Government expects employment to be unaffected by this change.

Mr. Speaker, the proponent, as well as the Province, wish to see this project become as profitable as possible. This will provide further incentive for industry to explore and develop new projects, leading to new and sustained benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It also sends a positive message to our industry partners that this Province is indeed a good place in which to invest.

Mr. Speaker, government believes that this is a win-win situation for both the proponents and government. Government will receive positive benefits to the provincial Treasury and increased investment. The proponents will be given the opportunity to generate more capital to invest in the provincial interests that they hold. Government will continue to support initiatives such as this when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are singularly the beneficiaries.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly do detect a different tone in the minister today. He seems much more at ease today, reading this statement, than the statement that had to be read yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the C-NOPB, along with the proponents and the government of this Province, have felt that this is the appropriate decision to be made in this case. When we consider, I guess, both the reservoir quality and reserves generally, Mr. Speaker, and if we take that into account, we can only agree with this decision that is being made, but we have to make sure that it is being done for the right reasons, and we have to ensure as well that the true beneficiaries are always the people of this Province as, of course, is indicated and is in accordance with the Atlantic Accord of many years ago.

Because this is such an important industry to all of the people of our Province, it would be interesting to have the minister some day give us an update with respect to the federal government and the amendment of its regulations as a result of the ruling on the boundary between our Province and Nova Scotia as it relates to the Laurentian sub-basin. Equally important, Mr. Speaker, we would also like to learn very quickly and we would like to have an update from the minister with respect to what is happening with respect to Hebron-Ben Nevis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we would like to know what this government is doing to attract new activity with respect to this particular area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess our GDP is going to go through the roof again while all of our people are leaving in droves. I say to the minister: Why is it, with all the activity offshore, that the people of this Province are not reaping the benefits of an oil industry the same as people in Alberta, Alaska, or other countries around the world? Why is it that we do not have any secondary processing in this Province that will create meaningful employment for people? Why is it that our resources are just coming in, stocked, or shipped away directly from the site?

I say to the minister, while this might be good news for you, it is definitely not good news for the people of this Province in terms of employment opportunities that will allow them to stay here and raise their families.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize December 3 as International Day of Disabled Persons, as proclaimed by the United Nations. Today is a time to celebrate the achievements of individuals, communities and governments as we work together to eliminate barriers faced by persons with disabilities.

The theme of this year's International Day of Disabled Persons is: Independent Living and Sustainable Livelihood. In our Province, organizations such as the Independent Living Resource Centre and the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities are committed to enhancing the lives of disabled persons, and helping them to lead independent lives, and I commend them for their work. I want to acknowledge members of these groups in the gallery today: Cecilia Carroll, chairperson, Mary Reid, executive director, and members and volunteers of the Independent Living Resource Centre, along with Mary Ennis from the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, our government is pleased to work with these organizations and others to promote and support the independent living of persons with disabilities in this Province. In recent years, we have made significant advances in the programs and services offered to disabled persons. For example, the Home Support Program provides services to approximately 1,700 adults with disabilities and 329 children with disabilities. We offer alternate family care homes which provide room and board, supervision, and social support in a family atmosphere for adults with developmental disabilities. The Cooperative Apartment Program focuses on supports and teaching skills to enable more independent living. Employability assistance, also available for people with disabilities, provides training services and supported employment.

While we have made significant advances in our work, we realize it is important to continue moving forward with programs and policies to assist persons with disabilities. As we implement our Strategic Health Plan, we will examine the effects and roles persons with disabilities will have in the component pieces and strategies. In particular, we will be developing a long-term care and supportive services strategy which will explore more options for care and community-based models, as well as strategies to support and encourage disabled persons to exercise control over their own lives and to fully participate in society.

Mr. Speaker, disabled persons make significant economical, political and cultural contributions within their communities. International Day of Disabled Persons presents an opportunity for us to recognize these important contributions and achievements, and to reflect on ways to continue moving forward in addressing physical and social barriers that persons with disabilities often face.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Thank you to the minister for providing me with a copy of his statement.

I, as well, would like to acknowledge the members of the Independent Living Resource Centre and the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, and thank them for their commitment to the lives of disabled persons.

Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to the Home Support Program, alternate family care homes and Cooperative Apartment Programs; all good programs. How many cuts have been made to these programs? How are we treating, for example, our alternate caregivers? How are we treating the respite workers who take care of people who live in alternate family care homes? We are often judged on how we treat the people who care for our disabled. We have respite workers out there taking care of our disabled. The government shirked its responsibility, as the employer, and put that responsibility over on the caregivers and on the parents of the disabled and now these people are out there working in the community. Each day they are risking a physical damage and this government still has not seen opportune to provide workers compensation for those people. So, how we take care of the people who care for our disabled is certainly a reflection on us.

Mr. Speaker, what of those disabled by mental illness? Government introduced the Right Futures program. It put people from the institutions out in the communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: A minute to -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: So I am being denied leave?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement and agree with him that any advances in this area are certainly desirable and to be applauded, but I would like to applaud, first, the disabled people themselves and the people who advocate on their behalf for the strides and the pressure that they brought on different governments throughout the years to get them where they are today. It is still a long way to go, Mr. Speaker. I think we can all agree, if we walk around our own communities we can see evidence each and everyday in places that we visit that are restricted to people who are able to access on their own, but anybody who is disabled are still barred from many places in our communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: So while there is progress being made, Mr. Speaker, we still have a long way to go.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Youth Mine Action Ambassador Program. As we mark the fifth anniversary of the treaty to ban anti-personnel land mines.

On December 3, 1997, representatives of 122 countries gathered in Ottawa and signed the Ottawa Treaty, which is now referred to as the Convention to Ban Anti-Personnel Mines. This day is recognized as one of inspiration and hope for peace in our world.

After many years of hard work, meetings and lobbying, a community of non-governmental organizations and international governments succeeded in creating and signing a treaty to ban land mines. The goal of the Treaty is to ensure that countries, party to it, will end the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of land mines.

Since the 1997 signing of the Convention to Ban Anti-Personnel Mines, the Canadian government and non-governmental organizers continue to take a leadership role to end the suffering as a result of this indiscriminate weapon. The Youth Mine Action Ambassador Program resulted from the collaborative efforts of these two groups.

Mr. Speaker, here in our Province we have an active Youth Mine Action Ambassador Program, a tri-partite initiative of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mines Action Canada and the Canadian Red Cross. Hosted by Oxfam Canada here in St. John's, the Youth Mines Action Ambassador Program aims to facilitate community action and awareness with Canadians across our country.

Mr. Speaker the Youth Ambassador for our Province is Ajmal Pashtoonyar. I would like to acknowledge Ajmal's presence here in the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Ajmal is an Afghan native who came to Canada four years ago as a student refugee with World University Science of Canada and is currently studying a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at Memorial University. In 1994, while travelling to his home country, Ajmal became an eyewitness to the destruction and devastation caused by the decades of war and civil fighting. It was at this time that he met with land mine survivors and felt a deep commitment to be involved in the anti-land mine movement.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. members to join me in marking the anniversary of the Treaty and to recognize it as a moment of inspiration and hope for peace in our world.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for forwarding a copy of her statement before we came to the House. We too, on this side of the House, welcome any initiative by anybody to promote peace in the world, and certainly to bring forward the concern that land mines have been brought forward over the past couple of years. We all are under an educational process in regard to the things that cause such war and devastation to many people around our world. We, on this side of the world, are very lucky, Mr. Speaker, that we know about war and we know about the ravages of war through the media. We have not had the experience of it and we're very lucky, but many parts of the world suffer each day from war. We watch T.V. and we read the news and we learn of this devastation that has been caused by war. Certainly, land mines are a major part of that, and it is something where many innocent people find they are either killed or harmed in such a way, Mr. Speaker, that causes lifetime hardship.

We, on this side of the House, certainly welcome Ajmal to our Province and in whatever way we can promote world peace - Mother Theresa, when she was presented with the Nobel Peace Prize, was asked by a reporter: What could one do to promote world peace? She said: Go home and love your family. So I guess it all starts in the home. We hope, from our home here in Newfoundland, that we spread the word that world peace is something that we are all interested in and whatever we can do to promote that, we, on this side of the House, and I am sure all members of society are on that side.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister again for an advanced copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, in most countries around the world today, as the wars end in these countries, innocent people - men, women and children - continue to be killed and maimed by land mines. As a matter of fact, since we started this session today, twenty-four minutes ago, somebody has been killed or maimed by a land mine because every twenty-two minutes somewhere in the world somebody is killed or maimed by a land mine. I think that is a pretty serious situation, one that creates very sober thoughts for those of us who live in the type of society that we do.

I am also proud to say the role that our country has played -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: - in making the Ottawa convention a reality. I think that is something every Canadian can be proud of, the role we played in that, and the work that has been carried out in the world today as a result of that convention.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

In his ministerial statement yesterday the minister tried to lure and seduce Newfoundlanders and Labradorians into believing the unbelievable, that there was never a deal with Quebec on the Lower Churchill.

Mr Speaker, my question to the minister is this: How does he expect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to believe that there was never a deal after the dozens of hours of late night sessions with the Liberal caucus, with the marathon session with members from the caucus from Labrador and the leadership in Labrador to sell the deal and, finally, with the Premier's statement outside this House when asked directly: Was there a deal or had a deal been done with Quebec? He answered: That was a fair characterization. How does he expect anybody in this Province to believe his words yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that there was never a deal with Quebec on the Lower Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: How do we expect the people of the Province to believe us? Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the question is this: Because, we simply attempt to tell the truth in those circumstances. In that circumstance, I would expect the people to believe us.

The fact of the matter, that discussions at a given point, with a given party, might be concluded, does not translate automatically into a conclusion that there is a deal that we are prepared to sign, seal and deliver to the people of the Province for consideration.

I say to the hon. member again, in addition to the fact that we attempt to be factual and tell the truth on these issues, the fact of the matter is that there is more than one component part to a deal in any event. A business arrangement with Quebec would only be one potential part. All of the other deals, all of the other agreements that have to be signed off on, all of the other arrangements that have to be agreed to with other parties such as the Innu, et cetera, still, all of these things form part of the deal, if and when there will be a deal.

I say to the hon. member, concluding talks at a specific point with Quebec or any other partner does not automatically translate into a deal that we have concluded is good enough to bring forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

What the minister has asked everybody in the Province today, through his commentary and answer to the question, is: Believe me because, if I say it is so, it is actually so. That is what the minister is saying.

Let me ask him this question: Mr. Speaker, the former chair of Hydro has openly contradicted the minister's statements that there was never a deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister respond to his evidence that was presented to the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Board of Directors last week, for their due diligence vote, was clearly the deal, he said, and that the genuineness was confirmed by the board's own legal counsel?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Probably, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could have read all of the commentary that at least was in The Telegram by the former chair of the board.

The fact of the matter is again, Mr. Speaker, and I can only reiterate what I have said on two or three previous occasions, both inside the House and outside of the House, that while a high level of development toward a possible deal had taken place, while the whole possible framework towards an agreement had matured to a very high level, the fact of the matter is that, as the former chair of Hydro said in The Telegram this morning, there were still I's to be dotted, there were still T's to be crossed. That, in our colloquialisms in this Province, means that there was still work to be completed, all of the final and finite details were not done, were not put in place, and therefore he confirms -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - if I read him right - without getting into translating his body language, I will certainly attempt to interpret his verbiage - that there was work left to be done on the deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We want to talk about verbiage. We have gone from last week, the Premier saying, it will be done by the end of the week, to this week, it is internalizing; people are standing down, but we are proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, all of that is language of backpedalling. The minster says that he supports the guiding principles that government set out two days after the negotiations with Alcoa had fallen off. That is what he says.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question: Is his action today, which is completely different from the words and the actions of the Premier just last week, is that action stepping down or stepping back now from the deal that was finalized last week? Is his action an admission that the deal that was presented to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro does not reflect, in total, what those guiding principles had set out for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member knows and acknowledges that the principles that were set out by both premiers in August would form, hopefully, the basis of an eventual deal between the two provinces to develop the Lower Churchill Gull Island project. What has been happening since August is this: The officials, along with lawyers, taking good advice from all of the sources that we could get it from, were fleshing out how, in fact, the principles would be reflected in legal language, in legalese, in implementation form, so we could move to an announcement that a deal would, in fact, be concluded.

Most of the work, I say to the hon. member - we say this again - most of the work, a lot of the work, a substantial amount of the work, was completed, was in some measure put into a format such that it could have easily been translated into or become a component part of a framework deal. All of the work, however, was not completed. All of the issues were not signed off on -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - all of the concepts were not endorsed and in final form, and therefore, as the former chair refers to it, there was dotting of I's, there was crossing of T's. Translation: there was additional work yet to be done before there was a deal to be brought forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My suggestion to the minister is when the Premier gets back - maybe that is why it happened. Maybe that is why the statement was made when the Premier was absent. Who knows, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask him this question: Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's move yesterday was simply a blatant political attempt to take the steam out of growing public and internal opposition to the deal? Isn't that why you began the backpedalling?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is, unequivocally, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The statement in the House yesterday and the information I provided to the media in the scrum yesterday was simply in keeping with our responsibility as government, and that was to keep the people of the Province informed and updated and in the loop as to where we were with our discussions on a possible Lower Churchill deal.

Mr. Speaker, that responsibility is equally as important to us if things are moving forward swiftly, if things are moving forward slowly, or if things are not moving at all. We have the obligation to keep the people of the Province informed, and we will continue to do that. When the news is good we will present it, when the news is bad we will present it, but in this case it is not bad news. A delayed deal is not a dead deal. I say to the hon. member, stay tuned, there is still life after December 2, yesterday, when we proposed that the thing was slowing down somewhat. We are still hopefully committed to getting the Lower Churchill developed, not because it is good for us as politicians -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - but we hope to do it because we think it will be good for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A final supplementary.

If the minister is expecting people in this Province to believe that there was no deal, that whatever they presented to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as a government, was some hypothetical situation, let me ask him these two questions: How much money did you pay Bristol Communications to do up an ad campaign for a hypothetical deal; and, secondly, is it a fact that where you won't table in this House, for everyone to see, what you gave to the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, what you presented to them, is it a fact that where you will not present it in this House, that that strictly is a confirmation that if you did people in Newfoundland and Labrador would see exactly that you had a deal and it was not in their best interests? Is that why you will not table it in this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The work that was done, as preparatory work in the event that there may have been an announcement, is work that normally would have been done in any circumstance when you are laying the groundwork, preparing yourself for possible announcements at a future date. Any money we have spent with any communications company we believe is money well spent, because, guess what? We believe that someday, we hope that someday, we will have the benefit of being able to use that to present a good deal to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: With respect to the cost of this work, that information, to the extent that it is appropriate to be released, is a question that should be directed to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, because that is the organization through which that work was being done.

With respect to whether or not we will get a deal, we will see. I will say to the hon. member, we will be happy to table in this House, we will be happy to make available to the people of the Province, we will be happy to make available to all who should have it, all who want it, the complete deal if, and when, we get one done for presentation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance.

As a result of decline in tax to the GDP ratio, there is now a greater reliance in our Province on non-tax revenues from Crown corporations, from user fees, also from withdrawals from cash reserves to cover the necessary public services. Such non-tax revenues last year, Mr. Speaker, made up 30 per cent of our provincial revenues. In 1989 it only made up 21 per cent.

I want to ask the minister: Why doesn't she listen to the bond rating agencies and to the financial institutions when they keep saying that this practice is not sustainable?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last week, or the week before, we tabled our Public Accounts which gave the full information of everything that is recorded for all of the government departments, Crown corporations, all the tax entities and, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to note that these were our reports, they were tabled.

With respect to the questions associated with the bond rating agencies, I would say to the member opposite, if he would care to listen -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - that we have recently been upgraded. They are well aware of what we are doing. They know our practices. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have recently upgraded us, as the member knows.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the response to that question, I am wondering whether we will ever get out of debt. She has answered a question I asked over a week ago. Is she ever going to catch up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Unrelated whatsoever.

I will ask her another question. I assume she is not going to give an answer to the first one.

While presiding over the finances of our Province, Mr. Speaker, this finance minister has taken us from fourth place in the country to the eleventh place; the last place. In the Fraser Institute's annual audit of government's fiscal performance, our Province scored 36.6 per cent, the lowest in the entire country.

I want to ask the minister: Why won't she stop those atrocious practices that is pushing our Province deeper and deeper into debt?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite has not mentioned is that this finance minister is here when we led the country, and continue to lead the country, in GDP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Further, I will say, the members who sit on this side of the House have said consistently, we can balance the books tomorrow, but we have made decisions that affect the people of our Province. We know that this is about services we provide for the people in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Speaker, for anyone listening, it should become increasingly clear what his plan is because I say people should fear what will happen to our health system, what will happen to our social services programs. You can balance your books tomorrow but it will be on the backs and it will be at the cost of the people in this Province who count on government to support a publicly funded system and to find a balance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we believe and we want to continue to support the people of our Province with respect to providing health care, and that is what we plan to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can hardly imagine somebody doing more damage to a health care system than she did when she was minister of this caucus. I can hardly imagine it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now that she raised the issue on health care, I would like to ask this minister: Will she confirm that her health care expenditures have not risen as much as the minister would like us to pretend, as she likes to pretend? Will she confirm, Mr. Speaker, that areas of expenditures, such as youth corrections, child protection, family and rehabilitative services, which were traditionally under other departments, are now listed in the $1.47 billion that is now under the Department of Health and Community Services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that wherever I have gone, he has followed me. So, there you go; and he is still following me, Mr. Speaker, and I can also say -

AN HON. MEMBER: But he can't catch up.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: And he can't catch up, that's right.

But I can say, very importantly, and I think this is important for the people of the Province because this is an important question. Mr. Speaker, first of all, we spent more per capita on health - these are not my numbers. These are numbers that have been pulled from figures that you have referred to in the Fraser Institute and other reports. We do spend more on our health programs per capita. We continue to spend more. We have increased our funding 50 per cent in health care over the last five years, and any government across this country would say that recognizes that this is our number one priority and is certainly our number one priority for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and it concerns the department's winter road maintenance program along Route 320, from Trinity to the Lumsden area. After a snow or freezing rainstorm, the difference in the road conditions from Trinity to Gambo, when compared to Trinity to Lumsden, is like day and night.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear from the outset that in no way does the problem reflect on the work crew from the Lumsden division. I know most of them personally and they are as good as any in the Province. But for whatever reason, the section from Trinity towards Lumsden is almost always, without exception, after a storm usually in a dangerous driving condition while, at the same time, the section from Trinity to Gambo is in far better condition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member ought to get to his question.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain why there is such a difference?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the hon. member for his maiden question, but if he is saying that section of the road is not being done so well, there is obviously - he said it is not a reflection on the workers, because our section of the highway in this Province is broken up into sections. The amount of resources that is allocated is the same for each depot. The analysis, in terms of the mixture of salt and sand, is all done based on the region.

As a matter of fact, I travelled on Route 340 and travelled up through that area on Saturday during the four seasons that we had, in terms of sunshine, rain, freezing rain and snow. I did the whole loop on Saturday. I travelled those particular sections of the highway and I found no difference in the section of that road in any particular area. I left Lewisporte and travelled right around the whole area there and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.

MR. BARRETT: - observed what was going on and was trying to assess the situation in terms of what the conditions of the roads were. I think the crews - one of the problems you probably have is that you have to evaluate when you put the plows on the road -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Supplementary further to what I already said, Mr. Speaker.

This past Sunday I drove that road as well. I came back from my district. I left Valleyfield at 11:00 a.m. and the section to Trinity was treacherous with three or four inches of slush totally covering the road, but after I got to Trinity the road was in really good condition.

I ask the minister to investigate this matter with his department officials in Grand Falls and while he is doing so, to check and see if there is a shortage of suitable, reliable equipment in the Lumsden division and are there enough employees retained for the winter snow-clearing program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was in that particular area. As a matter of fact, I think -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Just watch the body language now. I know you are a bunch of psychics over there, watch the body language.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. member has asked a question and obviously, his colleagues do not want to hear any response to the question.

The snow in that particular area started at about 7:00 in the morning, Sunday morning, and the hon. member did say that there was slush on the road. The slush on the road was because our equipment was out and had pre-salted the road to eliminate, because it was forecasted that we were going to get snow and it was going to snow all day. Our crew was out and pre-salted the road. The reason there was slush on the road was because the road was pre-salted. One of the problems we have in areas where there is low traffic -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.

MR. BARRETT: You realize that where there is a lot of traffic on the road and we apply the salt that the salt works a lot faster. In that particular area we have very low traffic volumes, the salt was on the road, and that is why we had a slob on the road. The equipment was out. There was no difference in the depot than anywhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

As the minister is aware, I have been lobbying this government since elected, from all areas of the Province, with petitions to have this government provide assistance to people with MS and other diseases in terms of the drugs that they need. Even the MS Society of Canada, Mr. Speaker, have identified that this Province is the only province in this country that places their residents in the unacceptable position of having to choose between poverty or taking the medication that they need to slow the progression of their disease.

I ask the minister: Will he commit to the people of this Province who suffer from MS and other diseases, and who require high-cost drugs, that he will improve the provincial drug program, get in line with other provinces in this country, so that hard-working residents of our Province do not have to reduce themselves and their families to poverty level incomes before you and your government will step in to offer any type of assistance?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, the hon. member raises a very interesting question. Indeed, as he said, he has actively pursued it for some time. It points to a major problem, Mr. Speaker, which I have spoken to repeatedly, and certainly has been referenced by others in this Province, that despite the best efforts that we have made, as a government, in recent years, trying to respond to the many demands that are out there in terms of new drugs that are coming on the market, very expensive drugs, still many of them, at this point in time, including the drug to which the hon. member has made reference, we are trying to find the means by which to respond.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, we do not have in this Province at the present time a universal drug program, and for a very simple reason, we do not have the resources to support and sustain such a program. So, it is not a matter of saying to people that we don't recognize that your need is justified. What we are trying to do is to try to find a way to respond to that.

Quite frankly, one of the things right now that we are examining with interest is the Romanow Report, to see if, in fact, there is a reference, there is a section in the report, that refers to the Pharmicare program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: Hopefully, within that, we will be able to find the means to respond to the sort of problem that the hon. member references here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I wish it were as simple as that, because what you claim as not having the resources to be able to do, you will do once a person reduces themselves to the poverty level. It is ridiculous to say, Mr. Speaker, that someone working in this Province making $30 an hour, afflicted with this disease, can move to another province, any other province, make $10 an hour and be financially better off. That is ridiculous!

I ask the minister: Will he commit to the principles that are outlined in the Romanow Report? Will he make a commitment to the people of this Province today, that when these things are implemented that these drugs will be provided for, and not take the position that the Premier of this Province has taken, that they want the money with no strings attached and no accountability?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that this minister will not do will be to commit to something that he does not feel he is in a position to deliver on. Quite frankly, I am prepared to move forward and - the first meeting for the Health Ministers is actually scheduled for this Friday - to start looking in detail. Certainly, that part of the program I am interested in.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that all members of this House need to be reminded of the fact that at the present time this government is, in fact, making a considerable effort in terms of trying to deal with the very real challenges that are out there as they relate to pharmaceuticals in this Province. During the last year we had some 38,000 families in this Province in receipt of a subsidy for drugs; we had some 34,000 seniors who were receiving it. In total, Mr. Speaker, there were some 2.5 million prescriptions, for which we accepted responsibility, in the area of $87 million. So that certainly speaks to the level of support that this government makes to pharmaceuticals and to the support of people whom the hon. member opposite has referenced here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I say, watch out for the rookies, Mr. Minister.

During the recent by-election in Conception Bay South and Holyrood, the CBS bypass was an important issue and was discussed by all candidates of all political stripes. In fact, while campaigning during that campaign, the minister and the Premier confirmed it was a priority of the current government. Can the minister reaffirm that this is a priority of the current government; and, if it is a priority, when can the residents of CBS and Holyrood expect to drive on that new highway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question: The road was a priority during the by-election; the road is a priority today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members now if they could allow the business of the House to proceed in an orderly fashion.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to present a petition on behalf of a group of individuals regarding the issue of the name of Memorial University of Newfoundland. This petition, with a portion of the signatories, has also been presented in this House on four previous occasions. I think there were a large number of names and the party decided to split it down into groups and have it presented often. Therefore, I will only read the beginning and the prayer of the petition, because it is rather lengthy.

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

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.... It is followed then by nine statements, nine WHEREAS, and the prayer reads:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to retain the current name - Memorial University of Newfoundland.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

This particular petition, this particular portion of a petition, is signed by 512 individuals from Memorial University in St. John's, Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, students, faculty and staff.

Mr. Speaker, the Board of Regents of Memorial conducted a public process to consider this issue with representations from interested parties, including these petitioners, and it has presented a recommendation to government. This recommendation and this issue will be considered and, if necessary, brought forward to the Legislature in due course.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today and present a petition signed on behalf of the residents of Labrador. The petition states:

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347.6 million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the fund requires that money in the fund be used for the maintenance of marine ferry service to Labrador, construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and other initiatives related to transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Liberal government announced in the 2002 Budget that $97 million would be taken out of the fund and added to general revenues of the Province to be used for purposes outside the act;

We, the undersigned petitioners, believe that the raiding of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund is a gross violation of the purposes of the fund and a breach of trust with the people of Labrador, and hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to immediately put this $97 million back into the fund, to be spent on transportation initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Labrador Highway has always, since it has been built, been in need of repair on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. It is a gravel highway, Mr. Speaker, and as you fix up one portion of that highway the other part is already starting to deteriorate.

Now some of the members opposite argue that this $97 million, or this fund, was not meant specifically for the Trans-Labrador Highway. Mr. Speaker, it was not meant - I guarantee everybody in this House - to reduce the deficit of this Province. It was meant for transportation issues, and the Trans-Labrador Highway definitely falls into a transportation item, and that is more appropriately where this money should have been spent. It is ridiculous, I say, Mr. Speaker, for people to have to drive over roads in that condition on a daily basis in this day and age.

People have written from other countries about the deplorable condition of the road. People who have travelled to Siberia, and travelled across Labrador, could not get over the fact that roads in Siberia were superior to roads in a rich country like Canada, when it comes to the Trans-Labrador Highway. Generally, Mr. Speaker, it is very unsafe to drive over. It is not maintained properly.

Just two weekends ago, we had a storm on a Saturday, and on Sunday morning at 9 o'clock, I started to drive 80 kilometres of that section of highway and there was not one snowplow on that section of road. The roads were not ploughed, from the time the snow started falling, up until 10 o'clock on Sunday morning. It was that bad, Mr. Speaker, with drifts in various places, that as soon as I got home the first thing I did was to call the RNC and let them know what condition the highway was in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, they informed me that they had several calls on the highway that day and they were advising people to stay off.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is not fair for this government to be taking money from a fund that was meant to improve transportation in Labrador, and use it to reduce the deficit of this Province.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition as well, and the petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here again is another petition submitted by people from the Birchy Cove, Bonavista area, the surrounding area there, asking the minister to consider completing a section of road that started out, when I started delivering petitions here in this House, to be five kilometres of road. After four attempts to go down, upgrade and repave that section of road, there are still three kilometres of that particular road that have not been upgraded, have not been repaved, and still in a state not acceptable for the year 2002.

The people in the area there have had demonstrations. They have had ministers out there. They have had the deputy minister out there. They have had town hall meetings, putting in a plea to ask the minister and ask this government to complete that section of road. This is a section of road that is the main road, the main artery, one of the main arteries leading into the Town of Bonavista. People go there on a regular basis to access health care, to access government offices, to go to work. School children travel from the area there up as far as Upper Amherst Cove to go to school on a daily trip to school and back again. Their petitions are coming forward to this House to say to the minister that, after four attempts, isn't it about time that we completed five kilometres of road? Because that is what it started out to be, and there are still three kilometres left to be done.

Every year, Mr. Speaker, the commitment is made that we are going to do two kilometres - we are going to do two kilometres of your road - and people are willing to accept that. They are saying at least that is a beginning, and if it takes us a couple of years to do it, fair enough.

This past season we saw a commitment made to do two kilometres. It ended up by doing 700 metres, I say to members opposite; 700 metres of one of the main roads leading into the Town of Bonavista. The people are asking that this section of road now be upgraded and completed so that we can move on and do other work and to allow the people who use that road on a daily basis, on a regular basis, to allow them to drive over -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - a road that is reflective of the cost that they pay in taxes for gasoline and in taxes, and in the fees they pay to register their car.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, today rise in my place to present a petition, as did the Minister for Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. I am basically representing a group individuals who oppose the name change for Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister did not read her petition, all of it; I think I will.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the government has requested the Board of Regents to consider a name change of our University; and

WHEREAS Memorial University of Newfoundland is excluded under the Newfoundland and Labrador Act; and

WHEREAS publicly funded universities can be named for a region of a province; and

WHEREAS when other political entities changed, the name of the university within it did not; and

WHEREAS our educational mandate is not limited to this Province; and

WHEREAS the University is on the Island of Newfoundland; and

WHEREAS the first university in other provinces did not reflect the entire name of the province; and

WHEREAS there will be enormous costs to undergo this name change; and

WHEREAS there are enormous disadvantages to not having a geographic identity attached to the University; and

WHEREAS another proposed university in this Province is more suitable to have Labrador added to its name;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to retain the current name, Memorial University of Newfoundland.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there were some 645 signatures on this petition, from all over the Island, various areas of the Province: St. John's, Mount Pearl, Grand Falls, Springdale, the Goulds, Pouch Cove, all over. Maybe some as far as the West Coast, Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, I can go into many, many reasons why the name should not be changed, as presented here to me. When these individuals presented me with the petition to present to the House, they gave me sixteen basic reasons why the name of Memorial University of Newfoundland should not be changed. I do not think I have the time to get into all of those reasons but there are a few, I think, I would mention.

These people believe that there is going to be minimal benefit by changing the name to Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. They also point out there is no legislation in place to require the name to be changed. Also, a very important point, Mr. Speaker, is the cost involved in the name change to Memorial University: all their letterheads, and various other departments within Memorial University itself, the cost involved in it. I do not believe, at this point in time, that there was a cost-benefit analysis done to see if it makes sense even to go ahead with this name change.

Another important point I would make, Mr. Speaker, is that Memorial University, the name itself, represents, I suppose, those individuals who fought in the First World War and Second World War, and it is as a memorial to those individuals. I do not see the necessity to change the name -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just one more point in conclusion, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

I just want to make that point clear. Again, the people who fought in the First World War, Second World War, many lost their lives, many came back, and this Memorial University was named after those individuals. I do not see the necessity to change the name.

Also, I would just like to say that I signed the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I do support those individuals. Some members present petitions here but they have not said they are in support of the petition one way or the other. I do not mind saying, I do.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader points out that they do not have to, it is not required, but I do not mind saying that I do support this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 21, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province. ( Bill 23)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province." (Bill 23)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly my pleasure today to rise in this House and introduce the Income and Employment Support Act.

Mr. Speaker, it has been often said that the highest measure of a society is how it treats and protects its most vulnerable members. On that basis, I am proud to stand here today and open debate because this bill provides the foundation for that protection.

This act is the legislative vehicle that ensures access to income support in a dignified manner for persons of our society that require such support. For the first time we enshrine access to a range of employment supports to enable all people to take their rightful place as active participants in a labour market that is more inclusive and accommodating of their needs.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a profound change in the way we develop social policy and how we view poverty. This government recognizes poverty cannot be treated in isolation from the roots and causes of poverty. Poverty, Mr. Speaker, is a social condition that has its roots in economic disparity, that isolates people from opportunities to improve their circumstances, and it contributes to profound social and health consequences.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that poverty is marginalizing on an important part of our labour force at a time when our aging population points to the challenges for the future. Today, we talk about concepts like determinates of health and well-being. In simple terms, this means factors that ensure healthy individuals within a health society. These factors include health, literacy and education levels, fulfilling employment and the alleviation of other effects of poverty.

Producing a healthy society is not the responsibility of one department of government working alone, nor is it of government exclusively. It is the product of many departments working in concert with the community. It is a holistic effort covering many policy areas simultaneously in a broad plan. Research shows us that a clear link exists between health, education, employment and income.

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the government produced a Strategic Social Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. Through this plan all the initiatives that have come from it, government has recognized that employment and economic security are the key to securing long-term well-being of the people, the communities and the Province. We are committed to ensuring that social and economic development go hand in hand. We are committed to a vision of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as healthy, educated and self-reliant people living in supportive communities, having access to social programs which encourage them to reach their full potential. It is no longer enough just to establish a passive, social, safety net to support vulnerable people who lack the economic resources to support themselves and their families. This bill now legislates the philosophy of active support aimed at assessing people to achieve economic independence and realizing their full potential to contribute and participate in society.

Mr. Speaker, we know that as the economic climate improves fewer people will rely on income support. When work is available, people want to work. This is why this government has placed such emphasis on improving and diversifying our economy.

Before I move into a detailed discussion on the principles of this legislation, I would like to take a few minutes to explain to the House the process by which this legislation comes before us. By understanding where the bill comes from, the purposes and goals of the this bill and the department are made clear.

In 1997 our Province faced an alarming situation, at the time the social assistance caseload stood at a monthly high of 36,600 cases, representing over 70,000 recipients. We were most concerned that some 15,000 families, with approximately 26,000 children, were dependent on social assistance. This meant that one in three children under five were members of households dependent on social assistance at some point during the year.

Expenditures on social assistance had more than doubled, from $108 million annually in the early 1990s to over $243 million. It was clear that government had to seize the initiative and develop a comprehensive strategy to address this situation.

In April of 1997, government created a Department of Human Resources and Employment with a mandate to redesign the social assistance program. This redesign was to change the focus of the departments activities and program towards providing direct help to individuals and families to achieve greater independence. At that time, we wanted to provide additional support to low-income persons and families, and not only for those receiving social assistance, it was time to make substantial changes and examine how we could best deliver positive outcomes for people linked to the goals of prosperity and self-reliance. Mr. Speaker, we want the staff of Human Resources and Employment to spend less time on administration and more time dealing directly with our clients and the issues which are important to them.

We have made substantial progress over the past four years and these initiatives represent real improvement in service for clients. The income on employment support programs we have today are not the programs we had in 1997. In cooperation with our federal partners, the National Child Benefit was introduced in 1998, and this Province introduced the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit in 1999. This meant more money available to all low-income families in the Province, not just the families receiving social assistance. For example, in 1997, a low-income family with two children would be eligible to receive $170 a month in child benefits. In 2002, that same family would now receive $433 a month in child benefits. This is an increase of over 150 per cent in the money that these families have available for their children each month.

Besides these increases in money flowing directly to low-income families, the other important change is that these benefits are not tied to social assistance but are available to all low-income families. Families who leave social assistance for employment do not lose these benefits for their children. By these measures, and others, we have diminished important disincentives to families wanting to leave social assistance to take employment.

Other measures include the introduction of an extended drug card for six months for clients who leave social assistance after gaining employment, improvements to the earnings exemptions so that clients can keep more liquid assets and more of their employment earnings without affecting their benefits, and increased child care allowances.

Since 1997, through our Employment and Career Services Program, we have provided direct employment assistance to approximately 5,000 individuals and families each year. We have targeted specific services to support persons with disabilities. Over $3 million is spent each year for training and education services to improve their employability. We lead the country in the provision of supported employment services for people with developmental disabilities, and we have developed and delivered these in co-operation with community agencies. Another $3.1 million is dedicated to support these clients. This year, I increased this amount by a further $300,000 in response to the demands on the program. Because of this, some 470 clients will be participating in employment in the community this year.

Mr. Speaker, we are in discussions with the federal government to review the Employability Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Agreement under which they contribute funding. We have made it clear to our federal colleagues that these are valuable and successful programs. We need to ensure that the future federal funding reflects the demands placed upon these programs, and we need to ensure that persons with disabilities are integrated fully into the community and the workforce.

Even more important than that, these new initiatives in policies and programs reflect the basic shift in philosophy which links employment supports with income supports. This shift has been reflected in our policies, in our programs, and in our departmental structure. Now the time has come to incorporate those changes into legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the process by which this act came to the House reflects a different process on a modern and progressive attitude. This government adheres to the principles laid down by our Premier: principles of openness, transparency, and accountability. I am proud to say that these principles have guided the development of this legislation.

On January 2, 2002, we announced a review of the Social Assistance Act and released a discussion paper called, Investing in People: New Directions for Social Assistance Legislation. We held fifty sessions Province-wide with community agencies, clients, staff, youth, Strategic Social Plan steering committees, and other government departments. We held focus groups with social assistance clients and seventy-five community organizations. We received briefs, community group submissions, letters, e-mails and over 1,100 Web site hits. Overall, I have to say that this was a very successful consultation.

This past August, we released the report of a consultation on the Social Assistance Act. This report has been acknowledged as a thorough and fair summary of what we heard. I cannot say that we heard a consensus. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the views presented reflected a wide range of opinions and deeply held beliefs. This is just what we would expect on matters like these.

Without going into all the individual items, I think it is worthwhile to inform the House that four general themes emerged. One: that the income support, the employment, and, of course, career services program, are important and valued by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Two: there is a need and a desire for the provision of income support in a manner that is dignified and less intrusive while supporting those who need help in preparing for, finding and keeping work. Three: there are concerns with the income support rate structure. I acknowledge to the House that while we have made significant strides towards addressing these issues, much more needs to be done in this area as resources permit. Four: that persons with disabilities do not want to be treated in a segregated manner, but want to be a part of the main-stream services with due attention paid to their unique needs and circumstances. That is the background for this legislation and the context in which it is written.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take you through some of the major provisions of the bill in general terms and cover some of the highlights briefly. On page 7, you will read that the number one purpose of this bill is "...to facilitate the provision of income and employment support to eligible persons."

This signals an important shift. For the first time ever in this Province, we enshrine in a progressive manner the link between income support and employment support. Unlike the previous legislation, that focused exclusively upon the provisions of passive social assistance, this act is focused on active measures that support people to further their opportunities. It is about the relationship between the provision of income support to those in need of it and offering programs and services to assist persons, to improve their employability.

Another highlight of this section that I would like to point out is that it explicitly specifies timely support to victims of violence. This should help ensure the safety of those individuals and their children.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that this act opens with a preamble. We thought it was very important to include a preamble to this bill, because this is a piece of legislation that does more than simply enable the provision of government programs. It outlines a social vision for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It enshrines certain ideas and ideals about who we are, what we value, and where we want to go.

Mr. Speaker, without putting too fine a point on it, this bill enshrines Liberal ideals. This preamble recognizes the promotion of self-reliance and the alleviation of poverty are the key and central social public policy goals; that the programs we deliver must be done in a manner that respects the dignity and the privacy of the individual and is equitable, accessible and fiscally responsible; that people may require assistance due to circumstances that are not of their own choosing; that people can benefit from supports and services to help them in preparing for, accessing, and keeping employment; that persons with disabilities face unique barriers to employment that inhibit their full inclusion in the labour market; and that we, as a government, cannot operate in isolation but have to work in partnership with the community and with the federal government.

These six overarching statements are at the heart of the rationale of this legislation and, more than anything else, point to the difference between this bill and the current Social Assistance Act which focused primarily on passive income support measures.

Besides the preamble, this bill also includes basic service principles for the delivery of all our programs. These assure the clients that there are standards and accountability in the way services are provided. Specifically, these service principles assure the client: that access to the service will be achieved in a timely manner and taking into account their unique circumstances; that there will be accountability through regular reviews of this act and of the regulations which flow from it; that there will be transparency in the form of free and public access to all policies and procedures of the department; and that all applicants and recipients will be treated with dignity and respect in accordance with a set of service standards to be developed.

I should note that the inclusion of these service principles strengthen the accountability of my department and its officials to the clients we serve, and to the general public. These principles are ones that my officials have long strived to observe and which will now have the force of law.

All members of this House have been involved with issues related to income support as part of their constituency caseload. I know, before I became minister of this department, I was always impressed with the compassion and the professionalism of the management and front-line staff of Human Resources and Employment. My experience since becoming minister has only reinforced that view. They are to be commended for the good work they do every day in providing assistance to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the acts which is replaced by this bill is a Social Services Appeal Board Act. With the client appeal provision now incorporated in this bill, clients and their advocates will now have to refer to only one legislative source when there is a disagreement over departmental decisions. In addition to the current right to appeal income support decisions, provisions are now made for the appeal of employment support services.

Mr. Speaker, under this act government is required by legislation to include a client or a former client as a member of the appeal board. For the first time, we have clear and definite time frames for the hearing of internal reviews and appeals. Internal reviews must be held within fifteen days, external appeals within thirty days, and all decisions must be rendered within five days of being made.

These are significant and progressive measures. Clients can now be assured that in the future they will be able to appeal both the income and employment services and that their appeals will be handled in an explicit and timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, privacy and confidentiality are always an issue anytime a person gives any personal information to any government or government agency at any level. This government is very sensitive to these issues. This act allows for the collection of information that is necessary to ensure that clients receive the services they require and to ensure that benefits are provided to only those persons who are entitled to receive them, ensuring our capacity under strict conditions for ethical, social research so we can measure the affects of our program. Through this kind of research, we can improve the shape and delivery of our programs for the future. Recipients and persons acting on their behalf will be able to view their personal information and request corrections if there are errors or omissions on their file.

Finally, information that has been gathered for the purpose of determining eligibility cannot be shared with other agencies without the consent of the client. Simply put, all personal information to be given to Human Resources and Employment is protected and kept confidential.

This bill is consistent with the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Through the privacy and confidentiality provisions of this bill, this government is stating, unequivocally, that it intends to protect the personal information of citizens in receipt of income and employment support.

Mr. Speaker, traditionally, in many ways, the social assistance program has been a one-size-fits-all program, concerned primarily with the issuing of regular cheques. With this bill, the Department of Human Resources and Employment will break out of that legislative straightjacket and be able to move into the new areas of support.

A key innovation is that of flexible income support. This provision provides the department with the authority to support a client's employment plan through the flexible use of income support money. Under certain conditions to be specified in regulations we will have greater flexibility to support the client with the resources needed to implement a personal plan aimed at moving to self-reliance. This will only be done at the client's request and only on the production of a realistic and practical plan.

We are talking about providing an advance on income support money that would otherwise be paid out to that client if that client were to remain on income support. For example, we could provide an income support entitlement for a projected period of time. This would allow him or her to cover expenses incurred in securing a job, such as buying some kind of employment-related specialized equipment or tools, accessing short-term training or travelling for employment interviews.

This section is about responding to people's needs in a flexible manner. This is about not restricting people's options. This is about preventing people from being tied to the system, simply because the system is not capable of a flexible response.

Why is this important, Madam Speaker? Because this is a progressive measure which supports the removal of barriers that keep clients trapped in income support. We want to implement a client-driven approach and live up to the principles of self-determination. It is a prime example of linking income support and employment services by focusing available resources on helping clients achieve greater independence.

Madam Speaker, the matter of overpayments and underpayments is a significant part of this legislation. We choose to draft it that way because we want to ensure that we have transparency and accountability right upfront. Under the current Social Assistance Act this information is not spelled out in detail, so the process is not clear and clients are not as informed as they should be.

For underpayments arising from a departmental error, we have introduced a six-year time frame up from the current six months. This is another important and progressive measure to cover the exceptional cases that come up from time to time. If the department determines that a client has been underpaid, under the current legislation the client can only be reimbursed for the shortfall for a maximum period of six months. Under the new act, we can provide compensation going back as far as six years. This is fair and equitable treatment.

Madam Speaker, to properly explain the overpayment section I have to make one thing very clear. The intent and design of income support is that it is a last resort program. That means that after all avenues have been exhausted, there is nowhere else to go, people come to us. That means that we have to be there for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We must be there for the people when immediate help is required.

When a person applies for EI, or Canada Pension, or Workers' Compensation and they are told their claim or application may take six to eight weeks or more to process: Where do they go to feed their family in the meantime, until that cheque comes in? They come to the Department of Human Resources and Employment and we respond. This is the main reason why overpayments are created. While people are waiting for other benefit cheques to arrive, they receive income support and agree to repay us later.

Under these new provisions, by having the collection methods spelled out in the act this government is clearly providing information about the parameters within which government may act to recover funds that is owing to the government. Important reforms in this section include the requirement for the department to notify clients in writing each time an overpayment is established. Including the amount and particulars of that overpayment, the client's right to appeal the creation of an overpayment, what specific recourse measures are available to a person who is subject to a collection act, and the department will be limited to a six-year time frame to calculate overpayments or to commence action to recover overpayments.

Mr. Speaker, the importance and significance of this measure is only apparent when you realize that there are no restrictions under the current Social Assistance Act, no restrictions on how far government can go back to collect overpayments. We believe this is manifestly unfair and we have now taken the action required to correct it.

Mr. Speaker, this bill breaks new ground in the manner in which it mandates regular reviews. In order that this basic law regarding this most important social program remain up to date and current, this bill requires that the government review the provisions of this act, along with the regulations which flow from it, every five years.

During the consultation process one issue we heard about from our clients and their advocates repeatedly is one that most concerns people within the system. That issue is rates. We, as a government and as a department, acknowledge this is an issue. The rates are designed to cover basic needs but because of resource constraints we are hampered from doing so as much as we would like to.

That being said, I need to point out that recent studies of the total income support which includes social assistance, child benefits, GST and HST refund credits across Canada indicates that we are comparable to other provinces, particularly for single parents with children. While working within financial constraints, we have still managed to move forward with a 7 per cent rate increase over a three year period. This has been in addition to introducing the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit in 1999. Besides that, we were the first province not to deduct the National Child Benefit from people receiving income support.

Given the importance of the Income Support Program, government in its annual budget process reviews its ability to revisit the rate structure. This is done as a matter of course.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand in this House today and tell you that in addition to the budget review, government will be now obligated by statute to revisit this issue in a formal review process every three years. For the first time government is going to be held accountable for assessing on a regular basis whether income support rates and the legislation adequately reflect the current and future needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. For years social advocates have urged government to undertake rate reviews on a more formal and open basis rather than just as part of the regular budget process. This is a responsibility that this government is prepared to discharge.

Madam Speaker, this act provides the fundamental framework for a range of essential services to some of the most vulnerable populations in our Province. We believe that we have drafted a bill that is enlightened, visionary, progressive and understanding of the circumstances that contribute to poverty. In recognizing that poverty is the function of lack of opportunity, it is not a personal failing.

This bill is about providing support to those who need it and not about imposing punitive measures. We are confident our initiatives are making a difference. This Province has recorded an annual employment of about $211,000 for 2001 and this level of employment has not been seen since the early 1990s. At the same time, our social assistance numbers show good and positive trends. Income support caseload numbers continue to show a decline in the number of families and children depending on income support.

In 1996, Madam Speaker, 26,000 children in 15,000 families, on an average, were in receipt of income support. In 2002, this number declined sharply to 16,000 children in 10,000 families. This was due in part to the effect of the federal- provincial child benefits. Since 1997 the caseload has declined from a monthly high of 36,660 to a low of 28,031 in October of 2002. The actual number of recipients is declining from a monthly high of over 70,000 in 1997, to 50,700 for October of 2002. This has been a general decline with the numbers dropping over time across all regions of the Province.

More than 50,000 people, men, women, children and families in our Province depend on us, as a department and as a government, to assist them through the income and employment support programs we administer. This is an awesome responsibility, and this is a responsibility we take very seriously. We believe this act represents a sensible, realistic and dignified discharging of that responsibility. This Income and Employment Support Act provides the legislative foundation of this department's mandate. One, the provisions of income support in a stable, dignified and less intrusive manner to eligible individuals and families; and, two, the delivery of a range of programs and services that support individuals in achieving their employment and career aspirations. For the first time, we have legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador which specifies a direct link between income support and employment supports.

Almost twenty-five years ago, in 1997, the current Social Assistance Act was passed through the House of Assembly. In twenty-five years, the shape, look and attitude of the Newfoundlander and Labrador society have changed dramatically. We can no longer automatically talk about men as head of the household. We need to be more sensitive and aware of the reality of domestic violence. We have to recognize that the structure of families has changed; that alleviation of poverty has to be a central, social goal; that poverty is not the fault of the poor, and it is certainly not the fault of poor children; that persons with disabilities want and deserve the supports required to help them into the mainstream of social and economic life; and that all persons are deserving of dignity.

Madam Speaker, I place before the House today a legislation which is leading-edge legislation for the Province and for the country. This is truly enabling social policy legislation; legislation with a focus on helping and playing a positive role in providing supports to those in need.

Madam Speaker, when all is said and done, what greater opportunity can be afforded to all members of this Chamber than the passing of this bill? We believe in the dignity of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that the central core ideal guides and permeates all sections of this act. We believe in the goal of a more inclusive integrated society. We believe that we are obligated to maximize the abilities of each and every citizen of this Province. Finally, Madam Speaker, we believe that these challenges are worthy of this government and every member of this House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I compliment the minister on the fine reading that he just did. It shows that literacy has certainly improved. I want to say to the minister that he did present the intent of the bill very well, and that we intend, on this side, to respond as best we can.

I do want to refer first of all, though, to a comment that the minister made relative to poverty. Just a few days ago, I had a circular come by and it was entitled: More Promises, Yet More Poverty. This was in response to the federal program and, of course, it applies equally to Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, Canada was among one of the six nations that was called together to discuss child poverty almost twelve years ago. At that particular time, the comment was made - and I am quoting from the commitment here made at the UN by Canada - it says, "The growing minds and bodies of children should have a first call on our societies and children should be able to depend upon that commitment in good times and in bad."

Promises made in 1989 in Canada were not kept. They were not kept at all. In fact, in Canada as a whole, the number of poor children between 1989 and 1999 increased by 39 per cent. The number of visits to food banks in those same ten years went up by 90 per cent.

I quote as well from the statement made in the Canadian House of Commons. In 1989 it said, "That this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000." Yet, in the year 2000, the number of poor children in Canada had increased rather than decreased.

Madam Speaker, I say to the minister, just a few days ago - just a very, very few days ago - it was noted in this very House that the percentage of poor children in Newfoundland, which is the highest in the country, had gone up from 25 per cent just a couple of years ago to 26.2 per cent.

I say to the minister that while the speech that he just gave was very well written and very well delivered, I have to say to him as well that there is an awful indictment that we have from our poorest children to us, as legislators, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but in Canada. Promises made to them in 1989 have not been kept. What the children want are not more promises. They do not necessarily even want more legislation. What they want is more action. We need to take the promises made to them each and every time that governments bring down budgets, and governments do that on a regular basis, and make commitments on a regular basis. What the children of Newfoundland and Labrador want is more concrete action.

It is our desire on this side of the House, in saying to the minister today in all sincerity, we believe in the philosophy that this bill contains. We believe there is an approach here that can have satisfactory results, but it will need a commitment. It needs more than words. It needs more than sentences. It needs more than eloquent speeches. It needs action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: All the promises that you make are like sounding glass and tinkling cymbals if you do not put something in place, if you do not make sure that children have the first call on budgets. With the child poverty rate in Newfoundland at 26.2 per cent, the highest in Canada, twice that of Prince Edward Island, we have to say that children's voices and children's needs have not been heard effectively in this Legislature.

Madam Speaker, I also want today to say in my opening comments that this particular piece of legislation aims to overhaul many aspects of the Province's social support network, and it is due to be done. This particular piece of legislation replaces the Social Assistance Act, replaces the Social Services Appeal Board Act, and it replaces the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act with one single act, and I commend the minister and his government for doing that because there is a unity of purpose here. There is a consistency in the needs of all those people who have, before now, been given support under those various acts.

This particular act follows years of a call for an overhaul of the system, and almost a year of extensive consultation with the stakeholders. Madam Speaker, if we look at the results of the consultations that have gone on, we know that in many cases many of the consultations were done by invitation. What I did not see in the consultations was a great deal of ordinary folk, ordinary folk who would say to the minister: Yes, I have a problem.

Just this very day, this morning, I talked to a resident of Labrador, Labrador City in fact, who told me her problem. Forty-five years old and she does not have anywhere to go. She is a single person, she has no job, and she is in very, very great need of help. I say to the minister, out there today there are many people who are listening to what the minister has said and they are saying maybe there is more here than a promise. Maybe there is some hope. Maybe in this season of the Advent we can have some hope coming forward, and that their Christmas this year will be happier and better, and maybe when this all gets in working order we will not have a dramatic increase in children and parents and adults and seniors and students and others going to food banks.

Madam Speaker, we know that in Newfoundland and Labrador many people cannot cope without going to food banks, and they are all not twenty-five and thirty year olds. Some of them are children; some of them are seniors. They depend on food banks to get along. Just the other day I had a call from a lady who said: How much longer will it be before the Salvation Army gives out their Christmas hampers? I was able to tell her when it would happen, the approximate time. My heart went out to this lady who said: You know I have a real problem. My family has to look to the Salvation Army to be able to get some help, to get some food, to get some gifts for my children for Christmas.

While I would say to the minister that there is some good intent here, we will need to see what actions are really taken on the promises made.

Madam Speaker, it is also fundamental, in discussing this bill, that we address the four more fundamental issues such as economic and employment circumstances in this Province that leaves so many people dependent on social support; that leaves so many people dependant on help from the last resort, the Department of Human Resources and Employment; particularly our rural parts of the Province.

When I listen from time to time to the minister talk about all the jobs that have been created in Newfoundland and Labrador, then I know that the employment rate in St. John's and Mount Pearl and this area are pretty good. It is the international average. However, if you go to rural Newfoundland - go to the Burin Peninsula. I was in a community on the Burin Peninsula a few weeks ago in which a person said that there is only three or four people in the whole community that had a job. So, Madam Speaker, we look at rural Newfoundland and what is happening? For the very first time on the Burin Peninsula this year the total number of children attending school is under 4,000. Why is that? Because people have moved out of the area altogether.

I heard the Mayor of Marystown this morning on the radio talking about the desperate need for jobs that is currently being experienced by men and women on the Burin Peninsula. Then we look at the Great Northern Peninsula and we see all the people who have moved out of Newfoundland and Labrador. We see the population has gone down. People have moved because they have to move. They do not move because they have choices. When people move out of Newfoundland and go elsewhere to get a job - often a low paying job, in some cases, in Alberta. They say it is better to be making $10 or $12 an hour in Alberta than to be unemployed on the Bruin Peninsula, or on the Northern Peninsula, or elsewhere. They do not move because they have choices. They move because they have no choices. They move out of absolute desperation.

So, when we look at this particular piece of legislation, we must keep in mind the people who are dependent on the social programs of this Province and of this government. In particular, we have to keep in mind rural Newfoundland.

When I was visiting Bonavista North this summer helping my good friend, the current member there get elected, people in Bonavista North did not talk about the things like Voisey's Bay. As a matter of fact, of all the doors I knocked on in Bonavista North not one single person mentioned Voisey's Bay. What did they talk about? They talked about the fact that their children have to go away. They talked about the fact of the high cost of sending their children to post-secondary schools. They talked about their road conditions. They said, what is going to happen to our communities? That is what was on their minds. They saw their communities as being threatened because there were no jobs.

When we talk about this particular piece of legislation we better keep in mind the fundamentals that keep our communities strong. What keeps our communities strong is jobs, it is employment, it is a future. This government has not done enough to be able to support rural Newfoundland.

We have to look at, as well, looking at this particular piece of legislation, the consequences and the high incidents of child poverty. I suppose it is fair to say that very few people, maybe one or two others - I do not know of any others who talked as much about child poverty in this House as I have. I have introduced private members' resolutions on it. I have asked questions on it, because I happen to believe that if we do not solve the issues of child poverty, that we do not have as good a future in this Province as we should have.

Last year when I asked this House - I said give a commitment to the children of Newfoundland and Labrador that in five years the incidents of child poverty, as a percentage, will be at the Canadian average. I brought in a very simple resolution asking for a commitment, two commitments. One said: Would you please give us a commitment that the incident of child poverty in five years will be at the Canadian average?

We did not ask for it to be like Prince Edward Island, 13.3 per cent. It is at 26.2 per cent now. We did not ask them to bring it down that far. We said the Canadian average is about 18 per cent. Make a commitment to our children that the child poverty rate will be down to the Canadian average and do it over five years. What did this government do? What did they do last year when I brought forward that particular private member's resolution? They amended it to say something along the wishy-washy terms of, like: Well, we will do the best we can. In other words, this government was saying on that day that children's issues do not really have a high priority for them. They would not put their promises into any kind of commitment.

The second part of that resolution I brought in last year asked this government if they would commit money in last year's budget to implement a comprehensive program - develop it, bring it in - that would look at the issues of child poverty. This government over here would not go along with it. Two very simple things that would have said: Don't make children promises if you don't intend to do something about it.

Madam Speaker, I am interested in this particular bill. I think the philosophy is right. It is a step in the right direction. It is what the stakeholders are saying to this government. However, it is no good. It is no good if we do not follow through.

When we look at child poverty - I will be doing a further commentary on that a little later on in terms of what it means - in terms of illness and health costs. Because research will show that if you invest in children, you save in health costs. You will save sometimes in terms of educational costs, because there is a direct relationship between increases in health costs and poverty.

Just the other day I listened to a report - I believe it was on CBC - and it talked about the relationship between health and poverty. It is part of the big picture that CBC had been putting forward leading up to the Romanow Report. They were talking about the connection between health and poverty. We also want to note here that there is a direct connection, and it does affect children. It does affect people of all ages. Poor people are not as healthy as middle class or wealthy people. That is well researched. I will have more comments on that a little later on as well.

We also want to talk about today - we should remember, all of these promises are not going to be very helpful unless the federal government changes the way it allocates money to the provinces. We have to look at the inadequacy of federal funding under the federal health and transfer program, the CHST. Now, we know that the federal government wants its program to be population based. We also know that many in this Province have had to do without because the Liberal Government of Ottawa, when it came into office in the early 1990s, changed the whole structure. Former Premier Tobin stood in his place in Ottawa and was counted among those who would change the whole structure of transfer payments from being needs based to being population based, and in Newfoundland and Labrador that has hurt us a lot. That has hurt us terribly. We now have the current Premier saying, that was wrong. Well, you have to look at the millions, and hundreds of millions of dollars, that we have lost in this Province because of that one change.

The federal government owes Newfoundland and Labrador a better deal, and they owe a better deal to our children. They owe a better deal to us because we cannot, in this Province, continue to accept the fact that transfer payments are not made on the basis of need. With our great population disbursed over 300 communities and over 6,000 miles of coastline from Cape Chidley right down to the southern tip of the Burin Peninsula or the Avalon Peninsula, and all that that means in terms of services.

We have to have the federal government saying need has to be the predominant feature in determining how much money is needed in Newfoundland and Labrador. It cannot be population based, if we do we might as well remember that in Newfoundland - St. John's and Mount Pearl will do well to some extent because it is population based; everything is population based. They would do better, as would some other larger communities. But, if you are looking at other parts of rural Newfoundland, we know that parts of rural Newfoundland do not have the means to be able to support their needs in terms of the infrastructure they need, in terms of the health care they need. So we have to make sure - if it does not work in Newfoundland and in our provincial system, it will not work nationally either.

Before we finish with this bill we will have to call upon the federal government to come to the table with new funding which addresses the inadequacy. Go back and say to them: What you did Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, what you did to Newfoundland and Labrador - when you changed the formula - has hurt our children. It has hurt our health care; it has hurt our educational system; it has hurt the programs that our people depend on in this Province to live a decent life and to offer decent and realistic opportunities to our children.

Now, Madam Speaker -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: The Chair is reminded of the fact that, as critic, I have one hour, and while I might not take all of that hour, I still have, I think, forty minutes left.

MADAM SPEAKER: Continue.

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

I am near the beginning of my introduction, so I shall proceed on because the children of Newfoundland and Labrador want their voices heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Speaker, this bill represents a shift from passive income support to a two-pronged approach: income support on the one hand, and employment support that leads people in the workforce on the other hand.

Madam Speaker, we, certainly, on this side - it is not a new concept. This is not a new concept, not at all. As a matter of fact, back in the Wells' government, the time of Premier Wells, there was a basic income support or income supplementation program approach that was brought forward to this House, and some members here, like my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, he will remember it well. In fact, it was a concept brought forward to encourage people to work by guaranteeing a basic income and providing progressive incentives to replace income support with earned income.

Now, our party criticized that approach. We criticized that approach, at the time, as the lowest common denominator approach that actually cut the income that some people would earn; an approach that our party believed was grounded in the false notion that there were employment opportunities in rural areas that people were avoiding. In other words, all I am saying to the minister is, we have to be very careful. We support this particular approach he is coming forward with right now. It is a little change from the approach brought forward by Premier Wells and his government. In fact, the change is sufficient that we believe it is now more acceptable. We are saying to the minister today that we believed, at that time, with the Wells approach, that it was based on -

MR. FITZGERALD: Family income.

MR. H. HODDER: - a family income approach, as my colleague from Bonavista South reminds me.

I say that also was based on the fact that there was an underbelly that said there were jobs out there that people were not taking. We certainly felt that particular approach was not the right way to go. In other words, we fundamentally believe that people in Newfoundland and Labrador will take jobs if they are available, if they are meaningful jobs. There are people out there who will take jobs that are minimum wage.

I can tell you that one of the most memorable moments that occurred in my whole political career, which goes back over three decades, happened in the 1999 campaign. I knocked on a door and the lady came out and said: Harvey, can you tell me if there is going to be an increase in the minimum wage? I said: Yes, our party philosophy and our party book says there will be an increase in the minimum wage. That is a commitment that we have made. She said: That's good. Does the other party believe in that? I said: Well, you will have to ask them.

However, that is not the point I want to make. She said to me: I have been working for thirty-eight years and I have never earned more than the minimum wage. Here was a lady now standing in her front porch in Mount Pearl, in my district, and she said: I have never made more money than the minimum wage has been able to guarantee me, and I have been working for thirty-eight years.

Madam Speaker, these are moments that make a political person think. So, when you think about minimum wages, it is not that people in Newfoundland and Labrador will not work for the minimum wage; in some cases, regrettably, the minimum wage is not sufficient to bring them above the poverty line. As a matter of fact, later on I will have more comments on that as well, about what the minimum wages means in terms of letting people live at the poverty line for a family. The minimum wage in Newfoundland will not get you near to the poverty line.

However, I do agree - and I say to the government, yes, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador appreciate the fact that they have brought forward a program of incremental increases to the minimum wage. As the member, my good colleague from Humber Valley, just said: And you will starve to death on the minimum wage because you will be so far below the poverty line. Our minimum wage is not the highest in Canada. I believe British Columbia is the highest in Canada right now. Certainly, there has been some progression made, and I say to the government, yes, it is a step in the right direction.

My good friend, the former Member for Conception Bay South, Bob French - how often did Bob French bring forward that comment in our caucus, about the minimum wage. I cannot address it here without reflecting on the fact that he was the leading advocate in our caucus for that particular matter. More and more often he would bring it forward. In fact, it is an issue that he brought up on many, many occasions.

Madam Speaker, having said that, as we rejig the whole income support system, as we restructure it and we restructure the whole income network, we are not going to solve the fundamental problems in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That being said, the system does need an overhaul. Madam Speaker, our economy is a seasonal economy. It is an economy with very little diversification. It is compounded by matters of geography, infrastructure and demographics. However, we can and should be doing better.

I want to mention as well here, we can do all the rejigging, all the restructuring, all the re-balancing, but it makes little difference if everyone remains far below the poverty line. Therefore, we have to say to the government: what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want are new opportunities, not just shifting around the chairs a little bit.

The other thing I wanted to make a point of is the fact that many of the rules of the current system are laid out in regulations, and these will be repealed. I just happened today to say to myself: Maybe I should bring down to the House the volumes it takes - all of the regulations. This particular act will have thirty sets of regulations; thirty - 30 - sets of regulations. That is what it will take to put this act into force. We have not seen these regulations. We do not know what they contain. So I say, Madam Speaker, when this act is proclaimed, we know the practice in this House is, that civil servants will then go out and they will make the necessary regulations. If you have thirty sets of regulations, thirty categories - there can be more regulations than that, obviously - but if you have thirty categories of regulations as contained in the latter part of the bill, I say to the minister, the devil is in the detail and we have no substantive details.

Let me just illustrate to all hon. members the volumes it takes. I am holding in my hands the two huge volumes. These are the regulations that govern the current income assistance approach. How can the ordinary citizen ever, ever, ever hope to be able to understand this massive amount of regulations? Yet, that is what it takes. The current act, these are the regulations that govern the income support policy and procedural manual for the Department of Human Resources and Employment. How can the ordinary citizen ever, ever, ever expect to understand all of these regulations?

Now we know that when the current act is passed there will be thirty categories of regulations. It would be appropriate if we were to say to the minister: Can you give us some idea as to what the changes will be in these regulations? Some of them he has already outlined. However, we want to say to the minister: Try to streamline things a little bit. Try to make your regulations as user-friendly as you can.

We know there are some bureaucratic things that need to be put into regulations, but make them as user-friendly and understandable to the ordinary citizen as possible. Try to make sure that we do not end up with volumes and volumes that are necessary to implement an assistance program in this Province.

Madam Speaker, there are some other things that I want to mention today in my commentary before I do a clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. I want to get back to some other things that are of special interest to me. You will note that when I began I started talking about child poverty, and I do not want to go into great detail, but I do want to note the connection between poverty and health. I mentioned it earlier.

I am reading from a National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, reported in STAGES. It is called the Newfoundland Centre for Health Information study. Let me quote what that study said. It said, "Poverty is a major determinant of health and well-being... adequate income and a healthy start in life have a long-term impact on the health status of children... low income children are more than twice as likely to have low levels of vision, hearing, speech, mobility, dexterity, cognition and emotion. They are less likely to visit the dentist and more likely to be exposed to environmental contaminants."

Madam Speaker, we know that health, education and poverty go hand in hand. We know that poverty is a major determinant of health and well-being. So when we are looking at our budgets, you have to look at what we can do to be more proactive. How can we have an intervention program that looks at the health of children before they get to school? Before they get to school, we should be concerned about what is happening to our youngest children. We have to be more proactive. When we talk about health, we have to look at lifestyle. We know, as well, that there is a real issue that says that when children from average income families and children from more wealthy income families come to school they are better prepared than those from families where it has always been a struggle to put food on the table.

So this particular study, the Newfoundland Centre for Health Information, does draw the connection. For most low-income families making budgets fit is like balancing a house of cards. One flat tire, one special-diet child, one rent increase, one more stress on the family and the whole thing falls apart. That is the reality that many families face all the time. It does not take much in a low-income family to make the consequences the detrimental effect on the entire family and all the members in that household. One lost paycheque does not mean a great deal to most families if they are middle income or better, but to a poor family it could mean a great time of stress and it could mean the difference between being able to cope this particular month with not being able to pay your rent or to pay other things.

A few years ago, Madam Speaker, Dr. Patricia Canning did a study on children called Special Matters. That particular study, like many other studies that has been done on children in this Province, was done in good faith. People put forward their submissions to the William's Royal Commission, they put forward their submissions to the Children's Interest Committee, they put forward their submissions to the Dr. Patricia Canning study on special needs children, and, sadly, the issues raised were not seen in promises kept by this government.

I refer to chapter 3 of Patricia Canning's report on Special Matters. It is called Poverty and Education. Let me quote from some of the commentary. On page 35 of her report, I quote, "Low socio-economic status is strongly and consistently associated with poor academic performance and, in turn, students who perform poorly in school, many of whom will eventually drop out, will have difficulty changing their economic status and that of their children."

Madam Speaker, what we are saying is that poverty is not only a burden in the immediate future of a child, it is a millstone around their necks for all their lives. You know, I always admire a family who can be raised in less than desirable circumstances and they go forward and they do well in life. There are many families like that and I want to compliment those moms and dads, those moms and dads who make tremendous sacrifices to make sure their children have a chance. I could tell you names. I grew up in an average family on the Burin Peninsula. I did not have everything, however, my father was never ever unemployed. If he did not have a job, he went out and he made a job because he was able to do that. So, I was fortunate, I never knew what it was like to be hungry, never knew what it was like not to have a sufficient amount of clothing, and all of those things required in an ordinary outport household. However, I was surrounded by family people for whom that was not the case.

I will tell a true story, absolutely true, about being in Kindergarten in 1949. I started Kindergarten in March of 1949. In that year, in September, there were nine of us who begin the primers as we would call them then. Unfortunately, by the time I got in Grade 9, I was the only student. By Grade 9, all other children had dropped out. I was the only student in Grade 10, the only student in the entire school. Why did I get forward in life? It was a compliment to my parents. It was a compliment to my mother, in particular, who said you had to go to school and you had to do well. I nearly followed in the footsteps of an older brother and sister. When I was going through my Grade 11 year, I never, ever decided whether I would go to university. My mother put a paper in front of me and she said, sign this, and I signed it. I said: What is that? She said: That is your application for Memorial. I never made the decision. So, I compliment today the moms and dads out there who place their children's interests as a top priority.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) an application for the university and (inaudible) said, sign that.

MR. H. HODDER: I see the Minister of Education making some comment about the way in which I got my application ready to go to university. That is exactly what happened. The decision was made and I was sent off, as you might say.

I want to say in my commentary here, as well, that I want to compliment the people of this Province who live on low income who do really well. My comment about child poverty is not, in any way, to take away from their love and their determination to do well, and what they feel is best for their children. Very often they just do not have the means to be able to do the things that need to be done.

I refer, as well, to studies done in the 1970s, in the 1980s and in the 1990s, contained in Dr. Canning's report. Clearly, it shows that schooling does not provide the same experiences for poor and middle-class children. So we have to keep in mind, that in this Province there is a connection between poverty, illiteracy and educational achievement. As a matter of fact, the second part of Dr. Canning's Chapter 3 deals with poverty. So, I refer all members to have a look at that particular chapter; revisit it.

Further on in the same chapter there is a section called The Effects of Poverty on Children and Youth. I want to read a little bit of this particular section because it tells us where our priorities should be. It is on page 40 of the Canning report. It says, "What is it about being from a low-income family that places many children at such disadvantage in school? Hunger, inadequate nutrition, poorer health, poor housing, higher levels of stress and lower expectations for the future are all factors connected to both poverty and lower educational achievement. Children from such families are more likely to have parents with low educational levels who are unable to either help or motivate their children to achieve in school. Parents with little personal history of success in the school system and who have not themselves benefited from the results of a good education may feel alienated from the education system." It goes on to say, Madam Speaker, that there is a linkage between poverty and education.

I call upon the minister and his government to try to find more effective ways to give our young children a better chance, because let us keep in mind that there were 160,000 children in the school system in 1971 and there were around 30,000 children in the school system who were living in poverty.

Unfortunately, the population has gone down. The number has only decreased a little tiny bit. As a matter of fact, four or five years ago, compared to the stats today, I think the minister said the other day that we have had a decrease of about 1,000 children; 1,000 children less. Of course, keep in mind that we have fewer children going to school, and while that number has come down from 130,000 to 90,000, the number of poor children has not decreased correspondingly. Therefore, the percentage will go up a little bit to the actual raw number. Today, there has been a slight decrease in the actual raw data but the percentage has gone up. Also, I say to the minister, the percentage has gone up because what has happened is that, as the total population of the school system becomes less and less, the number of poor children has not correspondingly become less and less as well. Poor children are not doing as well in the school system.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer as well today to a stat that is very topical and it talks about the Canadian Welfare Incomes as a Percentage of the Poverty Line by Family Type and Province. I am sure the minister has that stat in front of him. It is from the Canadian Council on Social Development. What it says is, when you are doing comparisons - for example, it says that a single welfare recipient in Newfoundland who was deemed to be employable would have received $3,276 in welfare benefits for the year. The poverty line for a single welfare recipient is $16,167. This means that a Newfoundland and Labrador single employable welfare recipient's income is only one-fifth, or 20 per cent, of the poverty line.

Let's see how our single parent with one child, or a couple with two children, would make out. It is deemed, for example, in Newfoundland, that the total income - if you are living on social assistance - for a single parent with one child is $14,670. The poverty line for that family is $20,209. That is 73 per cent; in other words, 73 per cent of the money needed for them to be at the poverty line. That family would be 27 per cent below the poverty line. In other words, they would need an increase of 27 per cent more in terms of income to even be at the poverty line established by the Canadian standards.

A couple with two children, their income in Newfoundland from the social assistance programs would be $17,474. The Canadian studies say that they would need, in Newfoundland, $30,424 to be at the poverty line. That is 57 per cent of what they need. When we have the rates set out by the department - I know their commitment to some increase - we have to remind the minister that if we are going to bring our Newfoundland children at or above the poverty line we have to be a little more generous, particularly with couples with two children where the income they would get in Newfoundland is only 57 per cent of what it would take to bring them to the poverty line established by Canadian standards.

The rates are here for all other provinces. I do say to the minister that on this single parent, one child, we are competitive with the rates in other provinces. On the couple with two children, we certainly are not the highest but we are not the worst either.

I say to the minister, one other factor that affects all of this particular dialogue is the issue of housing. I made a comment the other day about housing to one of my colleagues and he said to me: You know, the real problem is that this government has not taken effective action.

In November of 2001,the federal government promised to spend $680 million over five years on affordable housing, and provinces and territories agreed to match the federal dollars; however, the implementation of the agreement has not led to the desired outcomes. Most provinces are not paying their matching share for the program, and the definition of affordable housing means that units remain out of reach for those who need them most.

I am happy to say that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs made a comment the other day that they are near to signing a new document, a new agreement with the federal government. It has taken a long time. Certainly, the comments made a few days ago on one of the news stories indicated that this Province is lagging behind. So stable, affordable housing is essential to supporting sustainable, inclusive communities to ensure the health and well-being of children. However, in a time when provincial budgets are dwindling, when the federal government is fairly reticent on sharing its surplus with the provinces, and they can boast about having balanced budgets - they can have a $30 billion surplus - at whose expense?

We have to say that if the federal government has surplus money, we in Newfoundland and Labrador need it. We need it to bring us out of the cycle of dependency. Our people have great and overpowering needs. Certainly, when we talk about issues like child poverty, there can be no greater commitment. There can be no greater commitment the federal government should have than a commitment to the young children of all provinces but in particular provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the minister, that there are certainly some things we would like to have discussed. I say to the minister, as well, that in looking at his bill, this particular bill has certain desirable features to it. I would like to bring to his attention - I know he has the bill in front of him. I appreciate the fact that he is paying attention to the commentaries that I am making. If I could just mention to him a couple of suggestions and a couple of comments we would like to make.

I like the fact that the bill starts off with a preamble that sets out the philosophy. I say to the minister, that is a new approach. I like that, because it sets out the parameters of the philosophy that this bill is based on.

I would like to add in the fourth WHEREAS - it reads now as, "AND WHEREAS people may benefit from a variety of supports and services to help develop the skills and abilities necessary to prepare for, access and keep employment." When I was reading that it said, there is also a group in Newfoundland and Labrador - we should add in the word and "create" employment, because I happen to believe that many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very creative. We should reward those people who can create their own jobs. So it should read here, people may benefit from a variety of supports and services to help develop the skills and abilities necessary to prepare for, access, create and keep employment. We should be offering incentives to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to create their own jobs.

For many people who are on income support we should have a program that says, we are going to help you create your own job, not just access the ones that are there, but have a program that says: Yes, if you want to have help to create your own jobs. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very creative. Many of them have made their own jobs for hundreds of years. That creativity, I think, should be reflected in the approach that is contained in the WHEREASES part of the act.

I want to mention, as well, section 3 on page 7. It talks about the purpose of the act. It says, "The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the provision of income and employment support to eligible persons."

Section 3.(2) (c) says, "provide supplementary financial assistance to eligible families in accordance with inter-governmental funding arrangements." That was of note to me, I say to the minister, because it causes me concern. Does that mean, inter-governmental - I am interpreting that to be primarily federal-provincial. What that says to me is that this particular implementation program may be contingent on inter-governmental funding arrangements. That minister, I am not sure if that is the message he wants to send today, that they put forward an act that is all wonderful, but if we don't get the funding arrangements from the federal government they are not going to implement it. When he gets a chance to comment later on in this debate - I am sure at the clause-by-clause analysis he might want to refer to that.

I want to refer as well to clause 4, page 8 and at the top of page 9, in my notes. It says, "The following principles apply to the delivery of income and employment support programs and services: (a) access to those programs and services shall be provided in a timely manner with appropriate consideration of an applicant's unique circumstances and needs, as departmental resources, including budgetary appropriations, permit." It follows from my last comment. In other words, needs - I am saying to the minister - should be the determining factor, not the budget.

We cannot say to the federal government that we are going to ask them to have a needs-based approach. Yet, in our very act we are saying that it is going to be a departmental resources, including budgetary appropriations permit. Need should be the determining factor, not departmental budgets and appropriations. In other words, this might be all fine but somebody has to make sure the money is allocated to it, to make it happen. We have included in the act here what appears to me, to be an opting out clause. In other words, if we do not get the money we will not have the program.

I also want to note here clause 9 - I am told by the Clerk that my time is running out. I want to refer the minister to clause 9.(2). It provides for programs and pilot projects. I like that section. It says, "In providing programs under subsection (1), the minister may provide for pilot projects, demonstration projects and innovations in income and employment support programs and services in all or part of the province."

I like the idea that you are going to do something some pilots. In that connection, I want to refer the minister to a pilot that has been working quite well in British Columbia. It is called A New Way to Work: The Best Way to Hire. I have had some consultations with this particular group and the partnership proposal they put forward. In that province - as the minister knows, because I know he has been briefed on that matter, and so have I. I want to say to him, a firm called Job Wave BC, what they have done is assisted income assistance individuals and placed them in long-term jobs. This is very creative. We don't have time to get into all the details, but I say to the minister, there is certainly room for pilots in this Province. If we can get some partnership with private industry and with businesses, to partnership with the government to make job placement growth a reality in Newfoundland and Labrador, then we should. I am not saying that this particular program is the only thing that we should do, but certainly one of the things the minister should consider.

In this particular case the B.C. government had bought into it. Since they bought into it - at a time when that particular administration was New Democratic Party government. They bought into a partnership with private industry to create jobs in British Columbia; very, very successful, working with the Chambers of Commerce. In Newfoundland and Labrador, if we, as a Province, can develop partnerships that say: Well, you go out there - and how they are paid, I should say, they are paid on the basis of the money they saved the province. That is how they are paid. Therefore, they say we will find a job. Someone comes off social assistance -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: May I have half a minute to finish up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

Just to finish up and say to the government opposite, that they certainly have a lot on their mandate. In British Columbia this particular pilot - the business is compensated only if it works and only if they save the government money. They get a percentage of the money saved to the system. It is a good initiative. I commend it to the minister and to the government.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, during the rest of the debate my colleagues here will be putting forward their comments and I am certain during the clause by clause analysis we will be able to offer a few suggestions.

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!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to hon. members opposite, I would not dare attempt to try to beat that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: It is not within me to try to inflict on this hon. House or the people of this Province a repeat of what we just heard for the last hour. No disrespect to the hon. member opposite. Obviously, he has made a lot of points in what he has brought forward. He has availed of the time that has been made available to him and has carried out his function as the critic for this particular area.

Mr. Speaker, as the previous speakers have pointed out, there is no doubt that this is an important piece of legislation and I cannot help but -

MR. H. HODDER: I support it.

MR. SMITH: The hon. member says he supports it. I listened for an hour and he waits until he sits down before he says he supports it. He forgot to say it at the end of his remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were not listening.

MR. SMITH: I have to say, there were times when I got caught up and did get distracted; I have to admit. It was very difficult to sit here riveted to every word for the last hour and five minutes, I have to admit to that. I noticed there were hon. members right throughout this House who were having the same difficulties that I did.

Mr. Speaker, to the issue, generally. One of the things that I cannot help but reflect on, in listening to remarks here today, is that when I first came into politics in 1993, as with a lot of hon. members, one of the areas I needed to get involved in on a fairly regular basis was with regard to people who needed to avail of social assistance. A lot of us in this House has had that experience there. In the early years I spent a lot of time working directly with clients, especially through the appeal process. I guess by doing that I developed, first of all, an appreciation for the program, an appreciation for the people who avail of the program, and also an appreciation and respect for those people who were involved in the delivery of the program and services.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we are doing here now with this piece of legislation that is before the House is to update a piece of legislation that has served its time. It has served the Province well. It has served us through a period of time. For those people who needed to avail of it, it has ensured that these supports have been there for them.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of things have changed in the last number of years: the Province itself, the way things function, the terms of programs, just the demographics alone. We constantly hear in this House reference to the fact that we actually had a decline in population in the last number of years, that our population is aging, that our demographics as they relate to population are somewhat unique in this country, that in a lot of areas we have populations that are much younger. Whereas in this Province right now we are looking at an aging population and all of the difficulties and challenges that that brings with it.

I had occasion to be minister of the department when we started the review for this piece of legislation. There was a lot of work that went into the preparations. The consultation document that was produced and subsequently circulated throughout the Province, the consultations which took place, the number of public meetings that were held, and consultations with various groups, it was certainly comprehensive. As a result of the comprehensive consultations that were undertaken, the piece of legislation that we have before us today was, in fact, the result. I think this is an important piece that we need to be aware of and need to focus on.

Despite the particulars of this legislation - and we will, over the next number of days as this piece of legislation progresses through the House, as it passes through committee where we do the clause by clause analysis, we will have the opportunity to dissect and look at every piece that is there. The one thing we always have to be mindful of, that what we see written on the papers - this bill that is before the House is a reflection of what was heard from the people of this Province as we travelled throughout the Province seeking input from the various advocacy groups, but more importantly - and there was some reference from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley suggesting that ordinary folk, as he referred to them, were not heard from. Well, Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. As a matter of fact, in the consultation process a very specific reference was made to and an effort made to make sure it involved people who were actually social assistance clients to make sure that they had the opportunity to have input into the process, because a lot of the decisions that were being made were going to directly have an affect on these people. It was felt prudent and wise that, in fact, they should be involved and should be given an important part in helping determine what the future legislation and what the new program being developed would look like.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I find encouraging as well, in terms of the legislation and the process that was followed, like with a lot of things that we are doing within government these days, since we embarked on the Strategic Social Plan some time ago, always, when we are moving forward, whether with a new piece of legislation or whether it is with just trying to determine the strategy to deal with a specific problem, the emphasis is on collaboration, on co-operation, on partnerships, on trying to build, within the community, support for what we are doing, and not just the idea that government or people within government go out and presume that they have all the answers. Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The perception now and the philosophy that is followed is that we recognize and accept and acknowledge that collectively we can do a better job than any one group or any one individual operating in isolation, and on the basis and under the principles of the SSP, the process that was followed in the development of this piece of legislation was strictly adhered to. First of all, in terms of the consultation, that there was a wide consultation. People had an opportunity to have input into the process, and, Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, when the legislation itself was in draft form, the opportunity was provided to the Premier's Council to have an opportunity to see this draft and to have that input even in the final stages, and my understanding is that the bill that we have before the House today does reflect changes that were brought forward or implemented as a result of suggestions that were made at that stage of the process.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this was a good piece of work, and I commend the minister and I commend the officials from the department who have worked diligently in seeing this through. This is something that we needed to do. We know some time ago the focus and approach of the department changed away from the old Department of Social Services to the department dealing with employment. Once employment became a part of the mandate of that department, then a lot of things needed to change, and certainly over the course of the last couple of years since the change was made, anyone working within the department, if you were talk to them, could certainly relate to you some of the major changes that have taken place.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, having spent some time there, I can certainly speak to the kind of commitment, to the kind of vision, that there is to move that department forward and to make it supportive of the kind of mandate that it now has, and under this piece of legislation certainly the people who work within the department will be able to deal in a better fashion, and a more effective way, with the challenges that are there.

Mr. Speaker, I know in my own district, in terms of the employment side, one of the many challenges that we have is in trying to provide employment opportunities for people who are seriously seeking employment. Beyond that, I think one of the things that this piece of legislation does, that I think we need to be aware of, is far too often within the general public and within the community, and certainly within the media from time to time, we see people who reference the people in this Province whose circumstances are such that they need, from time to time, to be in receipt of income support. The kind of attitude that some people have with regard to this, the kind of way that they look down on people who find themselves in this situation, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, having dealt with a lot of these people over the years, I have a great deal of respect for people who find themselves in this circumstance. I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that anyone who thinks that a person or a family in this Province who finds themselves in the circumstance that they have to be receiving income support in order to get by, who think that they have it made, then I would challenge them to change positions with those individuals and those families for one day. I can tell you, it would be a real revelation. It has never failed to be impressed upon me, any time I have dealt with these individuals or families, I do not understand how they do it.

I have been in the homes and I have talked to parents. Even before I got into politics, Mr. Speaker, as a school principal, I remember in the early days of being a principal, the school that I was principal of, when I took over one of the things that I was told was we have a major problem with absenteeism here. As a young principal, determined to get out and make a mark, I said, this is an area that I am going to focus on. We had families, in some cases, where four or five children would not show up for school. I would get in my car, go to the homes and find out where they were. After a couple of trips, it became pretty apparent that some of the homes that I visited, the parents that day had more serious problems and more serious concerns than trying to ensure that their children were in school. It was a revelation to me.

One of the things that this piece of legislation certainly does speak to, and tries to deal with, in terms of placing it out there and placing it in context so that the people of the Province generally understand that what we are trying to do here, especially on the income support side, is to try and make sure that we do have in place the supports to assist families and individuals who find themselves in a circumstance where they are no longer able to make it on their own, that they do need assistance from us.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one - and I do not think anyone in this House should apologize that we, as a society, take it upon ourselves to accept responsibility for looking after those who are less fortunate. We have heard speakers here today reference the fact of children living in poverty. No one takes great pride in the fact that there is one child in this Province, or in this country, who lives in poverty. No one takes great pride in that situation, but the best that we can hope to do is to continue to move forward. Certainly, on a day-to-day basis, it is a battle that will be engaged and hopefully some day we will eradicate it completely, but it is not going to happen overnight. It will be won, one battle at a time.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that there have been a number of initiatives that have been embarked on in recent years that have assisted there. Certainly, the child benefit that we have heard referenced here today is an important piece of work and it is certainly going directly towards dealing with that particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this piece of legislation. On the employment side, as I have said, I think of many of the initiatives that the department has already engaged in, many of the programs that they have there. I know a lot of hon. members on both sides of the House have had occasion to work directly with these programs, have worked very, very well in terms of assisting people who are trying to get themselves back into the workforce. Many of these have met with a great deal of success. Some of them are earmarked towards very specific groups and some of them are more general in nature, but for all of them, they do have merit and all of them have had some success.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that in the time I was with the department, if there is one program that gave me more joy than anything else, I think, was the Supported Employment. I remember being down in Labrador, down in the hon. member's area, and attending an annual meeting of the group down there. We had representatives from the company who came to the meeting and spoke about the value of these people as employees. It was absolutely tremendous, and it was so moving. I felt so moved by it because very often we hear people talk about programs like Supported Employment, that we assist people with disabilities, try to integrate them within the community from the point of view of allowing them to live as normal a life as possible but beyond that, to see that, given a chance, a lot of these people can really make a difference. They can really make a contribution. I seen it in Labrador; I seen it in Corner Brook; I seen it here in St. John's where I attended meetings and heard from employers who spoke glowingly about what a tremendous contribution these employees have made;, how delighted they were to have them as part of their staff. Not only were they good workers but they also had a tremendous influence on their fellow workers. In that sense, I think - how do you measure, Mr. Speaker, the value of a program like that?

These are the kinds of initiatives that we have to build on. These are the kinds of forward thinking initiatives that this legislation has grown from. These are the kinds of things that have happened in this Province in the last number of years that this legislation seeks to build on and, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it is an important piece of legislation. It is something that needs to happen because we have reached the stage where there is time to update, where there is time to change.

I certainly am fully supportive of it and I recommend it to all the members of this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to speak to a few of the sections in this proposed legislation. I will start with section 14. This one deals with eligibility for income and employment support. Things that are missing from this legislation - and obviously we do not have the regulations into the legislation but it is an enabling piece of legislation. I still have some questions about where we are going in terms of what is hidden. Is the devil in the details or hidden in the non-availability of the regulations at this time?

It appears that employment support will not be forced on a client. Indeed, it may not be available to a client for various reasons. There does not appear to be any linkage between collecting income support and a requirement to be assessed for employment.

Section 17; Application for income or employment support. All the provisions of this clause defer once again to the regulations that have not yet been defined. The expression, "by the regulations" is actually used six times in this section alone. "An application for income or employment support...". All the provisions of this clause defer to the regulations.

Duties of officers; all the provisions of this clause defer to regulations that have not been defined as well. The officers will clearly be the client servants officers and employment officers. It is not clear how much leeway they will actually have in making decisions, since officers will have the option to provide income support or employment support. That will depend on the employers.

What supports will be in place? Note that in 18.(3) there is an interesting addition to the legislation, in that it empowers the minister to "designate an officer to assist a person to obtain child or spousal support...". How the support is granted is under section 19. The wording of this clause suggests a hands-on approach by the minister in determining how support is provided and heavy reliance by the officer on the minister's approval. Basically, what we are giving the minister is the minister of the department, but will this be individualized? Will it be generalized? We are not sure of what will happen because there is heavy reliance on the officer on the minister's approval. How will it work in practice? In the absence of regulations, it is really impossible for us to know where this clause, and the other clauses that I have just mentioned, are leading.

Is it possible that in 19.(1), in the context of clauses 17 and 18, it could be interpreted as allowing an officer and the minister to insist that a person work in order to collect support? The wording of clauses 17 and 18 suggests employment support is optional, but section 19.(1) does use the phrase, "...in a form and manner that an officer, with the approval of the minister, may determine."

Payment to trustee; this is section 20. It will be interesting to see, "...the criteria set out in regulations - for determining - that an applicant or a recipient is temporarily or permanently incapable of managing his or her financial affairs."

I move to section 26, Mr. Speaker, and that is recovery of overpayment. There are many options. "An overpayment may, in addition to any other manner in which it may be recovered, be recovered under subsection 24(3) or (4) and (a) through a restitution agreement under section 27."

There are many options, but will there be provision or leeway to ensure that a client is not harmed? Again, we must await the regulations to see exactly what the government's intent is. These are questions that I pose to the minister, and would like the minister to address when he is closing. Where is the provision in the legislation itself to ensure clients are not unduly harmed by circumstances that may have involved departmental errors of which they were not aware?

In speaking of recovery of overpayment, it reminds me of a couple of years ago when students were given a comfort allowance - well, they are still given a comfort allowance with their student loans, but there was some sort of a bungling within the department or from the department to the schools. It was determined that the students received comfort allowance which they were supposed to pay back to the department and which they were not aware of at the time. That was at this time of the year. Many, many single parents at that time received their cheque in the mail for the amount of zero. All of the overpayment that was made was clawbacked at once. So, the question is: How will the overpayments be paid back? Will it be prohibitive as it was when this error was made? Which was not the fault of the students, by the way. There were some sort of errors between the post-secondary schools and the department; some misinformation, but it wasn't the fault of the students. Well, I went into a lot of single parents' homes, at that time, because these were the people who were eligible and here they were, in the month of December, with a social assistance cheque of zero because they had been overpaid. So, how will the overpayment be taken back?

Section 30; Dispute of garnishment. Again, is there any protection for a person who is subjected to excessive or malicious recovery efforts in marginal circumstances involving small amounts, or where honest repayment efforts are underway, or where impatient recovery efforts could cause undue hardship, destroy a career or, in fact, force somebody to go back on income support?

In section 33, it deals with the exemption from garnishment. Do things have to reach the courts before compassion can enter the picture and allow an exemption from a garnishment? Must the situation be - the section itself says, "On application by a recipient, a judge of the Trial Division may, where satisfied that it would be grossly unfair and inequitable to do otherwise, make an order specifying the amount of money that is exempt from garnishment." So, what is grossly unfair? Will a client have to reach grossly unfair and inequitable before compassion prevails, or will it be the same as it was three years ago, or two year ago, when this comfort allowance was clawbacked all at once? Should there be a provision that the minister and officers under this act shall make reasonable effort not to cause undue disruption to a person's life, career, family, dignity, well-being, self-reliance in undertaking recovery efforts? Otherwise, we would create circumstances where penny-pinching officers ruin the lives of the very people the department - according to the preamble of this act - is trying to restore.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Certificate of judgement. The garnishment applies to -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the minister, who are we talking about overpayment to? Overpayment to whom?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, if you want to, minister.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Madam Speaker, any time we talk about garnishment or certificate of judgement, we are talking about non-clients. That is people who are no longer clients of the department, but through being a client at one time had created an overpayment. Now we have laid it all out in the act so that anybody who now becomes a client, that everything is clear and transparent as to what is going to happen. Garnishment does not apply to clients. The simple reason is that, for clients, we deduct not more than 5 per cent if they have an overpayment so that we do not cause, at any time, any undue hardship.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank the minister for his explanation, but the people you are talking about were previously clients. What I am asking here, in these sections that deal with garnishment, will they be reduced to, as I said, undue hardship, gross unfairness? Will people be reduced to that? People who were former clients and who are now into the workforce, will it be so prohibitive that it will put them back on income support, because it will make life a whole lot easier for them to be back on income support rather than be subjected to the hardship that they could otherwise be put under?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, that is okay. I say to the minister, you can deal with that when you are responding.

In section 34, the certificate of judgement, is this unduly severe? The minister can file a certificate as if it were a judgement of the Trial Division for recovery of an amount. The client's recourse under this clause is to appeal to a judge. The judge will review the decision on a question of law or jurisdiction, following which there is no further appeal. The courts then seek to collect the debt as if it were a Trial Division judgement. To what extent do the courts go in seeking to collect such debts? Again, could we see the courts collecting these debts in circumstances where the department should, instead, have been more flexible and compassionate in setting the repayment terms? Could the department end up ruining the lives, once again, that it is claiming to try to restore in this new act in putting people back to work and then making things so difficult for them that it is easier for them to return to social assistance?

If the department forces a former client back on income support through such actions, might the recovery efforts actually end up costing taxpayers more money in the end? Can the minister indicate why he thinks these severe rules are needed? How much money is owing the system? How many people are refusing to pay anything? How many are having assets attached? What are the projected net savings to the Crown when the cost of the recovery efforts is factored in? How often does the department make overpayment errors on its own?

Can the minister define circumstances in which overpayments are acquired fraudulently? I am asking the minister these questions so that he can address them. Do they often involve cohabitation? How prevalent are they? How many welfare police does the department have? What is the cost of these welfare police? What are the savings? Is it possible that some of these officers are overenthusiastic in their policing and recovery efforts, thinking that a decline in reported incidents of abuse, or a decline in recovery, could put their own jobs in jeopardy by making abuse appear less rampant and the need for policing less prevalent, less pressing? What are the incidents of complaints against the department's policing and recovery efforts? Have many former clients claimed that they have been forced back on social assistance because of harsh recovery efforts?

In this particular paragraph, I address cohabitation. One of the things that I would like to address here again is the fact that if a report comes into the Department of Human Resources and Employment, that a person who is in receipt of social assistance is, in fact, cohabiting and has not reported that, immediately their cheque is cut. They are really judged before they ever have a chance to present their case. Their cheque is cut while they are being assessed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the minister, yes, they can appeal, but the process of getting the appeal set up - I mean, when we are talking about social assistance payments, and we are talking about single people living with non-relatives, that is $140 a month; they can appeal. They do not exactly have enough money on social assistance to accrue any amount of savings that they can delve into while the appeal process is taking place. So basically what is happening, they are being judged guilty, the sentence is imposed upon them, and they can appeal after, but how much hardship do single persons suffer because somebody has reported that they are cohabiting? How much do they go through while they are waiting for the appeal process?

I have suggested in this House numerous times before, when such an action takes place, let them stay on social assistance. Undoubtedly, they will still be on social assistance. If it is deemed that they were living in a fraudulent situation, then you have the overpayment mechanism in place and from then, on a go-forward basis, you can withdraw from their social assistance.

Is the minister concerned that by dedicating so much of this new legislation to offences, penalties and recovery, that he is putting forth the wrong attitude, not trying to help people escape the welfare trap, but focused instead on seeing clients as thieves who are perpetually trying to take advantage of the system?

I would like to deal with the Support Orders Enforcement Act. The minister should explain the dynamic he is creating under the last part of this clause, "...may affect the amount of income support that may be paid to the person under this Act." Is the minister creating a deterrence to subrogation for persons who avail of income support? Should some clients be entitled to both child support and income support?

I would like to address some of the things that are happening out there with - I have had representation from a lot of moms on this instance, and their spouses have been ordered to pay, for instance, $100 a week income support. That is, of course, reported to the Department of Human Resources and Employment. The cheques are then set up on the premise that this spouse is faithful in paying the income support every week, the $100 every week, or every two weeks, or whatever the case is, and whatever the amount is. The cheque for the client is then set up on that premise. In many, many, many instances the spouse does not come forward with the money, the single parent is now there with that much less money than is required to live on, and has to go in and prove to the department that they did not receive their income support and then get a cheque made out. In many instances they do not have their own transportation. They have to make their way to one of the Human Resources and Employment offices somewhere in the city. That is another facet of the act that should be looked into. It should not be assumed that because a spouse has a court order to provide a certain amount of money per week, bi-weekly, or every month to the mother or to the parent who has custody of the children, that is, in fact, being paid. That is the way it is set up in the computer pay section of the department. That, I say to the minister, provides a lot of hardship on the people involved.

Part IV in the act is the Appeal. These clauses set out an internal review process and an independent external appeal board process. The board will include a current or former client as one of its three members whose presence is needed for quorum, and neither member shall work for a government body. The internal review can regard the suspension or cancellation of employment support, but subclause 41.(6) taken with 14.(4) suggests the review cannot order employment support since the minister can argue that funds are not available. That is a bit contradictory there.

The board appears to be similarly limited under 44.(1) (b). Do these clauses leave room for ministerial abuse, not for the present minister but any minister down the road who would be administering this legislation? Does it leave room for favouritism and precipitous disruption of clients new careers? The Social Services Appeal Board will continue to hear these cases before it, until they have been exhausted.

Offence and penalty, and that is section 48 to section 50, the fine is raised from $200 to $1,000, but reference to imprisonment is removed. The limitation period remains at three years. What if a garnishee inadvertently supplies false information about a client or a former client? Would not the second part of section 48(2) make them guilty of an offence? There is no reference to "knowingly" in this subclause. How broadly could that subclause be interpreted?

Part VI deals with Forms and Regulations, and I am dealing with sections 51 and 52. These programs will be defined, to a great extent, through regulations which, again, we have not seen, as changed at the decision of Cabinet. There are thirty categories of regulations under this bill. It would be helpful to see the regulations the government intends to gazette, though it is also important to understand how far this act allows those regulations to be stretched in one direction or another. When large sections of an act are poorly defined such as the eligibility criteria, Cabinet's power is immense. Should the act, itself, contain more restrictions?

Part VII deals with Conflict, Consequential Amendments, Repeal and Commencement. These clauses seem straightforward except for 62 regarding support orders which may require some explanation. I am asking the minister, when he is addressing the House, will he provide some explanation on this.

Clause 64 makes proclamation subject to Cabinet. Presumably, the new regulations will be ready by then. Are they ready now? I ask that to the minister.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

Madam Speaker, the members on the other side of the House seem to be quite anxious to hear what I have to say on this bill, so, hopefully, they will just settle down for a few minutes and they will hear what I have to say on this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation, Bill 23, is a very, very serious bill. It is a very important bill, and why would I say that? Because it directly impacts upon tens of thousands of people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When the minister was on his feet earlier, he quoted some numbers with respect to how many people this impacted. He talked about the number of children that this legislation will impact. I listened very attentively to the minister, and to the other speakers, in particular to the critic, the Member for Humber Valley, or Waterford Valley, who was on his feet for an hour with concerns with respect to this piece of legislation.

MR. E. BYRNE: The next member for Humber Valley was up in the gallery today.

MR. J. BYRNE: People are reminding me here that maybe the next member for Humber Valley was in the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No maybes.

MR. J. BYRNE: No maybes. I will confirm that. I will readdress that and say the next member for Humber Valley was in the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, to get back on track, this is a very important piece of legislation. I wanted to say some words to this because I take it to be very serious.

As I said, the minister was on his feet today. When he introduced this bill he took some time and was quite well prepared today when he was introducing this piece of legislation, and rightly so. Members on this side of the House were very prepared also, Madam Speaker.

Why is this piece of legislation, Bill 23, so important? Because it overhauls many aspects of the Province's social support network. In so doing, it now will be replacing, basically, three acts that are before the House of Assembly or in effect in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today. Madam Speaker, they are, the Social Assistance Act, the Social Services Appeal Board Act and the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act.

As I said earlier, the minister talked about how back in 1997 it affected so many. Those three acts were impacting upon over 70,000 people in 1997. Today, the minister introduced, in this House, a bill to, hopefully, address many of the concerns that were before the minister, before government, in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker.

The minister said, back in 1997 there were some 15,000 families with approximately 26,000 children who were depending upon social assistance. This meant that one in three children, under five years old, were recipients of social assistance. Very serious numbers, Madam Speaker. I wonder does the minister have the numbers with respect to what is applicable today, and how many recipients are receiving monies or some sort of assistance from the Department of Human Resources and Employment? I am sure he may address that. Hopefully, they will go down in numbers.

Another very important point. We hear this often, Madam Speaker, that the devil is in the details. We have some thirty sets of regulations, I say to the minister, that need to be addressed or brought together under this one act, I would think, Madam Speaker. So, I am wondering when those regulations will be put in place. When will they come into effect? Will it be early January or will it be a month, two months, three months down the road? Because the regulations, Madam Speaker, are really where the impact can be measured and what effects this new bill will have on those recipients, those tens of thousands of recipients. I do not know the answer. Hopefully the minister will get up and speak to that when he closes debate sometime down the road.

The minister said, when he was on his feet, that these changes to the Social Services Act and the Rehabilitation Act and the Appeals Act were being called for, for many years. He put a consultation process in place, Madam Speaker, back in January of this year, January, 2002. He said - and this is something I am wondering. I have his statement here and there was a lot of interest in it. There appeared to be a lot of interest. He talked about the internet responses hitched to the Legislative Review Database Website and those types of things. One thing that got my attention, I say to the minister, is, it says here that the consultation process was not designed to be a consensus billing exercise but rather as a way to gather a range of diverse opinions and views on the future direction of social assistance legislation.

Now, Madam Speaker, that is a very good intent, there is no doubt about that. I am not questioning the end result. The end result, of course, would be Bill 23, Madam Speaker. I am wondering if some consideration should be given to the Legislative Review Committee, to look at this and see if the objectives and concerns that were brought forward by many people in the consultation process have been met. The impact that this legislation will have on social service recipients: These people need to know what impact it is going to have on them. Will it be positive, will it be negative, will certain areas be positive, will certain areas be negative?

Social Workers within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker: How do they view this? How do the financial assistance officers within the system view this legislation? Do they feel that it is going to impact positively? Will it make their jobs easier? Will it make their jobs more effective? As the minister said, when he was on his feet, they want to basically look at a way to have the social workers and the financial assistance officers and people in the system spending less time on administration and more time in affecting and impacting positively on the clients. Hopefully, this act and this legislation will impact in such a way that there will be fewer people required to access the social services network within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Then, Madam Speaker, to really impact those individuals who now require assistance, we really need to put something in place in this Province that is going to be - and I think the best way, Madam Speaker, is to create jobs. The best assistance for someone is a job. We have heard that said. Members on this side of the House and members on the government side of the House for the past number of years have always being saying, the best way to assist someone is to get a job, if they can get a job.

In rural Newfoundland - and I have some rural areas in my district, Madam Speaker - rural Newfoundland has been hit pretty hard over the past few years, and we see many people leave the Province. Some 60,000 people left this Province since 1992, I believe, or whenever they announced the cod closure, or the cod moratorium, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was only recently, last week, we hear the federal government talking about having another cod closure, which will impact as many as 15,000 people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We had the Minister of Fisheries up meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries only this week, and we have members from both sides of the House, senators, federal MPs, both Liberal and Tory, in Ottawa, coming together to try and come up with some kind of an answer to the problem with respect to, if there is a cod closure in the spring of the year. Hopefully, there will not be. Hopefully, we can get some resolution to it, but what we have to do is come up with ways to create jobs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, how do we do that? Right off the bat, it could be a problem with respect to one of the resources, which is the fishery. Now, do we look at tourism? Can we create more jobs in tourism? Is there a plan? Has government come up with a plan to help people in rural Newfoundland stay in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

I am trying not to be political here, I say to the members on the other side. This is a problem that has been inherent in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for years and years and years. Maybe it will continue to be, but hopefully not. Maybe we can do something about it, if we put our heads together and do something. We have the Information Technology field that we can look at to create jobs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that does not require major, major outlays of cash. We have the tourism industry, Madam Speaker. You know, it is all well and good to put something in place with respect to the legislation under the Social Services Act, but again we have to look at solutions, and this will, no doubt in my mind, impact some of those people.

As I said, the economic and employment circumstance within the Province has left many people in a hard situation over the years, Madam Speaker. As I said, the concerns and problems in rural Newfoundland need to be addressed.

Madam Speaker, child poverty - and the Member for Waterford Valley addressed this and he has spoken many times in this House of Assembly with respect to child poverty.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Madam Speaker, is not in his chair and he is trying to make comments across the House of Assembly. Again, I say to the minister, this is a very serious issue. I will try not to get sidelined by the comments of the minister.

Of course, when we have child poverty - and, as I said, the Member for Waterford Valley has spoken about this many, many times - the consequences of child poverty in this Province, or anywhere in the world, I suppose, Madam Speaker, is sickness, illness and what have you, and health costs to the Province, to the federal government, can be astronomical, I say.

Over the years, and in particular we saw cuts by the federal government to the Canadian Health and Social Transfer payments. A few years ago, they made a major change to the formula with respect to how much money the federal government would pay out to the provinces. They went, instead of a needs basis, on a per capita basis. That has impacted negatively on Newfoundland and Labrador. I think what we need to do is get back to a system where it is a needs basis situation.

We only saw this past week that the Romanow Report came out and proposed many solutions, I suppose. Again, that will only take effect, and the recommendations in that report can only help, if the federal government decides to go along with the recommendations. Hopefully, they will not pick certain recommendations and go with certain recommendations and not others. The report talks about billions of dollars that need to be put into the system to help the people who are sick and injured, and the social programs across the country. Maybe if the federal government can put more money in to it, it can help the people in this Province, I say to the members opposite and the members on this side of the House.

Again, Madam Speaker, we are not going to really - I will try to put this in a proper form. I do not want to be criticized for something. I would say -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bay of Islands again is interjecting. Maybe when he is on his feet we will hear what he has to say and the good points that I am sure he will make with respect to this very important piece of legislation.

By rejigging, Madam Speaker, the income support network, we will not solve the fundamental problems in rural Newfoundland. Again, some of the ways that we could (inaudible).

Another point that we should be looking at in rural Newfoundland, and Labrador of course, is some entrepreneurs that are in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have seen entrepreneurs leave this Province. I know one individual who has created hundreds and hundreds of jobs in this Province and six or seven years ago got up and left because he thought the grass was greener on the other side. I am glad to see that he is back here. I am sure that he is going to create hundreds and hundreds of more jobs. We need to put something in place, both the federal and provincial government, to help the young entrepreneurs to create jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not the big major projects as sometimes we see people cling onto. Most jobs in this country are created by small businesses - two, three, four and five. Again, I am hoping that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will get on his feet and tell us some of his ideas when he speaks to this piece of legislation.

We should be supporting the existing businesses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to help create jobs to get people out of the system and the cycle, oftentimes, that we see individuals in, in certain families in need of social assistance. The circumstances out there create these needs oftentimes. It is not that people want to be on social assistance, or receive social assistance. I think that if we can do something this way, we can create a system and a process where people can get off this social assistance network.

I think, I say to the minister, that this certainly is a step in the right direction. I believe that the minister's intentions are good. I think that, with this piece of legislation, he went out and consulted. I think many people in the Province are looking forward to seeing this legislation go through the House of Assembly and be implemented. I would like to know, if I had a way to find out, I suppose, Madam Speaker, how this will directly impact upon the recipients themselves, and see what they think of this in a month or a year after this is implemented.

Another point that I don't think this piece of legislation addresses are the social workers. How many social workers are out there in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Are there enough in various regions of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? It was only recently we saw the problems in Labrador with some social workers out, not on strike but on demonstration, saying that there were not enough in that region, in that area, and we saw the public support for those individuals.

AN HON. MEMBER: There were nine social workers in the community.

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister just makes a point, there were nine social workers in that community. Madam Speaker, if that is the case, can you imagine the needs in that community? That is the very point I am making. Are there enough social workers in the regions of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Are there too many in one area, not enough in another area? I really don't have an answer to that. I am sure the minister might be able to address it. The social workers out there, themselves, have been consulted, I hope, on this issue, and if they have made recommendations to the minister, in the regulations that will be forthcoming - as I said, there are thirty sets of regulations in the existing acts that give us the details of how the acts are implemented. We don't have the details in the regulations at this point in time. Again, it is not normal that when a bill is presented to the House that the regulations would be with the bill. Again, Madam Speaker, we will know the details when the regulations come out, and how it will impact upon the people and the recipients of social assistance in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I made a few notes when the minister was on his feet, Madam Speaker. He talked about linking income and employment support. Again, I have had many occasions when I have had social service recipients contact my office because they felt that something had happened, that they hadn't received enough or there was an overpayment and they had to pay it back, or an underpayment or whatever the case may be. We do need to connect it to an income.

Before, if a person was on social assistance and they went out and earned a few dollars it was taken back from their assistance. Now, they have put in place, through this and other measures, that you can earn some money, not a lot, and it won't impact upon what you have received. That is a good thing and that helps certain individuals within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister talked about the service principles would be for the service of the clients within that system. He talked about accountability within the system, and he talked about transparency. One of the most important things, I think, he spoke of when he was on his feet, Madam Speaker, was talking about dignity and respect for those individuals who receive social assistance. Some of us are lucky we are not in certain circumstances. There are areas within the Province where there is no other choice, and not everyone is in a position to get up and leave and go travel to another province to get work. Oftentimes you see that, seasonal workers leave and oftentimes go, and they can do that, but sometimes people cannot do that because of any given situation, any reason. There are a number of reasons, I suppose, Madam Speaker, that they may not be able to do that. Again, these people need to be treated with dignity and respect.

Sometimes, I have been speaking to individuals and their last resort is to have to go on social assistance. They really find it hard sometimes, but I tell those individuals there is absolutely nothing wrong it. This system is put in place to help people who are in dire need, who are in stressful situations. It is there for them to access, and to access it. If it is for a short term, all the better.

Madam Speaker, I hope with this legislation, this bill that will be approved - there is no doubt in my mind that this will be approved - that those individuals will benefit from this legislation. I am sure that is why it is before this House of Assembly for approval, that the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will benefit from the changes to these acts, bringing the three acts together into the one, is my understanding.

I think that my time has pretty well concluded.

MR. JOYCE: Keep on going.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bay of Islands wants to give me leave. Madam Speaker, I could very well take advantage of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was joshing with you.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am being told now that the Member for Bay of Islands was only joshing. I suppose, Madam Speaker, the Member for Bay of Islands thought that I would not be able to continue on, on this issue, but I think I could give a lot of examples.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: One of my constituents just gave me leave, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate that.

There are lots of incidents in my district where I have had to go to appeals on behalf of individuals for any number of reasons. As a matter of fact, today I had a call from an individual who is receiving x amount of dollars and who asked me to intervene on their behalf because they have a young child. I know a similar situation where they are getting, the other group, other individuals or other families, more money than this individual, and we are on to it. That is what our jobs are. Forty-eight Members of this House of Assembly could be considered to be - what is the right word I am looking for?

AN HON. MEMBER: Representatives, advocates.

MR. J. BYRNE: Representatives or the advocates for the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was only last year that we appointed - well, recently we appointed a Child Advocate, and we all have been advocates for individuals on social assistance, I am sure, in the Province, over the past number of years, Madam Speaker. Since I have been here, I have representing the people in my district for many, many reasons, as we all have. So, we are all advocates, I suppose, Madam Speaker.

Again, there are many issues and many points that I could make but I think what I will do - my time is used up, I know that, Madam Speaker. I have been speaking on leave so I appreciate the time and I would say to the minister that hopefully you can address some of the concerns that we are making on this side of the House when you conclude debate some time down the road. That may be today or tomorrow; I do not really know.

With that I thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me today to rise and speak to this very progressive piece of legislation brought forward by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province. I think the title of the act says it all, Madam Speaker, in terms of what this government is trying to achieve with this particular piece of legislation.

I congratulate my colleague, but as well I congratulate the officials in the department because I know how hard they worked on this to make sure that the legislation is relevant for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is the first time in twenty-five years that we have seen revisions to this particular legislation. Clearly, it is long overdue; but again what it demonstrates is that this government is, in fact, leading the way in terms of social policy in Newfoundland and Labrador, very much in keeping with our whole approach to looking at social initiatives, when we think about our Strategic Social Plan which again is lauded throughout the country in terms of what we have done in this Province with respect to social issues and the way that we have motivated and encouraged people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to take responsibility for their own lives and to work with government to make a difference in our Province and in the situation in which many of our people find themselves.

The legislation, in particular, Mr. Speaker - now that Madam Speaker has left the Chair - I want to speak to because there are a couple of aspects of it that I find really interesting. Certainly the whole issue around privacy and confidentiality, and that is in section 7 of the act. I think our clients will be pleased to know that there are strong and active measures put in place to ensure confidentiality in this particular piece of legislation. The act itself establishes clear conditions for sharing information and sets out client and departmental rights and responsibilities relating to privacy. Very important.

This bill, in fact, is consistent with the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. So it is very much in keeping with our whole philosophy around access to information, but at the same time, ensuring that where privacy is required, privacy is guaranteed.

To the privacy and confidentiality provisions of this particular act, government is stating unequivocally its intent to protect the personal information of citizens in receipt of income and employment support. This is really important, because as we all know, people do not chose to be recipients of income support. So it is really important they understand that they can come to government, look for this type of assistance, and know that their privacy is protected, that it does not become common knowledge.

Put simply, personal information is protected and kept confidential. The only exceptions are identified right upfront in the legislation, and these I would like to put on the record. Applicants, recipients, and persons acting on their behalf, may view their personal information and request corrections if there are errors or omissions in their file.

The minister may exchange information necessary to determine eligibility under this act with appropriate departments and agencies that would be listed in the regulations. It places clear restrictions on how government may share personal information.

The minister may disclose personal information for research purposes, but only under very strict conditions. Only information relevant to a determination of eligibility is shared with other agencies. Client consent to share information is obtained during the application process. This is necessary as the department has a responsibility to ensure that supports only go to those who are eligible.

We do respect the confidentiality of the clients of the Department of Human Resources and Employment, and through this new act, clients are provided with an understanding of how information provided to the department is to be used. As well, within the new legislation there is a requirement for client consent to verify information for eligibility purposes. These provisions in the act balance government's responsibility to be good stewards of the public purse with the client's right to privacy. That is a really important component of this piece of legislation.

The other one I would like to speak to, Mr. Speaker, is the income support rate review. This is section 12 of the legislation. Again, this a highlight of this particular piece of legislation. It is a highlight of the new act. It is, in fact, a provision for income support rate review. I can read what it says in section 12.(1), "The minister shall, every 5 years, perform a review of this Act and the regulations made under it, the principles upon which it is based and consider the areas in which it may be improved and report his or her findings to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council."

A really important aspect of this legislation because now it is enshrined in the legislation that we must provide for a review of the income support rate. Enshrining a review on legislation is a progressive measure that holds government accountable in a meaningful way that has never been done before. Again, it speaks to this government's commitment to doing what is right for those of our people who are, in fact, recipients of income support.

The act provides a clear commitment to conduct a formal review process every three years, in addition to the yearly budget process. There was strong support in the consultation process for periodic rate reviews, and I am told that with everyone who was consulted, they felt it was important that there be a review process put in place. This will serve to highlight government's commitment to the importance of ensuring that rates are reviewed and adjusted as financial resources allow. The rates are designed to cover basic needs and we are working within available resources to be as responsive as possible. As additional resources become available, government will continue to strive to improve its programs and services for persons in need. The details of conducting the review are most appropriately decided by the minister but will require a submission to Cabinet. However, the legislative requirement for a review will mandate, in many respects, a formal review process.

Mr. Speaker, again, it speaks to this government's commitment to our recipients to, again, ensure that we do everything we can, working with the resources available to us, to guarantee a review and to ensure, to be best of our ability, that our people receive support for something that is needed, and enables them to live a life that is one where they can live in comfort, if at all possible.

Mr. Speaker, employment - and it has been said here before by other speakers today - is really the real key to reducing and eliminating poverty. When I looked at page 12 of the legislation, in fact section 3, it says, "The minister may offer, or an applicant or recipient may request the following employment services: (a) an employment assessment; (b) the development of an employment plan; and (c) other employment supports that are considered appropriate and where the appropriate resources are available, those employment services may be provided to the applicant or recipient."

Again, I reiterate something I said earlier, and that is, people do not choose to be recipients of income support. So, I think it is important for us to do everything we can to work with them to try and make a difference in their lives. I think the one way we can do that is by doing our part, as a government, to help them become eligible for employment in the first instance but, as well, to find employment wherever we can possibly do that.

This government has made economic development and long-term sustainable jobs a priority. We talk about our jobs and growth agenda that we have in place. What we want to do is make meaningful differences in the lives of people and to support people to enter the labour market. Again, that is what is part and parcel of this legislation where we are working with our people who are income support recipients, to get them back into the workforce and to help them do that.

When my colleagues set out to revise the Social Assistance Act, it was with the intent to remove barriers and disincentives in the income support program and to develop proactive measures to help people find access and keep employment. One of the more positive changes contained in the new act is the enhanced role of income support services in supporting the transition to employment and enabling low-income working families to receive support.

As Minister of Education, I really support this initiative because any initiative, I think, to assist people to enter the workforce can only have a positive impact on our young people. There is a very simple reason why I feel that way. Research has shown us that while there are many factors linked to the level of success of children in our school system, one of them is clearly the income level of the parents. In fact, if you look at the results from the international testing that is done under PISA, it clearly points to income levels of parents as one of the factors why our children may not do well; along with many other factors, but that is one of the key ones. I think we can all recognize that if our parents or the parents of our children are not able to provide for them, then our children are the ones who suffer. I am sure any parent would feel badly if they cannot, in fact, respond to the needs of their children and respond in a way that ensures that their children are healthy, that they have nutritious meals, that, in fact, they are able to participate in sport activities, which I know is an issue for a lot of parents who are recipients of income support from the government.

It is important to remove barriers to enter in the workforce. We are continuing to support people to enable them to make that transition to work. That is important. It is an important feature of the Department of Human Resources and Employment. It is because we are, indeed, interested in ensuring that our children have a better future. I think we have an obligation, as a government, as a people, as a society, to do everything we can to improve the lot of our people and certainly our children because, of course, it is our children who we hope will become the leaders of our Province in the future.

I think it is in our best interest to do everything we can to make sure that they grow up in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they also stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the ways to get them to that point, of course, is to make sure that they are educated. To be educated they have to, I think, in the school system, be comfortable. They have to, again, feel that they can make a contribution at the end of the day.

We want all of our children to have a positive and successful experience in our school system. We want them to achieve so they can be prepared to take advantage of whatever is available to them. Certainly, in terms of post-secondary education, we want our young people to have every advantage so that they can continue on into university or college. Again, we have to work with the parents of those children.

Again, I go back and reiterate that no one chooses to be on income support. What this legislation is doing, it is doing everything it possibly can to make sure that people have every opportunity to get off income support; but again for those who have no choice, they are, in fact, taken care of, that the department and others, certainly our social workers, will work with them to make sure they have a quality of life that everyone is entitled to. Sometimes things happen in a person's life that puts them in a predicament, one they would rather not be in, but one over which they have very little control.

This particular piece of legislation, I am very pleased about and very proud to support. We are working with all of the stakeholders to make a difference in the lives of our people. In the education system, we are certainly working with all of the stakeholders in education. Now our efforts will be further supported by the directions taken by this department, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, to make sure that we make a difference in the lives of our children, to make life better for them, to give them a quality of life that they need and deserve so that, in the long run, they will be better off but we will all be better off for it, because the more people we have employed, the more people who we have off the system, as it were, the better it is for all of us as a Province. The more people, of course, who are working, the more taxes that go back into the provincial Treasury, thereby enabling us to offer those very valuable services to our people - including income support.

I commend my colleague for his leadership in bringing this initiative forward. I commend the officials in the department. I know they have worked really hard. Again, I speak to the value of this particular piece of legislation and the recognition by the government of the importance of moving forward in a very positive manner in terms of social policy. It is very much in keeping with government's whole strategy of working with the people of our Province. Again, I mention our Strategic Social Plan which brings into play all of the factors with respect to social initiatives within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that at this point in time I should probably adjourn debate, knowing that it is close to 5:30 p.m.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before giving the motion of adjournment, I advise hon. members that tomorrow, Private Members' Day, we will be doing the private member's resolution submitted by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, related to the fishers.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.