The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Assembly to offer my congratulations to Carson Lambert, owner, Cynthia Reynolds, manager, and the staff of the Carbonear A&W restaurant on being given the Employer of Merit Award by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: This award is given for its outstanding contribution to the increased employment of persons with developmental disabilities. They received this award as a result of the restaurant's participation in the HRDC Supported Work Program. Ms Marsha Button of Carbonear was hired and worked alongside a support worker from the Trinity-Conception Employment Corporation. The Supported Worker Program provided employment to 700 people with developmental disabilities last year. The company has kept Marsha on as an employee after the wage subsidy expired. Through the training provided and the assistance of the support worker, Marsha has become a valued member of the staff at the restaurant for her work and her support of the other members of the staff.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating A&W in Carbonear and Ms Marsha Button on receiving this award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Year after year, people are injured or killed in needless accidents caused by drunk drivers. With the holiday season approaching, we have to step up our efforts to remind people not to drive when they have been drinking. In that light, I particularly want to commend Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have held a vigil today in the lobby of Confederation Building and have presented the government with numerous letters from those whose lives have been devastated by the consequences of drunk driving.

For the people responsible for the letters, drunk driving deaths and injuries are not mere statistics. They are friends and family members whose lives have been turned upside down or brought to an untimely end.

The members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, especially its tireless spokesperson in this Province, Gwen Mercer, have done tremendous work in raising awareness and bringing about constructive changes, and I have no doubt that their efforts have saved lives.

The members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving rightly applaud the government for every effort it makes to take drunk drivers off the road, whether it be through stiffer penalties or mandatory counseling.

They are also right in calling for even more action, such as ignition interlock devices, because we cannot rest while people continue to be hurt or killed because of the recklessness of drunk drivers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a very special group of young people who have contributed their talents to assist in the relief efforts in New York. These young people who range in age from seven to thirteen, have contributed their artwork to the book, If You Could See What I See: Works Of Art From Canada's Smallest Citizens, with all proceeds going to the Red Cross U.S.A. appeal. The book is available at various locations throughout the city at a cost of only $5.

These young people, Mr. Speaker, have demonstrated how it is sometimes necessary for us as adults to see the world through the eyes of a child, because their perspective helps us realize what is truly important. Through their artwork, they share their hopes and fears in a post-September 11 world and give those who us who serve in legislative bodies around the world added incentive to strive for peace and justice.

Dr. Maria Montessori said, "A peaceful planet is every child's birthright." It is an undeniable truth that we have been reminded of with the terrible events of September 11, 2001. The work of these children is as powerful as it is beautiful, and serves to remind everyone that we owe it to our children to keep them safe and give them a world filled with peace and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members of this House to pay tribute to these young people who contributed their work to such a noble cause and, in doing so, reminded us that looking through a child's eyes can help us see the world in a better perspective.

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 rise today to say Happy Birthday to a gentleman who is celebrating his ninety-first birthday today, Jim Ridgley. If hard work helps you to live longer, he is the epitome of that. Last winter, in spite of having a pacemaker in, and much to the chagrin of his family, he shoveled snow.

Mr. Ridley has been a volunteer all of his life and, up until nine years ago when he had a car accident, he used to deliver Meals on Wheels. If you asked him where he was going, he would say, "I am going to deliver meals to the seniors." He was eighty-two years of age at that time. He continues to volunteer two days a week with St. Vincent De Paul Society. I know that later on this evening I will be able to say Happy Birthday, but I thought I would do it this way for this time.

Happy Birthday, Dad!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This summer eighty-one communities across the Province participated in the Tidy Towns Program. I am pleased to inform this House of Assembly that L'Anse au Loup in the Labrador Straits, in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, was selected as one of the tidiest towns in Newfoundland and Labrador.

L'Anse au Loup was selected as the winning community in the category for places with a population between 500 and 649. A total of ten towns were named the tidiest towns in the contest, which was sponsored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Parks and Recreation Association. Others winners were New Perlican, Change Islands, Old Perlican, Conception Harbour, Baie Verte, Wabush, Grand Bank, Deer Lake and Stephenville.

Six other towns were recognized in new categories. They were: Kippens for tidiness; Portugal Cove-St. Phillip's for environmental effort; Triton for community involvement; Woody Point for heritage; Appleton for urban forestry; and Hant's Harbour for landscape areas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in commending these winning communities, the volunteer judges and indeed all those who participated in the Tidy Towns Program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pass on congratulations to an organization for young people in my area, the 774 St. Anthony & Area Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron, which was established in October, 1967, and takes in young people from all around the St. Anthony area.

Once again this year, for the tenth year in a row, they have been the winner of the Newfoundland and Labrador Drill Team competition. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is no small feat for an Air Cadet Squadron to win this one time, but they have certainly cornered the market on this one, I would suggest, after winning it for ten years in a row.

To the officers and cadets of St. Anthony and Area Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron, I know all the members of the House would like to pass on their congratulations and wish them all the best.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy, because he was kind enough yesterday to make our collective day. He made my day. He made the day of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and the day for all of our caucus in fact, with his straightforward, clean, forthright and honest answers; because the position of the government that was stated in the House yesterday on processing 100 per cent of the ore from Voisey's Bay in this Province is something that we have argued for and that we fully support.

The Minister of Mines and Energy; I will read from Hansard exactly what you said in the House of Assembly yesterday: "We are committed to seeing 100 per cent of all of the nickel that will come out of that ore body in Voisey's Bay, over the life of the project, processed into a finished nickel product in this Province, through a refinery in this Province that will do that processing. That is our commitment..."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Will the minister confirm that those are his words from yesterday? Because we will support a deal on those terms.

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.

I will not question the reading from Hansard that the Leader of the Opposition has just put forward, but I will confirm for him, again, because it has been the position of this government for quite some time in terms of fundamental to our position in trying to get a negotiated arrangement to develop Voisey's Bay, that we will ensure, by way of guarantee, or in some fashion - and a guarantee, essentially, is what we want - that over the life of the project 100 per cent equivalency of every ounce of ore that is in Voisey's Bay will go through a plant in Newfoundland and Labrador. What we have said, Mr. Speaker, many times is if there is, and today there are both proven and inferred reserves of about 141 million tons of ore in Voisey's Bay - that is the figure that is used by the industry and the company - we have said, of that 141 million tons of ore that is there, there is so much nickel and we want the equivalency of that amount processed to a finished nickel product, through a processing refinery type plant in Newfoundland and Labrador at the end of this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the words that I read out from yesterday's Hansard, the term, and the word, equivalency, was never used.

I would ask the minister what he meant yesterday by 100 per cent of all of the nickel that will come out of the ore body? Can you tell me what that means in literal terms?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. members - and I refer them to Standing Order 26(4) which says: "Oral questions must not be prefaced by the reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or preambles of any kind." Members ought not to read from any documents when presenting questions in the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It is our understanding, in trying to keep within the Standing Orders of the House, that members in this House are, indeed, allowed to refer to, or read, from Hansard, which is what the Leader of the Opposition did. I want to know if we can have a clarification on that? It is my understanding that we can read from the record of the House which is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will certainly take that part under advisement, but it is my understanding that members can refer to documents, but not read from documents of any kind, or quote directly from documents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, can quote from documents but not read directly from any documents. But the Hansard issue I will take under advisement.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Minister, what is meant by 100 per cent of all the nickel that will come out of an ore body? Can you tell me what that means in the literal terms?

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 read from Hansard, fortunately I now have Hansard in front of me as well. What he did, conveniently, or by accident, leave out of his quotation were these words "...over the life of the project." That is what I said in my answer yesterday, and that is what Hansard records.

Mr. Speaker, we will seek to ensure that the equivalent of all of the ore in Labrador is processed over the life of the project into a full and finished nickel product in a processing plant in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That has always been our position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: If, Mr. Speaker, by way of trying to be as forthright as we can, given that we are in negotiations - to the hon. members on the other side - if by way of trying to be as forthright as we can, and in the process of answering over and over and over again the same question, if by way of omission sometime we were to slip on a word or a phrase or a verbiage, well we would take that and seek to correct it immediately. But in this circumstance, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that what we mean is what we have always said, that over the life of the project the equivalent of all of that ore body will go through a plant in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So your position Minister, today, is contrary to your position yesterday. You have changed your position, is that correct?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: One hundred per cent of all of the nickel that will come from that ore body in Voisey's Bay is very clear, it does not talk about equivalency.

What does it mean in the straight terms that you said yesterday? Are you now changing your position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really am at a bit of a loss as to what the Leader of the Opposition is getting so exercised about.

Mr. Speaker, I had to spend about twenty minutes at the Board of Trade today refuting speculation that is damaging in the business community that has been spread by the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature the Leader of the Opposition said: Mr. Premier, tell us the details. You have the deal, come clean and tell us what it is.

I had to spend twenty minutes, because there are people in the business community all over Newfoundland and Labrador who heard speculative stories in the media last night that a deal is closer. What I described was the Leader of the Opposition asking questions about Voisey's Bay yesterday. I answered that we have no deal, and for some reason the media speculated that a deal was closer because the Opposition was asking about it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I had to spend twenty minutes today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: The reality, Mr. Speaker, is this: We have consistently said for two-and-a-half years that over the life of the project we expect to get it all. Over the life of the project.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: I would gladly like to know what the Leader of the Opposition finds wrong with that proposition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just a little reminder again to hon. members that, when presenting questions to the House, they should be through the Chair and not directly to the members.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the Premier has risen to his feet, Mr. Speaker, because not only did the Minister of Mines and Energy yesterday state the position, very clearly, as to what government's position was - and the reason he stated so was that he was acting in support of the Premier. I would ask you, Premier, these are your words from yesterday, "I have spelled out, as has the Minister of Mines and Energy on several occasions, these fundamental components, that all of the nickel ore that is in ground in Labrador over the life of the project will be turned into a finished nickel product...".

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He ought not to have a preamble. I ask the hon. the member to get to his question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: What does all of the nickel ore that is in the ground in Labrador mean? It is the same thing the minister said. Were those not your words yesterday, and are you now both flip-flopping?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard it said - I would never these kinds of things myself, because it is not the type of person I am, but - I have heard it said that the master of the flip-flop in Newfoundland and Labrador is the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the other line I have heard is that since he has come into the Legislature all he has done is flop. Now, I would not repeat that because it is not kind or nice to say.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this and let me tell the people of the Province this: We have consistently said exactly what the Leader of the Opposition just read, because that has been the consistent position. Over the life of the project, however long it might be, whatever ore is in the ground in Labrador, as the Minister of Mines and Energy has pointed out, will be turned into a finished nickel product. Yesterday, there were two questions asked by the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's: Will we get it all? The answer was yes, we plan to get it all. If we do not get it all, by the way, there is not going to be a deal. Like he said on the news last night, he hopes there is a deal. We hope there is a deal. In order to get a deal, we need to get it all. All of us need to get it all; not me, not the Minister of Mines and Energy. We need to get it all and you are saying you support that. Glad to hear it.

Secondly, he said if hydromet does not work, will there be some other process? Well, there has to be because if we are going to get it all, which is the fundamental of the deal, and it is going to be turned into nickel, something has to turn it into nickel. It is either going to be hydromet, which you do not support because you do not even want to see the research and development done to see if it can occur or it is going to be something else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: That is our position, Mr. Speaker, and always has been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: My question again is for the Premier, and I use his words and the words of the minister. What does 100 per cent or all of the ore in the ground in Labrador mean? Does 100 per cent not mean 100 percent? Are you telling the people of this Province that it now means 50 per cent or 70 per cent? What does 100 per cent of the ore in the ground mean? Your words!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I have been a math teacher for a number of years. I might not have been that successful all the time but I do believe that everybody I taught in Newfoundland and Labrador understood what 100 per cent meant. One hundred per cent means all of it. It means all of it, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I do not know: Why would anybody ever question what 100 per cent means? One hundred per cent is all of it. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition now suggests that he is going to go around to the people of the Province and try to portray, as he usually does, incorrectly, that the government's position that we are going to have 100 per cent of it turned into nickel means 50 per cent, which he just said.

One hundred per cent, Mr. Speaker, is a self-evident statement in and of and by itself. While the Leader of the Opposition may be suggesting that he might be confused by it, I think he is the only person in Newfoundland and Labrador who would be confused by that particular statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, you have stated and your minister has stated that 100 per cent of the ore from Voisey's Bay will be processed in this Province. Are you now telling this Chamber that some of that ore will be shipped out of the Province and less than 100 per cent will be processed in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, he had the new critic for Mines and Energy - I thought he was the critic for Post-Secondary Education - ask questions yesterday.

One of the questions was: Are you going to get it all over the life of the project? Every answer that the Minister of Mines and Energy has given says: Over the life of the project we will get it all; 100 per cent. He asked yesterday: Will you get it all? The answer was: Yes, we are going to have an arrangement, over the life of the project we will get it all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador understands that. We have speculated before, the Minister of Mines and Energy has spoken of it in this Chamber and outside, and said that one of the arrangements, if we are going to test hydromet - which the Opposition does not want to do; voted against it in this Legislature ten days ago. Two weeks ago today, actually. Two weeks ago today, when the Leader of the Opposition refused to speak to it and voted against it, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we have said, and the question was asked yesterday: Will we get it all? Answer: We will get it all if we are going to have a project. If we cannot get it all, we will not have a project.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Some might have to leave (inaudible) get it back, we get it all over the life of the project. That has been in the public domain for two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To clarify it for the record, that side of the House prevented me from speaking on that issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I really hesitate to do this because I know the rules in Question Period are for a particular reason, that the Opposition House Leader just rose on a point of order during Question Period, but, Mr. Speaker, the record cannot go unchallenged.

In order to speak in this Legislature you have to stand to be recognized by the Chair. The Leader of the Opposition sat in his seat (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, that is why in Question Period, when presenting questions, preambles should not be given. Statements should not lead to debate in the House. So, I ask hon. members now to keep the rules in mind.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, will any of our Newfoundland and Labrador ore leave this Province for processing elsewhere?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and let me give you the direct, honest answer and everybody in the Province: I do not know that.

MR. TULK: If you get your way with research and development it will all leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: The direct and honest answer is I don't know that because we do not have a deal with Voisey's Bay. What has been discussed on the public record for over two years now - they talk about needing to have a debate in the Legislature. It has been debated everywhere in the Province for over two years that, in fact, one of the possibilities for having an Inco deal go ahead is that there might be a need to have some concentrate leave the Province for a limited time frame to be replaced later so that over the life of the project we get 100 per cent of it done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador understands that that is a concept. Will it happen? I don't know because we do not have an arrangement. One of the reasons being that the Leader of the Opposition does not even want to try to see whether or not hydromet works, which is the process that they used in Goro for the development that is going ahead today with the same company that we are trying to deal with here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance. The Federal Court of Appeal has rendered a decision dealing with deductions from income of additional voluntary contributions to the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Pension Plan for non-existent service. This means that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who paid those costs can get an appropriate credit on their income tax for those respective years. As a result of that court decision the federal government has issued a remission order for all affected people and they have been receiving refunds now and getting their money, but this government has been dragging its feet and they cannot get the provincial portion.

I ask the minister: Is this government going to comply with the court decision and refund the money owed on the provincial portion of that income tax?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think that is a very important question because it certainly would be a voluntary decision of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to do it. It is an important question because everyday in this House of Assembly we are being asked about priorities, about spending money, and how we spend it. We have made it clear, our number one priority is health care. In this case particularly, for us, it has not gone through the Cabinet process. It has been discussed at the committee level and it is certainly something that we are considering. I think what is important for the people of the Province to realize, it has a price tag associated with it - $1 million to $2 million - and everybody knows at this point in time we are factoring in all of our priorities, all of our commitments. It will go through the process and we will look at it under those circumstances.

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.

They have been looking at it for some time and people are being frustrated, I say to the minister. I spoke with officials in your department. I have a letter from an individual who has spoken to representatives in your department. It is at the ministerial level and Cabinet level and they cannot get a decision.

I want to ask the minister: If you can use those deductions on normal contributions and you are allowed to pay for this service, why isn't the same applied? Will the minister tell us when she is going to have a decision so these people can bring closure to this issue and get the money that is justly owed to them?

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.

It is a very important issue. It is very important to us, but I would like to keep the information accurate. I think that is the least the member opposite can do. It has not gone to Cabinet yet. It is not setting on my desk.

It is an issue that is very important to all of us because it has a monetary price tag. The member opposite knows. You will stand up and put a petition forward asking for pavement for your district. Somebody else wants a ferry. Somebody else wants a bridge. Someone else wants a tunnel, in fact, across The Straits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: All of those things are important to us. We have to make our decisions. We will work it in to all of our decision-making. It is a voluntary decision that we will look at, and we will look at it very seriously. We take it very seriously, but it is one of many priorities that this government has to face, Mr. Speaker.

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 question today is for the Minister of Rural Renewal. What is going on in the Province right now with respect to its economy can be aptly described by Charles Dickens novel, Tale of Two Cities. On one zone in the Province, Zone 19, the unemployment rate is 7.7 per cent, and in much, if not most, of the rest of the Province, it is much higher.

I would like to ask the minister this question: Is he aware that in Zone 6 on the Northern Peninsula, the official unemployment rate is 36.3 per cent; in Zone 7 it is 33.2 per cent; in Zone 11 on the Baie Verte Peninsula it is 30 per cent; in Zone 13 in the district of the Minister of Municipal Affairs it is 34.6 per cent. If he is aware, how can he then turn around and justify in his document the rural renewal strategy, this statement: Our economy, our economic recovery, it is real, and our people recognize that it did not happen by accident.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me inform my friend, my member, that the name of the department is Industry, Trade and Rural Development, not development and rural renewal. It changed last spring.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that you can very well justify what was said in that report. The truth of the matter is that, this year in this Province, we will reach record numbers in terms of employment; record numbers since Stats Canada starting keeping statistics in this Province. It will average out to be something about 211,000 if we keep going at the rate we are going now. I believe in the month of October there were 216,000 people working in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the highest since Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: That, Mr. Speaker, is how you justify statements like what is in that report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is the tale of Economic Zone 19, but not of the other nineteen zones.

I would like to ask the minister this: He is certainly aware of what the report says on one hand, but the true statistics are contained in the Newfoundland and Labrador zone profiles. Is he aware, for example, that in Zone 6, over 60 per cent of the people living in that zone got less than thirty weeks' work last year? Is he aware that in Zone 7 over 60 per cent of the people living there got less than thirty weeks' work last year? Is he aware that in Zone 11 less than 60 per cent of the people got less than thirty-six weeks' work last year? Is he aware that in Zone 13, the four zones that I have talked about today, that 60 per cent of the people in those zones got less than thirty weeks? How can you stand and justify how great our economy is, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when it is not happening, Mr. Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that he knows that I have stood in this House on a good many occasions and said that there are parts of this Province that have not yet recovered from the shutdown of the groundfish industry. I say it all over the Province. The zones that he just named out correspond with - we know there is a problem on the Northern Peninsula. The hon. gentleman knows there is a problem on the Northern Peninsula. I suppose he does; I am not sure. We know there is a problem on certain of parts of the Bonavista Peninsula, the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula, for example. We know there is a problem in Ramea. We know there is problem in Burgeo. We know there is a problem in Placentia & St. Mary's. We know there is a problem in Trepassey. His own colleague stood in this House yesterday and said there has been a vast improvement in the District of Ferryland. He said that here yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, the economy of Newfoundland has never been better than it is today, and that is how you justify those kinds of statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister this: Isn't it a fact, witnessed by his own government's programs and policies, that this government in rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not creating wealth but they are actually, because of their policies, basically spreading poverty? We see that by adding more licences to fish plants, we see it by relocating more jobs outside of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Why won't the minister stand and say that his Economic Renewal Strategy for rural Newfoundland and Labrador has been completely an abysmal failure, because that is exactly what the people are telling us, Mr. Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Why won't the hon. minister stand up and say that it is a failure? Because it is not a failure, I say to the hon. gentleman. Yes, there are still weak parts of this Province; we have admitted this.

Let me tell him about fish plant licences, a policy statement of which he was a part, in which they were going to open up, under a leader that he stuck a knife in, seventy-five more fish plants in the Province. They ended up in 1989 with 291 and in their 1996 policy book, we are going to up another seventy-five, and he looks at me and says we are spreading poverty by giving out more processing licences! Look in the mirror, my friend, before you look over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and concerns the crisis in home care services in the Province. Since a wait list was instituted on August 6 of this year, many hundreds of people are waiting who will qualify for home care services but are not getting them, and many dozens if not hundreds of those are in hospital beds costing the government $1,000 or more a day because money is not there for home care.

I want to ask the Premier, whose government is just spending $500,000 on the consulting firm to try and save $6.5 million in health care, will he not doing something about this crisis and find a way to let those people who are in hospitals because they cannot get home care, get that home care, and let people who are sick and need those hospital beds get into the hospital so they can get that care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the home care budget is one that is possibly the largest cost driver in our health care system, as the member opposite is well aware. We have major concerns with the escalating costs. The fact that at this present time every region in our health care system has had to institute a wait list is one that concerns us very seriously. We recognize that if you have people waiting in hospital to be able to access home support services, this is not desirable. However, at the present time, having increased the home support budget to $50 million this year, we now have a projected deficit for this year in the order of $5 million. That is very, very alarming.

I have asked my officials to review all of the urgent and emergent wait lists in the Province for my immediate review, and I will be taking that under consideration within the next few days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier.

Given that the Cabinet is likely meeting tomorrow morning, will the Premier, with his Cabinet colleagues, discuss giving immediately to the home care sector sufficient money to get those people who are stuck in hospital beds home so they can get home care which is a heck of a lot cheaper than a $1,000 a day hospital bed, and get them some home care so that those beds can be available to those who need to go into hospital who are much sicker than those who are there? Will the Premier do that to help out these people and help out the bottleneck in this crisis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, throughout the whole process of the health boards, that we have had throughout the months of October and November, there has been a consistent emphasis on evidence based decision making. This is something that people throughout our Province, in all sectors, who attended these forums said that it was important for government to do.

At the present time with the home care system, I have asked my officials to review with each of the boards the emergent and urgent wait list areas, to present that information to me so that I can take it under consideration in order to decide what further action is required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Limitations Act.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to move the following resolution:

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under section 28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make recommendations on the salaries and benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Justice and Attorney General asked the Tribunal under section 28.1 of the Act to make recommendations on outstanding pension issues for the years 1992 to 1996 in order to complete implementation of the Whalen Report, and to make recommendations on salary and benefits issues, including pension benefits, for the years 1996 to 2000 and 2000 to 2004; and

WHEREAS the Tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister on September 14, 2001; and

WHEREAS the report of the 2001 Newfoundland Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal was tabled in this hon. House on November 22, 2001 under section 28.2 of the Act; and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is required under section 28.2 of the Act to approve, vary or reject the report within 30 days of the it being tabled; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House to accept some of the recommendations, vary others and reject one of the recommendations;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this hon. House accept the recommendations of the 2001 Newfoundland Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal set out with the necessary clarification in Schedule A; and

THAT this House vary the recommendations as set out in Schedule B for the reasons given; and

THAT this House reject the recommendation set out in Schedule C for the reasons given; and

THAT the recommendations of the Tribunal that this hon. House accepts and varies, as set out in Schedules A and B, be implemented effective April 1, 2002 in the manner set out in Schedule D.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed with the routine business, I want to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today, a former Member for the District of Baie Verte, Mr. Harold Small.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table information with response to the request from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I present another petition today from the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province.

Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province.

It is time that we receive our full and fair share!

With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this petition today from the people who have signed it. We have a number of these petitions already presented. We continue to receive petitions, and we will do our duty in this House of Assembly and present petitions on behalf of the people who have signed them.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have concerns about the way the resources of this Province have been managed in the past, and that is the reason for this petition today. The people of this Province are demanding full and fair share, their full and fair benefits from the water resources of this Province. It is a resource that we can have full control over. It is under provincial jurisdiction, and it is a resource that we should have full control over. It is a resource, Mr. Speaker, that we should ensure we get maximum benefits from; maximum benefits in terms of spinoff, maximum benefits in terms of royalties, maximum benefits in terms of jobs.

I support the people who signed this petition. I support this petition, and I am proud to present it today in the House of Assembly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is Wednesday, Private Members' Day, and today we are dealing with the resolution presented by the Member for Waterford Valley.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to rise to present a resolution that deals with the incidents of child poverty in Canada, and in particular Newfoundland and Labrador. The resolution has been communicated to all members and it says that the child poverty rates have declined in all provinces except in Newfoundland and Labrador in the past few years.

Over the past twenty years, our neighbouring province, Prince Edward Island, has been able to reduce its child poverty rate from 22.7 per cent in 1981 to 12.5 per cent, according to the last stats that is available, and they would deal with 1988. In those same years, Newfoundland's poverty rate for children increased from 21.6 per cent to 25.3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, longitudinal studies show that families, if they are tracked over time, tell us that a greater number of children than those that might appear at first glance are affected by very high child poverty rates. We also know that the child poverty rates for single parent families are extremely high, higher than the numbers and the statistics which I just quoted.

The 2001 report of the National Council of Welfare shows, in considerable detail, the impact of child poverty on family lifestyles and on family expectations.

We all know from the Williams Royal Commission, from the Canning Report, that there is a direct connection between socio-economic status and educational achievement. That has been demonstrated not only by those studies but by numerous studies that have been done over the last twenty-five years.

We also note, according to the latest information available, that as many as 40 per cent of the recipients who are forced to go and get their daily food from food banks in Newfoundland and Labrador are indeed children. We believe that we can do more. We are calling on the House today to give a new commitment to try to reduce Newfoundland's rate of child poverty.

The resolution asks that we would give a commitment that we will reduce the child poverty rate in Newfoundland to national levels, or below the national levels, by 2005. We are asking that the House pass this motion which will ask the government to prepare a comprehensive child poverty reduction strategy and place sufficient money into that strategy to begin the process. That is the intent of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 1989, in the Federal Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons, the following resolution was moved unanimously. It said, "This House seeks to achieve the goal of eliminating Poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000."

We know that was not achieved. As a matter of fact, we know that across this country, in the last twelve years, the rate of poverty among children has increased, not decreased.

I quote from a statement by the Federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, on November 19, 1998, nine years after that resolution was passed unanimously in the House of Commons. He said, in 1998: "We should essentially establish the elimination of child poverty as a great national objective, not unlike what we did with the case of the deficit."

Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in the summer of 2000, said the following, "We are a nation of unmatched diversity and tolerance,... a nation unshakably committed to ensuring that none is left behind as we move ahead... This means ensuring that all Canadian children have the best possible start in life."

Furthermore, in the federal budget, and in the federal Speech From the Throne, there were comments of commitment being made to Canadian children, including children of Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, in the federal Speech From the Throne in 2001, the following statement is made, "Now Canadians must undertake another national project... to ensure that no Canadian child suffers from the debilitating effects of poverty...".

In that same speech another sentence appeared. It says, and I quote, "Securing a good start in life for children is the only way to ensure they are ready to learn, to seize opportunity as adults and to contribute to the building of their country."

Mr. Speaker, I searched the Speech From the Throne for this Province, made on March 13, 2001, and I did not find any statements in this Speech from the Throne, of this year, in our House, whereby similar commitments are made to the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is that eliminating child poverty is not just a national strategy. I believe it is a national strategy, but we also have to have a provincial strategy as well.

Mr. Speaker, I searched through the Speech From the Throne of this year, and while there is a comment about the Child Advocate on page 4, I did not find any comments that match the comments made in the federal Speech From the Throne. I found no comments by the Minister of Finance in Newfoundland and Labrador, matching the comments made by the federal Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, that is not to say there isn't a genuine concern about poverty among all members of this House. Today is an opportunity where we can focus on this issue in this House. We can bring a children's agenda to this House. We can commit ourselves, as members of this House representing the people of all of Newfoundland and Labrador, we can commit ourselves to do what we should be doing, and that is trying to do more to eliminate child poverty.

Across this country since 1989, child poverty from 1989 to 1998, when the latest stats were available and they are telling us this information, child poverty has increased by 39 per cent. Instead of going down over that period of time, it went up by 39 per cent. In 1989 in Canada, approximately 14.3 per cent of children lived in poverty. The most recent statistics tell us that about 20 per cent of Canadian children now live in situations that are substantially worse than the average.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the latest stats tell us it is 25 per cent, an increase over the last number of years. Almost one in five children in Canada live in poverty. In Newfoundland, that is one in four.

Mr. Speaker, let me make the point that children are not poor on their own. Children are poor because their moms and their dads and their guardians are poor. That is why they are poor. Children are not born poor. They become poor because their parents cannot afford to provide for them the essentials of food and good nutrition and clothing and housing. Mr. Speaker, that is where poverty begins. It begins in the home; it begins with parents because parents are poor.

We need to ask ourselves: What are we doing in this Province, what are we doing in this nation, to tackle our social deficit? For poor families, the situation remains very bleak. Mr. Speaker, the results of the economic boom of the 1990s did not reach the nation's poorest. When I listen today to the government minister, the Deputy Premier, tell us that the employment rate in Newfoundland and Labrador is the very best it has ever been, Mr. Speaker, the stats will show us that not everybody is sharing equally in these economic opportunities. Vulnerable children and their families shoulder a very unfair financial and social burden during severe economic times. During the last recession in 1990-1991, the child poverty rate in Canada climbed in those years when we were having a recession in 1990-1991. When we got out of that recession in 1990-1991, the rate continued to climb until 1996. Therefore, what we are saying is that when we have poor times, the poorest of the families in our country feel the effects first, and the effects last the longest.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial trends tend to follow the national trends. Since 1992, the rates have fluctuated up and down. In 1998, the child poverty rates for all provinces, except in Newfoundland and Labrador, went down. I repeat, the latest stats tell us that in all provinces, except in Newfoundland and Labrador from 1992 to 1998, the poverty rates gradually went down with respect to child poverty, except in Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, 1997-1998 in Nova Scotia there was a drop of 4.1 per cent in the child poverty rate. In that same two year period in Prince Edward Island the rate dropped 3.7 per cent. Manitoba, in those two years 1997-1998, had a drop of 3.5 per cent, and British Columbia saw a drop in the child poverty rate of 3.2 per cent. In Newfoundland and Labrador however, for those two same years 1997-1998, the rate went up from 24.6 per cent in 1997 to 25.3 per cent in 1998. Mr. Speaker, these are not my figures. They are the figures that are put forward by The National Council of Welfare Reports Child Poverty Profiles. The data dates 1998, is the latest data available, and it was published this past summer.

Mr. Speaker, I note as well that 40 per cent of the people who go to food banks are children. I was listening a few days ago to a report that said the Salvation Army expects to have to provide 5,000 Christmas hampers this year. Yesterday I had a note from St. Vincent De Paul Society saying they were expected to provide up to 500 Christmas hampers this year. We know that there is a food bank that operates at our university. Mr. Speaker, we have to come to grips with the issue of poverty in general and with child poverty in particular.

I want to compliment some initiatives of this government because they are doing some things that are very right. I want to say to them that when they decided to eliminate the clawback on child tax benefits, which was also done by Manitoba and New Brunswick, that was a good idea. The Member for St. John's West pressured this government day after day, question after question until the government realized that it was the right thing to do, and they did it. I compliment them for doing it. It was totally and completely wrong for the federal government to make provisions for child tax benefits and then for this government to say to people on social assistance that as you get that money we are going to claw it back from you. That was a good initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on his announcement this week. They are going to do something about social housing. There was an announcement by the minister two days ago that they are going to put new investments into housing. That is very encouraging.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Just one moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I also want to compliment the Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement that was announced two days ago by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. During debate this afternoon we hope to bring this message forward to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we are going to, in this House, do whatever we can to tackle the problem of child poverty because, Mr. Speaker, our responsibility is to our children. We want to bring their agenda here, and nobody in this House owns a child poverty issue. It is an issue for all of us on both sides of the House. I look forward to the opportunity this afternoon to bring a children's agenda right to this Legislature.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to begin by saying the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes that child poverty in our Province does exist as well as in the entire country, and we recognize it certainly as a serious issue. I would like to thank the member opposite for raising this issue for discussion in this hon. House today.

The government welcomes every opportunity to discuss this very important issue. The government believes that one child in poverty is one too many. I am pleased to have this time to elaborate on the important work government is doing to address this serious issue which concerns us all. This government remains committed to working towards the goal of eliminating child poverty in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, child poverty represents a much broader issue. Poor children live in poor families. A broad range of strategies are needed to address the factors contributing to poverty. When discussing low income families it is important to recognize how statistics, used to determine the child poverty rates in each of the provinces, are calculated. The approaches used to measure child poverty are complex and the resulting information provides us only with approximate estimates of the current status of the levels of poverty. The information available is more accurate at the national level than for a province, particularly of this size, because of issues associated with the size of the sample population selected for survey. I make these points, Mr. Speaker, to emphasis the government's concern when ensuring we have the best information available to fully understand the problem of child poverty.

Under the Strategic Social Plan, we are investing significant resources in developing a good information system at the community and regional levels to gain a better appreciation of the local impacts of issues such as child poverty. The community account system will provide local data on these types of issues. Current information, such as measures of child poverty, are only available at the provincial level. Without more detailed information on the disposable incomes of families at the local level, their buying patterns and the local cost of living, it is difficult to arrive at conclusions about the level and extent of poverty. The work being done on the community accounts is attracting national and international attention because of its groundbreaking work in this area. Children and families are classified as living in poverty when a family's annual income level falls under what is termed to be the low income threshold. The low income threshold is calculated depending on the size of the community and family size. This is the calculation that is used by Statistics Canada as well as with such advocacy groups as the National Council of Welfare.

To give a better sense of how this low income threshold can vary depending on family size in geographic area, I would like to use a few relevant examples using 2000 Statistics Canada low-income cut off information. In a rural area, such as one of Newfoundland and Labrador's rural communities, a family of four would be classified as living below the poverty line if their yearly income, before taxes, was below $23,892. The same family of four living in a larger center, such as Grand Fall, Windsor or Stephenville, would be classified as living below the poverty line if their yearly income was below $27,401. If that family of four lived in a more urban setting, such as St. John's, they would be classified as living below the poverty line if their yearly income was below $29,653.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to pinpoint a standard poverty line for the entire Province, or the entire country for that matter. Despite the variances in income levels, family and community sizes, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador takes the numbers attributed to our Province in relation to child poverty very seriously. The poverty rate, as it presently exists, is too high. It is also important to recognize that while income may vary within different types of communities and different types of families, the negative effects of low income or poverty on a family and its children are universal.

Mr. Speaker, there is compelling evidence that family income has a major effect on a child's well-being. Data shows that as family income rises, the child's chances of developing to his or her full potential increases accordingly, and the poverty cycle is thus broken. In recognition of these trends, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador takes a two-pronged approach to address issues of poverty: Firstly, government is seeking long-term strategies to find long-term solutions to improve the income levels of people in this Province. The best way to do this is through sustainable employment and through a range of measures focused not only on social assistance recipients, but also on low income working families. Secondly, government recognizes that many children in our Province need necessary supports immediately. We have implement measures to address these immediate needs through prevention and early intervention programs.

Mr. Speaker, the broad long-term strategic policies being pursued by this government, including the Strategic Social Plan and the Jobs and Growth report, reflect a government's public commitment to seeking lasting solutions. These policies reflect initiatives that benefit the people of the Province in the long term, rather than ones that offer short-term solutions for immediate political gain. The long-term approach is working, and we are seeking positive results within our Province.

Mr. Speaker, employment is the real key to reducing and eliminating poverty. The government has made economic development and long-term sustainable jobs its number one priority. Our policies are having an impact. This is turning out to be a record-setting year job growth in the Province. The Province has recorded strong employment growth on a year-over-year basis for every month in this year. Average monthly employment is up by 6,800 since the start of the year, as compared with the year 2000. Based on year-to-year data, we expect record annual employment of about 211,000 this year, and, Mr. Speaker, we have not seen this level of employment growth since the early 1990s. Our economy is recovering, growing, and diversifying. Jobs are being created.

Mr. Speaker, along with improving the economy comes improving income levels for family and declining social assistance caseloads. In October, 1998, our social assistance caseloads stood at 31,672. In October of 2001, this declined to 28,423. In addition, the number of children on the social assistance caseload is declining faster than the decline in our overall provincial child population, suggesting there are factors at work other than demographic which lead us to believe that our initiatives are having, indeed, a positive impact.

In the years 1998-2001, the child population declined at a rate of between 3 per cent and 4 per cent annually. During the same period, the number of children in families receiving social assistance declined at twice that rate, between 7 per cent and 8 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, in our view, this is evidence our policies are working. Those families with the lowest incomes have improved their circumstances. While we acknowledge that many of these families may still be living on low incomes, they no longer require social assistance. Their incomes are rising and the depth of poverty is lessening.

Mr. Speaker, this improvement in the economy, along with a decrease in the social assistance caseload, indicates that we are moving in the right direction: government initiatives, having increased family income, as well as provided increased opportunities for people to prepare for and enter the workforce.

In 1999, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador participated in the launch of the National Child Benefit. This partnership between the Province and the federal government provides additional resources directly to address the health and well-being of our children. Through the National Child Benefit reinvestment initiatives, the Province invests and reinvests approximately $10 million annually in initiatives that help reduce child poverty and help families make the transition to work through prevention and early intervention programs.

In1999, the Department of Human Resources and Employment introduced the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit. Previously, low income families facing barriers to employment were financially worse off accepting employment due to the loss of benefits for their children. The NLCB is provided in conjunction with the Canada Child Tax Benefit to all families whose income is less than $21,744. The NLCB is intended to reduce barriers to employment by providing stable benefits for children as parents move out of social assistance. Regardless of employment status, families do not experience a loss in benefits for their children, if they are a low income family. Approximately 21,000 families a year receive the NLCB, a significant increase over the approximate 12,300 families who availed of social assistance benefits before this program was introduced.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources and Employment continues to work on a range of initiatives to remove the disincentives to social assistance programs that interfere with people's efforts to find and keep employment. These initiatives include an extended drug card program. Clients now maintain their drug coverage for six months once they leave social assistance for employment.

Other initiatives that make the transition to employment easier include an increase in child care subsidies. Applicants for social assistance are permitted to retain higher levels of liquid assets, and families who are successful in finding employment are able to retain more of their earnings without seeing social assistance benefits reduced.

Along with these initiatives, the Department of Human Resources and Employment has also implemented programs that create labour market opportunities. Last year, 2,400 income support clients received a range of support through new found jobs.

This fiscal year, 2001-2002, the department will spend $3 million on this program. We have also actively assisted 2,500 other clients to access the benefits and services of Human Resources Development Canada by establishing identification and referral services that ensure these clients are aware of their eligibility for such benefits.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this government has been taking seriously the concerns with regard to child poverty. As I just outlined for this hon. House, we have initiated a number of very important and worthwhile initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just turn to the resolution under debate today, I think the resolution itself is flawed and really does not adequately represent the situation as it exists today. So, to the hon. member's benefit, I move, seconded by the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the following amendment to the resolution before this House. Mr. Speaker, the resolution proposes that we strike the: WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not demonstrated a strong commitment to the reduction of child poverty in our Province, and replace it with: WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to ongoing improvements to the range of programs and services aimed at reducing child poverty in our Province.

Further, that we strike: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House call on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to adopt social and economic strategies that will reduce child poverty in this Province to national levels or below by the year 2005; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House ask the government to present a comprehensive child poverty reduction strategy with sufficient budgetary commitments to achieve acceptable targets in the March 2002 provincial budget.

The amendment proposes to strike these two and replace it with: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House endorses the need for continued emphasis on comprehensive social and economic strategies aimed at reducing child poverty rates in this Province to national levels or below in a reasonable period of time.

Mr. Speaker, I pass these on to Your Honour for your consideration. I suggest that they are in order and I think they improve on the resolution before the House.

On this side of the House, aside from what I have just outlined, initiatives that we have undertaken, we will continue, as a government, our strong commitment of working with our communities across the Province in finding solutions to our economic and social challenges, as is the approach outlined in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's Strategic Social Plan. Currently, six steering committees have been established across the Province and we will continue to work with these committees on issues of concern in their given regions that they recognize they are priorities for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SMITH: Just one minute to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to battle this serious issue on behalf of our children; however, improving economy, improving family incomes, thanks to key supports such as the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit, and our success rate with employment programs and supports, proves that we are on the right track towards a future where children will no longer be in need in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we proceed, I would like to have a copy of the hon. member's amendment and recess for a minute to consider this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has considered the amendments put forward by the hon. the minister and, in looking at the requirements for amendments, they meet the conditions outlined in Beauchesne, and therefore rules that the amendments to the resolution are in order.

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

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

It is my pleasure to get up and speak on this resolution today on child poverty. No subject has produced so much earnest talk and so little effective action as child poverty. We have had committees, summits, conferences and resolutions like the one we are discussing today. We had the Patricia Canning report, the Select Committee on Children's Interests and the Rowe report, all sorts of goals, and we have developed strategies like the Strategic Social Plan, but the grim statistics remain the same. Newfoundland, to its shame, still leads the country in the number of children who live in poverty.

When I had the honor of being elected to this House of Assembly almost five years ago, Newfoundland and Labrador led the country in the percentage of our children who were poor. Sadly, today we still lead the country. I heard the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development standing up and talking about how we are leading in statistics employment. It is good to lead in statistics employment, but it is very, very sad when we lead in statistics such as child poverty.

There is one thing for certain that we have learned from our studies, and that is that poverty is bad for children. Persistent hunger, inadequate and unhealthy housing, the absence of other basic needs and the inability to participate in extracurricular activities, the programs that are offered outside the school, all of this does real damage to children and prevents them from developing to their potential.

Patricia Canning, in her report, Special Matters, said there is definitely a relationship between poverty and a child's ability to learn. Low socio-economic status is strongly and consistently associated with poor academic performance. The cycle is perpetuated because children who do poorly in school are likely to drop out, and when they drop out they are likely not to get good employment. When they do not get good employment, they do not raise their economic status, so the cycle is perpetuated and their children live in poverty.

There are other studies as well that link a wide range of medical problems with poorer children. Children who live in economically and socially challenged situations are also at risk of developing behavior problems. How often do we see children who bear the burden of being poor acting out with their friends, acting out in school? Mainly, that is a defense that they put up. It is their way of masking the situation. Can we really blame them?

A couple of years ago I visited an elementary school and there was a display of posters. Madam Speaker, you yourself referred to children's interpretation of things there today when you stood. A statement on one of the posters from a young Grade 5 student was very profound, and it stuck with me. They were asked to describe poverty. This child said: Poverty means pretending you forgot your lunch. So, that is right from -

MR. TULK: Who said it? You are not serious.

MS S. OSBORNE: A Grade 5 child, I say to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, was describing poverty and said: Poverty means pretending you forgot your lunch. Because they don't have any lunch to take, they go to school and pretend that they forgot it. That is out of the mouth of a child. If we had lived in a situation like that, wouldn't we have behavior problems? Wouldn't you act out yourself if you lived like that? Poor children are over represented in remedial classrooms as slow learners and things, and once again, as Patricia Canning stated in her report, it is very difficult to learn when you have an empty stomach.

The list of fallout indicators goes on. Now, the question is: What are we doing about it? In 1989 the House of Commons pledged to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Guess what? We are a few short weeks away from the year 2002 and the child poverty rates are up. Almost half a million more children live in poverty now than did in Canada when that promise was made.

The National Council on Welfare in September of this year pointed out some groups of particular concern. Families with young children are more likely to be poor than families with older children. Young children are also more likely to live in poverty for longer periods of time than older children. Children living with single parents, especially single parent mothers, are more likely to be poor. The poverty rate in 1998 for single parent mothers was 52.9 per cent compared to 10.7 per cent for two parent families. This translates into a disproportionate number of poor children living with single parent mothers. Aboriginal children have extremely high poverty rates. The 1996 census reported that three out of every five aboriginal children live in poverty. Many children live in poverty and they live in working poor families. Even though working poor have jobs they struggle to meet their family needs.

You know, it is a myth that all poor children live in families where the adults don't work because they would rather stay home and collect welfare or EI. Even with a full time job some families simply cannot earn enough to support themselves. Getting a job does not necessarily mean, Madam Speaker, that that is a ticket out of poverty. A good job that pays enough money to adequately support a family is out of reach of many poor parents. There are barriers to finding, accepting and holding a good paying job. Once again, the parents who are not in a position to be able to find a job are probably parents who were children who lived in poverty and therefore had to drop out of school.

Governments, when pressed on the matter, will come back with responses describing social programs they have initiated. This happened right here in October when the Minister of Human Resources and Employment was responding to the 2001 Report of the National Council on Welfare. That report showed that the poverty rate for children under eighteen in this Province is increasing, while most other provinces are seeing declines.

In responding, instead of focusing on facts such as the rise in the child poverty rate, the minister cited the initiatives taken by this government. He also spoke today about how the amount of people living on social assistance is declining, much of that is attributed to the out-migration that this Province has seen. When we cite initiatives, a hungry six year old really does not care what initiatives have been taken by government. A hungry six year old worries about the pain in his belly because he is hungry.

In spite of all the programs and initiatives, the request for assistance from food banks are higher than ever before, particularly in rural Newfoundland. We heard the hon. Member for Kilbride today up quoting numbers from rural Newfoundland, from the Northern Peninsula, and as well from the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula. The Minister of Human Resources spoke of the low income cut off. In many rural communities there is not a low income cut off, there is just no income at all. More requests on food banks means a higher demand. How is this for another startling fact? Forty percent of the food bank users are children. That does not mean that children go and line up at the food banks. What that means is that the parents who go to the food banks are representative of 40 per cent of the users.

I remember back a couple of years ago when the general manager of the Community Food Sharing Association, who represents food banks right across the Province, asked for help from the government. I think it was about this time of year. It was coming into the fall because there was a particular high demand on food banks and the food bank shelves were empty. He came to the government and asked for some assistance, and at that time an employee from the Department of Human Resources and Employment said: We cannot give you help, to give you help would be to admit that there is a problem. That was a quote that the chairperson of the Community Food Sharing Association told me that an employee from the Department of Human Resources and Employment said to him. They could not give help because to give help to the food banks would be to admit that there is a problem. Whether they choose to admit it or not, there really is a problem.

When we put the onus for filling the shelves of the food banks on the people it reminds me of devolution of responsibility in a way, and you know the kind of devolution that we have. We have hospital boards, community health boards, institutional boards out there and they absorb the flack from the Department of Health and Community Services. We have school boards out there to absorb responsibility from the Department of Education, and it seems that we have food banks to absorb the responsibility of feeding our hungry children. Our people, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, have the reputation of being very generous but this government really should not be imposing on their generosity by expecting them to be the one to fill the food bank shelves.

Living with hunger is not the only indicator of poverty. Our families, our children, must have adequate housing. There is a serious lack of housing, adequate housing, social housing, and subsidized housing here in the Province. I know because I constantly get calls from people asking me to advocate on their behalf. The inspector from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has been out to visit them. They have been approved and are on the list. They call in week-after-week asking if I have heard anything; have they been approved? Unfortunately, because the list is so long, I have to give them the disappointing news from the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation: No, I am sorry, you haven't been approved again this week. So they continue to wait, and wait in apartments that are too small, in apartments that are cold, where the rent is high; really in inadequate housing. The utility bills are not subsidized. After paying those bills for the rent and things there is very, very little money left for food.

It was only yesterday that I spoke with a young mother of a three month old boy. She pleaded with me for help. She said: My rent is so expensive, and now with the baby, the milk is so costly, the diapers and the other needs for the baby, after I pay for the needs for the baby, the rent and the light bill, I do not have any money left over for groceries. There is no food in my cupboard.

I know the list for social housing is long, but I do not know if members of this House realize that some of the units in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing are vacant for as long as three months. Why is this? Because there are not enough resources. There are not enough people employed at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, Madam Speaker, to go out and do the maintenance on these units, so the units are left empty for a longer period of time than they should be. This goes really to mismanagement because private landlords would never let their places stay vacant for three months because they did not have somebody to go in and do the maintenance. Where there is a bottom line these apartment would be cleaned up, painted, and a tenant in them as soon as possible. That would be more frugal in the long run because government would be collecting rent on the units, and these units are not owned by the government. These units are owned by the taxpayers of the Province. So it is the taxpayers dollars that are being wasted when these units are being left empty. In the meantime, while we have all these vacant units out there that are staying vacant because of lack of resources for maintenance, our families are inadequately housed.

The Strategic Social Plan looks good on paper, and is supposed to be about various agencies partnering in the best interests of our people. I would like to say today, Madam Speaker, how about getting government departments to partner on behalf of our poor?

It is interesting to note that in British Columbia, between 1996 and 1998, because of additional help for low income families and more cash for subsidized housing, child poverty fell significantly. We have been led to believe all along that our capacity to address social priorities has been limited by economic forces, but evidence shows that European countries that face similar challenges have maintained and strengthened social investments in families and people who are vulnerable, the vulnerable populations. Their records, I would like to say, Madam Speaker, are far better than those of North American countries. For instance, in the United States, they are ranked highest in wealth but highest in poverty. Canada is close to the top in terms of wealth, and ranks in the middle of the pack in terms of poverty. Out of the seventeen countries studied, Sweden, on the other hand, is close to the bottom as far as being a wealthy country is concerned, but it is has the least amount of poverty of all seventeen countries. Clearly, this is proof that it can be done. If a country with little wealth can have the least poverty, then we should be ashamed of ourselves, where we stand financially as a wealthy country, that we cannot.

It makes sound economic sense to invest in the well-being of our children to break the poverty cycle, not continue to perpetuate it.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: A wealth of evidence shows that more efforts put into resources and time for parenting can markedly improve the life prospects of children at risk. The question is: Does government have the political will to really move on this front?

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the private member's motion that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, and the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague, the Member for Port au Port.

I certainly support the amendment of this resolution. I think this is a very important debate that is taking place in this House today. I want to certainly commend the member opposite for bringing this particular motion to the House, to have this important issue dealt with within the House of Assembly.

I think it is important to realize that in order to continue to fight the issue of child poverty we also have to continue to raise the profile of the particular issue and certainly how it affects the many children and families within our Province and across the country as well.

Obviously, any opportunity to address this particular issue and to speak to what government's direction and agenda has been, and continues to be, in addressing the issues of child poverty is always good for us, and it is always good for us to hear the perspective, the views, the opinions and the suggestions of other members in this House and other groups in our Province as to the direction and the initiatives that are required on such an important front.

Madam Speaker, we obviously live in a Province where we are continuously reaching out to one another, especially those who are in need. We have a cultural legacy in Newfoundland and Labrador in each one of our communities of supporting one another, and I guess there have been many communities that have demonstrated this, many families who have demonstrated this, and many people over the years.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we can always say the doors are open, the kitchens are open, and those in need are always guaranteed to be supported by communities and by the people who live there, including those who suffer in poverty. I think we have all done it ourselves on many occasions where we have reached out to individual families, to children and to people within our community who have certainly needed our help at one particular time or another. I think today, in talking about child poverty, I have to think about the many instances that I have seen in my own district where organizations and charitable groups have organized fund-raisers in support of specific causes that are centered around child poverty, where there have been drives for clothing that have been orchestrated by a number of groups within the Province to ensure that children have warm clothes, and certainly the initiatives of this government, Madam Speaker.

This government, since 1998 in particular, have launched a number of initiatives in response to child poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador, for families who are living on low income and need the support mechanisms that we can provide as a government. I think of the National Child Benefit and the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit in particular, where we were able to put more money into the pockets of families around our Province and allowed them to have that little bit of extra money to be able to do things. I think about the $10 million investment in programs for children. That ranged in everything from breakfast programs to lunch programs to family resource centres and parenting programs, mother-baby allowances and so on. I think about the $36 million investment for early childhood development for the improvements to children's care to early literacy and to food supplements.

I really feel that these programs are programs that we should highlight because they are the ones that are actually getting to people directly and are actually benefitting people more directly. There are programs in which we have been able to contribute to a certain degree to lessen the burden, the often burden and stresses that families who live in poverty are faced with. I am certainly supportive of these programs and will continue to support these programs.

In terms of the Family Resource Centres alone, Madam Speaker, we have since 1998 established seventy-four hub and satellite resource centres around the Province. These programs, although they focus on children ages zero to six years, are available to all families in those communities and the program places emphasis on reaching out to vulnerable families as a result of factors such as low income, single parenting, isolation, disability, youth and inexperience with parenting. I have a number of these centres in my own district. As well, there are some in other regions of Labrador and Newfoundland and I can tell you first-hand, having spent time at these centres and becoming familiar with the programs and the services that they offer, that they are contributing to the welfare of families and children. For the first time ever, in a lot of cases, these families have the opportunity to belong to a particular centre or particular program in which they can draw on the support mechanism of other people that are in the situations that they are in as well. Also, it is an opportunity for them to learn and develop in terms of a family unit, not only their children's development needs but also their parental development needs. We have seen this in a lot of communities that normally would never ever have the opportunity to be able to be provided those types of support mechanisms. These are communities that are in some of the most remote, some of the most isolated and some of the most rural regions of our Province, as well as being in the urban areas of our Province. We have those centres as well in this particular region, in the Corner Brook region, in the Gander region, and these are all serving to enhance the needs of family and children that are certainly affected by poverty and other particular circumstances.

I also want to outline a number of the things that we have been able to do under the Early Childhood Development Agreement. This is a new agreement and, although it is a partnership with the federal government, we have certainly looked to different groups around the Province, those groups that work and deal with children and families that live in poverty, in terms of how these expenditures should be directed. We have certainly been able to, this year alone, introduce a number of priority programs, that have been felt by these individuals will have an impact upon families within society.

We introduced the mother-baby nutritional benefit for low-income families which will be incorporated with the mother-baby food allowance. We have allowed support for early literacy and transition to school by funding the Early Childhood Literacy Programs and pre-kindergarten orientation sessions. We have allowed for the enhancement of existing family resource centers, as well as allowing for the start-up of five new centers within the Province. We have been able to invest some funding in the healthy baby clubs and to create some new ones, which we did in various regions all around the Province that were certainly identified by health boards and through the Strategic Social Plan process. We were able to contribute to that. We also provide enhancements to child care centers by increasing the number of subsidized child care spaces. We introduced the monetary supplement for early childhood educators, and increasing supports for family home child care. As well, we were able to strengthen the early intervention services for children with developmental disabilities, and children diagnosed with autism.

Madam Speaker, these were just a number of programs that we were able to add in this particular year under that program, and over the course of the next four or five years we will continue to build on those programs through that particular support mechanism.

I think, Madam Speaker, it is important to note that poverty is basically the symptom we are dealing with and the real problem is the cause of poverty. That is where we need to focus our attention, obviously, as a government and as society. The cause is the lack of employment. I think it has been indicated by other speakers here today, wherever we have a lack of employment, we will always have the symptoms of poverty. That is the issue that certainly has to be addressed.

The level of employment growth that we are projecting this year is far lower than what we have seen since 1990. Basically, in order to address the issues of child poverty, we also have to address the issues of lack of employment within our Province. That has certainly been the intention of our agenda, through the jobs and growth strategy, through the new Department of Industry, Trades and Rural Renewal, and in terms of being able to ensure that people in all areas of our Province have opportunities for employment and have opportunities for good paying jobs, not just any job. That will certainly be the key to reducing poverty.

We have also been able to increase the minimum wage so that people who work in low-income jobs or minimum wage jobs have access to a little more money for the work that they do, and certainly this will, obviously, play a role as well.

In my own district, in particular, I have seen, since I was elected in 1996, a tremendous shift in terms of the social assistance recipients who are in my district. I go back to 1996 when many of you heard me talk, in this House, quite often about the number of families who are living on low income or without income, and the children who are living in poverty within my own district. I can honestly say that the strategic programs and efforts that we have made, over the particular period of the last five or six years, have contributed to significant change. I can say that with a great deal of certainty, Madam Speaker, because in 1996 there were three social services offices in my district alone to address the need of financial assistance. I cannot give you the exact number of caseloads at that particular time, but today that job is being performed through one office with one worker, because we have seen such a decline in the numbers of people who are dependent upon the social services programs in that particular area.

In one area of the district, in the Labrador Straits region alone, the last time I checked, which was back a couple of months ago, I think there were thirty-three people on the caseload out a population of over 3,000. I think those are remarkable numbers. I would certainly hope that at some point we will eliminate that entirely, and I would hope that at some point other areas in the Province will have the luxury of seeing the growth and the progress within their own regions that I have had the good fortune of seeing within my own region.

I will just give you a couple of examples, because, you know, sometimes it is hard to believe that areas of the Province could make such a remarkable transition. I go back to 1995 and 1996 when we were dealing, no doubt, with large numbers of people who, after the moratorium, required employment. The opportunities were not there for them. We are highly dependent upon the fishing industry.

Madam Speaker, just in the last year alone we were able to attract private sector investment to build and open the first ever shrimp plant in Labrador which employed 120 people in one particular community, in the community of Charlottetown.

I want to think back to the community of Black Tickle, which has probably been one of the greatest challenges that I have had in my political career in terms of being able to help this community to diversify, look at new opportunity, and be able to overcome the great burden of social welfare and poverty.

I remember back in 1997, when I stood in this House and talked -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: By leave to clue up, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have time to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: At that particular time people in this region were receiving the same amount in social assistance benefits as all other recipients in the Province. We were able to increase the benefits in Labrador and in the area of Torngat Mountains, where I am sure you have heard the member for that area talk quite often and extensively on the need as well, for different social programs.

Madam Speaker, in cluing up my comments today - I guess what I want to say is to reiterate the comments by my hon. colleague, and that is: any child in this Province who lives in poverty is one child too many. We always have to be cognizant of people - each and everyone of us, as governments, as oppositions - who live in Newfoundland and Labrador, conscious of this issue, and work towards it collectively, because it has to be the efforts of all of us to counteract child poverty.

In closing, I want to say that the federal government as well, has a place in this particular program. Whenever I read of a $36 billion budget that is sitting in the EI program in Ottawa it really frustrates me as to why investments like this are not being made available to help us counteract the serious problems of child poverty that we face all across the country, because as you know, one in every five children across the country do live in poverty.

While we have implemented some wonderful programs in Newfoundland and Labrador, which the outcomes of those programs can only be measured over time. We have implemented significant initiatives in the last two to three years. I think you will see the product of those particular strategies within the next five to six years as we progress, but I think having said that, we also have to maintain a collective action towards this issue, collective support towards this issue, and always encourage the federal government because they have a role in this. They have the financial investments to allow us to create new employment in our communities and diversify our economies, which is our problem and therefore being able to counteract the symptoms of that, which is child poverty.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Point of order, Madam Speaker, with leave of the House I would like to table in conjunction with the motion read earlier today concerning the Provincial Court Judges Tribunal. The Clerk of the House has recommended that schedules referencing that response ought to tabled here. So with leave of the House, if it is okay, I will table that at this time.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to table this?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Granted.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to rise today and say a few words on the resolution that is put forward. I would like to begin by saying that while I support the thrust of this resolution in the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, I do have a little problem with the way that reads.

It talks about the need for this House to call on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to adopt social and economic strategies that will reduce child poverty in this Province. I think, Madam Speaker, the goal should be to eliminate child poverty in this Province and indeed across this country. If we are going to say that we want to reduce child poverty or eliminate it over the next five years, by 2005 as the resolution calls for, then I think we should set targets that we have to meet each year or explain why they were not met. That, Madam Speaker, in my opinion, is the only way that you can use a measurement from now to the year 2005, use it as a yardstick, have a certain number in mind each year, and that number or percentage would have to be met or someone would have to give an explanation as to why it was not.

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest as the Minister for Human Resources and Employment was speaking. He talked about poverty levels and the wages that determine poverty levels throughout the different regions of this Province. He stated that in the rural areas of this Province a family of four would need an income of $23,892. Madam Speaker, for a person who works a full-time, permanent job, it works out to about 2,000 hours per year. Based upon a $23,892 income, that is $11.90 per hour for every hour worked at a full-time job.

For the urban areas of this Province, the minister stated that the number was $27,401. That, Madam Speaker, works out to an hourly rate for a full-time employee of $13.20 per hour. When he talked about the city and what the wage or the income would be for a family of four, it was $29,653 or an hourly rate of $14.80 for each and every hour worked on a full-time basis.

Madam Speaker, I say to you and I say to the members opposite, the job growth that they continually put forward in this House, and that they brag about, how many of those jobs are at the rates of pay that I have just described? Very, very few. Madam Speaker, that is why last week, or the week before, when the minimum wage was being discussed and increased, and was discussed here in this House, I stated at that time that what we need is not a minimum wage. We need a living wage, and that is what the people of this Province need.

In 1988 the federal government, by way of resolution, unanimously sat and passed a resolution that they would eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. We are debating this here today; obviously that did not happen. As a matter of fact, things have progressively gotten worse, particularly here in this Province. It reminds me of the Republicans in the United States when they said they were declaring war on poverty. Some years later, when some reporter asked them where they stood on the war that they declared on poverty, they said they gave up the war because poverty won. That, Madam Speaker, is a sad reflection on any government; it is a sad statement for any government to make. I do not think that we should look at things the way that the Americans look at things, even though there is a move in this country today to try and follow their actions on almost every front.

Madam Speaker, child poverty in this Province certainly reflects throughout all aspects of our society. If we look at the problems that are encountered and the problems that are created by child poverty, and poverty in general, we will find that our health care is affected and has a cost due to poverty. Our education system and the education that our children receive, who are living in poverty, has a cost. Even our justice system, I would suggest, has a cost when it comes to poverty, but most of all poverty can be seen most in the eyes and the faces of the children who live in poverty.

Families, particularly young families, single parent families, find it very difficult. Most of the jobs that are available - and there are not that many, as our unemployment rates are much, much too high in all areas of this Province, young families in particular, young parents, single parents, particularly those who are trying to improve their lot in life, trying to further their education, trying to take advantage of things that are out there to be done so that they can improve themselves and improve the living conditions that they currently live under. It causes me a lot of concern and anger, I might say, when I see young people, single people today, and married people in this Province who are being denied EI benefits when they are attending post-secondary education; a fund that has, as the previous speaker mentioned, $36 billion in surplus. Money, I might add, that the federal government does not own. They do not rightfully own that money. The money in that fund comes from the workers and employers of this Province and of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: It is not their money and yet they decide the conditions and the regulation that apply when people are laid off and have to support themselves and their families by applying. That, Madam Speaker, is something that is deplorable: that you can pay into a fund, after working for years and get laid off, and not be able to access the insurance that you paid while you were working. What, Madam Speaker, I might ask, would be a more appropriate way for that fund to be used than to help somebody to get on with their lives, to improve their lives, and become a net contributor again to that fund? But that is not the way it is, and we all know that, but I do believe that this House and this government should be doing more in their efforts with the federal government to make sure that happens; however, we have not seen any results as of to date.

The other thing that happens then, Madam Speaker, if young people cannot access any source of income that they can live on while they are going to universities or to post-secondary education institutions, then we all know what happens. They get student loans that they have to use to try and live on as well as cover other expenses. That only complicates the problem. It complicates the problem because, while they are going to school, they are living in poverty. When they get out of school, they owe such a tremendous debt by way of student loans that they are forced to remain in poverty. So, it is a no-win battle. The people who are down and out and trying to get up do not get too many helping hands offered to help them, but they get knocked back a lot, Madam Speaker, because the supports are not in place when they are needed.

Madam Speaker, the other things that we see around us in our communities - I remember a few years ago, I think the Federation of Municipalities put a resolution forward, adopted at their convention, that would allow individual communities in this Province to take action when it comes to the video lottery machines that we see throughout every establishment, liquor establishment, clubs and other places within our Province, and these machines are wreaking havoc on families in this Province. People may try them. People may say, I will only put in a loonie or a toonie and just see what it is like, just out of sheer boredom sometimes, but the fact of the matter remains that many people get hooked. They get addicted to this gambling machine. These machines - I have seen it many times - can destroy individuals, can destroy families financially in a very, very short period of time.

I believe that this government should have acted on the resolution from the Federation of Municipalities and allowed each municipality to take action on their own. I think they should have gone one step further than that, Madam Speaker, in that the provincial government itself should have banned and never permitted these machines to be here in the Province in the first place. Of course, we know the reason why. All we have to do is look at the books and figure that out, when they take in twice as much money each year from gambling machines than they do from natural resource royalties. Madam Speaker, there is much that this government can do without help from the federal government to go along ways towards cutting down and eliminating poverty in this Province.

What we have to have, Madam Speaker, is meaningful employment. To do that, we have to utilize our resources much more effectively than we have been doing in the past. We all know the stories. We can go back to the Churchill Falls, go back in history to the sixties and see what happened there. We can go back to the iron ore industry. We can look at the Town of Schefferville, when that was built, and all of the jobs for the main part went to Quebec. We can look at the iron ore industry in Labrador West and we can see the pellet plant from Wabush in Quebec. We can see the pellet plant expansion from Labrador City in Quebec, and we can look at our offshore oil, Madam Speaker, the latest development, and see what jobs we are deriving from that.

The employment opportunities that are arising from offshore development is certainly limited compared to what they should be; but, in addition to that, Madam Speaker, the benefits are mainly concentrated on the Avalon Peninsula, within the St. John's area. I can say unquestionably that the only activity that is taking place in this Province today to any large degree, Madam Speaker, is in the St. John's area. In the other regions of this Province it is not happening the way it is here. As a matter of fact, things are getting progressively worse as we have heard from lots of speakers in this House since the House convened two weeks ago.

I think it is a sad reflection, Madam Speaker, when we look at the usage of food banks in this Province. No child should have to go to school hungry. No child should have to go to bed hungry. No child should have to go out into the cold without being properly dressed to keep them warm. When that happens, it is a sad reflection on all of us, a sad reflection on society in general.

Many people have said to me over the past number of years that maybe, just maybe, we should declare war. Maybe we should declare war on the inadequate health care that we have. Maybe we should declare war on the high cost of education. Maybe we should declare war on poverty and declare war on high unemployment rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Because, Madam Speaker, what the people of this Province see, and the people of this country see, each and every time there are questions asked of governments in these areas, each and every time the answer is: not enough money; but, when we declare war on something that is happening miles from our own country, there is never a question of money; it is go and do it.

I am not saying that is wrong, but what I am saying is that other areas within our society, within our own country, within our own Province, should receive the same amount of attention and seriousness attached to them.

Madam Speaker, there are things that this government can do to reduce child poverty, there are things we can do to eliminate child poverty, but the political will has to be there to do it. That is a responsibility of the provincial government and the federal government, to get together and ensure that happens. With the proper attention being paid to it, it can happen.

I can conclude by just saying this: Thank God we have the organizations in this Province that we have, like the Lions Club, like the Salvation Army, like the volunteers at the food banks. I think it is fitting that we should say that because in this Province we are known for our generosity. I think it is only this year - according to the news the other day - the first in many years that we were not recognized as being the most generous per capita in the country. I think last year it went to Manitoba, I believe. That still bodes well for us, Madam Speaker. We have had the distinction of being number one for a long, long time and we still are number one - there is no question about that - in many other ways. We are a caring and giving society in this Province and I say, thank God we are.

Madam Speaker, with that I will conclude my remarks. I hope that this resolution is not just passed today and abandoned tomorrow, but is something that, as I said in the opening, there will be targets set to meet each and every year and, if they are not met, somebody will be held accountable as to why not.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline some of the programs in the new Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, and to reiterate that this government believes strongly that post-secondary education is the root to security and full participation in society, both economically and socially. The new Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education was formed to focus on youth, the attainment of post-secondary education, and the successful transition to the labour market.

The priorities of my department are central to the elimination of poverty -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: - and will ensure that our future parents experience both economic and educational success.

Mr. Speaker, this government has taken a number of steps towards ensuring that the students of our Province have affordable and accessible post-secondary education. I would like to point out to the Member for Labrador West that government does lend a hand, to the tune of many millions of dollars, to students in this Province.

First, I would like to speak about tuition, about tuition rates in our Province. In 1998-1999 government provided the financial resources that allowed post-secondary education institutions in our Province to implement a tuition freeze. Further measures allowed the university to reduce its tuition levels in 2000-2001 by 10 per cent. The tuition fees at both Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic are among the lowest in our country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in 2000-2001, our Student Financial Assistance Programs provided loans to approximately 17,000 students. Assistance with repayment for students in need is available through a range of mechanisms, such as our Loan Remission Program. The assistance through our Loan Remission Program can result in high-need students who graduate in a timely manner having most of the provincial portion of the Canada Student Loan forgiven. Since 1998-1999 over 1,800 students have received assistance through this program, with amounts reaching almost $15 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: A further amount of approximately $6 million is budgeted for this present fiscal year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS KELLY: Well, that is true. Many people don't recognize just how much is being done for students through our Loan Remission Program, but we are now putting together an initiative that will change some of this program to make it even better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Interest Relief Program also provides assistance to students who are encountering difficulties with repayment of their student loans. Over 10,000 students have been served by this program since 1998-99, with amounts totaling $6.2 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: This government also recognizes that further steps are necessary to deal with high student debt.

Mr. Speaker, we have recently completed a review of student financial assistance, and we are now developing a plan to move forward with many of the recommendations that are contained in it. Improvements to student financial assistance provisions will offer better support for students from low income families and families who are living in poverty. Through acquiring a post-secondary education, they, in turn, will be better able to support themselves and their children financially in the future.

Mr. Speaker, in March 2001 a Student Investment and Opportunities Corporation was established as a part of this governments overall student debt reduction strategy, and as a means to enhance youth career and employment opportunities. This past year, with an initial investment of $8.8 million, $4.8 million of which was from our existing employment programs, but $4 million new dollars were put into this program, and it helped over 3,000 students find work placements that were created with over 75 per cent of these work placements occurring in rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, many of our students are availing of our Student Work And Service Program that we know as SWASP, a program that was developed in our Province and has been copied all across this country. This program allows students to obtain career related placements and at the same time earn tuition vouchers to cover part of their post-secondary education costs. Over the past two years almost 4,000 students received provincially funded tuition vouchers cost-shared with the federal government.

Our Tutoring for Tuition Program is a peer support initiative whereby students help other students with studies in high school and are then provided with a tuition voucher toward their post-secondary education. Approximately 650 students have received tuition vouchers and many times that number received tutorial assistance. So even in high school last year, we provided more than half a million dollars in tuition vouchers to students to go on to post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, we have many additional programs supporting youth at risk. This department provides, for instance, $270,000 in core funding to the Brother TI Murphy Centre which provides educational services to those who have had difficulties coping in the formal high school setting. Jobs search services and life skills training are also provided through this center.

The department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education contributes $1.8 million annually to Community Youth Networks. That was an initiative established under the National Child Benefit to develop an array of services for youth living in or at risk of poverty. Through services, such as tutoring and programs that promote leadership and employment skills, the CYN is designed to increasing the employability of youth and to better prepare them both socially and academically. The Community Youth Networks presently are in eighteen community sites, with outreach capacity to other communities in their respective areas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly give some background information on educational attainment and participation in post-secondary education. While we continue to strive for higher educational attainment, there have been substantial gains in educational attainment in Newfoundland and Labrador during the past two decades. As of year 2000, approximately 39 per cent of the provincial population had completed post-secondary education compared to only 16 per cent in 1979.

Improvements in our educational attainment levels are particularly evident in our younger age groups. In the year 2000, among our twenty-five to twenty-nine-year-olds in Newfoundland and Labrador, 58 per cent had completed post-secondary education compared to 60 per cent of twenty-five to twenty-nine-year-olds nationally. So, our younger people are now keeping up with the national average, and this is not something we were doing in past decades. At the lower levels of educational attainment, 15 per cent of twenty-five to twenty-nine-year-olds had less than high school education compared to 11 per cent nationally, so we are improved vastly in this area also.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador participation in post-secondary education has been increasing steadily in the last five years. The most recent comparative information in post-secondary education shows that for 1998 and 1999 almost 30 per cent of eighteen to twenty-four-year-olds were attending university compared to 20.3 per cent of their national counterparts. This is an excellent indicator that our students recognize the value of post-secondary education, when we have more students than the national average in the rest of Canada attending post-secondary. In the college sector, 17.8 per cent of eighteen to twenty-one-year-olds were attending college, compared to 24.7 per cent of their national counterparts. Again, a very comparable number to our national averages.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education continues to work on a range of initiatives to help young people in our Province plan for and achieve a good education so that they will not live in poverty in the future. These programs are pro-active and will provide long-term solutions for our young people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying that this government believes in addressing the issues around child and youth poverty, and we will continue to work towards the goal of eliminating child poverty in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits and While Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, like my colleagues, to speak on a very important matter in our Province, that of child poverty. Just to reiterate, I guess, in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, some of the statistics that the private member's resolution refer to - and some of my colleagues have referred to throughout the day, throughout the debate - is that over the last twenty years our neighbouring province, Prince Edward Island, has been able to reduce its child poverty rate from 22.7 per cent to 12.5 per cent. In Newfoundland and Labrador, in that same time period, child poverty has increased from 21.6 per cent to 25.3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, today in Question Period the Member for Kilbride spoke about A Tale of Two Cities, and a little while ago a colleague from across the House, in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair - also across the Straits in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair as a matter of fact - spoke about poverty being the symptom and the cause being one of economics. I would like to get into that just a little bit here today. I know we only have a few minutes to speak on this. There are a whole number of factors, as my colleague from Labrador West and everybody has alluded to, that cause child poverty. It says here in Campaign 2000, November 2001 bulletin: it is clear that Canada cannot rely on the market alone to help us grow our way out of poverty. There is a role for government, of course.

I will just compare, if I could, not just A Tale of Two Cities - because there is a huge difference in the amount of child poverty on the Avalon Peninsula verses other parts of the Island and other parts of the Province, including Labrador. I will just compare the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador, if I could for a minute. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I will allow her to - I don't know if it is true or not. I am not suggesting that she is lying, but I don't know if government's actions in Southern Labrador, in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, are responsible for the changes in the number of people subscribing to social assistance in that area. I suggest that probably some of it might be connected to that because there is a role for government in some policies but it is certainly not because of strategic investment in social policy. It might be some strategic decisions when it comes to economic policy, I will give that for now.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is tied to the actions of the late 1970s, and I will give credit where credit is due to the federal government at that time, and certainly to a group of individuals in Southern Labrador; and Richard Cashin, who had the foresight to give the people of Southern Labrador something that they truly deserved, a resource that was off their coast and control over that resource in order to develop an economy there and build their own structures in Southern Labrador. That is vastly different from what we see in other parts of the Province. That is what happened in 1978-1979 when the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company was formed and the people of that coast, from Cartwright to L'Anse au Clair, received two offshore allocations of shrimp. Over the last twenty years the people in that area have taken that resource and invested it for themselves into industries in their area; whether it be fishplants, shrimp plants, crab plants, groundfish plants and whatever. That, in my belief, in my estimation, is what, in large part, has caused the Southern Coast of Labrador to be in such good shape today. That is not to say that everything in Southern Labrador is rosy. I don't mean to suggest that, but it is vastly different from the tip of the Northern Peninsula.

MS JONES: Talk about your own district.

MR. TAYLOR: I will talk about my own district, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I am getting to that.

Mr. Speaker, just last week - I think it was last Thursday - the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture released a report on corporate concentration in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. There are some very telling statements in that report. I say that economics has a large part to do - there is a role for the economy and for economic development to reduce child poverty and then there is the role for government on the social spending side.

In fisheries policy, for example, in different areas of the Province we have to make decisions that allow for people to get good stable incomes from the industry. How is that related to this? In the report that came out last Thursday we see that since 1990, while there has been consolidation in the industry, while there has been some reduction in the number of plants - and the Member for Bonavista South said earlier today about some of the actions that were taken in the 1970s and 1980s on fisheries policy and how we ended up with so many fish plants. We all know what happened there. There were reasons for that and we are not going to get into them right now. Right now, what we have to do in going ahead, we have to look back in order to figure out where we want to go in the future. What do we do in the future when it comes to the fisheries, for example? What has happened - I will go back to Southern Labrador again.

In L'Anse au Loup, Southern Labrador, there is one regional processing facility that provides decent incomes over an extended period of time for the people in that area. That came about when the people of the area decided to consolidate three or four operations into one operation, and make an investment there for the people of the whole area and build a regional facility. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing everywhere in the Province. We are continuing to go down the road that we went down when we didn't have the benefit or the knowledge that we have today; when we did not have the benefit of this knowledge back in the 1970s and 1960s and we allowed infrastructure to be developed all over the place.

What we have to do in the fishery - and I suspect in other areas of the economy - is decide that this is where the processing capacity is going to be located, this is how much of it we are going to have, and we are going to provide the people who are in this industry with decent incomes. Because if we don't, as the Member for Kilbride said today, we are just going to share poverty. This is the problem, we are sharing poverty. We have to get away from putting people into low income jobs when the alternative is to put fewer people into higher income jobs. Now the fishing industry, for example, can solve some of this problem. There is a role for the fishing industry to solve some of this problem. If we had plants that were running for thirty-five, forty, and fifty weeks of the year, then those plants would give the people working in them a decent income and allow for their children not to be living in poverty.

MR. J. BYRNE: A better standard of living.

MR. TAYLOR: A better standard of living, as the Member for Cape St. Francis said.

What we are doing today is taking - we know how much resource we have. We know how much that resource is valued at. We know how much work can be derived from that resource in the primary processing sector. We are not sure how much we can get in the secondary processing sector, but we know how much we can get out of the primary processing sector. So, the question is: Do we put 1,000 people into that sector and allow them to have a decent living, or do we put 2,000 people into it and ensure that nobody has a good living; water down the income levels and provide for instability, those types of things? Because that is where we have been and that is where it seems that we are continuing to go.

MR. TULK: What are you saying?

MR. TAYLOR: What I am saying, to the Member for Bonavista North's question, is that we need to allow the industry to do what it can do and not try to force it to do any more than what it can do. What we have been trying to do in the fishery in Newfoundland is force it to do more than it can do, and all we have done in that is ensure instability, low incomes, and poverty. That is what we have been trying to do because it has been the employer of last resort. Once we decide to take a different road in this sector and allow the people who are in the industry to get good incomes out of it and provide for their family, and ensure that those people are not living - who are working very hard in this industry - below the poverty line. Once we have those people looked after, well we don't have to deal with them anymore. Then if there is another sector of the industry that can be developed to look after some other communities and in another way, whether it is in some other part of the fishery or some other industry altogether, fine, we do that, and if we can't do that, then this is where government comes in; in my view. This is where, as the statement says here: It is clear that Canada cannot rely on the market alone to help us grow our way out of poverty.

The Member for Gander was speaking a few minutes ago on post-secondary education. We recognize that there needs to be -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: I say to him, and listen closely to what I say, because he has been a fisherman, he has been involved in the fishery including the union. I wonder if he would permit a question: Do you see the number of plants going down or going up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, it is just curiosity, I might add.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying - there was no point of order, so I will carry on - the Minister for Post-Secondary Education and Youth Services spoke about investments in post-secondary education. We recognize that there is a need for investment in post-secondary education - reducing student debt, reducing tuition fees and those types of things - but, Mr. Speaker, today the issue is child poverty. The issue is, we have seen our child poverty rates - as I said before and others have said - in Newfoundland and Labrador increase from 21.6 per cent to 25.3 per cent over the last twenty years. While the national average is bad enough, or the national statistics suggest that one in five children throughout the country live in poverty, in Newfoundland and Labrador one in four live in poverty. Mr. Speaker, that is an abysmal figure, an abysmal acknowledgment on the part of our society.

The minister talks about post-secondary education. I referred earlier to Campaign 2000, November 2001 bulletin, Security in Insecure Times, Tackling Canada's Social Deficit. When it says developing a social investment plan for the national children's agenda, as I see it, there are four recommendations that are made here. Neither of these deal with post-secondary education. They say, and I will read them: The federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, begin immediate implementation of the announced increases to the Canada Child Tax Benefit.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that the current plan is to increase the Canada Child Tax Benefit to a maximum of $2,372 by July, 2002, growing to $2,514 by 2004. Campaign 2000 proposes that in order to significantly raise the living standard of families, the existing Canadian Child Tax Benefit be consolidated into a single program that provides a maximum benefit of $4,200 per child to all low and modest income families, independent of their source of income. That is one recommendation that they made.

The second recommendation is that the federal government implement a national affordable housing strategy that will lead to the creation of 20,000 new affordable units each year for ten years, and the rehabilitation of 10,000 affordable units per year; another good recommendation.

The third recommendation is that the federal investment in the Early Childhood Development Initiative should be increased substantially up to $2 billion per year with provinces as full partners in ensuring the development of a sustainable, accessible system for all families with quality child care as a cornerstone of the system. Mr. Speaker, those are the three recommendations that are made there to deal with child poverty; children under eighteen who live with family or guardians.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Labrador West brought up a little while ago - I think it was the Member for Labrador West - about EI, Employment Insurance. The number, I think, is $24.7 billion in a surplus in that account right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-six.

MR. TAYLOR: Thirty-six? Anyway, it is a substantial surplus. One figure that I read was $24.7 billion. I always thought it was higher, in the thirties, but billions. Did I say millions? Billions of dollars.

We have people in this Province who are fighting on the Northern Peninsula - it is just as well to say fighting - in the last two days for access to a Job Creation Program that the minister announced just a couple of weeks ago, $2 million. I guess it is probably a little bit higher than that now, but a couple of million dollars in job creation funding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I say thank you to the Government House Leader.

Just to clue up, we all recognize the financial constraints that governments operate within, and to some extent we understand the provincial government's constrains, but I, for one, fail to understand the federal government's position on investing in rural Newfoundland, in particular. Any investment, any redirection of funds in the EI account towards rural Newfoundland will counter child poverty in this Province. I think it is incumbent on all of us, Opposition members and government members, to pressure the federal government into changing the rules that they have under the EI program and to make the investments that are really needed in rural Newfoundland to counter poverty in general, and child poverty in particular.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education recognizes the important link between a strong accessible education system and our citizens' ability to live happy and productive lives.

It is our firm belief that education is one of the key building blocks for the creation of a thriving prosperous economy in which child poverty has no place. This is why this government spends more on education, based on our ability to pay, than any other province in the country.

Financially, the Department of Education has committed a generous amount of funding to ensure children do not go to school hungry. In 1998, the Province provided the School Children's Food Foundation with an endowment of $2 million. The Foundation is currently sponsoring breakfast-lunch programs in 134 schools in our Province, feeding over 13,000 of our children.

The department has also earmarked substantial financial resources to support our students. For example, despite declining student enrolment, student expenditures have climbed in the past ten years from $5,500 four years ago up to $6,500 this year, an increase of 16.2 per cent in four short years.

The department's role in combating child poverty is based on our long-term plan for increased literacy levels in the Province and improving high school retention rates. Recognizing that many poor children live in families where the major income earner has less than a high school education, we are pleased to report the rate of graduation from high school has increased substantially during the past decade. In 2001 it stood at 81 per cent, an increase of 14.4 per cent since 1990-1991. With more education comes a greater chance of higher earnings.

In 1992, the Royal Commission on Education made a number of recommendations relating to child poverty which the Department of Education has acted upon. There is now a model of co-ordination of services to children and youth, designed to facilitate partnership between the Departments of Education, Health and Community Services, Human Resources and Employment, and Justice, in providing services to children who require support. This partnership addresses early intervention and prevention, risk assessment, nutritional issues and potential developmental delays, among others. Should one be required, an individual support services plan will be initiated to support the child to facilitate success in school.

This co-ordination model -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just ask the hon. minister now to take her seat.

It is 4:45 p.m. and, being Private Members' Day, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley now has fifteen minutes to conclude the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder - I promised him yesterday that I would get him some information today. Our Government House Leader says: Give him the full fifteen minutes; stop the clock.

If I could, I just want to ask leave to present some information that I promised the hon. gentleman. When I looked at it today, it wasn't what I thought it should be, so I had it re-checked. If I could, I would like to point out -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TULK: I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, if I could, that yesterday I said in the House that the legal liabilities were $300,000 and professional fees were $250,000. The Opposition House Leader, when he stood up, said that it was $300,000 for legal fees and $250,000 for professional fees. In actual fact, it was legal liabilities, not legal fees. I took his version of what he said, and when I looked at the papers today I said: No, there is something wrong with this. So I went back and had it checked. In actual fact, the legal fees and professional fees in total were $323,277.30. I promised I would get him that information today, and I would like to table it. I want to say to him that there is still left in that for legal liabilities - we spent $100,000 for legal liabilities - there is still $200,000 left in the guarantee for possible legal liabilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got it?

MR. TULK: Who got it? Cox Hansen O'Reilly Matheson, $93,000; Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales, $46,000; Martin Whalen Hennebury Stamp, $51,000; Picco White Evans, $1,500 - that is in round figures - Grant Thornton professional fees, $130,000.

The first case, Cox Hansen O'Reilly Matheson was the general legal council for the Marystown Shipyard for well over a decade. Number two, Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales was retained as legal council for lawsuit initiated by Argyll Corporation against the shipyard for unpaid consulting fees. Number three, Martin Whalen Hennebury Stamp, was retained for outstanding lawsuits with Puddister Trading and Novenco dating back several years. Picco White Evans was a local Marystown firm retained for sale of house previously owned by the shipyard. Number five, Grant Thornton, has been the shipyard's auditors for over a decade, and the only major accounting firm with an office in Marystown. All on the table for the hon. gentleman. Is there anything you can see wrong with that, Jack?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I didn't think so.

Thank you.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a motion. I normally do it at the conclusion of the day but on Wednesdays I do not get a chance to speak, as the Speaker adjourns the House.

If I could just make a motion, with the leave of the House.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, for tomorrow, Thursday, I move that the House not adjourn at its regular time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues who have shared in this very important (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, the intent of my private member's resolution was to put before this House the real face of poverty, to bring to the attention of this House the concerns of so many children in Newfoundland and Labrador. Children are poor because their parents are poor. They often lack adequate food, they lack adequate shelter, they lack adequate security, and other basic necessities of life.

Mr. Speaker, my intention was that we would ask this House to do something that the Parliament of Canada has done, that is that we would give some very firm commitments to the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened today is that we have outlined the latest stats that are available and it shows a very bleak picture of Newfoundland and Labrador's most precious resource, our children. In 1981, 21.6 per cent of our children were living in poverty. By the end of the 1980s, that had been reduced to 19.8 per cent in 1989. Then it climbed to 26.8 per cent by 1992. By 1995, it was 26.2 per cent. In 1998, it was 25.3 per cent. The very latest stat that I have is for 1999, and for 25.3 per cent of our children living in poverty in 1998, it was 25.7 per cent in 1999.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the intent of the resolution I put forward today was to bring the issues of children forceably to this Legislature. When I was doing research on this particular matter, I tried to find examples in this Legislature when we really talked about child poverty. I went through the Hansards, I went through the Throne Speeches, and I went through the Budgets. Mr. Speaker, all of the Throne Speeches, all of the Budgets, are like this particular Throne Speech. There is not a single commentary in this Throne Speech, on March 13, 2001, that talks about child poverty.

Mr. Speaker, we have 25 per cent of our children living in poverty, and we have mention of everything under the sun in the Throne Speech, but not a mention of child poverty. Mr. Speaker, that is not only ridiculous, it is an awful indictment on the government of the day when the concerns of all those young children did not make it into this document.

Mr. Speaker, what we want to do in our resolution is remind the House that child poverty is not the fault of the child. We wanted to bring to the House's attention the real concerns of all those young people who every day cope with this persistent problem. Children who are hungry have poorer health. Children who are hungry do not do well in school. We only have to read the Canning Report. There are twelve recommendations alone on child poverty in the Williams Royal Commission. There is an entire chapter in the Canning Report dealing exclusively with child poverty. It is chapter three.

Mr. Speaker, we have had ample research done by world-known sociologists on child poverty. The relationship between child poverty and health, the relationship between child poverty and educational achievement is well researched. It is documented; it is known.

Mr. Speaker, what we wanted to do today is to say to the government that we are not happy with what they have been doing. We don't believe they have demonstrated a strong commitment to the reduction of child poverty in our Province. If they had, the stats would tell the truth. The stats that we have presented today to this House tell the real situation. While we can talk about the strategies that are now in place - and some of them are good, I would admit that, but they are not working for a lot of our children.

Mr. Speaker, in the resolution part of the resolution I put forward today I want it to do several things. I would be very reasonable. I said to myself when I was writing this: Let's ask the government to adopt social and economic strategies that will reduce child poverty in this Province at the national level or below the national level. I would like to see it to zero, but we have to be realistic. It takes time to combat these things. Let's be reasonable. Let's bring it to the national level, which is now 19.2 per cent. Let's do that over a period of time. Let's do that by the year 2005. Let's send the children of this Province a real message: that we are serious, we are going to set targets, we are going to put money to it, we are going to be committed to it, and we are going to bring the children's agenda to this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, what the government's amendment did was turn it into a self-congratulatory process. They said: Let's change the member's resolution. Let's congratulate ourselves and say what a fine job we are doing, even though we did not write one sentence in the Throne Speech about it.

What the children want in this Province is some firm commitment. The federal government, rightly or wrongly in 1989, gave a commitment. The federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, in 1998 and 1999, talked about children in his budget speeches. The Prime Minister has said he is committed. I would like to see more money coming from Ottawa to help us out in Newfoundland and Labrador on the issue. However, at least the national governments and the other governments are setting targets. Mr. Speaker, we are not setting any reasonable targets. The amended resolution that came forward here says nothing. It is a zero statement. It simply says: Therefore Be It Resolved that this House endorse the need for continued emphasis on comprehensive social and economic strategies aimed at reducing child poverty rates in this Province to national levels or below, over a reasonable period of time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is a reasonable period of time? I have quoted stats today that go back twenty years. In twenty years we have seen the child poverty rate go up. What is a reasonable period of time? I thought, and I still think, that government should be commited to telling the children of this Province that we are going to put money behind what we say. We are going to walk the walk, and we are going to talk the talk. This resolution, as now written and amended by the government, says nothing to the children who are poor in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the government today has changed a well-meaning resolution, a well-meaning statement to the parents, to the children of this Province, into a political statement that is aimed at doing absolutely nothing. They have gone and have changed the whole resolution. Mr. Speaker, I want more for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador than this statement gives here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: I want a further commitment. I want to go and say that we, in this House, believe in the youth of our children, we believe in their futures and we will give them every opportunity to access a better world, a better future, and they won't do it with this kind of amendment that this government did this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues that we, on this side of the House, will vote against your amended resolution -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: - because it does not fulfill the mandate that we believe we should give to the children of this Province. In fact, without that mandate, this resolution is nothing more than sounding brass and tinkling symbols; saying nothing. We want the resolution to say something. If it had said something and made a commitment we would have supported the amended resolution. I regret that I cannot vote for the amended resolution. I do believe that we have to say more, be firmer, and we have to mean what we say, put the money behind the causes of the children of this Province, and there is no bigger cause in this Province today than child poverty. Do something about it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Our children deserve a better future; they deserve an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I say to the government that you should not have amended the resolution because it was written in great sincerity, and I regret that I cannot support anything that doesn't bring a better future and a guaranteed future to the children of Newfoundland Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment carried.

All those in favour of the resolution as amended, ‘aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution as amended, carried.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.