The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Baccalieu Trail Heritage Corporation on the launch of a new Web site celebrating the rich history of the Baccalieu Trail.

The Web site, located at the URL, collections.ic.gc.ca/baccalieutrail was supported with a $14,400 contribution from Industry Canada and funded through the federal government's Youth Employment Strategy Initiative.

Mr. Speaker, visitors to the Web site, which was designed by two youth interns under the guidance of the Baccalieu Trail Heritage Corporation, can now access the unique heritage resources that are presented on the Baccalieu Trail anywhere they can get the Internet, including viewing of artifacts from excavations along with detailed information about the communities in the area.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Baccalieu Trail Heritage Corporation who has partnered with Industry Canada and the Mariner Resources Opportunities network in getting this Web site online and I urge all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not only to surf the Internet but especially my fellow colleagues across the way, come visit the Baccalieu Trail and experience the unique history in that area.

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 have a particularly pleasant task today. There is a young gentleman out there who is celebrating his ninety-second birthday. This young man does his own cooking, makes a mean batch of partridgeberry and apple jam, still dances and plays cards a couple of times a week. He also volunteers a couple of times a week at St Vincent De Paul Society. Actually, for his volunteerism over the years, he recently received the Queen's Jubilee Medal.

It is my pleasure today to say Happy Birthday to Mr. Jim Ridgley, my dad.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Persalvic Elementary School in Victoria, and St. Catherine's Academy, Mount Carmel, are each to receive new computers for their efforts in the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board's, (MMSB) annual school recycling contest.

This year marks the fifth year for the school recycling contest. It was designed to encourage recycling within all provincial schools, and this year there are 295 schools participating in the Province wide recycling contest. Computers, valued at $1,500 each, will be the prizes for the school who recycles the most this year

Launched on September 1, this years contest will continue until June 30, 2003, and will see schools doubling their refund on all beverage containers recycled. To help with the recycling efforts, every school that is involved in the contest has been supplied with recycling bins and bags, a recycling video and educational promotional materials.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. members of this House to join with me and congratulate the Persalvic Elementary School in Victoria, and St. Catherine's Academy, in Mt. Carmel for already showing good recycling habits, and for both receiving the first of ten computers that will be awarded in this years contest. Also, I would like to congratulate the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board for their innovative idea in creating such an important program that benefits both the environment and the schools participating in the contest.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to extend congratulations to a good friend, Rev. Dr. Hector Swain, on his being named as a recipient of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

Rev. Swain received his medal in a ceremony at First United Church in Mount Pearl on Sunday, December 1. My good friend, the Member of Parliament for St. John's West, Loyola Hearn, was on hand to make the presentation.

Rev. Dr. Swain is a noted researcher, teacher, administrator, clergy, community volunteer and author. He is also a Lieutenant-Commander in the Canadian Navy and serves currently as Chaplain to Branch 36 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Mount Pearl.

His latest book entitled, The Unfolding Dream is a history of VOWR and its radio ministry to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

As Ministry Emeritus of First United Church in Mount Pearl, Rev. Swain is not only a loved and distinguished member of the congregation but also one who contributes countless hours of volunteer time visiting seniors and others in a very active outreach ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House will join me in extending congratulations and best wishes to Rev. Dr. Hector Swain.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It gives me great pleasure today to rise in this House to congratulate the 567 Random Squadron Royal Canadian Air Cadets on the occasion of their 50^th anniversary.

The Random 567 Squadron are very outgoing. They are involved in numerous activities such as public speaking, air-rifle competitions and various community events. This year alone, they have raised in excess of $2,000 for the Children's Wish Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, for the first twenty years, the Air Cadet Movement had all male membership. In 1974, Jackie Vokey was one of the first females to enrol in that organization. Jackie is now the Commanding Officer of the Random 567 Squadron and leads over seventy cadets with almost half of its membership being female.

The Royal Canadian Air Cadets offer many opportunities to young people, it gives them a sense of community, a chance to help others as well as learning life skills that will benefit them their entire lives. They enjoy many fun activities and are all given the opportunity to travel.

Mr. Speaker, many of the former members of the Random 567 Squadron have gone on to pursue careers in the Armed Forces and as adults they have expressed their appreciation for the opportunities they have had due to their involvement in the Air Cadet Movement.

I would ask all of the members in this House to join with me in congratulating the Random 567 Squadron on fifty years of a very successful contribution to the development of the young people in the general Clarenville area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay recognition to the Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir who, on October 10, 2002, performed for Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, in Toronto during the Royal Golden Jubilee Gala, a celebration of Her Majesty's fifty years on the throne.

As part of the royal visit to this country, the Queen attended a Gala Performance at the Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto that was hosted by the Prime Minister. The Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir, which is composed of fifty-seven singers from the St. John's region, was contacted by the Prime Minister's office last summer and asked to preform, along with a select number of renowned performers and groups from across the country.

The Choir, which was founded in 1992 by Susan Knight, is a community-based cultural organization with Ki Adams as the Associate Conductor and Accompanist. At the heart of the group's vision is the valuing, promoting, and transmitting of Newfoundland and Labrador's distinctive and rich culture.

These young people have attained a remarkable level of professionalism and have been highly acclaimed by both national and international audiences. The group has been the recipient of numerous awards and has to date recorded some four albums.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join with me in acknowledging the accomplishments of the Newfoundland Youth Symphony Choir and congratulating the group for its recent invitation to perform at the American Choral Directors Association's Biennial National Convention to be held in New York City in February, 2003. This is quite an honour and, as a Newfoundland Choir, they will be one of very few and select non-American guest choirs at the event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to remind members of this hon. House that this week, December 1 to December 7, is National Safe Driving Week. National Safe Driving Week draws our attention to the need for safe driving all year round. We must drive safety if we are to save lives, minimize injuries and repair costs, and save money on insurance premiums.

Mr. Speaker, accidents are more costly than ever. Claims for injuries and repairs are causing dramatic increases in insurances rates. Our government is taking many initiatives to help make driving as safe and affordable as possible. We have a number of related bills now before this House.

Most drivers are responsible, but we all have lapses. As drivers, we have to do all we can to ensure our vehicles are well maintained, and we have to concentrate on driving. There are too many activities which take our mind away from this demanding task. It is common to see drivers on cellphones, dogs roaming freely in moving vehicles, persons drinking beverages and eating food while driving, and drivers adjusting radios, stereos and CD players. We all have to make a determined effort to become better and more attentive drivers.

Government must do all it can to help inform and educate drivers and make our roads and regulations as conducive to safety as possible. The actions we are taking in this House will help. We have given second reading to bills which call for a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones by drivers while driving, increased penalties for impaired driving, and vehicle seizure and impoundment.

I have also given notice that I intend to seek a variety of additional legislative amendments related to the operations of the insurance industry.

As well, we have given second reading to a bill which calls for the appointment of a consumer advocate to ensure public interests are properly represented at automobile insurance rate hearings before the Public Utilities Board.

We must continue to do all we can to make driving safer and reduce the cost of accidents and insurance premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season. I encourage members and all motorists to drive defensively, keep their hands on the wheel, their eyes on the road, and their minds on driving.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his press release in advance, his statement. I agree that there are a couple of good things I would like to point out in this: the fact that the cellphone ban is coming in, with hand-held. I believe that is a very good thing and it is moving through the system.

The other thing is the increase in penalties for drinking and driving, which is another very good thing that is happening in our society as well. I think December 1 to 7 is a very good time for National Safe Driving Week because it is a week, I suppose, before the holiday season so it is a good time to remind us all that it is very good.

I suppose the other side of it is what is on the minds of most people out there, which is the condition of our roads, which is something we do have control of, and that is if we have 100 per cent salt or 75/25 or 50/50. I think that is on the minds of everybody out there today as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: With that, I would also like to wish everybody a happy holiday season and a safe one as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, but I want to say to the minister that every week should be safe driving week.

With safe driving, Mr. Speaker, there are two basic fundamentals that are important to safe driving. One is a safe vehicle; the other is safe roads. This government has failed in both areas by taking a backward step of removing the necessity of vehicle inspections after a certain age, which was certainly a backward step towards this, and road conditions. I will not say to this minister, but I will say to the Minister of Transportation, that the roads in Labrador contribute a lot to the unsafe accidents that are happening in our area of the Province, and until he does something about the roads there we can be as safe as we like, unless he does something to improve these conditions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Just to finish. Unless the minister takes action there we are still going to continue to have accidents that are not going to be attributable to peoples' fault.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: 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 rise today to mark December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Established in 1991 by the Parliament of Canada, this day stems from the sad anniversary of the death of fourteen young women who were tragically killed on December 6, 1989 and L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, these young women in Montreal were victims of violence because of their gender and because they studied engineering, a field traditionally dominated by men. The Montreal massacre was an act of violence directed specifically and deliberately against women because they were women.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the 13^th anniversary of their death, is a day which is marked across Canada as a time to remember and recommit ourselves and our resources to ending violence against women. As a memorial to these women, and to all the women who have lost their lives through violence, the flags outside Confederation Building will be flown at half mast.

This day, Mr. Speaker, represents a time to pause and reflect on violence against women and girls in our society. The Violence Prevention Initiative is one avenue through which government, communities and anti-violence organizations are working together on issues of violence against women, as well as other victimized groups. This partnership is important because we all need to be involved in efforts to prevent violence and provide support to victims.

This past Tuesday, the federal-provincial territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women released a document Assessing Violence Against Women: A Statistical Profile. It provides information on the prevalence and severity of violence against women. While there has been much work and many accomplishments by individuals, women's groups, communities and government in addressing violence against women, the statistics in this document indicate there is still much work to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to join with me in wearing a purple ribbon to remember the fourteen women from the Montreal massacre and other women and girls who are victims of violence in this Province, across Canada and, indeed, globally. Together with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador we need to continue to work towards ending violence against women.

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 thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement in advance.

I rise today in the House of Assembly as we commemorate the sad anniversary of the Montreal massacre which took place thirteen years ago.

The minister said in her statement, "...there is still much work to be done." I say to the minister, less than a week ago a shelter for abused women in Happy Valley-Goose Bay closed. This is a crisis situation. The government knew about it and have done nothing to intervene.

The Minister of Health and Community Services says the women are being put up in hotels, and social workers are making house calls. Do you really think that the women are secure in a situation like this? The vulnerability that the women in Happy Valley-Goose Bay region now find themselves is not uncommon in many areas of our Province where there are no shelters and where police forces have too few resources to enforce peace bonds and adequately protect women and their children from violence. That is something we should take to heart as we prepare to mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

In the thirteen years since that massacre there have been many women murdered and maimed, many more than the fourteen women who were murdered that day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is why, Mr. Speaker, the closure -

MS KELLY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS KELLY: It is extremely difficult to stand here today but (inaudible) does not need to be (inaudible). The decision of the board (inaudible) the internal board have difficulty. The Department of Health, the Women's Policy Office, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs have all worked very hard to try and ensure that this did not happen. It has, and we are working very hard to make sure this house is opened as quickly as possible. It had nothing to do with finances, all to do now with helping the board to get going again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Does it make the women in the hotels feel anymore secure? Because there have been so many women killed in the interim, that is why the closure of the shelter in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It is not a mere inconvenience to the women in that area who live in fear of violence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to read a quote from a participant in a recent Women's History Month Contest sponsored by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The quote is, "Thinking about December 6^th makes me very, very sad: this is the date on which one man shot and killed female students the Polytechnic in Montreal - simply because they were women. I remember his name - but not the names of the young women, which is the opposite of what it should be."

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the indulgence of the House to once again read the names of the fourteen victims: Genvieve Bergeron, who was twenty-one; Helene Colgan, who was twenty-three; Nathalie Croteau, who was twenty-three; Barbara Daigneault, who was twenty-two; Anne-Marie Edward, who was twenty-one; Maud Haviernick, who was twenty-nine; Barbara Maria Klucznick, who was twenty-one; Maryse Laganiere, who was twenty-five; Maryse Leclair, who was twenty-three; Anne-Marie Lemay, who was twenty-two; Sonia Pelletier, who was twenty-eight - Sonia was to graduate on December 7, 1989, the day after the massacre - Michele Richard, who was twenty-one; Annie St. Arneault, who was twenty-three; and Annie Turcotte, who was twenty-one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed a sad anniversary of a tragedy fourteen years ago at the Polytechnique. I think a couple of years ago when this statement was brought forward I mentioned the fact that I knew a young lady who was attending the Polytechnique when this took place. She was not there on that particular day because she was sick, but sadly, Mr. Speaker, it was not that much later, a few years later, I attended her funeral in Seven Islands where she was killed in an industrial accident.

This does mark a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. I think the symptoms go a lot further than this. If we look at our society in general, and we look at the wages that women make today in this country -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: If we look at the wages that women in this country are paid today, in comparison to men, and if we look at the situation in Vancouver that is taking place as we speak, what is unfolding there in terms of the prostitutes who have been murdered - again, it is specifically targeted towards women.

If we look around this Province, Mr. Speaker, we see that the number of women and children who are accessing shelters in this Province has been steadily increasing since 1994. That does not take into account the number of women who are abused and do not have any shelters to go to. It does not take into account the women who are abused and have the ability to find other accommodations rather than go to the shelters. This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, one that needs to be continuously worked on, and one that needs our full attention.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to announce a grant of $279,000 under the Newfoundland and Labrador Waste Management Trust Fund to the Central Newfoundland Solid Waste Management Committee.

This waste management committee, which represents108 communities, has received funding from the trust fund to conduct phase two of their regional waste management study. This is the final phase of the project and encompasses the investigation of landfill alternatives, transfer station options, materials recycling and composting facility alternatives. The study also includes the development of a conceptual design for a regional landfill site and the close-out requirements for all existing sites in the region.

Mr. Speaker, phase two of this study continues the work conducted last year by the Central Newfoundland Solid Waste Management Committee. In 2001, with a $72,000 grant from the Waste Management Trust Fund, the committee reviewed and evaluated the solid waste management needs, including recycling programs, of the Central Newfoundland region.

Over the past three years, the trust fund has provided assistance to community groups, municipalities, schools and businesses to aid in the development and implementation of waste management initiatives in the Province.

Since the Newfoundland and Labrador Waste Management Trust Fund was established in 1999, government has approved 278 applications and over $7 million in contributions.

Mr. Speaker, this funding has been disbursed to 285 schools, more than 155 municipalities, 45 environmental and community groups, and several businesses and school districts.

Mr. Speaker, government is committed to addressing our current waste management situation with long-term solutions, thereby ensuring the protection of our environment for the enjoyment of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for generations to come.

Government's Waste Management Strategy, released in April of this year, is designed to ensure the planning and development of waste management strategies are done by the people in the regions. The partnering of communities will ensure strategies developed meet the needs of the people. We also want to thank the Federation of Municipalities for their excellent participation in this initiative.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The waste management study and Waste Management Strategy, I say to the minister, is an excellent idea, and it should be funded. Most of the initiatives that have been funded by the $7 million - approved and funded - are good ideas.

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to start a program and that is it, and leave it at that. The Beverage Recycling Program has not gotten the numbers up nearly to where the minister and the former minister predicted they would be. Yet, they continue taking money out of the Beverage Recycling Program to fund other programs. How can it be a success, Mr. Speaker, when you are raiding that fund, creating a tax out of the money that consumers are paying on the beverage containers they are purchasing, without any initiatives put back into the program to increase the number of beverage containers that are being recycled?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, that is why, on this side of the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - we are serious about recycling and we will follow it through - not a half job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we support the work of the Central Newfoundland Solid Waste Management Committee, it has to be recognized that we in this Province are very far behind when it comes to ensuring that each and every community in our Province has a good solid recycling program, a good solid waste management program. While this might help in a particular circumstance, it is time that this government started setting standards and trying to catch up to where our fellow provinces, like Nova Scotia, are in ensuring the amount of waste going into landfills is reduced and the amount of recycling is increased.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much for the applause.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to invite hon. members to the annual Christmas Lights Across Canada Tree Lighting Ceremony, which will take place today, Thursday, December 5, in front of the East Block of the Confederation Building.

This will be the Province's sixteenth year participating in this national ceremony, and once again we join with our nation's capital as well as other provincial and territorial capitals, in a show of unity during this Christmas season.

Mr. Speaker, this year we are thrilled to have local talent Sheila Williams acting as the master of ceremonies for this event, and we will enjoy entertainment from the Vanier Elementary School Choir and the Salvation Army St. John's Citadel Band.

The event starts at 6:15 p.m. in the East Block of Confederation Building, and at 6:45 p.m. Premier Grimes will turn on the switch that will illuminate the 60,000 lights found on the trees in front of the building and along the parkway.

Mr. Speaker, participating again with Christmas Lights Across Canada are the College of the North Atlantic, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Heritage Canada at Signal Hill, the Health Sciences Centre, and we welcome CBC, who will be displaying lights this year in conjunction with our ceremony.

Mr. Speaker, this event promises to be a good time for all, and I invite hon. members to join us in front of the East Block at 6:15 this evening.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We, on this side of the House, would encourage as many people as possible to come out to the annual Christmas Lights Across Canada Tree Lighting Ceremony.

Mr. Speaker, this is the sixteenth anniversary of us participating in such an event and we encourage the people to come out; bring their children out. It is a good way to kick off the Christmas season.

Now, when it is lit up each year, we see from the College of the North Atlantic to the Health Sciences, it is really quite nice to look at. It is beautiful, actually, but I have the same concern of fear, Mr. Speaker, that I had this time last year, that the planes flying in over do not mistake it for the runway; other than that, it is a very beautiful thing to look at.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, would encourage people to join in the kickoff of the Christmas season, but I cannot help thinking, Mr. Speaker, in this year of Kyoto, that the 60,000 lights that we are going to be turning on tonight, we are actually burning Bunker C oil in Holyrood to produce the light. We should be working on finding ways of getting natural gas ashore so that we can turn those lights on cheaper, and cleaner lights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: There would be cleaner lights and brighter lights, Mr. Speaker, if we had that!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the hon. the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, over two weeks ago the Premier suggested that a deal to develop the Lower Churchill was virtually complete and imminent. In fact, detailed documentation was presented to the Board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for their approval. Shortly afterwards, Peter Penashue says a land claims agreement with the Premier has been negotiated, to which the Premier said: No, it is not. On Monday of this week, the Minister of Mines and Energy said there is no deal and confirms that negotiators have stood down. Yesterday, the Premier indicated that this government, his government, is still moving forward and is close to a deal with Quebec in many, many ways.

Mr. Speaker, despite his comments yesterday, would the Premier confirm the national television news story last night from the Government of Quebec that negotiations between that province and our Province have been placed on hold as a result of opposition to the deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition might like to tell the people of the Province if he would be happy or sad if that was the case.

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 that story, which was released by Reuters news agency yesterday, the secretary for Quebec Premier, Bernard Landry, said - and I quote him - the project is now on hold because of growing opposition in Newfoundland. They are prevaricating. Now the word prevaricating is a word that I did not know the meaning of. So, I went to the Oxford dictionary, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: The word prevaricating, Mr. Speaker, means to speak or act evasively or misleadingly, according to the dictionary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now, he is on a supplementary, to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Would the Premier now acknowledge that not only does the Opposition think that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is misleading the people but so does the Government of Quebec?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is anyone in this Province fooled by anything other than that they do know, for a fact, that the greatest wish of the Leader of the Opposition and the party that he leads is that there not be a deal on the Lower Churchill. That is the absolute greatest wish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we have made it perfectly clear, from day one, in this Province, that we are committed to trying to find a way to move forward in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will not be talked into a debate about partial truths, untruths, misinformation, that if we have an arrangement and a deal to talk about, if we finalize a negotiation, we have committed, as we always have, and as we did with Voisey's Bay, to release all of the details, all of the information to everybody in the Province, have a debate in this Legislature and have a free vote. That is the stance and the position of this particular government, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, we have not concluded our negotiations so we are not in a position to do that today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. member would just allow me the opportunity to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today a former member of the House of Assembly for Port de Grave, and currently the Member of Parliament for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Mr. John Efford, and his wife, Madonna.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our greatest wish is not to sign the deal that that desperate Premier is prepared to sign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Premier is saying that the Government of Quebec is wrong. So, who is the Premier negotiating with? Is he negotiating with himself, perhaps, or is he negotiating with the members of his caucus about this deal? Perhaps that is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Does he know, or does anybody in his government or in the caucus know, or does anybody in the country know, what is happening with negotiations to develop the Lower Churchill? Is the deal dead? Are negotiations continuing? And if they are, who are they negotiating with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tactic of the Leader of the Opposition that he has been trying to use now for some three weeks, of trying to create some confusion. The fact of the matter is this: We are engaged in a negotiation, trying to do something in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue in that negotiation in whatever fashion that is required. We have never placed any timelines with respect to a negotiation. That is not a position we have ever put ourselves into. Our only objective is to get the right deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, however long that takes, and we will continue down that road and then gladly release it at some point to the people of the Province.

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 media scrum following Question Period yesterday, the Premier was more forthright than he had been in the House in admitting that, in fact, the design and the engineering, and prefabrication of the generators, the transmission towers and transmission cable for the Gull Island project would be done in Quebec, by Quebec companies, and using Quebec workers.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: If all the work is occurring in Quebec, would the Premier please tell the people what is left for companies and workers from this Province other than the onsite work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the questions are useful for the people of the Province in seeing through the tactics of the Leader of the Opposition. He admits his position and that of the party which he leads, is that we should not sign a deal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me finish the point.

The deal that nobody knows what it is because there has been neither one released to the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, they have no idea - which is what they want the people of the Province to believe - of what might be in a deal, but they know one thing, they are against it. They do not know what it is, but they do know they are against it.

Mr. Speaker, the point raised in this question is an important one, and the people in the Province have, in the past, been led down the garden path by people like the Leader of the Opposition, who want to twist words and play politics rather than deal with the facts. Everybody in this Province, everybody in Labrador in particular, who were there when the Moores government spent $100 million on a failed attempt to do the Lower Churchill, put the road in from Happy Valley-Goose Bay into the site, cleared the land for the so-called construction camp, spent over $100 million - and the Member for Labrador West nods that it is true -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: The people who were at the meeting in Labrador last week know it is true. That those people would rather pretend that some things are possible in the Province and spend money on it and twist people in the wind and leave them with false hopes rather than deal with reality, Mr. Speaker. We deal in the real world.

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.

There is one other person who would sign the deal that the Premier would sign and that is Premier Bernard Landry. That is who would sign it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier to clarify a couple of facts that have emerged concerning this project. Can the Premier please confirm that Quebec will assume the following roles in this project that is supposed to be 100 per cent owned, according to the Premier, by Newfoundland and Labrador? Will he confirm that they will be the sole banker, the sole customer, a project manager, and in the event of schedule delays or budget overruns, part owner of the project? Will Quebec, Premier, play all of these roles?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me say it again. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition will then suggest I did not answer the question. Let me say it again. The role that anybody plays in any part of a project will be crystal clear when there is a deal done and presented with all of the information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, back to the previous question where he talked about the work that would be done in Quebec. Yesterday, with the media - and they know what I said - I said no such thing. I said that the fact of the matter is this: there is no plant in Newfoundland and Labrador that builds turbines for power plants. In this Province, we have built Cat Arm, we are down there now building Grand Canal, Abitibi did Star Lake. There are all kinds of hydro projects that have been done in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last fifty years and there has never been a turbine built in Newfoundland and Labrador. Those turbines, Mr. Speaker, are going to be built by some company that does it either in Quebec, somewhere else in Canada, somewhere else in North America, or somewhere else the world; and that, Mr. Speaker, is the answer I gave to the media outside the Legislature yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: I would not and will not, Mr. Speaker, mislead the people of Labrador or this Province to believe that for Gull Island or anything else it is realistic or achievable to suggest that someone is going to build a turbine plant in Newfoundland and Labrador (inaudible).

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.

Premier, we didn't build a gravity base structure or top-side modules before, either, but we (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm some more facts, if possible, from the Premier. Would the Premier confirm that in addition to Quebec being the banker, the customer, the manager and the owner, and giving Quebec most of the industrial benefits, doesn't the agreement that the Premier has negotiated give Quebec control over the capital cost of the projects, the cost of borrowing, and the price that we in fact get for the electricity? Isn't it a fact, Premier, that all we have to do is pay the bills and take all the risks at the end of the day?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad, again, that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the gravity base structure for Hibernia, because the same Leader of the Opposition is the one who leads the party now that touted - and I give credit, Mr. Speaker, to Premier Peckford of the day for at least getting an industry started, with the help of John Crosbie from Ottawa, because we would never have an offshore sector going; but this same party and this same leader, Mr. Speaker, is the one who has been now saying - and the members stand up one after another, day after day in this House, particularly the Finance critic, and say - isn't is awful that we are not getting any royalties from Hibernia.

Guess why we are not getting royalties from Hibernia? Because the premier of the day, his idol, said, you have to take the jobs. The very thing that the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay is against today. We took the construction boom, we took the jobs, and then there are no royalties for Newfoundland and Labrador. Now he is suggesting that is the model that he would use if he were leader, that we would take the jobs in the short term and leave Newfoundland and Labrador with no benefits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: I am glad to hear him talk about it, Mr. Speaker, so the people of the Province can find out more and more every day what his real views are about what should happen in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am delighted the Premier is learning more and more every day.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked in the business world for my entire life, and I can assure you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have never ever seen a contract in which one party - in this case Quebec - acts as the banker, acts as the customer, acts as the supplier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: - acts as the manager, is potentially an owner, and has control of capital costs, borrowing costs, and the price of the product.

Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please show the people any other project in Canada in which one party to that contract has such a controlling and dominant interest?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am always intrigued when the Leader of the Opposition speaks because he usually prefers to say nothing about anything, because he does not want to disclose his position. However, he has just said - I guess he has inferred, at least - that he has never seen a contract that does this. He is inferring that he must have seen something. Now the question is: maybe it is time for him now, three weeks later, to say whether or not he has actually seen some terms of a contract with respect to the Lower Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, let me make this point because it is important. The information that we have been using, as the government, as the basis for negotiation, when it has been shared within the Cabinet, within the caucus, and with the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, it has always been marked: commercially confidential. It is confidential by the very nature of it, and it is commercially confidential because, of course, it has a whole lot of business and commercial overtones and overtures to it.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that he has seen something that is commercially confidential. Maybe he will stand up now and tell us whether he has seen it or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So there was a deal. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that there is no other contract negotiated in Canada under such bizarre and unrealistic terms, except the Upper Churchill. Here we go again!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will you table that deal so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can have a look at it? Table that commercial and confidential deal so we can go through it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can appreciate the Leader of the Opposition getting a bit excited about it and so on. I have never talked about a commercially confidential deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I have talked about - listen to the words - commercially confidential documents.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite know me - words are important - commercially confidential documents that have been shared with people and used here.

I have said repeatedly, as has the Minister of Mines and Energy, we have not concluded a deal. The standard that we operate on and the commitment we give is: when we conclude a deal, based on these commercially confidential documents that we are using to negotiate, we will share it with everyone in the Province.

Maybe, again, the Leader of the Opposition might want to talk about whether or not he has in his possession some commercially confidential documents. Surely he would not want, as a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador, to possess documents that are confidential and not supposed to be in his possession, and commercially sensitive, because he would not want to destroy a commercial opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador by having them improperly in his possession.

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.

My questions are for the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

As we prepare to mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, I note with deep concern that as of Friday past, the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area is without a shelter for abused women. In view of the federal government report released yesterday showing that violence against women in Canada continues to be a significant and persistent problem, and that young women and Aboriginal women are particularly vulnerable, what contingency plan will the minister put in place immediately to ensure that this shelter reopens without delay, particularly given the fact that during the Christmas season the number of women and children seeking protection increases dramatically?

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I say to the minister, I don't care what the dynamics are around the closure. There are women at risk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question. I am absolutely shocked that the member does not care what the dynamics are around this closure.

The dynamics around this closure are very, very important. I think all of us recognize and know - especially the members from Labrador - that there were internal board problems. The board has had great difficulties over the last year or so. They were down to two members for the last six months or so. It was very, very difficult for these volunteers to continue to operate this way. This is a very important service.

The Department of Health and Community Services, the Women's Policy Office, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, the health care board in that region, the social plan committee in that region, all of us have been working and are very concerned about this, and want to work very hard with them, and are working very hard with them, to make sure that, as we reopen this facility, it does with a very strong, healthy management structure and therein is where the problem lies and it is a problem we are determined to work with the community to solve.

But, I also ought to point out, while we have put some temporary measures in place using hotel rooms and using the on call social workers, a service that is already up there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS KELLY: - we also have new facilities or increased facilities on the North Coast, and that is part of the reason why the numbers are so down at the Goose Bay facility -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS KELLY: - because we are providing other facilities on the North Coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Can the minister tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why his government has allowed the cardiac surgery program at the Health Care Corporation to deteriorate to the point where we are now adding more surgeries to the waiting list than we are actually doing in any one week?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get the question from the hon. member, and I am really surprised. I am amazed at the number of files that are in my department, that he is choosing one in cardiac to focus on. Quite frankly, this government has increased the number of cardiac interventions over the last number of years to that of a higher rate than we have ever had in this Province. That is not something we apologize for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: In fact, Mr. Speaker, we recognize it because the need is there and we are responding to that need.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the current Minister of Finance and the former Minister of Health, in her Budget Speech in 2001, said we are going to provide enough funding to increase it to a level of twenty cases per week. Mr. Speaker, today they are only averaging 13.3 cases per week. They have never, ever reached the twenty that was committed in the 2001 Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: So, my question to the minister today: What is he going to tell the 300 people, who are on a waiting list that is growing every single week -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - what is he going to tell those 300-plus people about how they are going to deal with that backlog, given the fact that they are only doing an average of 13.3 a week and they are adding over fourteen a week to the wait list?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question, but it is rather interesting to watch the debate in this House that has unfolded over the last number of days, to listen to hon. members opposite, one after another, to rise to their feet and to attack the Minister of Finance in terms of the spending practices of this government when, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious to everyone in this House and to everyone in this Province, over the last number of years the health care of this budget has grown year over year and that budget has grown in response to the needs that are out there. They are recognized by this department, by this minister, and by this government.

Quite frankly, the hon. member opposite is standing up and running on the cry again today that we are not meeting the standards where he would like to see us. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we recognize the need, we are trying to respond to it. Which way do you want it? What would you do? Because your colleague will be up later on today telling us we shouldn't be spending as much money as we are. How can we respond to the needs of the people of this Province when your colleague, on one hand, is telling us to shut it down? Which way do you want it? Let us know. Let the people of the Province know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North, time for one quick supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The minister says: What does he want done? I want this government to live up to the commitment they made in the year 2001, when they said: We will do twenty cases per week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: At that time, the minister said this was a problem across the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I say to the minister, at that time his former colleague said that that was a problem across the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member ought to get to his question, quickly.

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

The question, very simply, Mr. Speaker, is: Will the minister commit today to live up to the commitment made by his former colleague, to increase the number of cases to twenty, or take advantage of the capacity that exists in Ontario and send some of these people out before they die?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, at the outset, that the hon. member opposite is a strange individual to be rising today and talking about commitment, preaching to me about commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: This is a member who committed some time ago to sit on this side of the House and represent the members of his district, and, quite frankly, spoke with great passion while he was on this side of the House about the same policies that he is condemning over there now.

Mr. Speaker, to the issue that was raised, which is an important issue, the people of this Province need to know that this government is working to respond to the needs that are out there. In fact, the reality is, and everybody in this Province recognizes, that we do have a high incidence of cardiac disease in this Province. That is a reality, and it does make certain specific demands on our health care costs. That, Mr. Speaker, we are responding to and we are doing the job that we committed to do on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and it concerns the impending problem in the crab fishery in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, after four years of stability with a final offer selection arbitration process for the price of crab, which followed five years of total chaos in the industry, we are now facing the prospect of going back to the old system and potentially seeing a tie-up in the fishery, instead of stable prices. Mr. Speaker, there is a very short window between now and Christmas to fix this problem.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture agree to introduce legislation in this House to fix this problem, to ensure that the final offer selection process will continue again this year as it has in the past four years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are, indeed, concerned about the final offer selection because it was this party, along with my colleague who is now sitting in the gallery, that brought that legislation into this House of Assembly. We are very concerned about that. We have spent many days and many nights in the past two months discussing this with the union and FANL. In fact, as late as yesterday I met with both those groups, and we will do everything in our power to keep that system in place, including bringing legislation into this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very crucial point, and the minister fully knows how important it is. We only have two or three days left before this problem needs to be resolved. Is the minister committing here today that, if necessary, legislation will be brought before Christmas to ensure that we do not have this problem in the spring?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we were responsible for bringing this legislation in, and, yes, we will, if necessary, bring legislation before this floor before the Christmas break.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees. Notices of Motion. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, because of the noise here I did not hear you ask for presenting reports. Could we go back to that?

MR. SPEAKER: Can we revert to presenting reports?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

MS KELLY: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby table the annual report for the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women Newfoundland and Labrador for the fiscal year 2001-2002. As we commemorate December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, it is an appropriate day to table the report of an organization which works to advance the status of women. Since we know that inequality is at the root of violence, the equality seeking work of the Advisory Council is an important component of the effort to reduce and prevent violence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very proud to stand here today and present this petition on behalf of 500 residents of Fredrickton, Noggin Cove and Carmanville in that great District of Bonavista North.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to recognize in the gallery one of the main proponents of this petition, Mr. Wayne Wheaton from Fredrickton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened:

WHEREAS Route 332 was paved twenty-eight years ago; and

WHEREAS Route 332 is deteriorated to the point that no amount of maintenance or repair can adequately redress this problem; and

WHEREAS Route 332 is the necessary route of travel for approximately 150 students to commute to and from school on a daily basis;

WHEREAS Route 332 is the necessary link for all means and measures of commerce for our communities; and

WHEREAS Route 332 services approximately 300 productive, tax-paying families directly;

THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, more particularly of the communities of Fredrickton, Noggin Cove and Carmanville hereby petition you to upgrade and pave Route 332 during the construction season of 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the road in question is just one large mass of pavement bumps and potholes, and I am sure the Cabinet ministers and other government members who were in that part of the district in July of this year certainly observed and must remember the state of that road in question.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support this petition and I respectfully ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to seriously consider including this road in its 2003 budget.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of Bide Arm, in particular, and, in general, the residents of Englee and Roddickton, on the incinerator that is in close proximity - within one mile, actually - of the Town of Bide Arm.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read the prayer of the petitioners because it is quite lengthy, but suffice it to say that many of the people of Bide Arm, Englee and Roddickton have great concerns about the incinerator that is there in their area, the teepee style incinerator that we are so familiar with around this Province. The final clause reads:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately remove the incinerator before more health and environmental problems are realized.

Mr. Speaker, I sat here today and I listened to the Minister of Environment as he read his Ministerial Statement and he talked about the grant that is being given to the Central Newfoundland Solid Waste Management Committee to review waste management options, landfill alternatives, transfer station options, materials recycling and composting facility alternatives in the Central Newfoundland region.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Bide Arm, Englee and Roddickton, and you can go on into Conche and that whole area, have great concerns about the effect of the incinerator that is within one kilometre of their town, the smoke that comes down through the valley and covers the community on a very regular basis, given its location in relation to the prevailing winds in that area. They have great concerns about the effect that it is having on their drinking water, and they have great concerns about the effect it is having on their health over the eleven years since it has been established there, and breathing it on a very regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support the petitioners. I fully support the people of the Englee, Bide Arm and Roddickton area who are respectfully asking the Minister of Environment to consider this request, to move expeditiously to find an alternative waste management approach for this area, to find an area where landfill can be used, to increased recycling, and to get rid of the teepee style incinerator that we have there.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that there has been great debate in this Province and in this country over the last little while on Kyoto, and the effects that it would have, the implementation of Kyoto. Mr. Speaker, just by removing teepee style incinerators from this Province would go a long ways, probably, towards meeting our Kyoto commitments if we went that way. Irregardless of what happens with Kyoto, certainly a community like Bide Arm, which is one kilometre approximately from the incinerator, should not have, in this day in age, Mr. Speaker, when we know the effects, when we know the toxins that come out of it-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to conclude for a few seconds?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in this day in age we now know what teepee style incinerators do to the environment. We know the pollutants that come out of them. This is not ten years ago or fifteen years ago or twenty years ago when we maybe naively thought that it was a good way of disposing of garbage. These days we do know all the facts about it, or enough of the facts anyway, to know that it is not an appropriate way to make away with garbage and it is not an appropriate way for people to have to live within one kilometre of an incinerator like this.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Bide Arm, Roddickton and Englee, I urge the minister to find an alternative form of garbage disposal in this area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader

MR. LUSH: Order 21, Mr. Speaker, Bill 23, second reading of An Act Respecting The Provision of Income and Employment Support To The People Of The Province, the adjourned debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of -

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if hon. members would permit, I was to do first reading of Motion 4.

I move first reading, Mr. Speaker, of a bill entitled, An Act Respecting An Agreement With the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. (Bill 33).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association," carried. (Bill 33)

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I ask that we proceed with Order 21, the adjourned debate on Bill 23.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to make a few comments on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, when he introduced the bill it was certainly good to see a minister get up and spend fifteen or twenty minutes with a good description of what the bill is all about, what we could expect, and what the changes are that are expected out of this bill. In fact, maybe, and I hope it is not, but maybe the expectations are greater than what the outcome really will be, because while sometimes there is a great intention to help people who are less fortunate, and sometimes there are some great ideas, but when they are implemented, and when the amount of funding is put forward, it certainly falls far short of the need that is prevalent today with some of the most unfortunate people in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, most people that you talk to on social services - I will say social services because that is the term that we use and that we know - are certainly not there by choice. The people that I talk to and the people who call my office - I do not think my phone calls are any different from other people that represent districts in this Province - are people on the other end of the phone looking for a job. If the employment levels increase, and if we were fortunate enough to have more people working then I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that our problems within the Department of Human Resources and Employment would be much less and the problems would be much smaller.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that never fails to amaze me is when we have problems in this department then what we do, what the minister does, and what the department does, is implement a blanket policy to cover everybody. If there is somebody abusing something in the Department of Human Resources and Employment, and if the abuse is there, what I suggest is that the minister and his department deal with the abusers because far too often what they do is not deal with the abusers, but bring in blanket policies that affect everybody and make everybody else suffer because of the actions of a few. That is the easy way to do it, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. That is the easy way to do it and it is not something that should be done.

When I get phone calls from somebody who has a child and five months pregnant, without a washer in the house, they are asked if there is a relative living in the community. They are told that they are expected to carry their clothes and the baby's clothes three-quarters of a mile away to take it to somebody they know, or a relative, in order to get that clothes washed, then I say we have a problem. I say that is not the way, I do not think, any of us envision the department of social services to work.

I am going to refer to a couple of happenings and a couple of problems that I have encountered. This is one of them: a lady, five months pregnant, one child, a doctor's note saying that she has a problem with her back, unable to wash clothes, but still the Department of Human Resources and Employment says: I am sorry madam, but you cannot have a washer because our policy states that if there is a relative living in the community then you are expected to carry your dirty laundry three-quarters of a kilometre away, without a car, without a truck, without transportation, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister, and I ask people opposite, if this is the way that they expect the Department of Human Resources and Employment to work? Is this the way that we are reaching out to help people?

I will refer you to another situation where a constituent of mine, as well - and I refer to the people and the problems that I know best. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing did some major renovations to the house. They did an upgrade in the electrical service, but because there was an upgrade in the electrical service, it did not mean they had to put in a range receptacle. This particular house was furnished with new windows, with new siding, with a new electrical panel and the gentleman who was occupying the house went to the Department of Human Resources and Employment and asked for an electric range. He put forward a request. The request was: that I be provided with an electric range so I might be able to cook a meal and boil the kettle.

The Department of Human Resources and Employment saw fit to give this individual a new electric range. But, Mr. Speaker, guess what? The electric range is sitting in his home without a plug to plug the range in. This same individual takes a thermos bottle nighttime and goes out to his neighbour's house to bring back hot water so he can have a meal. That is the kind of stuff that is happening in the Department of Human Resources and Employment today. They wired his house. They gave him a new electric stove but refused to put in a plug to plug the electric stove in. You might laugh at that but that is true. I think it is finally about to happen, by the way. I think it is finally about to happen that somebody saw fit to say: Come on, what is happening here? But that is a problem that has been on the go and I have been trying to resolve for the last month-and-a-half. I think, today, it might be probably close to being resolved.

That's how silly some of the rules and regulations are, and the way some of those things are unfolding in the Department of Human Resources and Employment. We talk about providing better ways and means of doing things. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly overdue to rejig and to bring about changes in the Department of Human Resources and Employment. It is time to deal with the real problems out there and allow the people working within the department to be able to have some leverage to deal with problems in their district rather than dealing with a policy, that is an overall policy, which deals with major problems and not bringing it down to a client, social worker or a client financial assistance officer's request, because that is where it should be. Every problem should be resolved and should be dealt with on an individual basis.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources and Employment will go out today and the first thing is, if you need a piece of furniture or if you need an appliance, you have to be on social assistance for two years before they will even consider you. Before they will consider giving you a major appliance or some furniture. When they go out and if you need a bed today, there is a maximum - I think it is $200 for a bed - that they will allow you to spend. Guess how long that bed is supposed to last? Ten years. You are supposed to get ten years out of a $200 bed and the department of social services will say to you, it doesn't matter if you do not have a bed to sleep on. I am sorry, but you had a bed nine years ago and you have another year left to go before we will supply you with another bed to sleep on. That is disgraceful. That is shameful. It is disgraceful and it should never be allowed to happen. It all goes back to abuse, if there was abuse in the system. If somebody had gone out and gotten a piece of furniture and did something with it that they were not supposed to do, then that particular abuser should have been dealt with rather than bringing in blanket policies to cover everybody who is unfortunate enough to be on social services.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago some of the same people sitting on the opposite side now - in fact, probably most of them - remember the Income Supplementation Program that Mr. Wells wanted to bring in, and sent his ministers and his people out around the Province putting forward the wonderful things that would happen with the Income Supplementation Program. There were some good points in it. There were some good things in the Income Supplementation Program. There were some awful bad things there as well.

Mr. Speaker, I remember one of the things, and probably the biggest reason why it failed. It would take into consideration family income. What that meant was, if you had a son or if you had a daughter who was fortunate enough at the time to be working out at Hibernia, and they were making $500 or $600 a week, then they would have had to move out of their own home or else the mother, the father, the son, the daughter, and everybody else in that household would have had their entitlement to the Income Support Program taken into consideration by what one person in that household was making. Is that a progressive step? Is this the way that we meant for programs to work, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, one good thing about the program - I do not know how much money is going to be put forward or how meaningful it will be - is training. We certainly need more opportunities for training, because until we train people to have something to offer when they go and knock on somebody's door, until we make those people more employable, then we will always have the problems that we are experiencing today by people unfortunate enough not to find a job and unfortunate enough not to have an income that will support their household and their needs. There is certainly a big need in this particular area. I think I read somewhere in the paper, the other day, that 39 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in excess of 39 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, do not have a high school education. They finished their education by not going out and obtaining and finishing a high school education.

What is frustrating as well is when you see many of those same people today, calling and asking if they can go now and be considered to take part in the Adult Basic Education Programs and they are being told no, they cannot, because HRDC does not fund them any more unless they are employment eligible or unemployment eligible. That means they must have worked or collected EI within the past thirty-six months. There is no money in the Department of Human Resources and Employment to provide them, to meet their needs by going back in training.

That is something where I hope the minister will put ample funding to look after those people who are sincere, wanting to retrain, wanting to go back and finish their education, so that they can make themselves more employable. That is the only way we are going to see the numbers decrease on social assistance and the numbers increase of people out there who are actively looking for work.

Mr. Speaker, another thing is the drug program, when people have to go and access drugs whereby certain drugs are unable to be taken and, because it is not a name brand or because it is not a generic drug, the Department of Health and Community Services are saying: I am sorry but we will only pay up to a certain amount and the rest, above and beyond the cost of the generic drug, is to be borne by you.

Mr. Speaker, eyeglasses, the same thing. Not many insurance companies, including the one that we have here, the one that we take part in, as Members of the House of Assembly, will pay 100 per cent of eyeglasses. I think there is something wrong, I say to the Minister of Health and Community Services, when we go out and say to people on social services that no, even though you have a prescription from the doctor and yes, you need eyeglasses, if you are a single, able-bodied person on social assistance and you do not need double vision bi-focal glasses, we will only pay $84 for your glasses. I think our remittance or what we receive for eyeglasses is something like $125 every three years. Well, people here, I think most of us, can afford to go out and pay the other extra $50 or $60 or $70, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the person on able-bodied assistance, living at home, for a single, able-bodied rate, living with relatives, it is $48 every two weeks; $96 a month. For an able-bodied person on social assistance today, living with their parents, it is $96 a month.

MR. LUSH: What should it be?

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know what it should be, I say to you, Member for Terra Nova, but I will tell you what; it should certainly be higher than $96 a month. It should certainly be higher than $96 a month, and if we are only going to pay them $96 a month, then at least we should be responsible enough to go out and meet their needs for health care, eyeglasses and other things. That is the kind of thing that we should be doing for those people. We should be supporting them and putting forward the need and making them allowed to live with decency and be able to have eyeglasses and be able to access drugs, and not deny them the right to be able to go out and say, because you find yourself on social assistance, you deserve less than what everybody else is getting.

Mr. Speaker, I know we are not flush with money. I know people shout out and say: What would you want it to be, or how much money would you put into it? Let me read this little ad here. Maybe we can access some of this money, I say to the Government House Leader. This is a report that came out from the Auditor General just yesterday on CBC. It reads: The Auditor General wants Ottawa to explain why the Employment Insurance Fund takes in more money every year than it needs. The surplus has risen - just listen to this - from $666 million in 1996 to $40 billion today and gives the government an annual windfall to bolster its overall surplus.

Just imagine, $40 billion from an EI account up in Ottawa today. Fraser said - that is Sheila Fraser, who is the Auditor General - generating revenue for the government is not the purpose of the program, and she said the rates are far too high. I don't hear a lot of people talking about rates, I say to members opposite, I don't hear a lot of people saying that we should decrease the unemployment insurance rates ten cents lower that what it is, or twenty cents. I don't hear it much from employers, but I certainly don't hear it from people who contribute. What they are asking, what those people are asking, is that what is paid into that fund comes back to support the disadvantaged, the lowest paid people in the Province, and ask the government to stop pillaging and robbing money from them, and if they have it there now to pay it back, because that is nothing short of highway robbery; $40 billion a year.

Guess where they are going to spend that $40 billion a year?

AN HON. MEMBER: Spending over a billion on gun registration.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is right, there is over a billion being spent on gun registration, something that nobody wants. I haven't met two people in this Province who want gun registration.

I am getting carried off the topic here now, Mr. Speaker. I say to people opposite: This is one area that maybe we can get some money from. What better way to spend it, than put it into a massive training program to make people more employable. What better way to spend it, than when we fall into tough times like we are falling into now in many parts of rural Newfoundland, as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs knows. What better way to spend it, than to go out and create some economic activity to build on our tourism industry, to put up sites and to do thing that will attract tourists to our communities and our towns. What better way to spend it? Because I can tell you what, the communities out there cannot build and don't have the funding to build on infrastructure. What a way to get people back to work. What a way to get them off unemployment insurance. What a way to get them off social services.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing worse and there is nothing as heart tearing as when you see an able-bodied person on social assistance wanting to go to work. There is nothing more that tears at your heart than seeing somebody who wants a job and not being able to get a job. They are going to Alberta. There might be lots of jobs up in Alberta, there might be lots of jobs up in Ontario, but going to those places is not an option for everybody, I say to people opposite. Going to Alberta or going to Toronto to live on their minimum wage, for the most part, is not an option. I can tell you that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are proud people and it is certainly not the place that they want to go, first of all. In fact, most of them will go and do things that they shouldn't do. They go out and live in ways that they shouldn't live, because they are too proud to go and access social services.

Mr. Speaker, relocation: There is nothing wrong with relocation. The minister talks about putting some funding into relocation and says that they are going to be providing an opportunity for people to get an advance on what they would be able to get in their normal cheque from social assistance to relocate. Nothing wrong with that, if it is people's choice to relocate.

I know that I have gone to the Department of Human Resources and Employment many times and the first thing people have said to me when I have asked for relocation money for people who want to relocate is: I am sorry, but we are not a lending agency, we don't buy airplane tickets, we are not a travel agent. But when people want to relocate and if it is their choice, then we should reach out and we should be able to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have one minute left. I am going to tell you another story before I sit down. It has changed now, but I have to tell it. I have to tell it because sometimes you get a phone call and you can hang up and say goodbye. Other times you get phone calls and you will never, ever forget them.

I am going to relate a little story to you - and I will make it quick, I say to the Government House Leader - about a call that I got a few years ago from this individual who had gotten her income tax back. At that particular time, no matter how much income tax you got back it was all clawed back from the Department of Human Resources and Employment. That has changed a little bit today, by the fact that they allow you to keep $500. Mr. Speaker, at that particular time -

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a couple of seconds to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: At that particular time, this lady had gotten $220 back in an income tax refund and she had gone out to buy a suit of clothes, a tie, a pair of shoes and a shirt for her son to go to his graduation. Her son was attending his high school graduation. She went out, she picked up the clothes, and I can tell you it was not the highest priced stuff in the store. She bought that much clothes for $220. Finally, the next week, before the graduation came about, the money that she had gotten from the income tax she paid in while she was working, which had nothing to do with social assistance, was clawed back and taken from her. She had to take that clothes back to the clothing store in order for her and her son to live, and deprive him of an opportunity to go and graduate with the people he had gone to school with for thirteen years. That is some of the kinds of things that are happening out there.

I say to the minister, there are some good things in this bill, but it will take a commitment from you, Sir, to make sure that the funds are made available so that it can become effective and help the people in this Province who need the help most.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise for a few moments. I was motivated and energized by the remarks by the Member for Bonavista South. He finished up by saying there are a lot of good - he started off by saying that he hoped this bill would not raise the expectations of people unnecessarily, then finished, and in between, brought in a lot of sad, horrific stories that he will be able to relate if he is standing in this House in the year 2050. These horrific stories are always there. But, he did not mention the great things that are being done by the Department of Human Resources. He did not mention the great success stories. I have some, but I will not get into them because this bill is not about that. This bill is about the redesigning of the Department of Human Resources, and bringing in legislation that will give dignity, restore dignity, respect and self-esteem for the people who are unfortunate enough to have to rely on the Department of Human Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we realize that there are some people who find it very difficult to get off the level of income provided by government. There are some people who are there through unfortunate circumstances, of ill health; some people because of their inability to find a job. Whatever the reason they are there for, we have the dedicated workers who help these people to try and live lives of dignity.

This program, this redesigned program, is to do precisely what the Member for Bonavista South suggested: Training. To train people to get them into the labour force, and that has been the emphasis. That has been the emphasis of the government that he was just talking about when he talked about that surplus of EI. The federal government has been involved in training for the last number of years, and we hope that together we can work cooperatively. I would hope in talking about raising the expectations that there is not one single Newfoundlander or Labradorian in this Province who will be denied an opportunity of training, that will be denied the opportunity for advancing themselves in life because of lack of income, because of insufficient funds, because of their station in life, and that is what this bill is all about, Mr. Speaker.

I can relate several stories where I have assisted and helped people to get into training, to get jobs as a result of that. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are sad stories. There are people living on incomes that is very difficult to get by on. It is very difficult to provide the necessities of life. But, one has to realize that it is difficult to come to what figures ought to be the right figures. What are the rates? What are the amounts of money that will allow a family to live comfortably and be able to have food and shelter and clothing, the necessities of life? This government has been working in that area very sincerely and very seriously trying to ensure that all of our people have the necessities of life, but this bill will give a new design and a new emphasis to the Human Resources development with emphasis on training.

If hon. members could only speak to that issue, and advertise this program to their constituents, that this is what this program is about, to train people. I think that will give them hope. That, in itself, will reassure people that nobody in this Province needs to be unskilled; nobody needs to be untrained, because that is the emphasis in Canada today. Canada wants to provide. Canada wants to build one of the best workforces in the world. That is what Canada wants to do as a country, to build one of the best workforces in the world. We want to do that in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to be a part of building that workforce. In order to build that workforce, we have to train our people. This is why training is such an important part of this program, and this is why the emphasis in both levels of government, provincial and federal, is training.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bonavista South also mentioned the adaptability allowed in this particular legislation to help people to relocate, to find a job. We have all gone through that, the absolute frustration of people having a job and not being able to finds the ways and means of getting there, or getting there to be able to exist while they get their first cheque or first couple of cheques. When you move somewhere it involves expenses. You have to live. You have to find accommodations. When everything is cut off - when your human resources monies are cut off the minute that you find a job it makes it pretty difficult. So this bill adapts to that kind of situation; allows some flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will improve the lot of people who, through unfortunate circumstances, find themselves having to depend on the Department of Human Resources. This bill will do a tremendous amount to help their self-esteem, to give them respect, and to help them to be contributing citizens of society. Any bill that does that is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that all hon. members will support the thrust and the focus of this particular bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, as many of my colleagues have done, to speak on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of This Province - this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I get up with the intention of supporting this bill. It is a bill that is overdue. Overdue I say, because really the last revision of the three acts that this is replacing happened in the 1970s into the 1980s and, of course throughout, up until now, this 21^st century. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, there have been things in Newfoundland and Labrador that have changed dramatically since these bills were first put before this House of Assembly. This bill I see as certainly addressing these particular changes. To look at a bill regarding income support and employment support, when we look at this type of a bill, we are talking about people's lives. We are not talking about some of the finance bills that come forward. We are talking about just generalizations, but in this particular one - and the Government House Leader was just up on his feet, as was my colleague from Bonavista South, and bringing in the thoughts of the numerous examples that any of us here in this House could put forth, any of these members could put forth, as we recollected on our experiences with dealing with the people who are affected by this particular bill.

The people who are affected by this bill, Mr. Speaker, are people who find themselves in a situation where they need some sort of a hand up so that they can move forward. It could be a particular crisis in this lives. Maybe they are unemployed, with no hope of getting a job. They could have gone through a particular family crisis or situation. It could be that they are part of a cycle of poverty from one generation to the next, but in all cases, I would say to this hon. House, there is certainly a need in our society. It has not diminished. The numbers may have diminished but the needs are there and. I think it has been suggested that these needs, perhaps, will always be there. We can only hope that when we bring in new legislation that we can address the needs, not only of the present time but of the future time, and that anything that we do is intended to certainly make our society better in the way of addressing the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This Bill 23 is looking at, I guess, creating some of sort of a social safety net to address some of the situations I have already referred to, and this social safety net, whether it is through income support or through employment, can make people's lives more dignified. It can make people's lives certainly lives that are not suffering through lack of income, through lack of food, through lack of clothing, through lack of housing. These are, I guess, the needs. Of course, people in our society today, those needs do not change - food, shelter and clothing - but we have challenges in this Twenty-First Century, the second year of the Twenty-First Century, that were not there thirty years ago. Again, I am assuming that this bill is addressing the particular changing - one thing about Bill 23 that I noticed as I read through it, is that there were lots of references to the various family situations that people find themselves in. With regard to family, Mr. Speaker, we have seen such tremendous changes in what I guess we look upon as the average family or the type of family that you would expect in our particular society, and we have had to come to grips with the better understanding of what a family actually is. It is good to see that Bill 23 does address the changing, I guess, times with regard to what constitutes a family. We have different terms that are used and, once again, it is certainly good to see that a family does not necessarily have to mean the birth parents, does not have to mean that a family has to be a family because of marriage, that there are so many different circumstances out there that this bill encompasses all of them, or at least it should.

Again, to look at Bill 23 as addressing the changing time, we have, in this Province, certainly seen a drastic decline in the number of young people in the Province. For the first time ever, we see that the death rate and the birth rate - I should say that the birth rate is declining, that our seniors population is ever increasing, and that this is putting different pressures on our resources as we try to come to grips with making sure that the needs of our families, of our individuals, are being met. As we look at our birth rate declining, as we look at the number of young people leaving the Province - with regard to young people, as well, Mr. Speaker, it is alarming to realize that even though there are less in numbers of children in this Province, the percentage of them living in poverty has remained rather constant and to some degree has increased. These are situations or these are developments, Mr. Speaker, that we really have to take into account as we try and put together some sort of strategy, some sort of plan, for what is coming in the years to come.

If this bill is indeed the two-pronged approach that is necessary in order to address these problems, I certainly stand on my feet in supporting it and, in supporting it, realizing that there are a number of things that we certainly have to take into account; because it is alright for, I guess, any legislative body to put forth a bill, and a bill that can address a particular situation, but it is not so much the context of what is in the bill as we see it here now. It is what follows in regard to policy, what follows in regard to funding, what follows in regard to, I guess, in a general sense, what will be the follow-up of this particular bill.

The amazing thing about this particular bill, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill certainly confirms for me that what is actually happening out there did not necessarily follow the previous bills or the previous acts, because I draw the House's attention to the people who are most responsible for carrying out the wishes of this Assembly with regard to any particular bill that becomes an act of this Province. The front line workers - and I have had the pleasure of establishing a relationship with the workers in the field in a number of different areas in my district, and I realize fully that they have had to change with the changing demands, with regard to how they deal with clients, the type of situations they are running across. Let me tell you, they have moved ahead in practice, that I am looking at the bill as literally catching up with, because there are things going on in this Province that are certainly in keeping with what is contained in this bill. This bill, I would assume, would certainly ensure that there is a consistency throughout the Province.

To the workers who take care of income support throughout this Province, I have to say that they are doing a tremendous job, although I must say it has to be perhaps one of the most stressful jobs that anyone could engage themselves in. As I spoke about at the very beginning, this is a bill about people. It is not a bill about intangible things or inanimate things. It is about people's lives, people who are struggling, people who are moving forward, people who need assistance. We have children, middle-aged, seniors, right through the whole gamut, I guess, of our population.

If we look at the two prongs of this particular bill, we talk about on the one hand income or economics, and on the other hand we talk about employment. Let me tell you, there are tremendous challenges with regard to employment, especially in some parts of this particular Province. I know that the thrust of this will be to train or help in training people for jobs that are available, and therein lies a problem. In my experience, first of all, with regard to skilled workers, I have seen many skilled workers who are on income support, not because they do not have the training; it is because they do not have the opportunity to put their skills to work.

I have seen some people who have been injured at work, or not even at work, who cannot work, and find themselves in a situation where the employment opportunity is not there, and they have to. In those cases, again, training is not going to be able to increase their opportunity because they are highly skilled even as we speak.

A part of the employment, as well - because I find, too, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very creative when it comes to handling situations, and I know that we are talking about training, job opportunities and so forth. I wonder, as well, because in some of my dealings with my constituents there is talk of: Well, if I cannot get a job, and there is no job around, what about the possibility of creating my own job? I would hope that this bill deals not only with training, with regard to skills and employable skills, but I hope there is a part of it that will talk about people trying to become self-employed. So that if you decide that the best way out of your situation, or to better your situation is to put together some sort of a company, some sort of a business whereby you can move forward at the same benefits that are earmarked for you for training, or to go to post-secondary, or whatever, will also be available with regard to your self-employment.

Challenges in rural districts; again, job opportunities. We have to look at the seasonal employment that is out there, our geography, the demographics. These are challenges that have challenged people throughout our history here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Once again, I am hoping that this bill will be able to, first of all, recognize the challenges and really put some good support for these people who certainly need it.

With regard to the implementation; I am assuming that in committee we will get more by the clauses and we can bring up some of our points there. With regard to the two-pronged approach, I certainly have no difficulty with that, expect to say that with regard to employment, I would like to make sure that in that bill there is provision for the self-employment.

With regard to the implementation - and again, I referred to this earlier, that implementation of any bill - and we have already gone through some bills now that I see going through, for example, the cellphone. When we talked about the cellphone legislation coming through concerns were raised: Would the police enforcement officers in the Province be able to enforce this particular law when it comes in? There is no sense putting in a law if we cannot enforce it. I apply it to this bill as well.

With regard to the implementation, there are two areas that I certainly would have to look at with the implementation, and one is the funding priority. Of course, we all know that if you ask anyone about funding - and I do not want to get into funding because I might get some chatter back from the other side. The point that I want to make about the funding part of it is that we all can talk about priorities in health and education and right down through, but I see this as a funding priority. I would certainly support the minister in his attempts to get the funding required to make sure this is implemented and not to get into a rhetoric of whether the funding is there or we are asking for more money. Funding is an absolute priority here because I can understand that when we are doing this transition that if the funding is not there, our good intentions could fall to the wayside.

So it is important that if we are going to bring it forward - now this leads into to second one and not only is the required funds, and I do not know how much it is going to cost. The minister might be able to talk about that as a ballpark figure or something over the next so many years. The second part about it, Mr. Speaker, is the human resources, because this bill is not going to be effective - I will use the word effective - unless we look at how it is going to be implemented by the people in the field.

I am down to one minute, so I am hoping that some more of my concerns will be able to be brought through, but on the implementation with regard to the human resources, we have people out there now who are trained social workers and the associated, I guess, professions around that because I look at this bill as more of social work. If we are going to add that other prong, which is the employment, there is going to have to be, I guess, training and a different direction for some of the workers who are out there. I am hoping that the number will be there, the number of workers required, that the qualifications will be - they will be given the opportunity to upgrade their qualifications or to add on qualifications, that they will get the training and support so they can certainly bring about, and bring out the best of this bill and make it into a bill that is going to be able to be enacted into law that will take care of the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not only in the short term but in many years to come.

Again, I say to the minister, certainly my support is there for this bill. As we go through committee, in clause by clause, I hope that I might be able to get on my feet in some of the different clauses so that I can further get my points across.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I will close off my comments on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: I am just wondering if hon. members would allow me to give a notice of motion.

Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion is under Standing Order 11, that on Monday the House - I am making a double-motion actually - not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock, and that the House not adjourn at 10 o'clock.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I say to the hon. Government House Leader that we look forward to Monday's extended debate and we will get lots of rest over the weekend in anticipation of some healthy, heated, good, solid debate on Monday evening.

Mr. Speaker, my comments today about Bill 23 - first of all, I want to comment the minister and his staff for having presented such a comprehensive analysis of what needs to take place in the future and also for having provided us with a copy of the consultation paper much earlier.

I would like to divide my comments into a couple of different areas. One, income support and the other is in employment training, but the third one is in the provision of services. There is some detail with respect to specific language that is here that I would like to comment on when we get to the committee stage. But, let me first deal with a couple of things. In the issue of provision of services, there is a bit of history and, I guess, just to provide some backdrop for those - coming from the same page. The separation out, a few years ago, of some of the programs and services that were historically in Human Resources and got transferred over to the Department of Health and Community Services. I guess some of my comments about the provision of services stem from that transition of a few years ago.

There are three areas, in particular, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to comment on. One is in the area of assessment for medical equipment. Some of my comments come from my personal experiences as an MHA representing constituents on issues that have surfaced. When I consider what the assessment process for medical equipment involves - I just have to pose a question to the minister and for him to give some consideration and be in a position, when we comment in committee, about the rationale for it. If you have individuals, and the minister has, in fact, stated that in his report of the consultation, he says: that 11 per cent of the youth alone, who are new entrants to the program, are persons with disabilities.

He goes on to acknowledge that many of the people who are on the program and require income support long-term have many other challenges, including their age and their disability. I say to the minister, in this particular area of assessment for medical equipment, my experience has been, in dealing with constituents, that this is a very frustrating process. What happens? An individual may or may not be a client of Human Resources and Employment. There may be individuals who are in receipt of income support from HRE and, as a result of that, they find themselves, when they need services, when they have a difficulty, they call their client service officer. They come into the office or a chat by phone, and there is an assessment process. But frequently, Mr. Speaker, individuals who are eligible for financial support for medical equipment may not necessarily be in receipt of income support from HRE. When that happens, there is a conflict here.

Let me give you an example. There is a constituent in my district who is, as a result of an accident several years ago, finds himself not being able to work ever again and is experiencing some excessive medical difficulties. That individual is not a client of HRE, in terms of getting income support, but is eligible for many of the other benefits: a drug card, and is eligible to receive some support in having some medical equipment provided. But what we found - I was about three weeks working with that individual, with meetings with HRE staff, meetings with staff from the community service board, looking at what this person was entitled to. What I found, Mr. Speaker - and this is not unique to this particular client, this particular individual, because this has happened several times - individuals walk into an HRE office and say: I would like to have some help. I need some support. They sit down and they tell their story, provide their circumstance, only to find that individual is told, under our programs, we cannot help you. Because of your income, because of the supports that you have around you, you are not eligible for programs under HRE. However, Mr. Speaker, they might say, and have said, there is a program that is administered by Health and Community Services Boards called Enriched Needs . You may be eligible for benefits through that program. The individual then finds themselves back in their car travelling down the highway to visit another office, and they go into that office and suggest that they would like some help and some support only to be told: Have you first made application to HRE? Have you first made application to Human Resources and Employment? Do you meet the income levels? What answers did they give you?

What that tells me, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a lack of co-ordination between agencies. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, if there is an individual - and I think what we need to be looking at is from the constituent, or in this case from a client, or a recipient of benefits, from their perspective is how we need to look at this.

When it is recognized that the predominant agency that is going to be dealing with an individual is Health and Community Services, then I believe realistically it is Health and Community Services that should be providing the ongoing support to those individuals.

The area of assessment for medical equipment is one particular program that comes to mind. My experience with that particular program, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the minister it is not that his staff are not supportive and helpful. I think, with the way the program is structured, there is too much toing and froing between the Health and Community Services Boards and HRE around the supplying and provision of those services. What has been happening, instead of having a single point of entry for clients who need services, what is happening is people who find themselves in this disadvantaged position are being sent as individuals from one office to the next, only to find when they get to one office, did you bring the information with you from HRE? No, I did not. Well, we cannot do anything today because we are waiting on the information from HRE.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is important, if we are going to now revamp the programs with a focus on employment - and I endorse that. I commend the minister for bringing in a new focus, but we need to recognize that the income support element of the program, and other areas of support for people with disabilities or people who require transportation for medical purposes, these are people who find themselves needing access to our social safety net. As we shift from a focus to benefit provision to providing programs to support greater income or greater employment opportunities, we do not lose sight of the intent of this program in providing some supports for people who find themselves in a very vulnerable position.

The second program, medical transportation. I have had circumstance where individuals have called my office and have had some difficulties and they need support and access to some financial support to be able to travel for medical attention. Make application to Human Resources and Employment, they do not meet the income thresholds, because in the application process to HRE, the income thresholds factor in certain expenses. When the client service person says, you are not eligible for benefits under our program, and they leave the office, frequently those same people will call my office and say: I have some problem. I applied for benefits for medical transportation and I was told I do not meet certain income requirements. They tell me their story and I am surprised. I call the department and get the same information about what the policy guideline say.

A colleague earlier this week talked about the policy guidelines. I understand there need to be policies and regulations that flow from legislation, but what I find frustrating, as an MHA working with constituents - so I can only imagine the level of frustration that the constituent finds, because when they go in to HRE and they are turned down for benefits because of the income thresholds, because the regulations say you can only consider certain expenses, but if you take that same constituent and drive him down the highway, fifteen minutes, and walk into the offices of the Health and Community Services Board and sit down with a financial assessment officer, that person says: We are able to factor in these sorts of things, but, in addition, we are also able to give consideration to other expenses the individual has. And, by doing that, they now become eligible.

If, as a government, we are going to be providing financial support for medical transportation, then really what we want to ensure is that people who need that at a time when they are very vulnerable, experiencing some difficulty, and obviously have some medical problems they are trying to deal with, they do not need the frustration of having to deal with two separate agencies who are involved in administering the exact same problem, but using different criteria.

Health and Community Services introduces this terminology call Enriched Needs, and under that program they are able to give consideration. So, once again, as a MHA, acting as an agent for the constituent, I am back and forth between the Human Resources and Employment office and the Health and Community Service office, either in person with the constituent or by phone, trying to facilitate the transfer of information between two separate departments of government. I find that personally extremely frustrating. As I said, I cannot imagine the constituent who is experiencing that same - because that is the individual who is affected by this.

I say to the minister, these are things that I believe should be well within the mandate of Health and Community Services Boards. So I suggest, as he is looking at a new focus for his program, I think there are a couple of things that are left over from that transition from Human Resources and Employment over to Health and Community Services, that have still not been tidied up. Two of them very clearly: medical transportation and assessment for medical equipment.

The third one is a big one. We heard the minister, I believe he used the figure of 38,000 families getting benefits under the Provincial Prescription Drug Program, and that is a line item in the budget. It is an item that we see in the area of Health and Community Services budget, but in terms of the administration of it, in terms of making application to determine eligibility, it is the Department of Human Resources and Employment who individuals must go to in order to make application.

Problem number one: it is a repeat of the exact same points that I raised with respect to medical transportation and assessment for medical equipment. Human Resources and Employment have their guidelines and regulations, and their employment services officers have to follow those, and I understand that, but why is it that when you then take the same person down to the Health and Community Services Board, they are able to factor in other expenses that individual has, to determine eligibility for benefits.

In the course of my three years as an MHA, I have had numerous occasions to work with constituents on those very three benefits: prescription drugs, medical transportation, and assessment for medical equipment. Pretty much without exception, I have gotten a different answer from Human Resources and Employment than I have gotten from Health and Community Services, only to work with the constituent through the bureaucracy to find that they now become eligible for benefits. Now, Mr. Speaker, the question is, I get numerous calls like that to my office on an ongoing basis, but I am certain there are many people out there who never call my office, or call the offices of any other member in this House, asking for assistance, because they went to see a financial assessment officer or client services officer with Human Resources and Employment, made an application, and was told: I am sorry, you are not eligible for benefits. I am very sorry, and you must leave.

Unfortunately, the result is someone who otherwise would be entitled to benefits, if they had someone working for them to navigate them through the bureaucracy and to try to ensure that they get the right access to the benefits that they are entitled to. Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate.

I say to the minister, he should take advantage of this opportunity right now as he is redeveloping the program and looking at a new focus for his Department of Human Resources and Employment. As he is doing that, he should also now give consideration to some of those programs that may much more appropriately be delivered by some other agency or some other department.

As I am saying that, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded, last year I attended a two-day workshop sponsored by the Discovery Women's Network, on violence, and, more particularly, family violence, and frustrations experienced by women who find themselves in an abusive situation. There were people there from his department, there were people there from Justice, Health and Community Services, and volunteer agencies and programs that exist in our communities. The message was extremely loud and clear: the government agencies and government departments have to work closer together to ensure their focus is providing services to the people whom they were created to serve.

I say to the minister, these are three program areas where, because of the interrelationship between Health and Community Services Boards and his department, there is a frustration level by clients because they cannot access service. I suggest to him now that it might be time for him to get together with his colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, to look at not only trying to co-ordinate the services and programs where they overlap, but start to look at which department or which agency should most appropriately have the mandate and be responsible to deliver those programs. So, I say to him: Take advantage of this opportunity, as you are going through this review, to consider those three areas. I suggest to him, as I have heard from my colleagues on this side of the House particularly, they, too, experienced that same level of frustration in trying to deal through bureaucracy. You do not need to have or put people who are at a time in their lives when they are experiencing some difficulties, they are vulnerable and may not have the understanding of how the system works to be able to try to navigate themselves and rely on people like ourselves to do it for them. Eliminate those barriers. Eliminate the frustration that people have in accessing benefits. So as you look at your provision of service, give that some consideration, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the other area that I would like to make some comment about is the area of income support. Again, I want to talk about this in the context of what is reasonable. I think the Government House Leader asked the question when he stood. I think he pointed to this side of the House and said to some of the members: What would you suggest would be a reasonable amount? I say to the minister, and I say to the member, when you start talking about what is reasonableness, I think we need to start looking at what is necessary.

I will just give you an example. I had a constituent who - and this is not an uncommon or is not a non-typical family, this is a family of four. If you look at a family of four who lives in their own home and do not have a mortgage to pay, under the current benefit regime that we now have those individuals would have an income of somewhere in the range of $9,600. Now $9,600 is not a great deal of money for a family of four. When I met with this family to talk about the dilemma that they were in, one of the things they presented to me was that they have a house, which they have had for some time, found themselves in a difficult set of circumstance and now need income support, and have for a while, and may, in fact, have need for that some time into the future. When I look at what it costs for them to live - just to survive, to exist. Their heating cost alone for their home was somewhere in the range of $2,800. Considering, they only had $9,600 to start with. They are trying to feed a family of four and their first $2,800 ensures that they have a heating system. This is why I became involved.

I became involved because their heating system is an oil furnace and their tank was condemned. They were looking for some financial support to, in fact, replace that tank. So I said: well, there is a program, the Department of Finance last year announced a program. When I went looking for them, on their behalf, what I found was: yes, they're entitled to, because of their income, up to 50 per cent of the cost of replacing the tank, but there is cap. The cap is $300. That cap of $300 is not enough to be able to provide that replacement because when I checked and priced around, it was going to cost them at least $1,000 to be able to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: If I could just have one moment to complete, Mr. Speaker, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: On that particular point, I wrote the minister on behalf of this constituent and here is the response. Just let me read the last sentence of my response. I think this is unfortunate. It says: When contacted by clients regarding assistance for oil tank replacement, although there may be some people who experience difficulty in making such arrangements, there have been cases where repayment plans have been successfully arranged with oil companies. I say, Mr. Speaker, when you have someone who makes $9,600 a year, they don't have access to $1,000 upfront to go out and buy an oil tank and then have only $300 of it rebated. They cannot afford to buy groceries.

I say, Mr. Speaker, when I get a reply from the minister, whose attitude is reflected in the writing of this letter, it is, basically: There is nothing else we can do, they will have to put up with it and live with it. That is the difficulty, they cannot live with it, they cannot survive, they cannot exist.

So, in response to the minister's comment about what is enough, I think we have to consider what is considered reasonable to provide shelter and a reasonable quality of life and food to be able to sustain a family of four.

I thank you for the indulgence of the House and for leave to continue to wrap-up. I reserve some of my comments about very specific clauses for when we get to Committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to support Bill 23 in Second Reading, entitled, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

Mr. Speaker, in 1998, the Department of Human Resources and Employment broadened its mandate to incorporate employment support and labour market programing, in addition to income support. The goal of this restructuring was, and still remains today, to remove barriers and disincentives in the Employment Support Program and to develop pro-active measures to help people find, access and keep employment. This is very, very important. As a lot of the members today have been saying, we have to support people, especially able-bodied people who really want to work, and the goal of this bill is to do just that.

The purpose, as all of us would know, of income support includes not only the provision of basic social assistance, which is mostly talked about here today, but recognizes the role of income support programs in supporting such client groups as persons needing support to maintain attachment to the labour force, especially single parents, those who are disabled, and others who find it difficult, many who are in low-income jobs, to low-income working families in particular and also, in particular, persons who are victims of violence.

The province-wide consultation that has been held in the past year - and that was done by the Department of Human Resources and Employment - provided a very broad range of views. As a matter of fact, I went to one of these consultations myself and at that meeting it was unbelievable the number of views that were presented. I should say it provided a lot of food for thought.

Also, the Social Policy Committee, of which I am a member, went to each of the regions of this Province and met with all of the regional committees to hear their point of view on what is happening with various social programs in each region of our Province. I have to say it was really enlightening. I believe I got to every region, except one, for all the meetings. In particular, I know, in Central Newfoundland some of the issues that were brought up at a meeting in Grand Falls-Windsor between the school board the local health board were very interesting for us to hear as ministers. I know out in my own district, when we visited the Gander Women's Centre, there were a group of them who talked to us about what they do at that Women's Centre to help people in our Province and the list was long, I should say. We had a great discussion there and we all learned a lot.

In part, all of these views helped inform the drafting of this legislation. So the people of this Province helped us put together this legislation. But, concerns that relate to the specific program matters that many of them brought up will continue to be considered and addressed as the resources become available, because many of the points of view that we heard were more about the detail of enacting the programs than the type of thing you would put forward in legislation. It was a very enlightening experience for all of us to know how engaged the people of this Province were in our social development.

I would like to speak a little bit about employment supports because employment support is very important to me, both as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and also as the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. A lot of the LMDA program is administered through my department and, of course, helping people get the education they need and the supports they need to become employed is extremely important in my department. Also, like everyone else who sits in this hon. House, as a member who represents a district where employment is so important to my constituents.

Employment supports - unlike the provision of income support which must respond to the very immediate needs of family - are discretionary services that government can provide where sufficient available resources exist to do so. That is why it is so important to grow our economy, so that we have the money to raise the basic rates that a lot of members have been talking about here today, but also to be able to provide these important supports to families so that they are able to get the training and to go on to the employment that will lead to a better quality of life for all of them and their families.

Most other provinces in this country have legislative requirements, absolute requirements for income support clients to either develop a case plan or participate in some sort of labour market activity.

In our consultation, we did ask the question regarding mandatory participation in employment services. This was done in recognition of the department's responsibility and government's responsibility to examine all sides of the issue. During the consultation though, it was very clear that many people expressed very strong views in favour of mandatory participation, while many others were equally strongly against it, arguing that such a requirement to make it mandatory makes very false assumptions about people receiving income support and the actual causes of poverty. In this House today, many members have stated that many times the circumstances in a person's life really are out of their control and they find themselves in a situation where income support is the only way they can survive and make sure there is bread on the table for their families.

After examining all of the arguments, government remains of the view that most people, as many others have said here today, given the right opportunities, want to work. We know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to work and will access employment supports that they need if we provide them.

The Member for Bonavista South, I think, today was saying there is nothing worst than an able-bodied person on income support who does not want to be there. We know that is true, and that is exactly why we are putting this legislation forward, because we know that people in our Province want to work and will work, and this bill will enable all of us in this hon. House to be able to help the Department of Human Resources and Employment, when this bill is passed, to be able to move forward and to put in place employment supports and other programs that will help these people in our Province.

The approach that has been adopted in this legislation is to provide these services, as I have said, on a voluntary basis. They will not be mandatory. It is based on the philosophical assumption that people want to be active contributors in the labour market but often lack the supports, and often lack the economic opportunity to do so in our Province.

After the 1992 shutdown of our codfishery, you know, there were 40,000 jobs lost in this Province. It was devastating. We all know how difficult it was in many rural areas, and people wanted to work more than anything else in the world, but were unable to find jobs. In that instance, having income support and employment supports are very, very important.

Human Resources and Employment have also been redesigning both its income support and employment and career services, to help people find and maintain employment. We have been identifying, these past few years, the many systemic barriers which make it difficult for clients to make the transition from social assistance to employment. We have also being shifting staff resources to have more staff available to work with clients in a proactive manner to help them find and maintain employment, and that has been a huge shift in the Department of Human Resources and Employment. You just talk to any of the staff there and realize the amount of training that is being done and how staff have truly taken up the gauntlet and said: We are here to help people move forward in their lives, not to just fill out forms and to make sure that they get the basis income support each month. That is very simple to do. It is much harder to help people who have great difficulties to overcome, to put a plan in place so that they can overcome those barriers and move forward to make sure that they themselves and their families have a better quality of life.

I would like to speak just a few minutes about youth in our Province, because some of the statistics are very, very worrisome. About half of the new applicants for income support last year were youth, ages eighteen to twenty-nine. Youth aged eighteen to twenty-nine comprise 26 per cent of the annual income support recipients.

The department's redesign of income support since 1998 has focused on removing barriers to work for individuals and families receiving income support, and no more important are the youth in these families. This bill provides the legal framework for these efforts, and for the first time includes employment and career services, which are really the basis for what our young people need if they are to make a success transition from high school into post-secondary and on into the job marketplace.

We know that many of the programs that we have been doing, like the Community Youth Networks in our Province, the research that we are doing through the Career Search program, all of these programs - our SWASP program - are all helping and in many instances both the Department of Human Resources and Employment, our school boards, and anything that can be done with programs in our department, are targeting high-risk youth, and many of these young people, the 26 per cent who have gone into the income support area, are the targets of the programs that we are now putting in place. In some instances, we are already seeing enormous success in this area.

The ability for flexible use of income support funds to implement the individual employment plans will further assist youth to prepare for, find, and keep employment. We are saying to them, rather than be on income support, there are other ways to use that money to further your education and to make sure that you are able to attain your lifelong goals, the goals that you have set for yourself.

Efforts are underway to identify young people at risk of attachment to income support and to provide active employment supports as an alternative. I know that HRDC are very concerned about this, and many of the programs that they have in place through their Youth Employment Strategy are certainly targeting some of the people who are in this 26 per cent.

A range of employment services are available to young people today through the Department of Human Resources and Employment, and they include: counselling, supports for education and employability skills, wage subsidies and also work supports. As well as the programs I just outlined, like SWASP and our Community Youth Networks, programs like Tutoring for Tuition are helping young people in our school system who are at risk. At risk in several ways. Some of them at risk of not completing their grades, so not able to move on to post-secondary and get a good education. So, many of these students are getting the tutoring that they need from the Tutoring for Tuition program.

Then we have many other students who are at high financial risk, that they are not able to put together the money that they need to go on with their post-secondary. That is another reason why the students who are doing well in school and are capable of doing the tutoring are also being able to be paid by getting tuition vouchers to go on through school.

So, we have a lot of programs in place for youth that are showing their success now and we know that we have one of the best post-secondary education systems in this Province. We also know that the new work we have done with the student loan program and the loan remission aspect of it, the Debt Reduction Grants that you are able to earn, will make sure that students, when they graduate, have the ability to graduate without huge student loan debts to repay and they are able to move ahead with their lives.

I would like to close by speaking, just for a few short minutes, about persons with disabilities. A strong and very clear message was received from persons with disabilities during the consultation process. They said they do not want to be treated in a segregated manner, but rather be a part of the mainstream services, but with due attention being paid to their unique needs and circumstances. This, Madam Speaker, is exactly what is the intent of this legislation.

Nothing has been lost by persons with disabilities through the repeal of the Rehabilitation Act. I know that was a concern for some as this was being talked about. This is a piece of legislation, the Rehabilitation Act, that did not reflect a modern integrated approach to providing services to persons with disabilities. The Department of Human Resources and Employment, with its mandate to provide income and employment support to all residents, has incorporated aspects of the Rehabilitation Act that are related to employment support for disabled people. The legislation governing the Department of Health and Community Services is being amended to incorporate aspects of the Rehabilitation Act that are related to that department, and we look forward to that legislation coming forward.

This new act that we are debating here now recognizes that persons with disabilities face unique barriers to employment. Most of us, as members in our districts, have come across this on many occasions and I know a lot of us have tried, in many instances, to help people with disabilities, and we recognize that work needs to be done in this area. One of the purposes stated upfront in this new legislation, as matter of fact, is section 3.(3)(f), is to enable the minister to provide additional supports required to assist persons with disabilities, to prepare for, to access and to keep employment, and for the inclusion and accommodation of their unique needs.

Many persons with disabilities have told us that they are best served by the community agencies who understand their unique needs and circumstances, and we are very fortunate in this Province to have many of these organizations. The new legislation enables the minister to provide grants and support to these approved community agencies that offer employment support so that government can continue to work in partnership with persons with disabilities and these groups that represent their interests to ensure their inclusion.

The department continues and will continue to provide a broad range of services for persons with disabilities, including: training services that assist with post-secondary education, and the supported employment program that provides the supports required to enable persons with developmental disabilities engaged in employment.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, this is a bill that is important to all of the people of our Province, especially people who are disabled, to youth, and to people who know that we need a stronger legislative support for those who need income supports and who need employment supports. I strongly urge each and every one of us to support this important bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Firstly, I would say there are many positive aspects in the bill here. I think it is much needed legislation, when you look at it in its totality, because there are certainly many areas of particular concern in this area. My colleagues, and members on both sides of the House, have addressed some of the major things. It is very important, in employment support programs in particular, to encourage people who get in a cycle of dependency on programs, particularly in the social field, and income support, to try and get out of that. It is always difficult because many of these people are in a very low-income level. Children do not have access to the same resources as children of other families, except the working poor who probably, in many cases, could be worse off when you look at that.

People on income support have an opportunity, I might add, in certain areas for medial expenses and other education expenses. The working poor, in particular too, Madam Speaker, while not specifically addressed here at all, have to face a lot of hardships out in society today to try to survive. It is pretty difficult. They make a little too much money to be able to get income support. They cannot get a drug card. They have to try to get books for their kids going to school that would normally be covered and so on, if someone fell into that category. There are many specific areas that we, as members in the House of Assembly, deal with on an ongoing basis. I could relate a lot in that area but I am not going to get specifically into that.

There are parts of this legislation, I went through it, that deal with - appeal procedures are so important in this process. We have means, collections on overpayments and under payments. There are a lot of necessary things that are fundamental, I guess, in any particular bill but are not the key things. The key things here, that I see, are an opportunity to enable people who have a dependency on income support for no other reason other than a lack of employment opportunities to put incentives in place, programs to encourage people to get back into the workforce. That has to be done, not just by a program, to pick up a certain cost to an employer. The whole problem of this gets resolved best by supporting means for children in those families to get an education. I think we have to be very supportive, whether it is a single parent, whether it is a family with low-income, to allow supports for these people to get a proper education. The only sure way of success, basically, that they can move into this - they become contributors into the workforce. They will not have to be going through the frustrations of not being able to get a job by having their kids, and parents in many cases - except people who, later on in life, are at retirement stage the opportunities and the chances are not as great, but especially for people to get out, get into institutions, get the support they need.

There have been some programs available under the department in the past, certain ones that will allow people to keep a portion of their EI when they - or a certain portion of their income, I should say - go to work, low-income people. These are things that allow people to at least move up a little further down on the scale, up to a notch higher at least. Many of them are still within - almost all of them are still within and below the poverty line, I might add. We need to look at these.

For example, when you look at the distribution of support programs and, as my colleague from Bonavista South said earlier - well, social assistance it is being called. I guess back years ago they called it welfare, but basically, income support is an appropriate term because it is an income to support that particular family, hopefully, until they get a job, or they can get the necessary tools to enable them to get a job, or be able to go through a period of downtime. Many people go through this on a short-term basis. Other people who do not have the means - physically, illness and so on - unfortunately necessitate this on an ongoing basis.

I heard my colleague say earlier here that if a person was looking to get a mattress - just to give an example. Today, under this program, you cannot get a bed unless you are a child. In other words, it is not essential to get a bed if you are an adult and you are on income support. If you are a child, you are allowed to get a bed every ten years. Two hundred dollars is the maximum that is contributed towards that bed every ten years. In other words, you can sleep on the floor as an adult - I even checked it out. I made a call. I thought a bed might be considered fairly essential, but I was told it is not. There is no provision at all for somebody receiving income support to even have that.

I have dealt with, last year and the year before for example, someone who was a diabetic. She wanted to try to eat healthier but her refrigerator was not essential, so she did not have a refrigerator. I know through the goodness of a worker, actually within the public service, he arranged to have a fridge for that particular person. A lot of instances like that, that we take as being fairly essential, to have a fridge in the house or to have a bed to lie on. I would consider that fairly essential. There are areas here that we find are not covered and are not included in the program.

Now, when you look at aspects of that, one of the biggest crimes that occurred, occurred about eight years ago when the federal government changed the way in which they deliver funding to our Province to meet social needs, educational needs, health needs. That was when they changed from - two programs were used to fund our Province under what was called, Established Programme Financing that included a contribution to our Province for health and post-secondary education. It also had a program called the Canada Assistance Plan, or CAP as we know it, that provided money to a province on a shared basis to meet the needs of that province in delivering social programs and income support to people who could not get a job and who needed to put food on the table.

Now back eight years ago, and with this government in power - we raised it at the time, we were very, very upset that they were not fighting to go against this program on a need basis rather than a per capita basis. Our federal member in Cabinet at the time, who became a Premier of this Province, was there at the time that this happened. It was a sad day, because a Province such as ours has to be able to deliver programs at a much higher cost per capita than other parts of this country.

In downtown Toronto you will find more people than on the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you think you can deliver a program to this Province cheaper than you can for the same amount of people in downtown Toronto or in Ottawa, or in any place of that size? Ottawa has more people than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and still we went to a per capita basis. The cost of transportation for a financial assistance officer, or formerly a social worker as they were called, to go out, who used to do a lot of this work. A financial assistance officer deals with that to a great extent now on the financial end of that. They have cut down road visits now, by people in the field of social workers. You cannot deliver. The efficiencies are not there over the long distances in our Province. You can go around downtown Toronto, for example, in a matter of minutes, if not hours, depending on traffic conditions. Here in this Province, you have to drive for hours and hours to go from one end to the other, to get to the Northern Peninsula through Labrador. It is a vast land. We cannot deliver that. We threw in the towel. We did not put up a resistance on a shared basis.

Prior to that change, if we spent $200 million in the department of social services, as it was called then, we got $100 million back from the federal government. Today, that is not happening. That is gone. Our Province has become poorer and poorer and there has been less federal money coming in to meet as a percentage cost of running our programs. It might be on a per capita basis. We have to keep in mind that is compounded, not only our geography, but it is compounded by the fact that our Province has experienced the greatest decline. For a time it was the only Province in many years, the only one in the whole country that showed a decline in population. It is getting smaller in numbers. The seniors are still here. The people in need are still here in our Province. We have not been able to take the federal government to task to deal with some of these problems. So this has been one where we threw in the towel, Madam Speaker. We sort of rolled over and let them drive right over us in this program.

I am a strong believer that not only these programs by the federal government, in this particular area of income support under the Canada systems plan initially, but health care and monies into our Province should be looked on a cost basis to deliver programs. If it is more costly to deliver a program in the Northwest Territories and in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we should have a higher amount per capita to consider those geographical costs. To deliver a program in Torngat, for example, in those areas the cost of transportation is enormous. The cost of transportation in Coastal Newfoundland itself, and Coastal Labrador, and other areas it is very, very expensive; health care and other dollars. We only get a per capita. We do not have the economies and numbers. If we are ever going to deliver a system that is going to put us on an equal footing with other parts of this country, we have to start considering geography and equalized effects of geography before we start looking at a per capita basis. There has to be a certain floor level of contributions before we get into looking at a per capita basis. It is unfortunate.

When we talk about employment opportunities - I did a news release Friday past, actually, when I found out that the St. John's Metro office of HRDC that covers around St. John's and my district, parts of my district, have been hit as hard as any other part of this Province. The Town of Trepassey went through a devastation when a business there employed 650 people - in Trepassey and surrounding area. The town had in the 1991 census,1,480 people. It was devastation, but they are fighting back in areas like that today, looking at employment levels and looking at an EI fund. The Auditor General of Canada, Ms Fraser, indicated that a surplus of over $40 billion, and the office here in St. John's, as of last week, announced: no more money for training, no more extra training for anybody to go to school. That is effective immediately - maybe the end of this fiscal year - to get a penny to get trained. If you are getting EI, you can get (inaudible) and draw your EI, but no training money for people in need.

Last Friday, people I know found out at 3 o'clock on Friday that the course that they were accepted for and for which they had paid the money down, and expected to get funding to go to school on Monday, they were told there was none available. One had to arrange the money to go, they did not have it. I have spoken with two people since that, and here is $40 billion plus in a fund and people here in rural Newfoundland who need opportunities to avail of a fund to cover a program - and this person said: I am guaranteed I am going to get a job when I do this course.

One other person was working on a boat year round, and he needed to do MED and other courses to maintain the job. He took the time off, planned it, arranged to have someone in his place, and found out on Friday that he could not get funding for the course that was starting on Monday - and $40-some billion. That is criminal, Madam Speaker, to be taking $40-some billion out of the pockets of people across this country, and our Province here included, and build up a fund. You should do one of two things. You should reduce the premiums automatically down to a level that sustains the fund, with a little cushion there for emergencies, or you should use the money in the programs to employ people, people to get in the programs, people off income support, people with attachment to the workforce, to get out there and get a job, or get an education to be able to better equip themselves to get a job. That is fundamentally wrong. That is pure robbery of people's money to the tune of over $40 billion. The Auditor General talks about that in her report just this past week.

When you look at this particular act, and you have to look at the overall scheme of the delivery of social programs, it is not an easy job because there are people out there who do not have any tolerance for someone who is receiving income support. Some people can get branded, and others on the system genuinely have no other option. In many cases it is because over the years we did not have the same opportunities to get an education to enhance our chance to get a job, and we are here as a result - maybe it is a failure of governments in the past to be able to generate the economic activity to be able to put education as a priority and to be able to better equip somebody to get a job in the workplace.

It says in Campaign 2000 - this is a 2002 report card on child poverty - that there more than 1.1 million children living in poverty. I heard my colleague, the critic for this area, indicate an estimated 30,000 children in Newfoundland and Labrador today are living below the poverty line, and an estimated 20,000 go to school hungry. They do not have enough to eat. We all know the effects. You cannot concentrate, you cannot study if you are hungry. You have to satisfy the physical need to be able to get a benefit, basically, of your mental capacity and the ability to study.

Advocates are urging governments to put more money into social services, claiming economic growth alone would not reverse the poverty trend. Coalition 2000 said it wants the government to immediately implement a two-year-old plan to bring child care benefits up to $2,500 per child annually and ultimately raise it to $4,200 per child.

Well, in families with low incomes, they are depending very, very much on that cheque to cover their child care. The costs today of raising a family are very significant. In fact, this one was taken from a Web site in Manitoba. It says the cost of raising a child in 2001, an infant, was pegged - a male infant - there is a difference in the cost of raising a male and female, a boy and a girl. It varies at different ages. Quite interestingly, for instance, a male infant, $9,673 per year when you look at the cost. That amount goes up slightly in year one and then it hovers around $9,000. As you get older, nine and ten, it is in the $8,000s and thirteen and fourteen, it goes down in the $6,000s and so on, but the average is in the $8,000 range. With a female, it is in the ballpark. It is a little lower, generally speaking. Some areas - food - if you look at the cost for a male, it is higher. Clothing is higher in a female. If you look at all of these basic costs, and look at it there, it is not easy raising a particular family. The costs are very prohibitive, and in low income families it is even more so. It is even more difficult. That is why it is important that supports have to be given, not only to meet their growing needs so that they can survive, but the most important thing that has to be done is to be able to address the underlying reason behind that, to try to encourage them, give supports to increase their education level, to avail of training and courses, and also, basically, to be able to offer programs for incentives to get people out into the workforce, and when they are out into the workforce to be able to keep them in the workforce. That is an area we have experienced some difficulty in different times federally, but HRDC, by and large in the past, have made fair contributions to getting people employed and allowing people to get an education and paying certain costs. When you happen to fall in the St. John's metro area - and we are in rural Newfoundland, right to Trepassey and those areas, down in St. Mary's Bay - we get treated the same as the St. John's region. When their funding runs out, we have to pay a price. When a person in Trepassey or Fermeuse is sitting next to a person in the College of the North Atlantic, or doing a course, whether they are from Marystown, Carbonear, or other parts, they are paying all the costs when these people are getting covered because they live in a different part of the Province.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Just a minute or less to wrap-up.

That is unfair. We have to try to eliminate the inequities in funding. We have to eliminate inequities in opportunities to get an education, and inequities in people trying to pursue a job, and try to level the playing field for those who may be more disadvantaged than others.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to rise today as well, Madam Speaker, and have a few words and a few brief comments on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

I would like to start off by saying that any Member for Labrador West - if you go back in time, twenty or twenty-five years - would probably not rise to address a bill of this nature if they were speaking specifically about the area of the Province that they represented. That is not true today. Labrador West is like many other communities in this Province, and we have our numbers of people who depend upon income support in order to survive. Most of these people, sadly, are young people between the ages of eighteen and thirty, people for whom there are no employment opportunities left in Labrador West, or very few, but certainly not enough to take care of all the people who are looking for work and probably have exhausted their EI.

Madam Speaker, for anyone to have to live on the income support level that is offered in this Province, they are not - I should not say that, because you are not living; you are merely existing and not doing too well at that. We have all heard stories about: so-and-so is receiving income support, there is nothing wrong with them, they should be out looking for a job. All of these things. These stories abound no matter what area of this Province we talk about, but for each and every person like that, there are many people deserving and in need of income support for many, many reasons. While all of us today, in this Legislature, and people who are working, have the means to support ourselves financially, we have to be concerned about things like this because we have children and grandchildren coming up and they may not be as fortunate as most of us were. It is important that we have the social network in place, because a lot of people find themselves, from time to time, having to rely on it.

Madam Speaker, there was a lot of discussion today by some of the previous speakers talking about EI. I would like to say that $40 billion will be in that fund by the end of this year. That $40 billion is used for everything other than what the fund was intended for. People who are being laid off, people who lose their jobs, people who are not qualifying because of the number of hours that you have to have before you do qualify, benefit levels being reduced, all of these things contribute towards the growth of that fund that the federal government used for political purposes.

Madam Speaker, that fund is paid for, totally, by workers and employers. Speaking from a realistic point of view, I would suggest that the fund should be administered by workers and employers rather than by the federal government who, as I said earlier, use it for their own political gain.

Madam Speaker, if we look at this Province and think of all of the resources that we have, the people who have to, and are forced to, rely on income support in our Province should be far less than what it is today. That, very simply, is because successive governments over the years have not properly or adequately addressed the natural resource development in this Province. We have always been too eager, Madam Speaker, to have a resource developed because people are going to go to work immediately, governments get re-elected on that, and there has been no long-term thinking about serious development plans for secondary processing on any of our natural resources.

If we want to look, Madam Speaker, from the iron ore industry in Labrador West, where a pellet plant was being built in Seven Islands, if we want to look at Point Noire, Quebec, whose very existence is a result of ore coming from Wabush Mines, if we look at the power from the Upper Churchill that there has been much discussion about in this House in recent days, and if we look at the fishery along the coast and the forestry and the offshore oil and possible natural gas developments, we have more natural resources, as a Province, than most countries in this world have, but we never, ever seem to be able to develop it with our interests at heart. It has always, Madam Speaker, been for the interests of others.

Madam Speaker, there are many people in this Province, men, women and, sadly enough, children, who are living far below poverty levels - far below, Madam Speaker! - children who have to go to school each day who are hungry, who are not clothed properly, men and women who cannot afford to eat beyond what they can purchase to subsist on. All of these things, I think, reflect on the kind of society we have. There is a saying, Madam Speaker, that I am sure you have heard: Society can be judged on how they treat the disadvantaged and the poor. I don't think that we have a lot to be proud of when it comes to the way that the disadvantaged and the poor of our Province have been treated over the last number of years, not just by this government today but by other governments who have been in power as well. It is not a problem that is going to go away, Madam Speaker. It is not one that can be fixed with the stroke of a pen. I think the best approach to fighting this problem is through sound management and development of our resources.

As I said earlier the week in this House, I don't understand, and the people of this Province don't understand, that with all of the production of offshore oil that has taken place right off our shores, why none of that is being developed in this Province. People are at a loss to understand why that is taking place in this day and age. We think we should have learned from the mistakes of the past, but it seems we are doomed to keep on repeating them.

Madam Speaker, the issue of income support is a very important one, because at the lowest point in their lives people need this. As we look around today, we are not able to predict the future and it may be our children or grandchildren who may be in need of this tomorrow for many, many reasons beyond their control. I think it is important that these documents and the legislation applying the rates that people get have to be monitored and adjusted from time to time, because people do not deserve to be treated as anything less than human beings.

I just had a couple of comments I wanted to make, Madam Speaker. My colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi will be speaking to this issue as well. I am sure that, from his background, there are many things about the proposed legislation - he will make a significant contribution to the debate that is taking place here in this House, as well.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today and have a few words on Bill 23. It is very interesting to be able to speak for a few minutes.

What we have been talking about most, and what I have heard from most previous speakers, is that we are talking about the income support. There is also another piece to this bill called employment support. So I think we have to look at the full bill in context when we are talking about the whole issue of income support and employment support.

Madam Speaker, I stand here, too, and I have heard the Member for Waterford Valley and others speaking about people who are disadvantaged. All of us, I think, understand the plight of those - not only the members on the other side. We also understand the problems that we face when we do not have the opportunity that most of us have here in this House. I doubt if there is anybody here who has gone through the experiences of most of those people who rely on income support and want to become self-sufficient at some point in time.

Madam Speaker, what this new bill does - I guess Madam Speaker has left. Mr. Speaker, this bill is replacing legislation that was put in place in 1977. I think the same applies to this bill as many other bills that we have looked at over the last five to six years, and that is that we look at the requirements to deal with the issues that we have for the disadvantaged and the disabled, so that they will be able to be dealt with in an appropriate fashion in today's world. Business is done different today, and so is the way we deal with people, because this bill has everything to do with people much more than anything else.

Mr. Speaker, we have to understand that dignity is a big part of this as well. We have to ensure that the way we deal with the issues that these people go through is dignifying, the way that they can get out of this situation that they have been in, and why we have to look at the whole issue of whether or not we can ensure that a lot of these people who are going through these kinds of situations - some go through it as young people, some go through it as middle-aged people, and some as older people. Some people will always be required to be on income support because of the nature of their illness or the injuries that they might have.

We have to understand, I think, that this bill was not put together by us, as politicians alone. It was also put together by professional people who have dealt with these issues, dealt with the whole situation of disabled and disenfranchised people. The staff we have working in the department, and in government in general, are professional staff. They are very competent people, in putting together the kinds of requirements that we have to put together in order to see change and see improvement in the way that we can deliver the programs that we offer. That is the main thrust of this particular bill: to ensure that the way we deal with these people today in the programs that we offer, we are offering them in a very progressive and futuristic manner. Because, one of the things that I think we have to understand - and I refer to the Member for St. John's West today, when she spoke about the closure of the group home, or the home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay - we need to understand all of the facts that surround those kinds of things so that we get this in the proper context. While this is dealing with people who are in a situation that they cannot help themselves, what we have done to correct a lot of this in that particular area is, we have gone right to the coast and we have put two of these particular homes on the coast so that those people would not have to come all the way to Goose Bay for protection.

Mr. Speaker, those are some of the reasons why we need to look at this in a whole package, because that is the way we are improving the quality for these people. We are able to, under the new programs, deliver these programs and services in areas where the underprivileged and the disabled do not have to leave their communities. They can be serviced, issued programs, and live a reasonable quality of life in their own areas. That is the kind of thing, I think, this bill will allow us to do at the end of the day.

There are a number of components to the bill, because there are a number of components and programs that the Department of Human Resources offers. While we, a lot of times, tend to talk about the things that are still of concern, what we do have to realize at times is that we have to work at these kinds of bills to enable us to deal with the programs in a positive way. We are offering to the people a much wider range of programs than we were able to offer before, in the past, under the old legislation. This legislation has allowed our programs to become much more flexible.

I guess we have to also understand the people we are targeting with this kind of legislation, because it does not apply to everybody. This legislation is put in place to apply to the people who are very needy, very much in need of support, both in financial support and support so that they can become more educated to find their own way and find their own niche so that they can earn their own incomes.

Mr. Speaker, being on social assistance is not in anybody's best interest. People are not on it because they want to be. They are on it because that is the only way they can find support to stay alive. It is not a pleasure program to be on.

Mr. Speaker, the more we can do in terms of our legislative requirements here in this House to make it easier for people, make it more reasonable for these people to apply to and give them a little bit of dignity, I think that is the whole thrust of this piece of legislation. I think it has done a great job. The people who put this together have done a great job in piecing the programs together so that they are more flexible, they are more meaningful for the people who require this, and at the end of the day, this will be a very advanced piece of legislation that we will be very proud of once we get it through the House.

Thank you very much for these few minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity this afternoon to speak for a few minutes on Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose as every member so far has said, there certainly needs to be an overhaul and it has long been looked for an overhaul in the acts respecting the provision of income support and employment support, social services for the people of this Province.

As my colleague from across the House just mentioned, the previous acts governing this were brought in in 1977. Obviously, we all recognize that the realities of 1977 and the realities of 2002 have changed rather dramatically. As a matter of fact, it is a little bit off the topic I suppose, but in 1977 we eagerly awaited the benefits of an extension in a jurisdiction and the imposition of the 200-mile limit. Twenty-five years later we look back on the disaster that has become of our fishing industry as a result of that. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, some of the problems and the challenges that we face in our Province today in income support and employment support are in large part as a result of that catastrophe that developed over the past twenty-five years.

Mr. Speaker, in talking about income support and employment support, Bill 23, I think, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, certainly the Member for Labrador West spoke about it briefly, there are a whole host of factors that contribute to the need for people in this Province to have income support and employment support. One of the major factors, in my view anyway, as the Member for Bonavista South mentioned, and the Member for Labrador West mentioned, are the changes by the federal government in the EI system. The changes that have resulted in an EI surplus in 1996 of $660 million, growing to an EI surplus at the end of this year of $40 billion.

As the Member for Labrador West said, the EI surplus has been used for just about everything except for what it was intended for. It has been used for deficit reduction by the federal government. It has been used for all kinds of training initiatives and in some respects, I suppose, there is nothing wrong with it being used for training initiatives but the problem is, a lot of the money that has been collected through EI premiums and paid by workers and paid by employers has been spent for the wrong reasons to the point where today, Mr. Speaker, we see where our unemployed workers, who a few years ago were able to draw 66 per cent of their insurable earnings in EI, to the point where today they are only able to access 55 per cent.

We have seen where increasing the qualifying period has resulted in more people having to access the programs that we are talking about here today; the income support programs, the employment support programs. We see where people have gone from a system where it was probably somewhat easier to qualify for EI to a system where today it is very difficult for many people, especially those in rural parts of our Province, to qualify for Employment Insurance, Mr. Speaker. The measures that govern EI have become very restrictive to the point, as I said, we have people who probably today would be able to work in seasonal occupations and draw EI but today find themselves accessing the social safety net that this Province provides.

Mr. Speaker, we see in some regions of the Province where information has been presented recently by the department, by officials in the department - I seen a presentation, actually in Plum Point just a couple of short weeks ago when there was an employment summit there, where information was provided on, in a very general way, on social services caseloads in the Province. Certainly, we see on the Northern Peninsula where the caseload has diminished over the past number of years. As I look at those numbers, and I look at the fact - and it is a fact, that the caseload has diminished. You have to ask yourself: Why has the caseload diminished? Is it because the economy is so much better? An answer, quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, is: No. It is not that the economy in many parts of our Province - and we do recognize that there have been some improvements in some areas, but in many parts of the Province it has not improved. It has actually declined to the point where people have left the region entirely. They left the Province entirely. We see how many tens of thousands of people over the past eight to ten years have left the Province and gone on to other parts of the country. That, in part, is why our caseload on social assistance has declined.

Mr. Speaker, that really is the crux of our problem here in this Province. While there needs to be - and I commend the minister and the department for overhauling the employment and income support programs for the people of the Province. It certainly is needed, desperately. But, the real crux of our problem is out-migration, and the real challenge of economic development in many parts of the Province and the lack of economic development in many parts of our Province, and also the fact that people, especially our young people, have to leave. I am sure I do not need to repeat it, but I will repeat it, about the out-migration that we have seen. Of course, we know that the out-migration has primarily been the young people of our Province; the young and very well educated.

The Member for Terra Nova, the Government House Leader, spoke about it earlier today, of how the Government of Canada is trying to position us, I suppose - I am repeating and using his words. I will not say that I necessarily agree with it entirely - where we have a well-trained workforce. That is what we need to do. Part of the reason for the overhaul in the income and employment support programs in this Province - part of the reason why it is needed is to create a very well-trained workforce and professional workforce that is competitive within the country and competitive worldwide here in this Province.

The unfortunate thing, in my view, for us, and our recent history in particular, is that our very well-trained people, our very well-trained young people, the people who could help us to build this Province, who could help us to build the various parts of our Province and probably employ some of the people who find themselves today on income and employment support programs, these people, Mr. Speaker, are building the industries of Alberta, Ontario, Florida, Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina. That is the problem in our Province today. I mean, who knows what a twenty-five-year-old person with a very good education, a good university degree and good training from a technical institute, what those people could do, what any one of them could do when it comes to employment generation and innovation in this Province. As long as we keep losing these, the challenge for government, no matter who the government is, will be to try and make income and employment support programs work for the people. They can never work to the extent that we would like them to, to be able to give people the amount of money that they need to survive in the first instance, and to give them the support from an employment perspective in the second instance. You know, that is the problem. If we do not have a change in our economy, in our economic policies, then we will always be challenged to be able to meet the needs of people who cannot find work.

Mr. Speaker, we look at some of the issues that are facing our Province and we are continually, I guess, reminded by the Finance Minister and others in government, and certainly outside, of how our Gross Domestic Product, our GDP, has grown over recent years, and the government continually portrays the image of an economy that is employing more people today than it has at any time in our history. While that may be factual, Mr. Speaker, it is also a fact that in the past ten years the total income of all of those people who are working has not changed. It has not changed. It has been flatlined for roughly ten years now. So, what does that mean? It means that the income that was in a smaller number of people's pockets is now in a larger number of people's pockets. That is all. All we are doing is sharing that same pot of money. That same amount of income is being spread further. There is nothing really wrong with spreading income further. The unfortunate thing about it is that, in many cases, it results in the working poor. That is why this bill is so important, to provide people with employment support, because, in many cases, the people who are working in minimum wage jobs are the working poor, they are living below the poverty line, and they do need the assistance to be able to move on.

What I get concerned about sometimes, Mr. Speaker - I will just back up a little bit now. I will continue on, I guess, to speak briefly about the changes that the federal government has made to the EI program. I know that probably everybody here, certainly the rural members, can say unanimously they would have had calls from their constituents about the Job Creation Partnership program of the federal government under HRDC. I know I just received a letter yesterday, I believe it was, from some constituents. I looked in The Northern Pen there just last week, I believe it was, and there was a letter from some people who are working on the Job Creation Partnership program.

In this, Mr. Speaker, we see where the federal government clearly is breaking its own rules, where if anybody else is employing a person in this Province or in this country, they have to pay EI premiums and deduct EI premiums from the employee, so that at the end of the day, when they get laid off from their jobs, if they cannot move on into something else, then they do have the benefit of the EI program to fall back on.

Mr. Speaker, this JCP program, which frustrates everybody, I think, who has had any experience with it here, is just clearly not a program that works for many of the people in this Province. You know, it might work in downtown Toronto, it might work in urban Ontario, it might even work in urban St. John's to some extent. Certainly, from an employment support program and a bridging program, a transitional program that will take people from a situation where they are unemployed to a full-time job, it is just not working here in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I suspect it is not working in many parts of rural Canada.

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and while the government should review the income support program and the employment support program for the people of this Province, they should also move more towards the federal government, lobby the federal government more effectively for changes in their employment support programs and their income support programs. There desperately needs to be changes with HRDC's Job Creation Partnership program and with the EI system so that we don't see ourselves where we are in a position where many people cannot access EI, where people cannot access training money, where people have to work on a Job Creation Partnership program and, at the end of the day, they have nothing. This, Mr. Speaker, is totally unacceptable and I would certainly suggest to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment that he take this up with his federal counterpart, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should take it up with his counterpart and look for these changes. As long as the federal government continues administering the EI fund in the manner that it is, it will continuously pose problems for this Province and for this minister and for this government, or any other future minister or government will be plagued with the same problem.

Mr. Speaker, when we look around our Province and we look at many of our areas, as I said, we have our working poor. In reviewing these programs, I would hope that we would try, to the extent possible, to take a pattern after some other provinces. Our critic for Human Resources and Employment has raised this on any number of occasions. It was raised here earlier today by one of my colleagues - I forget which one it was now - about the child poverty rate in this Province where we see twenty-six, I believe is the number, 26 per cent of the children in this Province living in poverty. Why is it that in our Province we see the numbers of children living in poverty growing on a yearly basis, on a daily basis, while we look across the Gulf, not even right across the Gulf, it is partway across the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to little P.E.I., where the child poverty rate has shrunk to a level of, I believe, 13 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, whether it is increasing or decreasing, the fact of the matter is that we are at a very high level. We are at a level much higher than our sister province just across the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we are increasing or decreasing. The fact of the matter is (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: That is right - exactly.

Mr. Speaker, there are serious problems here. I will say that while there are many problems here, and many more issues that need to be addressed, I will commend the minister on - and we are here today to speak briefly, in general, about Bill 23.

Mr. Speaker, in some of the documents that the minister released in announcing these changes to the income and employment support programs, it mentioned the adequacy of the income support program, the key messages that were heard in the consultation process, in the review of this. It said: Participants stressed the need to make work pay before many people could make the move from social assistance to work.

Mr. Speaker, others here today have mentioned the fact that oftentimes we find people who end up on social assistance and it really becomes a challenge to try and make the move from social assistance back to work. Part of the reason is because some of the work that they could go to is so low paying that oftentimes, if they have health problems in particular, sometimes they are - I hesitate to use the words better off, but it is not a viable option, I suppose, is probably the better way of putting it, to go into the workforce. If this act and the changes that are being brought forward here today are in any way able to make a change to that, so that people who today are on social assistance can move from social assistance, and there is a bridge there to bring them to employment so that they do not end up worse off in a job than they were on social assistance, than certainly this has to be supported, Mr. Speaker.

I noticed there in the background: The holistic approach of combining income support with employment and career service to assist people in preparing for and maintaining employment is now for the first time outlined in the legislation.

I notice I have two minutes left, so I will try and clue up very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, this is, I believe, a good move, to look at income support in conjunction with employment and career service and counseling for people, because oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, people need a little bit of help, assistance and guidance in trying to decide on what their next move should be and how to get there. Certainly, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the probability of an appointment by a client or a former client to an appeal's board is something that certainly should be commended, Mr. Speaker, and should be done.

I know in my experience in my former life in the fishing industry, having somebody who has the experience in the fishing industry on an appeal board, for example, makes it that much easier for somebody to come in and make their case. You are making your case to a person who understands. Mr. Speaker, making a provision in the act to allow a client or a former client a position on the appeal board, so that a person who has a problem with social assistance and feels that they have been wronged by the department or by the system has somebody who has been there, who can relate to them, is a very good move, I believe, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I believe my time is up, and I thank the House for a few minutes this afternoon to pass on my comments, and I commend the minister for reviewing the income and support programs for the Province today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes talking about Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

We have been waiting a long time, Mr. Speaker, for an act that will overhaul the system, to improve the system, to bring changes to the system as it exists. We have seen numerous areas where the current legislation and regulations fall short of being able to help people to the full extent that we would like to see. We see single able-bodied people who are existing on $100 or $140 a month, whatever the case is, at the discretion, many times, of the department that they are dealing with or the branch they are dealing with. Clearly, not enough for those people to be able to survive, not enough for anybody to be able to survive. That type of income clearly is not enough to provide anybody with any level of even food, let alone shelter or clothing or personal items. It is clearly not enough.

There are many areas where this legislation has to be improved. We are happy to see this legislation. I commend the department for this legislation and for some of the things that it is doing. There are many benefits. There are other areas where we would like to see, perhaps, further improvement. We have to see what the regulations are going to show because, really, the details will be in the regulations. What real advantages this legislation will have will clearly be borne through the regulations.

Right now, as the current legislation exits, you see where beds are not considered a necessity, people are unable to get beds, not a necessity, where fridges are not really considered an necessity. Now, oftentimes, if you push and fight and argue enough, you can get a fridge for somebody, but sometimes you cannot. They are not considered a necessity. Tables and chairs are not considered a necessity. Cribs are not considered a necessity. The system, as it stands right now, falls far short of providing, what I would consider, basic necessities to the clients who are currently relying on social benefits. There are many areas, and we hope that this new legislation will correct some of those pitfalls, some of those shortfalls in the legislation. We hope that this new legislation and the regulations will address some of these areas.

As I have said, the regulations will really show how effective this legislation is going to be, and we await the regulations. In my opinion, this should be sent for a legislative review, or to a legislative review committee, where the front line workers, some of the people who, perhaps, know best the shortfalls and the pitfalls in the existing legislation, can give suggestions, can answer questions, as to what improvements are needed; even more so than front line workers. Let me say, that the front line workers are dealing with clients on a daily basis. They see some of the horror stories. They see families having to survive where the adults are not able to get a bed, where a parent of a brand new infant, bringing that infant home and not able to provide a crib for that infant child. They see some of the horror stories. They see some of the problems that exist. Through a legislative review committee, we can bring some of the front-line workers in. We can really get into the details of some of the shortfalls that currently exist. We should be speaking with the clients themselves. We should be speaking with the clients of social services, because if anybody knows the shortfalls it would be the clients. We should bring the clients in, find out their difficulties, their struggles, in having to survive on $140 a month or $200 a month. Have them explain to a legislative review committee the bare rations they have to deal with, the lack of ability, the lack of morale, the lack of enthusiasm, the lack of life in being able to get up and go out and look for a job; because, if a single, able-bodied person is surviving on a couple of hundred dollars a month, certainly there have to be morale issues, and that is a problem that has been created over the long term through the current existing legislation.

We should speak with teachers, because, when a child goes to school hungry, that child is less likely to learn, that child is less likely to have the energy to learn, that child is less likely to have the enthusiasm or the excitement to sit in that class and learn. By having a legislative review committee, maybe if we brought some teachers in, the teachers could explain to us some of the difficulties of children who go to school hungry, some of those difficulties, or if they are going to school without proper clothing because their parents are unable to afford proper clothing. Some of the teachers can perhaps give guidance on what should be contained within legislation and regulations. Maybe clergy, because I am sure that clergy members deal with parishioners on a regular basis, and see parishioners come in and complain and give their stories and concerns, and ask for guidance and advice on how to survive, sometimes from one day to the next, just how to get by. Maybe we can speak to some of the people who operate the food banks, before we iron out the regulations - another reason that this should go to a legislative review committee. Maybe if we spoke to some of the people who operate the food banks and find out how often people go to, and rely on, food banks.

MR. HARRIS: Eighty-five per cent.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Eighty-five per cent, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says.

MR. HARRIS: Eighty-five per cent (inaudible) are people on social assistance.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Absolutely. That is absolutely correct. Eighty-five per cent of the people who utilize food banks are on social benefits.

If we were to have a legislative review committee, maybe we could bring in the operators of food banks from urban areas, from rural areas, because I am sure there is a big difference between urban and rural when it comes to usage of food banks. There is less opportunity, maybe, in rural areas. There is a higher dependency. Regardless of what area of the Province we are talking about, the reality is that most people on social benefits have, at some point or another, utilized the food bank. I would say there are people on social benefits who are often very regular dependents of the food banks, so there are issues.

I would say that every member in this House receives calls on a weekly basis, probably on a daily basis, from constituents who are clients of social benefits, so we know some of the concerns.

As I have said, the fact that beds and cribs are not considered necessities, the fact that a single, able-bodied person is required to get by on such a bare minimum, I really cannot understand how they manage to make it from week to week. My heart goes out to them because it is almost as though the system is designed to force them off social benefits. That is good if there were jobs, because I would say, in speaking to my constituents - and I would say it is even worse in some rural areas where there is less employment available - I would say that the majority of people who are on social benefits would rather be working. The reality is, they would rather be working. They would rather be earning a wage that is able to get them by from month to month. It would make them feel that they are an active member of society, but, the reality of it is, there are not often jobs that they can go to.

So, the intent of this bill is to provide incentives for people to go and find jobs. That is great if there were jobs for people to go to. That would be fantastic if there were jobs for people to go to, because most people on social benefits would rather be working. Somebody who is receiving $266 a month and is expected to survive on that would rather be working because, you know, they must be pulling miracles. As I have said, I cannot see how they can do it, and it is shameful that we, as legislators, would expect them to do that.

Hopefully, this legislation, Bill 23, will create better conditions for most people who are clients of social benefits. Hopefully, it will create incentives for people to be able to work, because, without a doubt, we have to take into account here economic conditions, geography, and employment conditions; and, in some areas, in rural areas, the employment conditions are not the same as they are in urban areas within this Province. We have to take into account child poverty and the strain that child poverty puts on our health care system, the illness that could be created because of child poverty, and the strain on our education system.

Maybe if we looked after our resources better - and this is very timely because we are now dealing with the Lower Churchill as well - and ensured, because we are, perhaps, the wealthiest province in Canada resource-wise, with the second smallest population, but yet, we are the poorest Province. Newfoundland and Labrador is fiscally the poorest province in Canada. So if we did a better job of managing our resources and ensuring that our resources provided maximum benefits in terms of employment, royalties and spinoffs, it would help us in dealing with social issues as well. Because the employment benefits would relieve some of the strain and would actually create jobs for people to go to. The royalties would give us more money to deal with some of the social problems that this Province is facing today and perhaps provide increases in the amount of social benefits that people are receiving for those who cannot find a job, for the people who are unable to secure employment. If we are really serious about this, it goes far beyond Bill 23.

When you look at Canada's Health and Social Transfers and the fact that they have been cut. It is not all the fault of the Province. That is the point here. Some of this has been passed on to the Province by the federal government. There is no question about that. The Canada Health and Social Transfers have been cut, and we have to address that. We have to deal with the federal government. We are tying social benefits to employment incentives, trying to get people back to work and trying to create incentives for people to work. So when you look at the EI system federally, not only has the federal government cut the Canada Health and Social Transfers, not only are the provinces getting less money in social transfers, but you look at the EI system where they have - what is it Loyola, a $40 billion surplus this year?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Accumulated a $40 billion surplus in the EI system and you have people in this Province who are not able to get a bed, are not able to get tables and chairs, are living on $266 a month. In this Province, a province where there is a very high ratio of seasonal employment, especially in rural areas - when you look at the fact that in this Province, where a high ratio of the employment in rural Newfoundland - and even in the urban areas - is seasonal, the EI system federally has a drastic effect on this Province. The cuts they have made to EI, the cuts that they have made to benefits and the length of benefits, and the $40 billion accumulated surplus in the EI system. We have to look at that as well and address that when we are talking about and focusing on the solutions in Bill 23, the solutions to some of the problems we are facing with our social programs.

Looking at the legislation and examining the legislation in this Province, and going through the legislation clause by clause and digging into this legislation to find out exactly what is there, and even looking at legislation in other provinces and comparing what other provinces have to offer, and examining that to determine whether that is a good system for this Province, is good. That is all good, but it is not enough. The reason I say it is not enough, Mr. Speaker, is because this Province is unique in a lot of ways. This Province is unique in geography. This Province is unique in the employment that we offer, the seasonal employment. This Province is unique in the demographics. This Province is unique in the fact that people are moving from rural Newfoundland to the urban areas in higher numbers than they have ever moved before. People are moving from this Province to other provinces, and other jurisdictions throughout North America. So this Province is unique.

It is not enough simply to look at the legislation and examine the legislation and determine what is in our legislation, but we also have to take into account the uniqueness that this Province has.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will adjourn debate until Monday.

Thank you.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wish hon. members a good weekend. I move that the House on its rising do adjourn.

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