December 1, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 52


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome today to the gallery nine students from the Youth Service of Canada Community Garden Program, Victoria and Carbonear, accompanied by their instructors Donald Innis, Eileen Rose and Penney Burden.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide an update on implementation activities associated with the Strategic Social Plan for the Province. This plan embodies government's steadfast commitment to the social and economic well-being of people in this Province. We believe that the Strategic Social Plan is a unique approach to addressing the challenges facing our Province, one that recognizes the importance of engaging people as active participants in building effective solutions.

The supportive response of regional and community stakeholders to the release of the Strategic Social Plan has been very encouraging, not only because it gives credence to the direction in the plan, but also because the long-term thrust of the plan seems so well understood. The plan is a framework for achieving the kinds of outcomes for people and communities that will be essential to the long-term growth and prosperity of this Province. Achieving outcomes related to the health, education, economic and social well-being of our people and to community capacity requires a broad based long-term strategy involving government and the public.

Government is committed to doing its part. We have undertaken significant new social initiatives including new legislation in the areas of Child, Youth and Family Services and Child Care Services, and a number of initiatives under the National Child Benefit Provincial Reinvestment Program, such as additional funding to support child care subsidizes and infant child care services, additional family resource programs, and initiatives related to youth services. These initiatives signal our commitment to move in directions that support prevention and early intervention approaches that will yield long-term results.

During the fall, activities associated with the Strategic Social Plan have focused on information sharing in preparation for implementation. Some of these activities have included:

Information sessions for members of the regional boards. Eight sessions have been held across the Province, and three more are scheduled to be completed by the end of this week. Sessions for the health boards are now complete, while briefings with school boards will be finished shortly. The Provincial Caucus of the Regional Economic Development Boards has also been briefed;

Information sessions have been held with community agencies in Clarenville, Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Stephenville and Gander, with more planned in the next few months; and,

Information sessions have also been held for senior government managers to ensure that our managers are aware of the priority that government attaches to the Strategic Social Plan.

As I have noted, these sessions have given government an opportunity to discuss the directions of the Plan with a variety of people across the Province. On the basis of those discussions, I believe that there exists a genuine desire on the part of all parties to seek cooperative approaches to addressing this Province's challenges through the Strategic Social Plan. Implementation at the regional level will begin in early winter 1999 and of course we will use a phased-in approach. This will enable the process of other regions to be guided by the experience in the first region.

On other level, a first meeting of the Premier's Council on Social Development was held on October 26 and another will follow shortly. Actually, that meeting will take place on Friday of this week. The Council provides government with a unique opportunity to seek a wide range of views on issues that impact on the policy and program decisions of government. Work has begun on the development of Indicators for the Social Audit, under the advice of the Premier's Council. These Indicators will be an important mechanism for providing regions and communities with planning information on an on-going basis. The Social Audit will be conducted after five years and will inform the public on progress achieved.

I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that this Province's announcement of a Strategic Social Plan has been applauded at the national level as a bold initiative that leads the way in the area of progressive social policy. The commitment of a government to a broad based social plan is unique and the emphasis on integrating social and economic development at a policy and program level is supported by the best available research. The formal commitment to a government-region-community partnership around social and economic development is certainly seen as innovative. The Social Audit will be the first time that such an initiative has been undertaken by any jurisdiction in the country. I believe that the Strategic Social Plan, carefully managed, has the potential to achieve long term positive outcomes for this Province and demonstrate new ways for effectively addressing social change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement.

There are a couple of items in it I would like to particularly address. One is that the Strategic Social Plan "recognizes the importance of engaging people as active participants in building effective solutions." Also, the "Indicators for the Social Audit, under the advice of the Premier's Council. These indicators will be an important mechanism for providing regions and communities with planning information on a ongoing basis."

It seems that over the years this government has engaged many people in creating solutions. They have been provided with volumes of consultative work in the area of social policy but they have been unable to translate the concrete recommendations into concrete actions.

We have the Williams report on education, the Canning report on education, the Inkpen report on justice, the Children's Interest report, the Royal Report on Social Policy, the Workers' Compensation report, various Auditor General reports, reports by students, reports by social agencies, and the list goes on. It will soon be time to do something. What I would like to say is that until the government has the ability to turn these plans into effective action, then they can be charged with implementation failure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Strategic Social Plan is a document mostly about process and discussions. What is the value of a Strategic Social Plan without a guarantee of a quality of life for seniors, such as government pensioners who have not received a raise since 1989? We need a committee for home care for the elderly and disabled with proper pay for workers, a commitment to full employment for our people, and a guarantee of a full stomach for our children going to school. A Social Audit in the year 2005 does not help people who are suffering today. What we need is a commitment and action now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

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

I wish to take this opportunity to update the House on the progress being made towards the development of an Endangered Species Act for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to report on some of the initiatives being carried out on behalf of species at risk in this Province.

Almost a year ago Cabinet gave its approval to proceed with the development of an Endangered Species Act. We did so for two reasons. First, there was a recognition that legal protection currently being offered to endangered species in this Province was inadequate, and for some species non-existent.

Second, we committed through the National Accord For The Protection of Species at Risk along with all other provincial, territorial governments, and the federal government, to ensure that no species in Canada will go extinct as a result of human intervention. Under the Accord each jurisdiction will ensure it has legislation in place to protect and recover endangered species.

Mr. Speaker, officials from my department went around the Province in January and February of this year visiting a number of communities, soliciting comments and suggestions on what such an act should contain.

To help facilitate the discussion we produced a paper entitled, "A Public Consultation Paper Regarding an Endangered Species Act for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador".

Close to 200 people attended the meetings and gave their overwhelming support to the concept of an Endangered Species Act. In addition, we received over fifty written submissions from the general public, business and environmental groups.

In total there were more than 800 comments on the proposed legislation. We have reviewed each any every comment and have used a number of the suggestions to help strengthen an already good legislative proposal.

I say this because during the consultation process, and since, we have received high praise from within and outside the Province for our proposal and our consultation process.

It has even been suggested that our legislative proposal could be a national model for endangered species legislation. Most recently, a coalition of national environmental groups gave this Province's proposal the highest ranking of any existing or proposed endangered species act in Canada.

As well, there continues to be a national dialogue on the implementation of the various elements of the National Accord, including legislation. Through this process we are better able to harmonize our efforts with other jurisdictions.

I hope to bring forward for discussion with my colleagues in caucus and Cabinet, in the near future, a set of drafting instructions for an Endangered Species Act. I am now awaiting finalization of the federal government's Endangered Species Act to ensure that it compliments proposed provincial legislation.

Legislation, however, is only one tool in the protection and recovery of species at risk. Within the past decade we have made significant strides in the protection of endangered species. We have established an endangered species program within the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods and with a full-time endangered species biologist.

Mr. Speaker, we have set up a protected area for the endangered piping plover and are currently working with other to establish reserves to protect the habitat for the endangered Newfoundland pine marten.

We have taken steps to reduce the accidental mortality of pine marten and are also involved in captive breeding of this species. One of the steps being taken was the introduction of a modified snaring program to eliminate the deaths of pine marten in rabbit snares. The recent death of a pine marten in a conventional snare in the Terra Nova area confirms the need for this new initiative.

We have participated as well, on recovery teams for such species as the peregrine falcon, wolverine, and harlequin duck. We have also been successful in establishing partnerships with the public, industry and environmental groups for the protection and recovery of species. These partnerships have been built in part on an understanding that we all share a concern and responsibility for species at risk.

Mr. Speaker, it is this government's intention with the assistance of legislation to ensure that we will never again witness an extinction of a species.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister rises and talks about endangered species. He talks about such things as the pine marten, the harlequin duck, and the wolverine. I will tell the minister what is endangered in this Province today, and that is the young people, the people under thirty years old who have to leave this Province and go other places to find a job. I will tell the minister what is endangered in this Province today. It is our seniors who have had to come here today and demonstrate in order to get the attention of the Minister of Finance!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Those are the people who are endangered today, and unless the government admits there is a problem, that rural Newfoundland is falling into a hole, that there is not enough economic activity there in order to maintain the people who want to live there, then we will never, ever make things better. Unless you realize that you have a problem, you will never correct it. So I say to the minister and I say to members opposite, pay attention. Pay attention to the seniors. Pay attention to the young people who are leaving this Province today, and let's try to work together in order to try to solve some of those problems before we deal with the animals of the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the comments of my colleague from Bonavista South but I want to address directly the statement of the minister. I think it is important that government raise awareness of the issue of endangered species and also awareness that the environment that we inhabit is also the habitat for many other species, and the government's effort in that regard is certainly valuable. Of course we want to have as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians available as well to enjoy this habitat and this Province of ours.

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

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

I rise today to ask hon. members to join me, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in recognizing December 1, 1998, as World AIDS Day in this Province and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, over the past number of years the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in partnership with many community organizations, agencies and individuals, has supported HIV/AIDS education, prevention, treatment and support.

The new health and community services regions are playing a significant role in this effort, particularly in rural and isolated areas of our Province. At the community level, increasing emphasis is being paced on partnerships with service organizations to reach youth, both in and out of the school environments, and make the linkages with addictions and mental health programs where necessary. In addition, HIV prevention and risk reduction are being integrated, through partnership with the Department of Education, into the new health and personal development programs for intermediate and senior high school Students.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize in the House today the success of the social marketing campaign implemented in collaboration with the Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee. Television ads carrying a broad prevention and risk reduction message were targeted towards sexually active adolescents and young adults, and emphasized the importance of parent and mentor support.

This campaign reflects the approach of many of the prevention and early intervention initiatives of our department. By increasing people's understanding of the risks, we are enabling them to better protect themselves from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

My department is also engaged in ongoing research on treatment and support of HIV and AIDS-related illnesses. An excellent example of this is the Community Health Resource Project being undertaken by Memorial University. The Department of Health and Community Services has partnered with the Department of Human Resources and Employment, the Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee, and Health Canada, to extend funding and support to this initiative.

With the cooperation of People Living With HIV/AIDS, and particularly the chief researchers, Dr. Ian Bowmer from Memorial University, and Dr. George Segovia, they have been able to collect data about utilization of human resources and employment, health and community services, drug therapies, family and volunteer assistance. The study will assist community agencies and health planners in developing future strategies for improving policies, programs and services relevant to HIV and AIDS.

Today it is important to acknowledge that while HIV/AIDS still carries a terminal outcome there is potential that the new drug therapies will enable individuals to pursue or continue educational attainment, and transition to the labour market.

One of our challenges therefore, is to continue to coordinate service delivery which increases quality of life, optimizes health, and reduces the costs of providing health and community services. To that end Newfoundland, in its role on the Federal/Provincial Territorial Advisory Committee on AIDS, is participating in national and international work which will increase our knowledge of the prevention of HIV transmission from mother to infant, HIV and AIDS as it relates to Aboriginal peoples, HIV drug therapies, cost and access, and also HIV rehabilitation.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to recognize World AIDS Day in Newfoundland and Labrador. Through continued education and prevention we can reduce the numbers of people contracting this terrible disease, and through world-wide research hopefully we will soon find a cure.

I have red ribbons with me here today, to distribute to all hon. members to wear today in recognition of World AIDS Day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, join now with the minister and the government today, to recognize World AIDS Day. AIDS and HIV is rapidly growing in certain parts of the world today, and I think it is very important that we take initiative in not only dealing - as reference was made - with drug therapies that can enable the people afflicted with HIV and AIDS have a better quality of life - it is very important - but we should never undermine the importance of concentrating our efforts into the prevention of this deadly disease today.

Here in this Province and in this country we have a role to play a part on an international scene where the problem is much more pronounced, and growing at a much faster rate than it is here in our Province.

This government has a responsibility to certainly practice what it has been preaching today, when a move in health care today is to move towards prevention rather than have to deal with the problems inflicted by people who happen to contract various diseases, of which AIDS certainly is one of the ones that people would least want to contract.

I certainly endorse any efforts at all in this department to move forward and to work diligently to prevent it. I think that is where the concentration has to be. The minister did allude to targeting people in the high-risk group and concentrating efforts in that area. I certainly hope we will see an increase of efforts in the future to sort of curb the growth of this deadly disease.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in recognizing World AIDS Day. It is very important for us to note, not only here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the problems we have had with people facing this very frightening disease, and the efforts that need to be continuously made to provide comfort and care to those who have suffered it, and also engage in very active programs of prevention and education. It is not only a sexually transmitted disease. There are other people who have suffered from this disease, having received the disease from blood transfusion and other sources.

We do have to be mindful of its effect and problem, and also the world situation where in some parts of the world, in certain countries in Africa, large portions of the population are afflicted by AIDS. It is a national tragedy in many parts of the Continent of Africa.

It is important that we do our share here in Canada to support efforts to do something about these problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I want to pay tribute to the Newfoundland and Labrador Aids Committee for keeping up the fight here in Newfoundland and Labrador and putting a human face on a very frightening disease.

Oral Questions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this afternoon are directed to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

We just witnessed outside, just a few minutes before the proceedings this afternoon, hundreds of our retired public service pensioners who are saying to this government, enough is enough. No increase in approximately the last ten years. We have some 11,000 public service pensioners who are affected by the fact that this government refuses to listen to their plight and to listen to their concerns.

We have the homes of public service pensioners, their nutrition, their health, their sense of security, their well-being, and their dignity, being compromised by the fact that this government will not listen.

My question to the minister is: Will he today do what is necessary to ensure that our public service pensioners' benefits are reasonably increased in consideration of the rise in the cost of living and their lifestyle, as it exists today, on a day-to-day basis?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is committed to do what is fair and equitable for every person of this Province. I want to share some statistics with the hon. member and the group he refers to.

You have heard on the media, stories that the average government pension is around $11,000. The average normal retirement pension in this Province, for people retiring from the public service - the normal pension plan - is $14,400. The average teachers' pension plan is $25,232. I want members to bear those two figures in mind. Let's remember that there is a gradation. Some people worked for short times for government and have smaller pensions.

Let me tell you about the rest of the people of this Province - and these are statistics from 1996. In this Province, for individuals aged sixty and over, there are 20,000 people with an average pension income of $3,400. In the Public Service Pension Plan, with an average pension of $3,600, there are 866 people.

Let me ask you: Is the hon. member proposing that we tax the other 19,000 people at that income category to provide an increase to the people who are at that category? Let me add them all up. If you add up all the people in this Province who have a pension income of $9,300 or less, there are 59,300 people. In the Public Service Pension Plan with that amount or less there are 2,184 people.

Does the hon. member propose that we tax the 57,000 who are on fixed incomes because less than 1 per cent of the pension plans of this Province are indexed - less than 1,000 people have that - in order to provide a percentage increase to government retirees?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the hon. minister to do what is fair and to show some compassion to the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - who have devoted their lives and careers to the public service.

I was speaking with one gentleman outside who worked fifty years, nine months, one day, and has not seen any improvement in his lifestyle in terms of money being offered by this government since 1989. In fact, his lifestyle has considerably gone downhill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Minister, we are talking about thousands of public service pensioners who today are asking for redress from this insensitive government.

I will ask my question again. Will you take the lead in announcing that you, as Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, will commit funding to such an initiative regardless of what others do, regardless of the situation? Will you, in response to these people who are outside here today, senior citizens, public servants who have devoted their lives to this cause, assist them today and make a commitment to the thousands of Newfoundlanders who find themselves in this very ridiculous situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: The most interesting thing about the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, is he said: Will you, regardless of the situation. Let's look at the situation.

An individual with a pension income, aged sixty-five and over in this Province, of $14,000, their average total income is $23,700. Now I ask the hon. member again: Is he in favour of taxing the people on fixed incomes? There are many of them, people who retired from the railway, people who do not have pensions. There are only 103,000 people registered for pensions in this Province out of a workforce of over 400,000. So are we to take tax dollars from everybody else in this Province, including those on fixed incomes, to provide a percentage increase to people just because they were lucky enough to have worked for government and have the pension?

I ask the hon. member, does he know how much it would cost? To provide a 1 per cent increase to pensioners, we would have to put $22 million in the pension fund. I ask him: Where would he take that $22 million from? Would he raise taxes on other people with fixed income to provide it? Would he take it from the hospitals that so desperately need it as well?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, when he is in Opposition he can ask the questions, Mr. Speaker.

There is an issue here of misuse of public funds and I will indicate why to the hon. minister. From approximately the mid-1960s until the early 1980s, contributions made by public servants in this Province did not go to assist them in pension benefits. It went for roads, it went for hospitals, it went for other services that the government of the day deemed necessary. That, I say, is inappropriate. I say that is a misuse of their money. What they are asking for today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - is to show some attention, consideration and compassion for correcting that particular problem. Again, I ask the minister this question. Will he make a commitment to the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who say to this government: Please help us, we need your help, please listen to us and do something about it.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the hon. member speak for the individuals who are receiving well over $60,000, the individual who is receiving $106,000? Is that the person? Will I look to their needs? The answer is no. People on substantial retirement pension from government should not have it.

What I do think is fair is not that we give government pensioners an increase but that we look for a way out of our revenues to give all elderly people in this Province a tax credit or some form of additional money. Because let's not forget, government employees who have retired are a small portion of our population. There are many people, such as retired fishermen. My grandfather retired from the Newfoundland Railway in 1947. When he died in 1972 he had the same pension. That is typical. He did not regret it. He was happy to have worked, he was happy to have earned a pension.

I say to the hon. member that with respect to the contributions made prior to 1980 that were used by government, his predecessors never put a nickel in the pension plan to repay that money. This year this government is putting $193 million in to repay the money that was used. I would be critical of former governments, but let me say that that money was well used. It went into the hospitals, it went into the roads, it went into the schools of this Province from which we have all benefitted. To the extent it was well used, his predecessors used it, some of our predecessors did, more his, but we are the ones who are repaying it now.

That's part of the reason we are unable to give this pension increase. Even if we could, if we had $20 million, that should not just go to a small select group of people, be they government pensioners or otherwise. That should go to all the retired people of this Province who should benefit equally if they are below the poverty line or have small incomes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Premier, on September 8 our party announced that we believe it is time for the provincial government to put in place a permanent and fair arrangement to compensate the City of St. John's for services and infrastructure provided by the city on which the provincial government relies. The Province has been providing a traditional grant since the transfer of the fire department to the city some years ago. However, this assistance has now been discontinued. The Mayor of the city has stated that a new form of assistance has been promised in the form of payment in lieu of taxes but nothing seems to be forthcoming.

My question to the Premier is this. Will you take our suggestion and put in place a permanent fair arrangement to compensate the City of St. John's with a grant in lieu of taxes on services and infrastructure on which the provincial government relies? If so, when?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government is reviewing all its arrangements with its municipalities because the nature of the government's relationship with its municipalities is changing. What the Province of Newfoundland does is provide a lot of services to municipalities that municipalities themselves pay for elsewhere. One of them is policing services, which are not charged to the municipalities. Just let me say that this year alone we are paying to the City of St. John's $160,000 for water rates. If the mayor were to apply and to have the Province pay to the City of St. John's water rates, at the same rate, it would total $500,000.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think municipalities should have it both ways. If they want to tax government, so be it. We would be willing to pay another, what is it, $350,000 to the City of St. John's. Now let me tell you what we did give them this year.

There was a transitional grant regarding the fire fighting, just phased out in 1997-1998, $3.2 million; the civic centre, $16 million; the Harbour clean up, $1.5 million; land slide prevention at the Battery, $400,000; the annual municipal operating grant of $5.3 million; annual debt servicing on behalf of St. John's, $5.6 million; and an annual boundary agreement, $100,000. If the mayor wants water rates we will give it to him. We will not pay these amounts in future years.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that our party believes that the city has a strong case in pressing the government for greater considerations for the capital city.

Will the minister not admit that the federal government provides such remuneration to the city in return for services, that other municipalities throughout the Province receive remuneration from government for services provided? Why should it be different in St. John's? Isn't the obvious presence of the bulk of provincial government buildings and offices in the city placing a great demand upon the city infrastructure, such as water and sewer, fire protection, street services, and shouldn't the city and its taxpayers be compensated fairly for that?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the federal government can well afford to pay taxes in this city. After all, look at the civic centre. What is the federal government's contribution to that? The Province's contribution is $16 million. Let me ask you what the federal government is paying to the City of St. John's for its municipal operations this year. Zero. What is it is paying for past debt? Zero. What are we paying? We are paying close to $11 million.

As I say to the hon. member, if he wants to hold the federal government up as a shining example of support for the City of St. John's, I think he better check his figures first before he compares it with the provincial government contribution.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, if we could all only have a civic centre in the City of St. John's - I would like to hear your figures quoted on the rest, I guess.

I would like to also ask the minister this. When an ad hoc arrangement takes place for permanent fair and long-term arrangements, the city is hard pressed to do long-term budgetary planning. I am sure the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board must know something about that.

Will the minister, in the interest of fairness and balance, admit that a permanent fair arrangement is needed now, one that will take the matter out of the realm of constant political wrangling and one that fairly compensates the city for the services it provides?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an interesting issue about who should contribute to the services in St. John's. I have heard the mayor say that the brown baggers, people who have come from Conception Bay South and take advantage of the city's services and contribute nothing to it, should be taxed as well. I think we have to look and ask the hon. member if he is in agreement with everything the mayor says. Because obviously if the mayor's contention is that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: So the hon. member is not in agreement with the mayor? He obviously believes that it is in the City of St. John's interests to collect water rates from the provincial government, rather than accept the subsidies that we have so generously and consistently offered over the years?

I say to the hon. member that the mayor's position in this matter is not a fair nor well expressed one, and I am sure that the hon. member has his own disagreements with the hon. Mayor of St. John's.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Subsidized personal care homes only receive $900 a month to provide care for its residents. Now almost all of that money is paid by the resident, with a minimal amount paid by government. The homes have had an increase of only 6 per cent since the late 1980s. I ask the minister: Will she inform this House if homeowners can expect a reasonable increase before more of them are forced out of business?

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

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

We have had meetings with our personal homeowners over the last number of months and we have expressed concern and have shared many of their concerns, particularly as it relates to the subsidized beds compared to the non-subsidized beds. We look forward to that debate in the House of Assembly when it is raised very soon, I am sure.

We are -

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will look forward to your support on that side of the House, which we never got the last time. I certainly look forward to it.

It is very interesting today as I stand here and look back over the past number of weeks. Every time the member opposite stands up, he asks, are we going to put more money into something? It does not matter if it is ambulance services, physician services, staff services, drug services, and now most recently today asking for personal care homes.

We have a lot of choices and a lot of priorities, but we have to work within our own financial means. I have had meetings with the personal care homeowners, and if we are moving in this direction it will have to be budget item that will be discussed through the process.

If you are asking me today if I am going to do it, no, I have no money in my budget to do it. If you are asking me if it will be there in March, I would say, stay tuned for the Budget.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not enough to share the concerns, I say to the minister. You cannot make this reference to ambulance services. You proposed to give an increase to some and to go out and take it on others to pay for that increase. That is not playing the game, I say to the minister.

Some personal care homes have up to 50 per cent of its residents who require Level II care. Some nursing homes receive, Minister - I have a list and breakdown for every nursing home here, and what it costs for each person there - some receive up to $5,000 to provide that Level II care to those same people in the nursing home.

I want to ask the minister: Why should a Level II care resident in a personal care home not be given the same amount of care as a Level II person requiring that care in a nursing home that is funded by this Province? Why the discrimination, Minister?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: First, Mr. Speaker, in response to the preamble, when the member opposite said it is not about playing the game, there are no games involved with respect to health care. This is very much about spending the precious few dollars we have in the best way possible.

Now there are demands, and if anyone wanted to check back through Hansard, every single day the member stands up and says: Put more money here, put more money in cardiovascular surgery, put more money in physician services, put more money in recruitment services, put more money in ambulance... The list goes on and on. Put more money in child welfare services.

The answer is very clear. We would love to put more money in everything, but we cannot. We have to look at what we are able to do.

Now we are conducting an overview of how we deliver home care services, long-term care services, from the whole continuum of a person's home support care all the way to nursing homes. Yes, we have most recently moved to bring Levels I and II of personal care homes in an area where they can be provided that care, in a personal care home. We are moving towards having Levels III and IV in nursing care homes. That is why right now you have a mixture in some places.

Our goal is clear. We are trying to move Levels I and II care of our seniors into the personal care home model and keeping our nursing homes for Levels III and IV, more complex care; where, I might add, we have the highest professional skill mix in the country. We are the only Province that maintains a skill mix of nursing assistants, now mostly recently named LPNs, and registered nurses only. We stand by that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not talking about skill mix. I am saying it is wrong and discriminative to pay one institution one-fifth of the cost to care for a person with the same level of care as you are paying to another institution that is funded by government. That is discriminatory, I say to the minister, and something should be done about it.

Minister, in 1994 there were 1,346 residents in subsidized beds here in this Province. Today, under your leadership, there are only 1,100 subsidized beds in this Province. When we have almost 100 people here in this city alone who are medically discharged - here in hospitals in the city, not counting the rest of the Island - this is the question: When people are getting older -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is kind of worried about my question. It is the question, if you would listen to the rest of the question. I said: When our population is getting older, when the demand for care is increasing in this Province, why does this minister remove 250 subsidized beds, or 20 per cent of the beds, out of the system here today in the Province?

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

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

I think an element of accuracy is important here. This minister did not remove - this minister did not reduce the number of subsidized beds. There has been a freeze on the number of subsidized beds, but this minister did not impose that reduction.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that many of our subsidized beds - over the 1,400 in the Province - over 730 of them are in Conception Bay South and surrounding districts. One of the reasons why there are so many vacancies is that many people do not want to go to Conception Bay South. We are looking at - and I said it earlier and I will repeat it again - how we are providing long-term care services, particularly personal care homes.

I acknowledge the member opposite who talks about the transition because we are committed to bringing forward very progressive social policy and moving forward on issues that are long outdated. I thank the member for his compliment in terms of the transition and moving forward because we are trying to move forward some very difficult issues that have been in order for a long time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, there are very real issues particularly as it relates to changing demographics in how we are able to meet those needs. We are looking at it very carefully. We are meeting with the people involved. We are consulting extensively, and we will make the decisions that we can make within the best of our financial means as soon as possible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

I say to the minister, she is well aware there has been a concentrated effort in the Bonavista area to have chronic care beds open at the Golden Heights Manor. There exists ten beds at this senior's complex that were never opened. You, Minister, continue to say that the waiting list is not long enough to warrant opening those beds.

I say to the minister, if there is just one senior on a waiting list with a need to be admitted to this facility, should that not justify opening one bed, since the staff and the extended services are already in place?

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

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

The member opposite has been involved in the meetings that we have had with the Town of Bonavista and with the concerned citizens, and with the board. The member opposite knows that many of the issues raised are far greater than health care and long-term care. They are as much about the community and employment issues as any other issue.

I have been very clear and upfront and honest with the people from Bonavista, as I will be here again today. We have to make those decisions based on financial ability and also based on the need and the waiting list.

Mr. Speaker, we have said we will incorporate other measures - for example, home support or personal care home measures - to try to address the needs. Those beds that were built down there, and arranged at a time when it was an expectation that you could book your nursing home bed, that was at a time when we had Level Is in nursing homes. We cannot do that any more. We cannot afford to do that any more. We have to work within our capacity.

Mr. Speaker, again I say this is as much about finances as anything else. We have to make the best decisions, in consultation with the board. The member opposite knows we have been working very closely with the board and the community and our answers have been very honest, based on waiting lists and financial availability to make any types of decision.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I am only talking about the beds here today, not other issues. The other part is as it relates to meeting with the people down there. That has been ongoing, and I thank the minister because she has shown concern and effort.

Minister, $1.4 million was spent to refurbish part of the Golden Heights Manor, to create those ten vacant beds. I ask the minister if this was wise use of taxpayers' money to create ten beds and then to leave them vacant, even when the need exists in that particular area?

Minister, I am referring to Level III. I am not referring to Level I or Level II people.

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

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

I have to disagree with the member even though he is from the district. I think there are a lot of other issues involved. Whenever you are talking about issues of a community you cannot isolate the issues to one issue only.

I have been to a number of meetings, probably more than he has on this specific issue, and there have been many more issues every time I go there in addition to the health care issues that are raised. First it was physicians services, then it went to the beds, then it went to the fishing, then it went to the economy, then it went to the employment. What I am saying is that you cannot look at any issue in isolation. But I will say - and I will say it again - we have to make our decisions based on our financial ability, we have to make our decisions based on the numbers on the waiting lists, and we have to make our decisions based on the regional needs, and we work with all the people involved in addressing those issues.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, there are approximately eight to fourteen seniors on a waiting list to be admitted to this facility on any given day, and it is certainly cheaper to have seniors at chronic care facilities than occupying acute care beds at our hospitals. I ask the minister if she would consider opening these beds as needed. If there is a need for one person to be admitted, open one bed. When there is no vacancy, close the bed. There will be nobody arguing to keep the beds open when there is nobody to fill them.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, again on a point of accuracy, there are not eight to fourteen Level IIIs on a waiting list at any given point in time. I think it is important also to state that it is not cheaper to care for these people when they do not necessarily want to go in a nursing home and when we provide a much higher skill mix in this Province than any other province in the country. We are the only Province, in long-term care, that provides LPN and RN services, only to provide the care for people in those homes.

It is not cheaper, and we have to make the decisions based on the waiting list, the level of the people on the waiting list and, believe it or not, our ability to pay and finance those changes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

The public service pensioners have traditionally in this Province received an increase along with the increase granted to public sector workers. While there was no legal requirement, this was a tradition and was effectively part of the plan for public service pensioners until the Liberal government was elected in 1989.

Why has his government and the predecessor government unilaterally changed this plan, depriving the pensioners of increases that they were traditionally due and had a legitimate expectation of receiving?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say two things. The first is that pension plans are earned benefits; you get what you paid for. Now the unfortunate thing was that in 1990 what happened was that because of the lack of funding over a period of years - part of it was the government of the various days had taken the funds and put them into public services. The second part of it was that most of the pensions in the Province, people were not contributing sufficiently to pay the benefits. For example, people were contributing 3 per cent and 4 per cent; the benefits they were acquiring were 7 per cent.

At about 1990 there was a virtual crisis in pensions in this Province. The previous government had ignored it for years. They had been told repeatedly, `put money into your pension plans.' It was not done. So at that point the government had to act.

Now at that point the government changed and we had a very difficult time dealing with our unions and employees to change the pension plans to make them more viable. We increased our contributions. We changed the benefit levels. We eliminated the practice of buying early retirements.

One of the things that happened was that we discontinued the practice of giving gratuitous payments, and for the reason I said earlier today. We can give our employees a 1 per cent increase by paying approximately $17 million. To give a 1 per cent increase in our pension will cost us $22 million. It costs more to give a 1 per cent increase in pensions than it does to give a 1 per cent increase in salary, because that money has to be put into the pension plan in order to fund it on an ongoing basis, because the annual cost is about $2.1 million.

I say to the hon. member, with all due respect, the issue is not and should not be seen as giving government pensioners an increase or not. The real issue is about people in this Province who are on fixed incomes and what is a fair public policy position to deal with people who are at very low incomes.

I think the only fair position members of this House should really put forward to government and consider themselves is to find a way that we can, out of the Province's resources, fund all the people, and seniors in particular, on low fixed incomes so that everybody can benefit equally.

If we do what the hon. member is suggesting and give the same percentage increase to everybody, we would give to people with $25,000, $30,000, $106,000 on pension. Is the hon. member, in all seriousness, suggesting that we should take money from people on low incomes and fixed incomes to give a 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent increase to someone who is now getting on pension $106,000? I don't think so. I have more respect for his intelligence than that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister well knows that not every government program is self-financing. This certainly was the case with the government's pension plan over the years, but the legitimate expectation was certainly there.

The people who are here today protesting outside, and are calling the open lines and petitioning, are not here because they are looking for special treatment from other taxpayers. They are here because they are hurting. They are here because they are unable to provide a descent standard of living for themselves.

I am not talking about people who are receiving big, fancy pensions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: I am talking about people who are hurting. These are the people who are here asking for help.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to address that concern and answer the question as to whether the pensioners who are hurting as a result of his government and the previous Liberal government's policies are going to be assisted by this government?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say with all due respect to the hon. member, the pension plan is not the issue. All that you do by giving gratuitous payments of the pension plan is you undermine its solidity and the basis to make these pensions payable in the future. What is needed, I believe, is an initiative, when we have the funds, to give money and find a way to channel the money to people who are on fixed incomes.

As I said earlier, in a response to an earlier question, in this Province there are 51,100 people with an average pension income of $6,400 or less. The average public service pensioner goes out of here with $14,400. The average teacher goes out of here with $25,000.

I ask the hon. member: Is he seriously suggesting that what we should do is tax these people? Tax these people who have very, very small incomes, to give a gratuitous payment to pensioners who are, by and large on average, of a much higher income? I do not think that is fair public policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of public service pensioners in this Province, many of whom congregated in the lobby of the Confederation Building this afternoon, many of whom have spoken out publicly, particularly in recent date, and who simply say to this government that they simply cannot cut it on the fact that this government is not prepared to listen to or in any way adhere to the concerns that have been raised by public service pensioners in this Province. I will briefly read the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the public service pensioners in this Province have not had an increase to their pension since 1989; and

WHEREAS some 11,000 retired public service pensioners are directly affected; and

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime contributing to their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide adequate increases in benefits to public service pensioners which reflect the increases in the wages of public servants.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many stories recently, and if members opposite were outside today in the lobby of this building they would have had an opportunity to listen to many stories from individuals who have provided years of dedicated and devoted service to the Province, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. These same individuals now say to members opposite, and in particular to the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board: We simply cannot live on the salary and the pension benefits that are provided to us on a day-to-day basis.

There has been absolutely no consideration given to the well-being of these individuals since the last ten years. That is simply not good enough. These are people who are crying out on a daily basis saying: We are living well below the poverty line. We cannot meet our day-to-day needs. We cannot provide, in many cases, adequate housing. There are nutritional and health concerns.

These are the kind of concerns, regardless of the statistics that are put forward by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, that have to be addressed and listened to. It is an issue of need, I say, Mr. Speaker, and when there is a need, government has to listen. Government has to place as a priority the needs and well-being of its people. It is an issue of priority.

There are many expenditures that we see this government experience over the course of the past several months. We see expenditures on certain projects and certain activities that are distributed throughout the Province. Some are legitimate; others are not. Many are not when we have individual citizens, when we have people who are retired and who are pensioned in this Province who simply say: Our standard of living is well below the poverty line, and we need a government that will lend us an ear and will listen to what it is we have to say.

It is a sad day when the minister can only stand up and recite statistic after statistic, and talk about a contractual basis. In the past I have heard the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board say: We cannot do anything about it because we have to respect the contractual integrity, that this is what was or was not contracted.

I say, let's forget about the contractual obligation and let's talk about the compassionate obligation. That is what this is about. This is about caring, it is about compassion, it is about listening, and it is about doing what can be done as a government to assist some 11,000 retired public servants in this Province.

Governments in the past have tried to break a contractual obligation. We saw it when successive governments dealt with Churchill Falls, for example. No harm in government then trying to deal, breach, or break a contractual obligation, but unfortunately the minister uses as an excuse, as a reason why he cannot do anything in this case: Because there is a contractual obligation. It was not a part of the terms and conditions of the arrangements that were entered into at that particular time.

Government has full control and authority to do what it must do to assist some 11,000 retired public servant pensioners, I say, Mr. Speaker. It has the authority to do that. It is well within its own power and well within its own jurisdiction to simply seize this opportunity and recognize that there is a need. We have people out there who find it quite difficult to live on a day to day basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Some stories, granted, are worse than others, but on balance we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, that requires assistance, it requires attention, and it requires a sensitivity by a government which to this point has not shown any whatsoever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support my colleague for St. John's East. This is certainly not the first time this time of petition has been presented in the House of Assembly. I believe we had a motion last year on Private Members' Day when we presented a similar type of motion to have the pensioners' pension in Newfoundland and Labrador increased.

It is very easy for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to fire out figures as he has done today, such as his figure of $106,000 a year in pension. I would love to know the number of people who were out here today in the front lobby protesting that receive $106,000 a year. I would love to know, I would say to the minister, the number of people in the pension plan of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador who are receiving $106,000 a year.

Maybe it is his own pension when he decides to retire. If he does not soon get a heart, he may retire sooner than he thinks. The time has come for pensioners in this Province - the pensioners who have called me at home, who have stopped me at functions that I attend - to raise this issue of their pensions, of how difficult it is for them to live on the meagre dollars they receive.

As I said today, there were not many people in this lobby, and the people I spoke to, I can assure the minister, were not receiving $106,000 a year in pension from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would go so far as to say that there was not one person in this lobby today who was protesting who is receiving that kind of money. The number of people that are receiving that from this Province, I would say, are very minimal and there are not a great deal of government pensions being paid out to the tune of $106,000 a year. If there are then I would like for the minister to stand in his place tomorrow or the next day and tell us how many people in this Province are receiving that kind of a pension.

I believe it is imperative for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to do something for our pensioners, for our senior citizens, who are living on meagre amounts of money. We have all read the stories, we have all watched the stories, and I believe the time has come for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to have a heart, to do something for these people so that they can live the kind of life they deserve to live in this Province.

Hopefully over the next little while, and in the next budget - and maybe it will be a popular thing to do if we have an election coming down in the spring before that, to do something for the pensioners in this Province.

I did notice one member from the other side out there today. I did not notice a big crowd of them out there, but I did notice one member out there. I am sure if he were to stand in his place today he would feel the same as we do on this side of the House, that a lot of those seniors have not or are not receiving a fair remuneration for their years of service.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board talked about his uncle who worked for the railway who, when he died, was receiving the same pension. Let me tell you, I know of people who retired from the Dockyard a year ago and are receiving quite handsome pensions. They certainly do not fall within the $12,000 to $14,000 range, but are much larger.

I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board today: Find it in your heart, and in the next provincial budget do something for our senior citizens and our government pensioners in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to offer a few comments with respect to the petition and support some of the information presented by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

I wanted to make a few comments because the hon. Member for St. John's East, I think it is, in presenting the petition indicated that it is an issue of need and not particularly finance and so on, and that there are people in need here and have difficulties with diet, food, heat and light, and the basics of life.

I make the comments as Chair of the Social Policy Committee of the Cabinet. We just finished a meeting as well over the lunch period with the Federation of Seniors and Pensioners for Newfoundland and Labrador in which they raised this issue. We had a fair discussion of the whole matter and they did raise this particular issue.

As the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board was pointing out, the government's role is not to just try to meet the needs of a small select few of the people who are pensioned, retired, and on a fixed income. Because our public service pensioners, while they have given in many cases long and valuable service to the Province as public servants, are only a small group and portion of the full number of retirees and seniors. The group that we met acknowledged that. There are a lot of other seniors on fixed income other than public service pensioners who have very great levels of need with respect to their fixed income and their ability to live a lifestyle they had become accustomed to and would like to maintain.

The difference is this. There are a couple of points I would like to make. The campaign, for example, that the public service unions are using, using a number like $11,000 as an average public service pension from the Government of Newfoundland, is very selective in what it does. It does not treat the issue fairly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Let me make this distinction, Mr. Speaker. I think members - I wish I would not be interrupted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I would even give leave for him to speak to the petition because this is an important point.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister is suggesting that the members on this side of the House are misleading and saying that the average pensioner is $11,000. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has said that the average new pensioner retiring today is $14,000, and not the ones who are already retired.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order. I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I was trying to be very serious in making was that the campaign that is being sponsored by the public service unions is leaving the people of the Province with the impression that the average public service pensioner is out there trying to live on $11,000.

The reality of it is that while the average public service pension may be in that range - they might be able to make an argument -, the amount of money the person is living on is not $11,000. Because those people who are aged sixty and over have other incomes along with their public service pension. That is a part of the information that is being very conveniently left out of the equation.

We are very serious about the issue of need, and that is why our whole Cabinet committee and others are dealing with it. We want to find a way to meet the needs for those on fixed income, all of them in Newfoundland and Labrador, not just a few thousand who did give good service to the Province as public servants.

The other issue is this. Cast your minds back to just three or four years ago. The public servants of the Province and pensioners of the Province were asking the question: Will we still have a pension? Because they had heard for years that the very basis and underpinnings of their pension was in jeopardy. I offer in response, petition the fact, that it is largely because of polices adopted in the past - like the hon. member was suggesting today - over seventeen years of rule by a previous government, in the face of advice that said: You should not give ad hoc gratuitous increases to your pension plan because you are undermining the plan.

That is what caused the decision in 1990 to stop ad hoc increases. Because there was an actuarial study done that recommended - and it recommended to two previous governments before, in 1985, 1987 and 1983, when there was a different government altogether that this group supports - they should stop ad hoc increases unless they were going to put the money into the plan on an actuarial basis.

The other piece of information, if I could just finish, is that there is a suggestion that it is very easy to give the increase to pensioners because it would only cost $2 million. That is fine if you just want to give them the money on their cheque for one year, but if you are going to sustain that into the future and have it actuarially sound so that you can then provide that increase every year for the rest of their lives without giving it one time for one year and taking it back, the actuarial study is that you must - in order to secure the ability of the plan to pay that for the rest of the person's life - immediately put $22 million into the fund anyway -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - so you can guarantee that payment. There are a number of issues, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is suggesting: Don't worry about anything else, just give them the money. That is what he said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: - that is what they did for seventeen years, and that is what has caused the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I am also going to present a petition on behalf of the public service pensioners. I am proud to present the petition, but I am not proud of the reason I have to present the petition. It reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the public service pensioners in this Province have not had an increase in their pension since 1989; and

WHEREAS some 11,000 retired public service pensioners are directly affected; and

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime contributing to their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide adequate increases to benefits, to public service pensioners, which reflect the increases in wages of public servants.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am not proud of the reason this petition is being presented is because we, as legislators, should be looking after the people who have built this Province, and the government are not. That is a reason not to be proud of why the public service pensioners had to come to the lobby of this public building and lobby government. I commend them for doing it, but they should not have had to do it if government had a heart at all. They argue that people who are over sixty have other forms of income, such as Canada Pension. We all know in this House that this very government claw back the public service pensioners when they start receiving their Canada Pension.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stood in his place today and said that some public service pensioners are receiving $60,000, $70,000 or whatever -

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and six thousand dollars.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One hundred and six thousand dollars. Well I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that is a very select few. The many seniors, the many public service pensioners who are receiving $11,000, and some of them less, who have to put food on their table, pay their utilities and look after medical expenses, deserve every cent of their pension they are getting as well as their Canada Pension Plan. Not to mention the fact that government are clawing some of that back. They deserve every cent of that for what they have done for this Province in previous years, for building this Province and for adding to the society we now enjoy.

We in this House saw a raise to public servants this year. We saw a raise to recipients of social benefits. I don't argue either of those raises because those people deserve it, but the public service pensioners deserve it as well. I have visited some of the public service pensioners that have called me and I have written some of them. I have responded to phone calls by some of the public service pensioners. The stories that we hear, the little amount of money that some of the public service pensioners have to survive on, it is absolutely deplorable that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and other ministers - such as the Minister of Education, who stands in his place and almost mocks these very public service pensioners. It is deplorable that these public service -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I regret that the hon. member in making his points cannot resist but to try and suggest that anything I said in terms of expressing the government's position had anything to do other than to acknowledge the good work public servants have done in Newfoundland and Labrador. How that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - could be misconstrued to suggest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - that I am mocking anybody -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister -

MR. GRIMES: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it deserves an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: It is no point of order. I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

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

The only apology that should come from this House today is the apology to the public service pensioners, because of the attitude that government has taken towards these ladies and gentlemen who have put their lives in to building this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

I am pleased to support this petition. I too attended the demonstration today in the lobby of Confederation Building. It is sad that our seniors and retired civil servants have to resort to this.

When I was standing there today while they were up speaking, I glanced around and I looked at some of the placards. They did not have a lot of words on them, but the words that were on them were very profound: Dignity, not poverty, and no more food banks. What have we done to our seniors? What have we done to our retired civil servants when they have to stand in the lobby of the very building in which many of them worked, which many of them gave so much of their lives to, stand in front of television cameras with signs that say: No more food banks, and dignity not poverty. What have we done to these people?

The Minister of Education got up and said that the amount, the $11,000, belies the amount they are receiving. Many of them are sixty-five and over. Many of them are not sixty-five and over, many of them are fifty-five plus and they went out voluntarily. More of them were forced into retirement by cutbacks made by this very government. I spoke to one person out there today, a licensed nurse practitioner, who had worked for more than thirty years. She is receiving $215 a week. That is about $11,000 a year. That is below the poverty line. This person, along with many of her colleagues, and many people who worked side-by-side with her, gave the best years of their lives to the public service. This is the way we are treating them, forcing them to come to the lobby of the building or the government that they worked for, with signs saying: No more food banks, dignity not poverty.

One month from today we are going in to 1999. That is the year of the senior. What I would like to say here today is: Let's welcome the new year and let's welcome the year of the senior by granting them and recognizing their needs, and bringing them out of poverty and giving them the raise that they so justly deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would just like to add a couple of comments with respect to the petition to continue on where I left off the last time.

Mr. Speaker, the issue that has been raised is: Is it fair, or what is wrong with the whole notion of not having an increase for the public service pensioners as a select group since 1989? I guess the question that the Opposition refuses to ask is: Why is it that they have not had an increase since 1989?

Before they left the government they were in possession of actuarial studies, as the government of the day, that told them that the pension plans - including the public service pension plan - were about to collapse for two reasons: One is that they were underfunded because they were paying out more benefits than the people and the government themselves, the employer, were paying for; that we were agreeing to more benefits than we were putting money in to sustain, and that should be corrected, and it has been corrected over the last nine or ten years.

Secondly, that one of the biggest features in putting the plans in peril of collapse was that the government for seventeen years had paid out gratuitous ad hoc payments, that were never, ever accounted for in the actuarial studies, to the point that there were increases in the payouts that were never, ever identified in any premium discussion or in any funding mechanism for the plans.

The advice from the actuarials that were hired in the first instance by the former Progressive Conservative government was that you must stop doing this. The pension plans themselves can only sustain themselves if you put in enough money to pay for what you plan to pay out in the future.

The hon. member suggested that we are doing some disservice to the people who built the Province. Our notion is that while public servants did provide tremendous good service to the Province, we should not downplay or suggest that they are the only ones who built the Province. What about the loggers? What about fishermen? What about miners? What about labourers on construction sites who built this building? They were not public servants. Are they suggesting that they did not help build this Province? They too have people who are now pensioned, on fixed incomes, and have fixed incomes as low or lower in some instances than the public service pensioners.

Our notion is to try and find a mechanism to deal with all of those seniors on fixed incomes rather than again jeopardize the very plan from which they draw their current money by going back to a practice that the Opposition endorsed for seventeen long years, against the advice of actuaries who told them: You are dooming the pension plans to disaster.

Despite having that advice in their possession, they went ahead and did it because just like the hon. Member for St. John's East today, he said: Never mind the consequences. Do not think of anything else; just give them the money.

I am assuming that in their Blue Book that will be part of their platform for the next election. Regardless of what else, they will give the public service pensioners an increase and never care about any other consequence, but that will happen. I hope I see it, because it will go along with a promise to give $250 million to the Iron Ore Company of Canada to put the pellet plant in Labrador West - because that is what they suggested - and it will go along with a guarantee that they will put at least another $100 million into the health care corporations - because that is the tone of the questions being asked by the health critic every day.

I have been running a tally. It is well in excess of $100 million, so far, of additional services that he questions the Minister of Health and Community Services about on a daily basis, as to services that should be in Newfoundland and Labrador. Along with that, in the range of $50 million extra for school boards, asked yesterday by the education critic, we have $500 million worth of promises at least.

They were suggesting just a few days ago that the finances of the Province are in complete disarray and jeopardy, that there is not enough money to provide for current services, and every day they jump up and say: Don't worry about it. The hon. member today said: Regardless of anything else, give them the money.

What they did before was they gave them the money for one year, they put no money in the plans to fund it. We are not going to be that foolhardy and put the pension plans at risk again. We will work to try to find every Newfoundlander and Labradorian who is pensioned and on a fixed income, and in need, to try to find some way to address the needs for all of them, not just a select few - by putting the pension plans back at risk.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of Labrador City who condemn the provincial government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada decision to process Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

The petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse the decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We spent a lot of time in this session of the House debating the new Minerals Act. That new Mineral Act talked about the power of the government, and giving the government power to require primary processing of minerals in the Province and allowing the government to effectively dictate to private enterprise what they would do with our mineral resources.

I supported that legislation because it gives government powers that are clear and unambiguous in relation to what government has the power to do under legislation.

I have some quibbles about whether or not it should come before the House of Assembly. It should come before the House of Assembly because this is where the power ought to rest. The government has the executive power, but the legislative power, and the power of the people, is in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I supported the legislature in principle and I support that this government, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, ought to be able to control and, if need be, dictate to corporations how natural resources of this Province should be used to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Government failed the test. I said many months ago up in Labrador, addressing a gathering of steelworkers from the Atlantic region on this issue, on the issue of what the government decision was going to be on the pellet plant, that this was going to be a test of this government's ability to ensure that the benefits of iron ore production in Labrador go to the people of this Province.

At that time the member, the Minister of Environment and Labour, and others, were up parading around. You talk about jumping in front of a parade. They led a parade. There was a party. They were at the gates of IOC carrying on some kind of a charade, leading people on to believe that the fix was in. They led the people of Labrador West to believe that this government was going to look after their interests. What happened? We know what happened. They failed the test. The government failed the test of whether or not they were prepared to do what had to be done to ensure that Labrador West was protected first, in the short run and in the long run.

It did not achieve a pellet plant development in Labrador West. Not only that; the company officials have said definitively to the people of Labrador West, to the Chamber of Commerce, to the community groups and to the union, that they are not prepared to guarantee that the Labrador City plant would remain open in priority of the Sept-Iles, if there was a turndown in production. They were not prepared to give that guarantee.

What does this government say, Mr. Speaker? They accept verbal assurances from IOC that they have no intention of shutting down the pellet plant in Labrador West. That is very easy to say. Of course they have no intention, today, of shutting down the plant in Labrador West. They have no intention today - the company can say that - but if they are not prepared to commit, to give the pellet plant in Labrador West priority over Sept-Iles in the event of a turndown, then that is the measure of their commitment to Labrador West.

I say to the government that they have - unless they reverse this decision - failed the people of Labrador West. Secondary processing and adding value is just as important as primary processing. A smelter in this Province is just as important as a pellet plant in Labrador West. There is no fundamental difference to me than a smelter in Thompson, Manitoba, or Sudbury, owned by Inco and a pellet plant in Sept-Iles owned by IOC.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Government should reverse its decision and listen to the petitioners from Labrador West.

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

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

Isn't it awful that here we are presenting petitions; petitioning this government because of the way that they are treating its residents, the way they are treating our senior citizens. They deserve better. The way they are treating the residents of Labrador West, they deserve better. As I said yesterday when I was speaking to this petition, these people deserve good government, they deserve honesty, and in this particular instance they are receiving neither.

First of all, our resources are being allowed to go out of our Province when the secondary processing can happen right here in the Province. They are making chalk of one and cheese of the other. For IOC it is alright because they determine that it was not viable. They determined that it was not viable. This government did not determine that it was not viable; but for Inco it is not alright.

Last year, when the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy were in Labrador City for the winter carnival, it was a feel-good situation and they wanted to be political, the Premier said he would go to Australia. Now I don't know if he had any intention of going to Australia or if he just had dreams of being a joey. That is a little animal who hops around Australia. Somehow, maybe the Premier decided that he wanted to be a little joey and therefore he would go to Australia. In any case, maybe he has designs on being a little something -

MR. SULLIVAN: Joey, that is a kangaroo isn't it?

MS S. OSBORNE: A little kangaroo, yes, hopping around Australia. Maybe that is what he had designs on being, but his designs are set elsewhere now and the people of this Province don't really mean anything to him.

Last year he could get up and make all kinds of promises and have the people all buoyed up: Oh, what a wonderful person the Premier is. Oh, what a wonderful the person the Minister of Mines and Energy is. They are going to keep our resources right here in Labrador West. We are going to get secondary processing, and if they don't stay in Labrador West I will be the first person on the plane to Australia to ensure that they are kept in Labrador West.

I am wondering, is this promise that the Premier made indicative of all the promises that he is making? `I will do it.' That is how good his word is. He has not gone to Australia yet and I suggest that he does not plan to go to Australia. It is a fait accompli as far as the Premier of this Province is concerned. He can make a promise one year and he can renege on the promise the next year. He can make the people feel good when the time is right to make the people feel good. He can turn his back on them.

He cannot say he did not say it because there were a lot of witnesses there when he did say it. I would suggest that our Premier has not had good government and he has been less than honest with the people of this Province by promising them that he would go and represent them, that he would go and be the fighting Newfoundlander on their behalf. To this day he remains in this Province not having lobbied on behalf of the people of Labrador West and for the people of this Province.

The people of this Province deserve better. Hopefully some day they will get it, in the not-too-distant future.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to clarify again -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I wonder if the House would want to recess for five minutes or however long the minister has to respond to this petition?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is struggling to try and determine how that can be conceived as a point of order.

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to speak very briefly - not to take five minutes - to the petition presented by the Member for the Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and supported by the Member for St. John's West. Just to try one more time, Mr. Speaker - because we will send copies of Hansard to Labrador West and other appropriate places - to make sure it is clear what the position of the Opposition is.

They are suggesting there is something wrong or something amiss in what has been done. The Member for St. John's West, in particular, is more interested in political rhetoric about something that may or may not have been said a year ago and whether it is true today or not. The fact of the matter is the only two alternatives that I have heard presented across the House, and I understand it reflects the official position of the Official Opposition as well as the NDP party, is either one of these. First, leave it in the ground. If this full redevelopment and expansion does not occur in Labrador West, that we should refuse to let North IOC take any more ore. Leave it in the ground. Which means the expansion should not go ahead under any way shape or form and we jeopardise, in fact, the stability of the operation in Labrador West. Secondly, there was another version of it, saying: Give them the cash and buy the pellet plant. Which is $250 million that again the Official Opposition would give to the Iron Ore Company of Canada today to make sure they built a pellet plant in Labrador West.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte on a point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister can ramble on, and he needs to ramble on today. For some reason, we cannot understand why yet, he is going to ramble on, which is fine, but when he states the position of this party or this side of the House he is incorrect in his position that we would say: Give them the money to do it in Labrador City. We absolutely did not say that, never did, and never will.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, speaking to the point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I am assuming that since the critic -

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Minster of Education speaking to the point of order.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

There is no point of order. As the Chair has ruled on many occasions in the past, hon. members are taking advantage of the rules of the House just to further engage in debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are trying to muzzle the speaker, I think as well, more than anything else.

I appreciate the clarification. All we are trying to do is get the position of the Opposition clear for the record in Hansard, for the House. The critic for mines and energy says they would not give them the money, which was the proposition from Mr. Malek from the Chamber of Commerce. That was in the paper and so on. Some of them jumped up and said it was a good idea. That is not the position of the Opposition. They will not give the Iron Ore Company of Canada any money to help get the thing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: You just said that. They will not give them any money to help make sure the extension to the smelter is built in Labrador West. That concludes that the official position, of the Official Opposition is that there is to be no expansion whatsoever in Labrador West with the Iron Ore Company of Canada. They are not to take any additional ore out of the ground whatsoever. Today's production rates must stay as they are, whether that puts them at disadvantage globally or not in the marketplace. I am glad that it is now clear at least to the people of the Province who can read Hansard that that is the official position of the Opposition. Regardless, of what that causes to happen in Labrador West with the Iron Ore Company of Canada, or with Wabush Mines, they do not care, because it is the same as the pension issue. They said: Regardless, just give them the money, don't think of the consequences, don't worry about what may or may not happen.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the official position of the Opposition is: Regardless of what might happen to the Iron Ore Company of Canada and North, regardless of what might happen to Wabush Mines, do not let them expand their operation in Labrador West unless they build a pellet plant in Labrador City -

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and therefore, Mr. Speaker, leave it in the ground. That is the official position of the Official Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis on a point of order.

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

The Minister of Education has stood in his place a number of times over the past few days and made statements with respect to what the policies are of the Official Opposition.

By the way, what I am saying to you is that just because - and this is for the Hansard record - the Minister of Education is stating a policy that he believes is ours, that does not make it so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will state, as the Chair as stated on many occasions before, that not only are members taking advantage of the rules of the House, members are abusing the rules of the House to further engage in debate outside of the designated rules that are clearly defined in Standing Orders.

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

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

I am again going to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador City.

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

The petition of the undersigned residents of Labrador City.

WHEREAS, we the residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador resources in Quebec;

WHEREFORE, your petitioners urge the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Minister of Education stand and try to profess what our policy is, when in actual fact he does not even know what his own policy is on Labrador City. The Premier of the Province has set a policy on Voisey's Bay and Inco very clearly. If the overall project is viable, regardless of whether or not a smelter on its own is viable - even though Inco say a smelter is not viable - if the overall project is viable and they want our resource, they will do the secondary processing on our resource right in our Province.

That is all the people of Labrador City are asking for, and that is what we are supporting them on. If the overall project is viable with the pellet plant, it is our resource, and if the Iron Ore Company of Canada want to profit from our resource they should do the secondary processing right here.

That is our policy. It is a policy the Premier set forward regarding Inco and the smelter for Voisey's Bay ore. We are wondering why the Premier is not taking the same stand on IOC's pellet plant.

Very clearly said, our resources should give maximum benefit to the people of the Province. The Premier of this Province in the last general provincial election, while he was campaigning, after Inco stated they would put a smelter somewhere in this Province, while it was an easy promise to make, the Premier while campaigning stated that he will guarantee a smelter in this Province or there will be no mine in Voisey's Bay. Essentially, if the resource is not processed in this Province, leave it in the ground. That is what the Premier said.

I am asking: What is the difference when Inco say that it is not viable to put a smelter in this Province? IOC are saying it is not viable to put a pellet plant in this Province. What is the difference? If it is our resource and there is to be no mine in Voisey's Bay unless there is a smelter in this Province, what is the difference with IOC and a pellet plant?

If the overall project is viable for Voisey's Bay then a smelter must be built. If the overall project is viable in Labrador West then a pellet plant must be built. That is my position. It is the Premier's position on Voisey's Bay. Why is it not the Premier's position in Labrador West?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order No. 5, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," Bill No. 36.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill No. 36)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order No. 4, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2)," Bill No. 29.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2). We had some discussions on this bill when it was in second reading, and there were a number of questions I had anticipated asking the Minister of Government Services and Lands with respect to this bill. This bill, by the way, deals with the graduated driver licence that the Administration wishes to bring in and have effective on January 1, 1998.

Actually I had a call from an individual, I say to the minister, who is twenty-five years old and he had some concerns that he would not be able to get his licence. He is twenty-five years old now and is after having driving lessons and what have you. He phoned last week to go in and do his test before January 1 in Mount Pearl, at Motor Registration, and he was told that he could not get in. He could not get in to take his driver's test before January 1 because everything was booked up -

MR. TULK: Is he a Tory?

MR. J. BYRNE: I never asked that question. I don't ask that, I say to the Government House Leader. The Government House Leader just asked me if that individual was a Tory. When I serve my district everyone is the same to me, everyone: PCs, Liberals -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Because they are all Tories.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for St. John's East just made a point, that is because they are all Tories. There are some Liberals down there, I would say. My opponent in the last election, I think he is a Liberal. He used to be a Tory. My opponent in the last election was a delegate for me at the leadership convention four or five years ago now, but all of a sudden he decided to run for the Liberals. Again, as we know, on that side of the House of Assembly if you want to go anywhere with that Administration over there, the first qualification is to be a Tory first. We all know that on the government side of the House, if you want to go anywhere in that Administration over there, especially if you are a new group coming in, the first qualification is be a Tory first. Then you become a minister, no problem.

Anyway, back to my individual.

MR. TULK: You are wrong, you know. (Inaudible.)

MR. J. BYRNE: I stand to be corrected. The Government House Leader is trying to correct me now. He says it takes 20 per cent just to keep us happy on this side of the House. I would say I could name a few over there. It would probably come to more than 20 per cent, especially in Cabinet, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in Cabinet?

MR. J. BYRNE: In Cabinet. If you go anywhere in Cabinet, well, you have the Ministers of Works, Services and Transportation, Human Resources and Employment, Environment and Labour. Who else is over there? Let me see.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The next one to go in is the Member for Humber Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is right of Tories.

MR. J. BYRNE: He is right of Tories? You are certainly right, slightly right, and that is where he should be, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, with that big roller he was driving the other day.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands that with respect to that individual he said he could not get in to take his test before January 1 because all the time slots had been allocated to the driver schools. He phoned me. I think there is a clause there that if -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I told him he does not have to, he will not have to. That is the answer. I just wanted to make sure it was confirmed.

I do not understand. Here we are, Mr. Chairman, and listen to this. The Government House Leader is over there: Come on now, get this going, let's move it on. We are in the House of Assembly two weeks and two days. We were not here since early June, and he wants out. He is bringing in legislation - we have about thirty pieces of legislation thrown at us right, left and centre. What is the proper name for these?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Clerks. What do you call you guys?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pages.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Pages. All you can see is them going around when the House is open, bills going everywhere. It is like snowflakes falling out of the sky and he wants us to close within a week. I do not know where he is expecting this to get done. That is a fact, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I have to say here, and I am going to plead to the Minister of Health and Community Services, to make a few psychiatrists available so that the Minister of Government Services and Lands can drop in and have a visit in a hurry and he won't have to wait too long. So he can get straightened out with respect to this legislation. If he thinks this is flowing through this House of Assembly -

AN HON. MEMBER: Buffalo.

MR. J. BYRNE: The story about the buffalos.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Government House Leader, he is here interjecting. I have no problem with that, and I appreciate it actually, because he gives me a few words that I can say. We have a Government House Leader wanting to put buffalo burgers on the table, who is dropping bills in this House of Assembly like snowflakes coming out of the sky. He wants this done and he is saying: Hurry on. We have a piece of legislation here, and I would imagine that it is a very important piece of legislation. I spoke to this before. Obviously any piece of legislation coming through the House of Assembly for the Province of Newfoundland is important.

MR. SULLIVAN: So important he had (inaudible) in the gallery (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and when it was introduced in the House of Assembly he had members of the RNC in the gallery, members of the RCMP in the gallery, and he had the Newfoundland Safety Council in the gallery. Obviously it is an important piece of legislation and we have to address it and take it seriously.

AN HON. MEMBER: Also the insurance people.

MR. J. BYRNE: The insurance people. Now that is a point I want to address, Mr. Chairman. With respect to this legislation, and I have mentioned it before - and some members of the House of Assembly started to laugh, but this is a serious point. As a matter of fact I had a senior from Pouch Cove - I will not say the lady's name - phone me on this very issue when this was discussed earlier in the year. The point she was making was this.

She said: I have a granddaughter who just turned seventeen years old and is getting her license - no, she had a grandson who had just turned seventeen or something like that - and she had a granddaughter who would take this new program. She said: Let's compare them. If the two of them go in and you have the granddaughter take the test, the new Graduated Driver System, and the grandson goes in, two of them the same age, will they have to pay the same insurance?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, they do not pay the same insurance. The young male has to pay more for his insurance but now this new graduated system is geared to reducing accidents on the highway. I have some of the stats here which I will get into in a few minutes. It is all geared to reducing accidents on the highway, and these young males and females - I am particular here because this is going to apply to all new drivers in due course. They can be thirty, forty or fifty, but I am talking about the specific group of young males who are seventeen, eighteen or nineteen, whatever the case may be, compared to the young females. You would not have people, eighteen, nineteen and twenty going in under the new system.

The problem is this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is what I am getting to, based on the driving skills.

The problem here is this: Now those young people will not be allowed to drive from 12:00 to 5:00 a.m. when stats show there are the most accidents. If they are driving, they have to have somebody with four years' experience with them. Again, this should cut down on accidents hopefully. Therefore, why should a young male have to pay more for insurance than the young female? It is wrong. It is discriminatory. It is discrimination based on sex, no doubt about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not care if they are in the program or not. If they are in the program, after January 1 they are going to have to be in the program. It is a money grab. The Member for Humber East says it is a money grab. I just want to put that on the record. He confirmed it; he is over there shaking his head. The Member for Humber Valley is saying it is a money grab.

The Member for Humber Valley was on the committee - I think he was the chairperson of the committee - which went around and had hearings on insurance rates in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If the Member for Humber Valley want to get to his feet when he gets a chance, with respect to this, I would like to hear what he has to say with respect to that specific issue - with respect to the insurance rates that are charged for young males and females if they are in this new program. I would be interested in what the Minister of Government Services and Lands has to say with respect to that issue.

Actually, I had anticipated that we would be discussing Bill 7 first today, for some strange reason, and I do not know how we got on Bill No. 29 first.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have no doubt about that; we will go to Bill 7 when I am ready, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Here we go again. Tell me how good I am.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, with respect to polls, I think this man lives by polls. I know the Premier does. Because whatever the polls show, that is what the Premier does and this Administration does; but yesterday we saw in Quebec - what happened? The polls in Quebec -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) because of what happened in Quebec yesterday, but that is the kind of argument you will usually get from people who go down in the polls, not like the hon. gentleman who just went up again. He came up again. I say to him, be more positive. I want to tell you something. In terms of Opposition members, you are again at the top.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Again the Government House Leader is on his feet on a point of order, and again there was no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If the Government House Leader is correct, sure, who wouldn't like to? But again, polls are polls are polls.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand to just say a few words on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2).

I say to the members on both sides of the House that this is a good piece of legislation, something that we certainly agree with. Every time I stand I have to pay tribute to the committee that brought this in place, the Woodford committee I will refer to it as, of which the Member for Humber Valley was the chairman. He did a good job. In fact, I would say that this might be the document that gets the Member for Humber Valley in the front benches. This might be the beginning, I say to members opposite.

If the minister takes the advice of the committee, there are a lot more of those bills to come. This is just the beginning. I think you will see a very positive change brought about within the insurance industry as it pertains the Highway Traffic Act, because one is directly related to the other one.

I am glad the minister brought this graduated licensing program in first. If he was going to pick out something to bring in first, then this is it, I say to the minister, because the most senseless kind of death and the most senseless kind of accident I can imagine happens when a young person first gets a licence. I don't know what word to use, but it is certainly outrageous. It is everything I could describe, when you hear of an accident of a young person first getting their licence. I am always of the opinion that everybody is entitled to make one mistake. Nobody should die because of a mistake they made, their first mistake, in driving a vehicle, and this happens far too often.

A young person gets their licence, they get their own car or somebody gives them a car, or they borrow their parents' car, and they go out nighttime joy-riding. It is human nature. We have all done it. We will go out and we will tear around and we will show off a little bit. Because we do that, we don't deserve to be killed. Nobody deserves to die in an auto accident because they decided to try something new, or they decided they were going to speed for the first time, or they were going to go out drag racing or whatever. Nobody deserves to die because of that. In most cases, it is probably the only time it would have ever happened.

Good young people go out and are senselessly killed in auto accidents because they want to experience something new and they want to go out and seek a thrill, if you will. I believe this piece of legislation will curtail that. It may not stop it, but I think it will certainly change it. We all know people to whom I just referred. We all know young people, and we do not have to think long or hard to know somebody who either was killed in such a situation or was severely injured in the first month or the first couple of weeks they had their licence, and they were out trying to experience a high in driving the car and experiencing something new, and I suppose to defy death, if you would, because that is what it amounts to. Young people for the most part have no fear and they feel they are in control, but they have a lot to learn.

This is what this particular part of the act will provide. It will give them the opportunity to learn how to drive an automobile and to be responsible, under the guidance of some other experienced driver who must be with them, number one, for the first year, and number two, for part of the second year if they decide they are going to drive in certain hours.

It is a good piece of legislation. I congratulate the minister for bringing it forward so early, because it was only last March since it was submitted. It isn't even a year yet since those recommendations were brought forward. The minister has acted on two of those recommendations already: one which changed the territory rating zones, which nobody could understand or nobody could give us an explanation from where they came.

That was a big plus, where the people not only in my district, I say to the Member for Ferryland, but people from the Burin Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula were rated in the same Territory I with the St. John's area. Whether we want to accept it or not, the Avalon Peninsula, the St. John's area, is the area where you have most of the accidents, the area where you have most of the claims.

We felt, as a committee, that it was not right and proper to have places like Catalina, Port Union, Bonavista, Marystown and Burin in Territory I with St. John's when you had other places like Corner Brook and Gander, where there was a greater population and a greater number of automobile vehicles operated in smaller areas, to have them in Territory II, included in the rest of the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it was not the point of getting what I wanted. It was a point of the committee seeing that there was an injustice there. Everybody pulled together on it and said `this is wrong, let's change it.' It was one of the best committees that I ever served on.

I go back and think about the worst committee that I ever served on, and I have to mention that too. If you are going to mention the best one, you have to mention the worst one. In fact, the Member for Humber Valley served on that one as well, where we had struck a committee of this House to look at Private Members' Interests, and the Minister of Environment and Labour was the chair of that committee. No wonder he has no hair, I say to the Minister of Environment and Labour, because I think he will admit too, it was probably one of the worst committees that he ever served on. In fact, the committee did not even function. We used to walk out in frustration and it was mainly because the Government House Leader, who was then a backbencher, and the former Member for Eagle River, were the two government representatives on that particular committee. There was too much partisan politics being played and the committee could not function.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where is the former member now? Where is he now?

MR. FITZGERALD: Where is he now? That is right.

The Government House Leader has taken on a new approach since that as well. Now he realizes that he has to be more responsible and he is in a responsible position so I think he would be a different member of a committee if he were allowed to serve.

The Minister of Environment and Labour knows full well that was not a very good committee and there was not much accomplished from it. It was a point that we would get there, there would be the big argument, and somebody would run out and leave and say: That is it, I am fed up with it.

I think the Opposition Leader of the day even wrote the Premier and said: We are not going to take part in this committee - if I am right - because it is nonfunctional and we cannot get members to serve.

It is good when you have committees of the House where people put aside their political differences and when people put aside their partisanship -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is tarred with the same brush.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; the Member for Labrador West; the Chair; the Member for Humber Valley, and myself, it was a committee where we did a lot of travelling. We sat late nights. We held in excess of sixty meetings to give people an opportunity...

The committee's work, like every other committee of the House, I say to the members here, everybody who wanted to meet with the committee was given an opportunity to come forward and make their presentation and I think it worked well. This is the result of it, whether it cost a few dollars or not, at least something was accomplished.

I think at the end of the day you are going to see lower insurance rates because the amounts of collections are going to be reduced. Once you reduce the payouts then I feel sure that you are going to see a reflection of what the insurance companies pay out passed down to the consumer.

I would suggest that if everybody's insurance policy came due on the same day in recent years, you would probably see the biggest upheaval that you ever saw in this Province before; but because it is staggered over 365 days, where everybody's insurance policy comes through at a different time, then people complain within their own little circles. Then they go to the post office and be responsible, or go to the bank, or go to the insurance company, and be responsible enough to pay it, accept it, and move on.

It is certainly one business sector in this Province I feel has gotten out of hand recently. When you look at the rates that are being charged for the facility part of the insurance whereby people are placed in that particular category, or in that particular heading, Mr. Chairman, because they are supposed to be of a higher risk than somebody who has had no accidents, when you look at the facility rates that are being changed, it is completely shameful what insurance companies are allowed to charge in this Province today.

For the most part the facility insurance part of the insurance industry, that particular sector if you would, was mainly put in place so that people would not be denied insurance. It was not put in place to be a profit making section. It was supposed to be a section of the insurance industry wherein people with high risk would be placed, and the amount of premiums they would pay would be shared, and the cost would be shared by all the insurance companies. It got to the point where this particular part of the insurance industry was making in excess of millions of dollars a year. I cannot remember just how much, but it certainly became very profitable. It became very profitable at the expense, for the most part, of responsible people by the mere fact that they had reached a certain age, or by no fault of their own they were involved in one or two accidents. The insurance companies at will would flick them over into facility. I do not know how they would ever get from the facility rating back to the regular rates again.

We have addressed a lot of those issues. Some of them will have nothing to do with the Highway Traffic Act. A lot of it will have to do with the Superintendent of Insurance's office. A lot of people, I feel, should be using the Superintendent of Insurance much more than they do. I am not so sure that a lot of people realize the true function of the office of the Superintendent of Insurance here, but it is something that should be made known and it is something that should be used.

I say to the minister before closing that it is a good piece of legislation. I say thank you to the minister for introducing it and allowing it to come to the House in such a timely fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I never said any such thing. I would never say that unless you deserved it. You did not deserve it today yet, I say to the Government House Leader.

I have some serious points for the Minister of Government Services and Lands. Here is one. With respect to zero tolerance on alcohol, in this document that was put out, if a new driver has a zero tolerance, loses points and what have you. You can address this when you are cluing up debate. In the meantime, if the person, say me or whomever, is the person with the four years experience with the new driver, and that person has alcohol on his breath, or he is tested and he is .05, .06, .07, or whatever the case may be, what impact is that going to have on the new driver? That is just a curiosity I had when I was going through this. Because I would imagine if you are going to have an individual as a co-driver, that person would have his -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Zero tolerance for both. That is interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, 0.5 is for the accompanying driver.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the accompanying driver must be .05, isn't it? Yes, .05.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: See? Now I have got it all stirred up in the House already. Nobody knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clause 9.

MR. J. BYRNE: Clause 9, okay. I have to get my clauses straight. I read it. I don't (inaudible) it here, I don't know. Bill 29, I don't even have it here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what we should do, go clause by clause maybe, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I have to say - and I always find this to be very curious, very strange, very peculiar, whatever you want to say - but whenever there is any legislation in this House of Assembly there are always the ten of us on this side of the House up speaking to it, making all the points, constructive criticism, I must say, and what do we hear from that side of the House? One speaker, usually the minister, gets up. He might have a piece of legislation that is half an inch thick and he will say half a dozen words, sit down, and that is it. Then, when we are up speaking, they are over there interjecting, saying stuff to us, but they will not get up and speak to the piece of legislation.

All I can say is it is an unfair balance. It is unfair that this side of the House has to carry this House of Assembly all the time. I cannot wait for the next election when we are on that side of the House and I am going to be sitting in the Government House Leader's chair. That is where I will be sitting. The Government House Leader of the day will be banging his head off the back wall over here. That is what will be happening. Then maybe, just maybe, I will understand what is going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I am getting cold shivers looking at the person sitting alongside you now. What is he doing over there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes.

CHAIR: Order please!

There is too much noise.

MR. J. BYRNE: Will someone give the Chairman a chance to say a few words? Yes, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

In case you don't know it, the Chairman just recognized me, not the crowd over there, so keep it down, I say. Listen and you might learn something, Mr. Chairman. Not you, now, but the crowd over there.

Anyway, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, that will be addressed in clause 9. Would you just say a few words on that when you get up?

With respect to this legislation again, some of the points that were brought up when this bill was introduced probably bear repeating, because you will understand where the Minister of Government Services and Lands is coming from and why he introduced this piece of legislation.

Anything that I can see that we can do in this House of Assembly that is going to save lives of people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, indeed in Canada maybe, because if the new drivers get proper training and they are not going out and learning as they are... I remember when I got my licence. I only had a few lessons. I went in, took my driver's test and passed it. It was only after that I learned how to drive, in reality. So, if a person has two years' experience, basically, it is going to bode better for the people of the Province. Who knows where they are going to be driving?

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Government Services and Lands makes a good point. The traffic is faster. Hopefully if it is faster we have better cars and better highways to travel over. An example we see is the Outer Ring Road.

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Government Services and Lands makes another good point. If you don't know how to drive well enough for the higher speeds, well, there you go.

I have a note here. Over a ten-year period in Canada there was something like 10,000 young Canadians killed on our highways. That is just simply amazing. I can hardly comprehend that. If you look at my district, 10,000 people, that is twice the population of the Town of Torbay. That is amazing. That is like two small towns wiped out. It is really amazing. (Inaudible) else on that.

Again, when this program was introduced in Ontario it decreased the accidents in the province by 31 per cent. That is a fantastic number, it is really good to see. It decreased fatal accidents, I suppose, by some 24 per cent. I think that is the correct figure, Mr. Chairman.

Again it is good to see that we are putting legislation through the House that makes us feel good for a change. Sometimes legislation goes through the House of Assembly and you have to wonder about the legislation, where it is coming from and why we are doing it. When you have stuff like this going through the House of Assembly, it is certainly something that I will be proud to support when we vote on it, Mr. Chairman.

Another few points that I have here with respect to this piece of legislation: I think I mentioned alcohol, the zero tolerance, as I was going through here, and the demerit point, the accumulation of six points.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Say something to me.

Anyway, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, I would like for you to speak to this point when you get up. I am sure you will.

MR. SULLIVAN: If he sits down now, we will...

MR. TULK: He is not getting up any more.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not on this piece of legislation, I say. I am not going to get up on this any more.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands: When you get up, I would like for you to say a few words with respect to the demerit point system, the six point demerit system versus the twelve for a more experienced driver. I don't know if he is paying attention to me over there, Mr. Chairman, but hopefully he will address those points.

Now, let me see. I am just going through my notes now, just skimming my copious notes to see if I have covered everything I wanted to cover at this point in time. I am getting there. The rates of insurance for drivers, done.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have pretty well covered what I wanted to cover with respect to this legislation and I am going to ask the minister now, if no one else on this side of the House or anyone on that side of the House wants to get up and say a few words - I thought the Member for Humber Valley was going to get to his feet and say a few words. I see him now conferring with the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I think he might have him straightened out. By gosh! I think he has him straightened out. I don't know who has who straightened out. That is the only thing, Mr. Chairman.

In the meantime, with those few comments I am going to sit down now and see what the minister has to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). Keep going.

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want me to? Okay.

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I will say a few more words, if I have lots of time. The Minister of Justice just -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. J. BYRNE: Give me leave.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice just made some comments to me and I have here - listen to this now: The Welfare Officer Will See You Now and other stories. I read this - believe it or not - by C.R. Decker, 1987. Here we have -

AN HON. MEMBER: I will give you 100 bucks for it.

MR. J. BYRNE: One hundred? No, five.

MR. SULLIVAN: He couldn't make a living at that, so he want into politics.

MR. J. BYRNE: There is a story here, Mr. Chairman. Bear with me; please bear with me. There is a story in this, the very first story, and it takes about court. It is about a Mr. Tobin being in court.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Tobin!

MR. J. BYRNE: A Mr. Tobin. There is just one thing I would like to -

MR. SULLIVAN: The court of public opinion, was it?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, it is interesting. It is straight out of this, Mr. Chairman.

"There's no need to get anxious, Mr. Tobin. Just relax now and we'll proceed."

Here is the story: "During the interrogation three people informed me that Mr. Tobin, the defendant, used to make moonshine at one time." So Mr. Tobin used to make moonshine.

"After getting directions to Mr. Tobin's house, I set out at a brisk pace along the shore to see his place of residence.

"At approximately halfway" - listen, this is important stuff - "to the defendant's house two dogs came charging after me across a deserted field.

"I immediately drew my service revolver and shot them both dead. I did not see any more dogs at that particular visit..."

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member if he could explain to the Chair the relevance of the debate to the Highway Traffic Act.

MR. J. BYRNE: No problem. I can make that relevant, no sweat, Mr. Chairman. Here is the relevancy: We are now talking about transportation. We are talking about driving in this Province, about young people getting their licences, and this was written in 1987, at a time when transportation across the Province was not as efficient as it is today, Mr. Chairman. There is the relevancy of it. It is about animals chasing cars, and animals chasing people, and people shooting them to death.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: With those few comments, I will sit down and let the minister clue up.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the process of committee stage on Bill No. 29, just a few comments about the committee itself, the committee that was struck by the House. In reference to the hon. the Member for Bonavista South, he did an excellent job in preparing for this legislation to come before the House.

I would also say to the committee that they did an excellent job in the whole report. I would also say that the graduated driver licence is one aspect of it and, as he indicated, we did the territory ratings. Another bill here, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, will also deal with the fines for uninsured drivers. We are taking very speedy response to the particular report. There are a number of other things that will come into play as well as we move through the process.

One of the things that I think we need to remember about the graduated driver program is that it will now reduce the age of introduction to driving from seventeen down to sixteen. That is a significant change, but with the two-year program, with the age going down to sixteen, we are requiring an extra year of training, which is one of the aspects of the whole graduated training program. We want to have drivers on the highway with no restrictions, who have much greater training period before they do that.

Previously, as the Member for Cape St. Francis said, he went in, wrote his test, did a few flicks around the block, and got his licence. Then he learned to drive after he got his licence. The whole purpose of this program is so that we can train the novice drivers to drive before they get their licence. That is the big change in this.

Certainly, clause 2 is one of the key clauses in this because it drops the age from seventeen to sixteen. We have made accommodations, very slight accommodations, from the committee's report, to accommodate the seventeen-year-olds who will be accessing the program, so that we do not discriminate against that age group. They are nineteen before they get their licence versus a person sixteen being able to be eighteen and they will have their licence prior to that. We have been able to accommodate all of those without jeopardizing the program or the purpose of the program.

In the other clauses, they are fairly straightforward, moving through. I would draw your attention to clause 9, as the member asked about it. What will be in the legislation is a requirement that a novice driver will have zero tolerance, so any alcohol detection at all will result in a suspension, immediate suspension, of the novice driver. He will lose demerit points, and the first offence he will receive a two-month suspension. So he will not be able to continue the program for two months. A second offence will be four months, and a third suspension will be back to the beginning of the program.

Likewise with the experienced driver, if the detection is above .05 then both of the drivers will be under the suspension. The experienced driver will suspended on the spot for twenty-four hours, depending on the content of alcohol, and the novice driver will also be suspended for having the trainer over the .05 per cent of alcohol. I think that answers that particular question.

Of the fourteen clauses that will be amended in The Highway Traffic Act for this program, the majority of the program will come under the regulations and also under the policy for the MRD, so that this can be accommodated and adjustments can be made as we move through, if we are required to do that.

I think, Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of this legislation passing the House right now is that it enables us to have everything in place for January 1. The RCMP had to put new equipment in, they had to train; the RNC had to put new equipment in, they had to train, and also the government had to put new programs in place to accommodate the novice drivers.

Mr. Chair, I will sit down very shortly but the other aspect of this new program, we believe, will be to either stabilize insurance rates for younger drivers as we move through the program or it may even see a reduction in rates. One of the issues -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: I get no questions in Question Period so I have to get up some time.

Some of the aspects of where the insurance fits in is that we will be able to see a reduction in rates or a stabilizing of insurance rates for young drivers a few years into the program when we find out that there will be less accidents and those sorts of things.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by concluding the Committee stage.

On motion, clauses 1 through 14, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2)." (Bill No. 29)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, we will go back to Order No. 2 now so my friend over here can slay the Minister of Justice, I hope. An Act To Amend The Credit Union Act, Bill No. 7.

CHAIR: An Act To Amend The Credit Union Act, Bill No. 7, Order No. 2.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to rise today and have a few words on the bill, An Act To Amend The Credit Union Act, Bill No. 7.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have that turned off, please?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: This mike is still on here.

CHAIR: If there is any money to be given to the District of Lewisporte, we could turn it back on.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are transmitting but not receiving.

I wanted to have a few words on Bill No. 7, An Act To Amend The Credit Union Act. As all hon. members in this House know, the Eagle River Credit Union has been one of the most successful projects that we have undertaken on the Coast of Labrador in terms of investment, in capital, and in enabling communities and people to be able to move forward. I want to speak a little bit on that today, Mr. Chairman.

The Eagle River Credit Union, unlike the other credit unions in the Province, have been asking for more flexibility within their mandate, within their legislation, to be able to look at other things outside of the services that they presently deliver to their members, such as business investment, industry development and other sectors in which they can involve themselves in, in order to allow for a certain amount of economic growth and certainly better services to the regions in which they operate.

So I want to say that the minister has certainly responded to their request in bringing in this piece of legislation and providing that kind of flexibility to them. The Eagle River Credit Union has been very diligent in serving the members of the Coast of Labrador over the past number of years. I remember when they first started in my home community, in Mary's Harbour. They came in there, a board of directors, and set up office in a small craft shop in the community. They just provided services on a weekly basis or monthly basis, whenever the need would arise.

They would come in there and people would go there and find out what it was like to actually do a certain amount of banking. Because up to that point we were removed from the banking process altogether, in some parts of the district. They came in and they learned about investments and they learned about savings and how to better manage their money and so on. What I see today is absolutely amazing. When you look around and see what the credit union system has built up, and what the Eagle River Credit Union specifically has contributed to the people and communities, it is unbelievable.

In my home community right now, that same community where it started out as a small operation out of a craft shop, we have a full-fledged facility, credit union facility, with five to six people employed there, in loans and investments, who provide advice and travel back and forth the Coast of Labrador by air, helping people manage their money better and make smart investments. It has certainly paid off.

In the Labrador Straits area, an area that was quite familiar with banking, as the Bank of Montreal was there for a number of years, I guess that was where the whole concept of the Eagle River Credit Union came from. Because when the bank pulled out of that particular area and out of those communities, certainly it was very difficult to entice others to come in and invest. They said the equity was not there, the population was not there, it was not going to be a feasible return for what money they would have to put into the system. Because of this, we were unsuccessful in attracting the commercial banks.

That was when people got together and said: We can deal with this problem on our own. We can set up our own entity to be able to look at doing things that are going to benefit the region itself. That was how all this started. It started with a group of volunteers, a founding committee that belonged to the area. Some of those people come to mind now and they are still around and are still participatory in the process, and still sit on the board of directors for the credit union itself. They still continue to take an interest in the management of its affairs. Certainly the manager there has done a tremendous job in building the service and keeping the system going.

As I was saying, it was in response to these other banks pulling out and not having anybody to fill the gap that this whole process started. That was when they decided to form the actual credit union, the Eagle River Credit Union, which is now part of the Credit Union Central and works not as an entity of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union system, but in partnership with others around the Province.

What they have done since then is they have allowed these services to their members. They went in to communities. They flew in. They pulled people together, they talked about investments, they talked about credit unions, and they asked people to actually invest in what they were doing. People did invest, and in buying in they became a part of the process. I think that is what has made it so successful.

This legislation that the minister is putting forward today is going to allow them greater flexibility in order to be able to expand upon services that they deliver.

As shareholders who participate in the credit union process, they have been able to, over the years, make better financial decisions that have certainly paid off for them. It has contributed greatly to the improvement of living conditions along the Coast of Labrador in general. It has allowed for people to be able to invest in their homes, in their personal property, in other necessities and certainly things that are not necessities that we like to have in life. The credit union process has allowed them to do that like no other process we have seen.

Now what we are going to do is allow them to move into other areas and to be more flexible so that business development in that area can also buy into the process. They can also be investors that invest into this entity and therefore they will be not only contributing to the actual growth of the credit union itself, but the credit union in turn will be continuing to contribute to the growth of business and industry as well.

In doing that, that will certainly bring more economic viability to the region. I think about small business in particular. Where I come from, I guess all businesses are considered small businesses. Because certainly they have a limited area or region which they can serve, and therefore the growth factor is always stagnated more so by population than certainly by the level of service or whatever they provide.

What this will do is guarantee greater availability of them for the investment capital that they need which they do not have right now. When you look at communities along the Coast, or any other parts of the Province that are kind of removed from the central location and the commercial banking system, these people have to fly into other communities or go into other regions and look to these commercial lending agencies for investment capital to set up, in more cases than none, in an area where that lending agency is definitely not familiar with the economics, the people, the growth potential that this business can provide and so on.

Therefore, in more cases than not the businesses are kind of turned away at the first intervention. Where there is a level of misunderstanding - I do not know about misunderstanding, but certainly they are not relative on the same basis. What happens is that they look at these people as being a high-risk investment, as having very little stability, certainly not having the growth in the economy that a lot of the commercial lending agencies would like to see, and for those reasons they are more hesitant about investment.

When we look at the credit union system, what we have then, Mr. Chairman, is an organization, a financial institution that is certainly in the area where people are. They understand the local economics, they understand the regional economics, they understand the issues, and they also understand the level to which businesses can grow and the services that they can provide.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: Therefore they do not look at this businesses as being high risk. What they look at - by leave, Mr. Chairman, just to clue up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Therefore they are more willing to invest, they can see where the investment growth is, and where their contributions are going to be.

This bill is certainly going to allow not only flexibility for credit unions, but it is also going to allow flexibility for small businesses in areas where credit unions are established as the only lending institution, or financial investment institution, to be able to allow these businesses to grow and to be able to develop further than they are.

I think the Eagle River Credit Union in itself has proven its record just by the number of assets it has acquired over the short time of establishment, the areas in which it has expanded, and the number of shareholders it has invested. I think you are going to see the same kind of growth in the business development sector. I want to support the bill that is being put forward today to amend the Credit Union Act.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am only going to take a couple of minutes of time today to just touch on what credit unions really mean to Newfoundland.

Something that some of us have to be reminded of is that there are some 74,000 members associated with credit unions in Newfoundland today. Collectively they have approximately 1,400 employees and over $80 million in assets.

One of the things we all should be very conscious of ourselves sitting in the House of Assembly is our own Public Service Credit Union. I am a member of that particular credit union myself and have had the opportunity of using its services over the years since I have been a Member of the House of Assembly.

With all the talks of bank mergers and the fact that the availability of services in rural Newfoundland may very easily fall off in years to come, simply because the banks may want to merge - and who knows, Ottawa may allow them to merge -, might indicate that banking in rural Newfoundland may become very difficult in the years to come. Banking in rural Newfoundland in the future may be more difficult than most people realize, simply because the banks may fold their tents and leave rural Newfoundland. We have already had a number of speakers in the House of Assembly refer to what credit unions have meant to their particular area. The Eagle River Credit Union is a prime example of what individuals can do when they pull together and utilize their resources to meet their own needs in their own communities.

I think all of us would be remiss if we did not recognize the contribution of the individuals who have actually established these credit unions through various parts of the Province, regardless of whether it is a teachers' credit union, Eagle River or Public Service Credit Union. As I said earlier, there are some 1,400 people employed in those services today, and they do offer and have available some $80 million in assets.

Credit unions, I think, will have a better opportunity to compete in the marketplace because of the legislation being passed today. The time has come for us to streamline the legislation. The time has come for us to take a look at the Credit Union Act, as we are doing here today, to give them a greater advantage and greater strength so that they can develop their resources, not only in the urban areas but in rural Newfoundland.

In closing, I would like to recommend, not only to all members of the House of Assembly but indeed all members of the public service, to participate in their own credit union, the Public Service Credit Union, and to take advantage of the many opportunities and services available to them. I would strongly suggest also that in any part of the Province where a credit union exists that people in those communities participate in the credit unions to make them stronger, to make them more viable and to make them more accessible to all people in all areas of our Province. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, clauses 1 through 28, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Credit Union Act." (Bill No. 7)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder can we could close this place down by 5:00 p.m. for Christmas? I am just wondering if the Opposition wanted to close this place down.

Order No. 3, "An Act Respecting Co-Operatives," Bill No. 10.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I would like to have a few words on An Act Respecting Co-Operatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know what is going on here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will the people in this House of Assembly pay attention to the Chair of the House?

I am not going to spend a lot of time on An Act Respecting Co-Operatives. The Minister of Government Services and Lands addressed this when he got up to speak. It was one of the few bills, I would say, that has been introduced which the Minister of Government Services and Lands seemed to have the answers for, when I got up on second reading. I addressed a number of concerns at that point in time and he addressed them fairly well, I must say. I am sure when he clues up debate on this today, maybe today - I shouldn't say today, but maybe today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon? He has all the answers? The Government House Leader now is indicating he has all the answers to all the questions that I asked when I was up in second reading on 162 clauses. That means he has at least 162 answers, so we are here till about midnight tonight.

Mr. Chairman, this act deals with the co-operatives, and that the co-ops may amalgamate. It defines the different types of co-ops, consumer co-ops, community service co-ops, housing co-ops, and workers co-ops.

I think what I said previous to this time is enough. I do not think I need to take up a lot of time on this bill in Committee. We have discussed it, we have had a fair bit of debate on it in second reading, and the minister answered a lot of questions. He may have a few more answers to give when he gets up. That is basically all I have to say at this point on this piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clauses 1 through 162, carried.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Co-Operatives." (Bill No. 10).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave at some point in the future to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill Nos. 36, 29, 7 and 10, passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2)." (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Credit Union Act." (Bill No. 7)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Co-operatives." (Bill No. 10)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have - well no, I don't really need to have leave (inaudible). I spoke to the Opposition House Leader. I think we have agreed to call Motions 3, 4, and 5; Bill No. 3, Bill No. 42, Bill No. 4, first reading on those three bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 3, 4 and 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal to introduce a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Business Investment Corporation", carried. (Bill No. 43)

On motion, Bill No. 43 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act", carried. (Bill No. 42)

On motion, Bill No 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Denturists Act", carried. (Bill No. 44)

On motion, Bill No. 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

Before adjourning the House, I would like to inform hon. members that tomorrow -

AN HON. MEMBER: Commend the Opposition.

MR. TULK: Commend them, yes, very much so, for their cooperation, understanding, generosity and support.

We will take Order No. 20 tomorrow, which is An Act Respecting Child, Youth And Family Services. Then I think we will do Bill No. 39.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Private Members' Day.

MR. TULK: Oh, okay - Thursday. I don't have any time for this private member stuff. I am not a Democrat.

Bill No. 39 will be on Thursday, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Security Interests In Personal Property".

Then we will do - are you checking them off? See, you should be listening instead of trying to -

MR. SULLIVAN: Bill 37, Bill 39.

MR. TULK: Then we will go to Bill 35, okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: What Order No. is that?

MR. TULK: That is Order No. 15.

I understand that before we leave, the Leader of the Opposition - the Opposition House Leader; he should be the Leader of the Opposition - would like to tell us what we are doing tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the House that we will be dealing with the private member's resolution submitted by the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. TULK: Could you tell us the subject matter?

MR. SULLIVAN: The subject matter is pretty clear, I think, and people on both sides of the House will really agree -

AN HON. MEMBER: Will support it.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and will support that the Auditor General should have the power to go in and audit the books of Memorial University.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

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

***********************************************************************