December

9, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 49

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, l rise today to inform hon.

Members of this House of progress being made in advancing government's regional

economic development agenda in this Province.

The Department of Development and Rural Renewal was

established in March of this year to lead our government's efforts to support

economic growth and job creation throughout Newfoundland and Labrador,

particularly in rural areas of this Province. A central component of this

mandate involves working with the Regional Economic Development Boards in each

of the Province's twenty economic zones.

Within ninety days of my appointment, all regional economic

development boards, with one exception, were up and running. The one exception

was the zone on the Southern Avalon, where community groups and interests argued

that the economies of the two sides of the zone were sufficiently different to

require the division of the zone. After extensive consultations with all

parties, including the MHAs concerned, I concurred with this view and agreed to

the creation of zones 18 and 20.

The establishment and operation of regional economic

development boards has involved a tremendous contribution of volunteer

commitment and effort. I have travelled to each zone upon the establishment of

the permanent boards to thank the hundreds of volunteers involved in this

process. I would also like to thank my hon. colleagues on both sides of the

House, as well as the federal members of Parliament who have participated in

these events, for their involvement and support.

It is important to emphasize, however, that these are not

government's boards. They have been democratically elected, based upon

structures determined within each zone. For the first time in Newfoundland and

Labrador, business and labour, municipalities, community development

organizations, education and training institutions, and other stakeholders in

regional economic development, are coming together to achieve a clear consensus

on their priorities and opportunities for long-term economic growth and job

creation. The strategic economic plans the boards are now developing for their

individual zones will provide government, for the first time, with a clear

reference point to determine the vision, goals and objectives of every region of

our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I had the pleasure of

attending the first collective meeting of Regional Economic Development Boards

and I was impressed by the commitment and quality of the individuals leading

this process. Board Chairs and their Executive Directors met in Corner Brook to

review progress to date and to share views on moving into the implementation

phase of their strategic economic plans. They expressed the view that just as

the communities within each zone must learn to work together, so too, much the

twenty zones work together for the economic well-being of our entire Province.

While the planning process is underway, it must be emphasized

that regional economic development activity is also proceeding.

Since the establishment of my department in March, thirty-one

projects totalling $6.6 million have been approved through the Strategic

Regional Diversification Agreement, which we administer jointly with ACOA.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: These initiatives, such as the long-term

initiative on the Great Northern Peninsula to develop Artic Char aquaculture,

are establishing the strategic infrastructure necessary for private sector

development and long-term job creation.

Mr. Speaker, we have embarked on a new way of doing business

in regional economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador. I encourage all

hon. members to continue to meet with the boards in their districts and

contribute to this federal-provincial-community partnership. Government is

committed to making this approach work and is confident the results will lead

directly to new job creation, economic diversification and vibrant sustainable

communities in all regions of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I would like thank the minister for the statement before the

House met, so I had a chance to read it just before I came down.

Mr. Speaker, I attended, of course, the signing in my

district with the minister and at that time, Mr. Speaker, I said the same thing

as I will say here today.

Of course, rural renewal is what we all look for and I guess

the proof will be in the pudding down the road, if we see the actual results of

this plan. I was very encouraged and I concur with the minister in saying that,

to involve people at the grass roots and work your way up is the way to go in

this Province and also, the way to go in this Province is to work from rural

Newfoundland and come in. These people have some very good ideas, they are very

encouraged but now, Mr. Speaker, they are going to need support and what they

need is a long-term plan and something that they can see that is concrete. And

rural Newfoundland is going to say: Yes, we believe in rural Newfoundland, and

yes, we believe that rural Newfoundland can survive, if we use the initiatives

and the people in rural Newfoundland to do that. And we have started on the

right track, I say to the minister. There is no doubt about that. I said that

before when I spoke with her, but now we also have to see if that phrase `rural

renewal' really happens and we will give the minister and the government some

time to see if this plan actually comes to fruition and will look down the road

to see if we can stand in the House and say `yes', it is working.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that these development boards are up and

running and that there is an opportunity for democratic participation. What

concerns me, though, is that this government may have the same approach to that

as they have to the home care boards and the health care corporations and start

blaming them for the fact that development is not occurring in rural

Newfoundland. If the same pattern is followed as in the health care corporation

and home care, Mr. Speaker, we will have this government blaming them next year

because there is inadequate funding for rural development in this Province. That

is what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, that this is just a tool, that this government

may be taking advantage of these people and not giving them the answers. Well,

it remains to be seen how successful they will be, given the approach of

government to actually turning power over to people in rural communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I am pleased to advise hon. members of a new

government-industry initiative in the promotion and enhancement of cultural

tourism in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, key strategic studies into this Province's

tourism potential have consistently identified cultural tourism as a leading

advantage for Newfoundland and Labrador. Research indicates that cultural

tourism motivates tourists to spend more and to increase their length of stay.

The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, in

partnership with NewTel Communications, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador,

and the federal Department of Canadian Heritage, is pleased to announce the

launch of the first Cultural Tourism Award for Newfoundland and Labrador. I

congratulate our partners in this initiative for recognizing the inherent value

of Newfoundland and Labrador's cultural tourism.

Mr. Speaker, more than 2,000 application forms are currently

being mailed to tourism industry partners and related cultural and heritage

interest groups throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. This award will promote

cultural expression both within our tourism industry and for the economic

benefit of our tourism industry. The Cultural Tourism Award will recognize and

reward progressive efforts which realize enriched cultural tourism experiences.

Mr. Speaker, the first Cultural Tourism Award will be

presented at the upcoming Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador Annual

Convention in February of 1997. I encourage all residents and tourism industry

partners within Newfoundland and Labrador to take an active role in this program

by nominating an individual or group for this Cultural Tourism Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of

her Ministerial Statement. The promotion and enhancement of cultural tourism in

this Province is very important to the tourism industry. As the minister's

statement makes mention, key studies and research have shown that cultural

tourism is a leading tourism advantage in our Province, and a motivator to keep

tourists here longer and have them spend more money. Perhaps we should be

putting even more emphasis on cultural tourism, and the promotion of cultural

tourism.

I also want to commend NewTel Communications once again for

showing they are a good corporate sponsor, and Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador for their partnership in this initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today

to announce to the Honourable House of Assembly two very important initiatives

in managing the fish and wildlife resources of this Province. The first relates

to the establishment of an Inland Fish and Wildlife Advisory Council, and the

second is the approval of the Conservation and Stewardship Stamp Program. Mr.

Speaker, through these initiatives, this government is demonstrating its strong

commitment to include the public and resource users in the decision-making

process for the inland fish and wildlife resources of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Advisory Council will be responsible for

providing comments and advice on a wide range of issues related to provincial

inland fish and wildlife conservation programs. The council will be invited to

review and provide recommendations on resource management strategies, policies,

operational plans, and regulations related to the conservation of inland fish

and wildlife resources.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow a select group of individuals will be

sitting down to the inaugural discussions on just how this Advisory Council will

work - its structure and its operational procedures. This group was invited from

a comprehensive list which is included at the end of this statement.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time it was premature to

include any members from the general public, as there were no set criteria to

make that selection. However, it is the intention to include two

members-at-large who are not officially affiliated with any particular

organization.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first activities to be taken on by

this council will be the Provincial Conservation and Stewardship Stamp Program.

I am pleased also today to be able to announce to the Honourable House of

Assembly that this government has approved the development of this Conservation

and Stewardship Program. The Advisory Council will be responsible to define and

administer this Stamp Program, and will approve projects submitted by proponents

in the area of fish and wildlife conservation.

The establishment of this program, Mr. Speaker, will create a

fund which will allow hunters and anglers to make a direct contribution and pave

the way for corporate contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of

wildlife and fish habitats. Funding will be obtained by the purchase of a

Conservation Stamp which will validate any fish and wildlife licence

administered by the government.

Mr. Speaker, this initiative will be similar to the national

conservation stamp program run by Wildlife Habitat Canada, and they have offered

their expertise in helping to set up the program in Newfoundland and Labrador. I

am confident that the Conservation Stamp Program will provide a means for

consumptive wildlife and fish resource users to contribute in a meaningful way

to the betterment of fish and wildlife resources in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the outcome of the

deliberations of this group tomorrow and hope to be able to report on the

outcome shortly afterwards.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a

copy of his statement prior to the opening of the House.

There is one thing that concerns me here in this particular

statement. Nobody is going to argue against the need for conservation, but the

minister goes on to say "this government is demonstrating its strong commitment

to include the public and resource users in the decision-making...." Then he

goes on to say in the second paragraph that he won't be including anybody from

the general public. I say to the minister: How do you expect the general public

to have input, and how do you expect them to be a part of this stewardship and

conservation, if you are not going to include them when you put the structure

together to set direction and to put the rules and regulations in right from the

grass roots up?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it is true, it is right here in your

statement. Mr. Speaker, there is a great fear today that there are people

looking at taking over our inland waterways and to deprive the people who

normally use them of that particular opportunity. People out there today are

scared that outfitters and other people with special interest groups will price

them out of a pastime or a sport that they took great pride and great interest

in; being able to go out and fish on their favourite river -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - pay their $10 fee -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - Mr. Speaker, and to do this on an

annual basis. Today, those people are being deprived of that opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - by the very fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Is

the minister aware that the Come by Chance oil refinery has not paid its power

bill since August, until last week when it paid its weekly bill, but no debts

that have been incurred since August, which is a substantial amount of money?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, I am aware that

there is a dispute regarding a bill but you or I or any business organization

out there has to pay their bills. I ask him, why is Come By Chance getting

preferential treatment in this case?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Come By Chance is not getting

preferential treatment.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well why has government interfered and prevented Hydro from

following normal debt recovery procedures and collecting the millions of dollars

that are outstanding?

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

DR. GIBBONS: We have not interfered, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been informed that government has interfered and

prevented them from following normal procedures. Now I ask the minister, will he

stop interfering and allow Hydro to go out and collect their debts as they would

do on any other debts?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Hydro will do its business as it needs to,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister a question. I ask him if it

is a normal procedure at Hydro to replace a retired person's pension by buying

an annuity for that person?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I don't know, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister if he is aware - or the

Premier -that that has occurred?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, I am not aware that that has occurred,

Mr. Speaker. I don't know what the hon. member is talking about.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A question to the Premier, I ask the Premier is he aware that

a retired person's pension has been changed and an annuity has been bought for

that person?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the

Opposition has something to bring to the attention of the House and to the

government that he thinks constitutes a problem that we should deal with, he

should bring it to our attention but I have to tell the Leader of the

Opposition, it is a bit difficult to answer your first three or four questions

telling the minister that he should not be interfering with the management

processes of Hydro, on one issue, which has apparently gone away very quickly

once he got his first three or four questions out but yet on the second issue,

barely drawing a fresh breath, he is now saying: Are you micromanaging Hydro on

its pension issues? The answer is, we don't know because we are not interfering

with Hydro!

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 Minister of Health. The

Minister of Health dismissed concerns I raised on November 27, about cuts in

hospital cleaning. He said that the hospital administration told him that

everything was all right, but information that I receive, Mr. Minister, almost

now on a daily basis, tell me something entirely different.

I would like to ask the minister, in the course of his

investigation, did the minister become aware of any changes in the practices at

St. Clare's Hospital in the disposing of needles that had already been used on

patients?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a slight correction to the hon. member. I did not

dismiss his assertions with respect to the cleaning practises at the Health

Sciences a couple of weeks ago. The fact of the matter is that the St. John's

Health Care Corporation who manages the system issued a statement categorically

denying the allegation and the assertion that was being put forward by the

member. The people who manage the health care system in St. John's is the St.

John's Health Care Corporation and they have the responsibility to do the

micromanaging of the system, and as to whether or not they are now disposing of

needles that are used in a way specific that is different than they disposed of

them a week or two ago, quite frankly, I am not certain. I will undertake to

find out the information for the hon. member in the speedy and timely fashion in

which we did it in the past.

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

on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: I guess, Mr. Speaker, my impression and the

minister's impression are certainly different in the way he answered the

question, and certainly in the press release he put out after the House had

closed. Will the minister confirm, with St. Clare's administration today, that

the containers where the needles are disposed of are certainly not being cleaned

and dumped on a timely fashion, and will he confirm that the people responsible

for cleaning these facilities have made complaints to the administration that

the dumping of the needle containers has now become unsafe and places them in

serious jeopardy because the disposal units are too full when it finally comes

time for them to be dumped.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: To the second question my answer is as to

the first one, ditto.

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

on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Good, Mr. Speaker. I will give him the third

one that he can check out, too, I guess. Will the minister confirm with St.

Clare's administration today that at least one of the cleaning staff at the

hospital has been stuck with a needle from an undetermined source on at least

two separate occasions, and will he confirm that the instances were reported and

that the name of the individual has been listed with Occupational Health and

Safety at the hospital? Will he ask the administrator to admit, and to

acknowledge himself, that the accidents are directly linked to cuts in cleaning

at the hospitals, and the increased risk of injury from needles because the

container is so full at dumping time?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To reiterate, the management of the health care system for

St. John's, including activities at St. Clare's and all our facilities, is the

sole responsibility of the St. John's Health Care Corporation. I will undertake

to enquire as to whether or not there is anything untoward happening with

respect to the issue he has brought forward, but I have to say also that I have

every confidence in the ability of the St. John's Health Care Corporation to

appropriately manage the health care system in St. John's, and if anything is

happening that is of an untoward fashion I have every confidence they will take

action to make appropriate corrections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: My question today is for the Minister of

Mines and Energy concerning the copper capacity at Voisey's Bay. On Friday the

minister said there was some 135 million pounds. In one report Inco reported 250

million pounds, and in another report through Argentia they reported another 200

million pounds. The minister tabled in the House on Friday the head assays, and

I thank him for tabling those, the assays on the reserves, I say to the Premier.

He tabled the assays on the reserves. All the mining people I have talked to say

they need the head assays of the tons per day, not from the reserves, but the

tonnage per day, so I ask the minister if he would table in the House the

tonnage per day capacity of copper at Voisey's Bay?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the tonnage per day is going to

depend on the assay of the ore that is mined, clearly it is going to depend on

that. In the first five or six years they expect to be mining the ovoid. I

tabled the assays that I had available for the ovoid. Okay. I tabled these

assays, and it is clear to anyone who takes a look at these numbers, the amount

of nickel in these assays, the amount of copper in these assays, the amount of

cobalt in these assays, so you can take your proportions accordingly. For the

longer term, for the eastern deeps I tabled the assays for the first 50 million

tons -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: - the estimated assays for the first 50

million from the Eastern Deeps. Now, I do not have the printed paper that I

tabled on the Eastern Deeps, but it was about .7 per cent copper and about 1.4

per cent nickel. The ratio in math is two to 1. There is about two pounds of

nickel for one pound of copper, based on the 50,000 tons in the Eastern Deeps.

So when they are mining that, that is how much copper is going to come out

relative to the amount of nickel. It is quite straightforward math based on the

present estimates.

I have said many times in the past in the public, and maybe

sometimes in the House, that these numbers are not known exactly yet as what it

is going to be when they start mining. They are going to be approximately as per

these assays. These assays are the best we have at this time, and as they find

more ore I am sure that the results are going to vary a little bit. There may be

a bit more nickel, a bit more copper, a bit less nickel, a bit less copper,

etc.; the numbers will vary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to complete his answer quickly.

DR. GIBBONS: When it gets down to it, the

smelter/refinery complex at Voisey's Bay is being rated at 270 million pounds of

nickel per year. If you are using -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to quickly draw his answer to a

conclusion.

DR. GIBBONS: I will get to the conclusion of my answer,

Mr. Speaker.

If you are mining 270 million pounds of nickel per year, if

the assays are as per what I put out for the Eastern Deeps, the 50 million tons,

then you are going to get half as much as that in copper - 135 million pounds of

copper.

The company is presently estimating they will produce about

36 million pounds of copper through the refinery/smelter complex at Argentia,

leaving about 100 million pounds of copper left over. Assuming there are 2,000

pounds in a ton - that is the normal number -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

DR. GIBBONS: Divide that into 100 million; that is 50,000

tons of copper.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, I have

talked to many people in the industry, many people who know the minister, and

they say: Yes, the assays on the reserves are very important, and I thank the

minister for giving me those. The head assays for the tonnage per day is what

mining companies around the world will look at to see if it is viable to put a

copper refinery/smelter there.

There are reports that Noranda in Montreal, Quebec, are now

going to increase their capacity by 50 per cent on a copper refinery in

Montreal, Quebec - 50 per cent, hundreds of jobs and so on. I would like to ask

the minister if he knows if the copper from Voisey's Bay now, which will not be

refined here, will end up in Montreal, Quebec, to create jobs.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the copper that is in the

copper concentrate from Voisey's Bay is going to contain a small proportion of

nickel. That small proportion will be looked at more as a contaminate than

otherwise. Therefore, with something like this, it is not normal that you would

throw all of this into one single copper smelter that is also using regular

copper. It is likely that the copper concentrate will go to several smelters for

copper, because that way you can mix the copper that has nickel contaminate with

a copper concentrate that does not have nickel contaminate, and make it easier

to smelt. So it could go to half-a-dozen smelters and refiners of copper in many

places in the world market.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the numbers seem to be bantered

around. We have gone from 250 million tons down to 100 million tons, back up to

130 million tons. The bottom line is that it is going out of this Province to

create jobs elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, Inco has said it is not viable. I guess what

they mean there is that they do not want to cut into their profits too much; it

is not viable for them. I still think it is viable for this Province.

I would like to ask the minister this: Has the government

pursued in the past, or are they pursuing now, or will they continue to pursue,

other companies, other than Inco, who would come in and set up a copper refinery

here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the

member's questions because it is very transparent, if you listen to the

questions here, what the hon. member is really all about. The fact of the matter

is that the Minister of Mines and Energy last week -

MR. SHELLEY: It is about employment for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - and again this week, has made very clear

that, to the greatest extent possible within the realm of economic sense,

minerals from Voisey's Bay, in this case nickel and cobalt, economic sense.

Materials from Voisey Bay, minerals from Voisey this Province. The fact of the

matter is we have just had a major announcement of a commitment to proceed with

what will be the largest and most technologically advanced nickel smelter

refinery complex in the world. The Opposition doesn't want to deal with that. It

wants to dismiss that. What we have now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - is the member opposite being made aware

of what the economics are with respect to copper, continuing to ask the

question: Is it true that copper might go outside the Province? Mr. Speaker,

this is so transparent as to be blatantly obvious. The member now is trying to

say that copper, amongst other places it might go, might go to Quebec. This is

called the politics of pride and prejudice. The member shouldn't be engaging -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Lower Churchill.

PREMIER TOBIN: - in that kind of politics on this kind of

issue. The Lower Churchill contract -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: If I may say, the Lower Churchill contract

needs to be renegotiated because it is a bad contract, it is unfair. But if the

member is saying that because we want to renegotiate the Lower Churchill

contract we should declare war on the Province of Quebec, that is not the

position of members on this side of the House. We want a responsible

relationship with all of our neighbours, including the people in the Province of

Quebec.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - the member knows - in conclusion - that

to the greatest extent possible all of the products that can be refined in the

Province will be refined in the Province. But if the member is going to insist

seriously - and I would ask the member to reflect upon what he is saying - that

we demand a copper smelter refinery complex, that we subsidize such a complex

even if it is uneconomic, what the member is really insisting upon is that there

be no revenue flow, because there will be no profits to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, put aside, I say to the member, this attempt at

playing politics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Look at this from an economic point of

view -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - and support the government when it

brings forward a sensible initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, if this member wanted to play

politics all we would have to do is look at the Premier for a little while,

every day in this House how he plays politics. I say to the Premier I'm not

playing politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: What I've done, Mr. Speaker, is investigated

this to my fullest. I'm not demanding that a copper refinery go to Labrador.

What I'm saying it that every possible avenue should be looked at. I wish that

the minister or the Premier would answer the question and forget all of that.

Answer me: Have you pursued with other companies the interest of the copper

refinery in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not pursued at this

stage any other companies. But if there is any other company out there that

wishes to come in and invest in a copper smelter, come on now! If you have the

money, come on now. Go get them.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has already

confirmed with media in Labrador that they would be pursuing and maybe even

negotiating with companies outside of Inco to bring in a copper refinery to

Labrador. The second

part is that I would start pursuing it right away to look

for other companies. So I ask the Premier, is that true?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member has obviously

thought through very carefully these questions, and he has really done his

homework and he is putting a very substantive case. I think the whole House can

see that, that indeed, compared to the questions by the Leader of the

Opposition, they are fairly substantive, I must say. Which is not to say that

they are substantive, but merely that they are better.

I say to the member, as I've said once already, there has

been an expression of interest by a Chilean interest in copper. We have not

entered into any discussions. We have made very clear - and by the way, we have

made very clear with Inco, and Inco has made, I think publicly, a statement that

if there is interest - in fact, I think it was made the day of the press

conference, and the member knows this - that if there is any interest by any

party which wants to access the copper that will be produced at Voisey Bay, to

be produced in Labrador or smelted in Labrador or smelted anywhere in this

Province, Inco has said the copper is available to any party which wants to use

it in this Province.

I think that is what we need to know,. That has been said

publicly by the company, it has been said publicly by the Province. If there is

anybody out there - we have heard one expression of interest - we will follow it

up. If there are any others anywhere on the planet who think they can make a

viable copper refinery complex out of what is available, we would be glad to

talk to them. But, Mr. Speaker, to get up and ask questions that try and create

the impression, to say to the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - guess, and I will conclude, Mr. Speaker,

guess what? It may be going across the border to Quebec. The people of

Newfoundland and Labrador should rise up. Our great enemies -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - are going to get our copper. Mr.

Speaker, that is beneath the member and he should not make those kinds of

suggestions.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

In 1994, the former government changed the review process for

injured workers from a three-person panel to a single, adjudicator system, and

one of the reasons it was supported in the House by the Opposition of the day is

because the minister, the then minister, said, that all decisions emanating from

the review division would be final and binding on both the commission and on the

injured worker, and that the only appeal would be heard through the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. The question to the minister is: One year

after, 1995, a Minute in Council or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, changed

the regulation allowing, the Workers' Compensation Commission to review a

decision of the review panel, thus not accepting a decision made by the chief

review commissioner and causing unnecessary hardship for injured workers in the

Province.

My question to the minister is: Is he aware of this? Does he

see it as a problem and does he have a plan to correct that situation?

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

Labour.

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

I appreciate the question from the member.

The review committee that is travelling the Province right

now, in the last two months is holding public meetings around the Province to

deal with concerns of injured workers. There have been about fifteen meetings so

far, public meetings, and there will be more in January. We expect that there

will be some recommendations coming forward from the review committee that will

deal with the concerns of injured workers.

I would expect that, if that is an issue - and that has been

brought to my attention by two or three injured workers in the past - that they

will have recommendations to help deal with that issue. I am reviewing it

through our office in the past few weeks and we have had some representations on

it. It has affected four or five cases along those lines and we are going to be

looking at it carefully when the committee comes back with its recommendations,

probably in February.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Another question to the minister is: Why

did government, on one hand, introduce legislation that would insure that

decisions of the review division would be final and binding, and then, on the

other hand, a year later, change it, to allow the actual re-occurrence of a

situation they were trying to correct?

For example, I have an injured worker who was in my office

just last week, an injured nurse, Diane Lake, whose permission I have - she said

I could use her name. Her case was turned down by the Workers' Compensation

Commission. It then went to the review division. The chief review commissioner

at the time upheld her decision and instructed the Workers' Compensation

Commission to reimburse or re-enact her workers' compensation earnings. The

Workers' Compensation Commission then overturned that, came back, another

review. The second review -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am getting to the question because it is

an important issue. The second time it came back to the chief review

commissioner, it was ruled in her favour again and yet, to this day, Mr.

Speaker, the commission has still not re-instituted her earnings. What does the

minister say to an individual like that and many more who are in the same

situation?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member, I

don't want to discuss, I am not going to discuss an individual case in the House

of Assembly, but I say to the member that we are concerned that the review

commission that we have used independently, claims of the Workers' Compensation

Board, that that commission work as effectively as possible and that it be as

independent as possible and that decisions rendered be honoured as thoroughly as

they can be.

We will be looking at that issue. We are looking at the

issue. The review committee that is out publicly holding hearings, will be

looking at that issue and so in due course, not very far down the road, I expect

that we will have some recommendations. If it is an issue out there, it will

definitely be identified by the public in review hearings that are around the

Province and so we will be dealing with it. The two or three or four cases that

have been brought to my attention, we are reviewing them individually and will

be dealing with the commission accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a

supplementary.

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

I know the minister has received submissions from injured

workers on this particular issue.

Let me ask the minister: What would stop the minister and

government from moving today and introducing at the Cabinet level or repealing

that new regulation that would re-institute and put teeth back to the original

legislation that said: that the review division's decisions are final and

binding and if they rule in favour of an injured worker, then the commission

must live up to them? What would stop the minister from doing that today, and

why will he not act? Why is he hesitating and waiting for an independent review

to come in, when he knows full-well himself that the situation exists that he

has the power to correct, today, not six months from now?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we do not invent public

policy in Question Period. We are going to do our homework.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I care, this government cares about

injured workers just as much as the other side does and we will bring forward, I

guarantee you, recommendations coming up very shortly to deal with any proposed

changes to help make sure that the Workers' Compensation system works for

injured workers, that it works for employers but the main thing is that it is a

fair system. We are going to work hard, Mr. Speaker, we are going to listen to

everybody and we are not going to be months at it and months at it. We are going

to deal with it and if there are problems right now that we have identified, we

are going to try to fix them before the commission comes in - I give the

undertaking to the member - but we are doing our homework first before we make a

move.

Thank you.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the minister, nobody has suggested

it and certainly I didn't that people on this side of the House had a corner in

compassion for injured workers but the question was not answered.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could update us on an

issue I asked last week dealing with injured workers with respect to the impact

of minimum wage upon the earnings of injured workers. Has the minister met with

the commission, and if he has, could he update the House on whether that

situation has been rectified and corrected?

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

Labour.

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

There is a meeting scheduled for Monday with the Workers'

Compensation Commission. I will be reporting back to the House once we have

determined, after a meeting with the commission -

AN HON. MEMBER: Next Monday?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, next Monday. Once we have a meeting

we will be discussing that issue as scheduled and once we deal with that issue I

will be coming back to the House to indicate any direction that we may be

taking.

Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. The government is spending millions of dollars buying new

computers and upgrading its information technology system, some of it with

federal co-operation agreement dollars. `The provincewide E-911 service would

substantially improve the level of emergency response for police, fire, medical,

ambulance and other agencies including poison control,' words of the minister,

March 21, 1995 in the House. So why has the government cancelled other

information technology improvement, namely the rural 911 system upgrade, which

can save lives?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: We could not afford it, Mr. Speaker.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it was only a year ago that

the minister stood in his place and said that they could afford it and they were

bringing it in. A rapid response time is vital to all emergencies in this

Province but especially critical in life and death situations. `An E-911 system

significantly reduces time delays in getting information on the emergency and in

dispatching proper response,' these are the words of the Municipal Affairs

Minister of March 21, 1995 also. Was the government wrong that an E-911 system

would reduce time delays in responding to critical life and death situations in

rural Newfoundland or is the government now saying it is not a priority anymore?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, if there was anyone in the

last seven-and-a-half to eight years who has been promoting and been pushing for

911, even 911 across the Province, it has been me. I have been leading sort of a

charge on that whole idea for the past twenty years. Certainly, no, we are not

in a situation today to be able to say whether or not we will be able, in the

future, to continue with the work we have done towards E-911 but last year, Mr.

Speaker, at a time of restraint and a time when we were down-sizing government

and making serious cuts to some of our social programs we felt at the time that

the 911 system could wait for another year or two. At the time, looking at a

possible investment of over $3 million to implement the 911 system, it was just

too expensive at the time for us to be able to absorb and then justify some of

the other things we were doing.

The program is not dead. It is still very much alive. The

Newfoundland Telephone Company and ourselves are waiting now for things to get

better and hopefully before I am finished as the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs I might have the opportunity, I hope I do, to introduce the

911 system. If I don't live that long, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly sure that

whoever replaces me will take the same active initiative when it comes to

providing such an adequate service that we deserve, not only in St. John's and

Corner Brook but we deserve in all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, first it was slashing funding in programs and

making the hospitals serving rural areas into a shell of what they once were and

now it is a policy to turn back the clock on the emergency telephone system in

rural Newfoundland. Bill No. 43, before the House now, provides fire-fighters

with protection from personal liability.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am getting to it, Mr. Speaker. What about

the personal safety for fire-fighters which comes with quick response time? Why

is the government actively undermining the health care network on which rural

Newfoundlanders rely, and what are the real savings versus the cost?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that my hon.

friend across the way would even suggest that we take money out of the Health

care budget or Social Services or Education and put it into a 911 service that

really basically, I know and he knows, maybe we can do without for another two

or three years. I hope and pray that he is not suggesting - would you suggest

that we take it from the Department of Health? I am open, very much so, to the

hon. member to write me or suggest to me where we would find $3.5 million at

this particular time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: From my point of view -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: - it is more important -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his

answer.

MR. A. REID: - at this point in time to direct our monies

towards health and welfare and social services than it is towards 911.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to

the gallery today a former Member of the House of Assembly for the District of

St. John's North, Dr. Phil Warren.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome Mr.

Svend Robinson, the Member of Parliament for Burnaby, B.C., who is now seated in

the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask permission to

introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS ground search and rescue organizations have been in

existence in this Province since 1972; and

WHEREAS at the present time ground search and rescue units

exist throughout most of the Province, both on the Island and in Labrador; and

WHEREAS these ground search and rescue organizations provide

a very important service to the people of this Province; and

WHEREAS at the present time the ground search and rescue

organizations are dependent primarily on local fund-raising to finance their

operations;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House, on

behalf of the people of this Province, express its appreciation and support for

the work of these ground search and rescue organizations; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador officially recognize the efforts of these organizations and

actively explore ways of assisting them in carrying out their very important

work on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present to the House of Assembly, a petition

on behalf of in excess of 250 people from St. John's and surrounding areas who

say as follows:

We, the undersigned, support the long overdue and needed

changes to the provincial Human Rights Code to include sexual orientation as a

prohibited ground for discrimination. Gay and lesbian citizens of Newfoundland

and Labrador must be afforded the same and equal rights as all citizens.

We also insist that the amendments to the code extend to

include not only the areas of employment, goods and services and accommodation,

but also must cover the area of employment benefits. We insist that the

government deal with this swiftly and fairly during this sitting of the House,

as has been promised.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been raised in this

House of Assembly on numerous occasions, and in particular by the New Democratic

Party. An amendment to the Human Rights Code was presented in the House by the

former Member for St. John's East, Mr. Jean Long, a number of years ago. It was

also presented by this hon. member in 1992. We have been calling for this

amendment. It is a simple, straightforward amendment to the Human Rights Code.

Canada, has amended at long last its Human Rights Code. Meanwhile, this Province

has been fighting with the Human Rights Commission in the court over whether or

not the code ought to be read to include sexual orientation as a prohibited

ground.

Mr. Speaker, last spring in the House, on June 14 of this

year, I asked the Minister of Environment and Labour, who is also responsible

for human rights, a question concerning this very issue and asking when the

Province was going to end its hypocrisy, when they were going to end their toing

and froing on the issue, and actually amend the code. At that time the minister

said, and I quote, "We are drafting, people are getting the amendments ready,

Cabinet has to have a look at it and then we will bring it forward to the House

of Assembly. So the House Leader will soon, in very short order and in due

course, have an amendment that we can lay here on the Order Paper for the House

of Assembly to have a vote on for the first time. Yes, it is about time that we

brought it forward, Mr. Speaker, I totally agree."

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is six months later. Presumably the

draft has been sitting around in the minister's office for the last six months.

I am sure Cabinet has met dozens and dozens of times since then, and yet we have

no amendment to this House.

Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier today for a copy of the

proceedings of bills, or the progress of bills in the House of Assembly as of

today, or as of December 6, and there have been twenty-six pieces of legislation

brought to this House since November 18 when the House opened. Yet, we have not

seen a straightforward amendment to the Human Rights Code that would include

sexual orientation as a prohibited ground.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a particular bill that affects it

though, and this is Bill No. 46,

An Act Respecting Pension Benefits. Do we see

in that an inclusive definition that would provide for equal benefits for

survivors of gay and lesbian couple relationships? No. We see a definition of

spouse in clause 2(ff) of the bill that a spouse is defined as "a person of the

opposite sex" or a person who is not being prevented by law from marrying a

member of a pension plan or a former member of a pension plan.

While the member says on the one hand that he intends to

change the Human Rights Code, and it is just a matter for his Cabinet to sit

down and review the draft legislation and bring it before the House, on the

other hand the same Cabinet is sitting down and putting forth to the House the

pension benefits bill which continues the act of discrimination against people

on the basis of sexual orientation in the form of pension benefits.

That is an issue that was before the Supreme Court of Canada

only last year where two gentlemen from British Columbia brought a case to the

Supreme Court of Canada insisting that the regulations for pension benefits be

changed to include the survivors of couples who are together, who live together,

who are couples in every other respect other than by law, and have the courts

and have the law recognize that.

I want the minister not only to confirm to the House that he

will introduce this legislation and introduce it now, but he and the government

will accept changes to the pension benefits legislation to ensure that gay and

lesbian couples have rights for survivors the same as heterosexual couples.

Mr. Speaker, there are whole other areas of government policy

that ought to be included in this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: There are whole other areas of government

policy that ought to be changed to reflect this, and I ask the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - to commit himself and his government -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - to making those changes.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure

to speak to the petition put forward by the member.

The government in the spring committed to bringing forward an

amendment to the Human Rights Code to deal with sexual orientation. We are doing

that. We have been working on it actively for the past few weeks. We have been

consulting with Justice to ensure that we have the right wording to put forward

the amendment. There are four or five different provinces that have included

different parts in their amendment. We have just been going through the process

of ensuring that we get the amendment right.

The government is committed to doing it. The government is

going to be bringing it forward shortly. We have been working on it the past

number of days, as a matter of fact. We are still working on it. We aren't very

far away, but we are committed. I can tell the member, I can tell the House,

that we are committed to bringing forward an amendment to deal with this issue,

and we will be doing so shortly. We are dealing with, ensuring though, and

looking at the other jurisdictions across Canada, just to make sure we have it

right. It will be brought forward shortly. We discussed it in caucus and we

discussed it further in Cabinet, and we will be discussing it shortly to

finalize the amendment, Mr. Speaker. We will be dealing with it shortly, I can

assure the member. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill,

An Act

To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province, Bill No.

48, the Minister of Education. Here he comes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law

Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province". (Bill No. 48)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to

take a few minutes today if I could with respect to introducing Bill No. 48, and

to spend some time putting some of the issues here in context.

In the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the last

couple of years or so there has been a lot of attention paid to the education

issues and been focused with respect to education reform, a referendum in the

Province, a change of the Constitution, and issues that arose during the

election last February with respect to school viability, the designation of

schools as being either for single denominations or for more than one

denomination, transportation issues, and so on.

The reality of it is that in introducing Bill No. 48 today we

are looking at the first really significant change to the Schools Act, as we

call it in short language, since the move towards integration in the late

1960's. So there have been a number of issues and I will point out in my

introductory remarks in introducing the bill, Mr. Speaker, that there are issues

contained in Bill 48 that many members in this Legislature, many members of the

education community, many members of the public generally had thought were

already legislatively provided for. It reflects some of the things actually,

that over time, have come into common usage in the school system but the actual

provision for them in Legislative language will not be confirmed until Bill 48

is passed.

So the bill itself goes into complete detail with all

aspects, Mr. Speaker, of running the schools in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and it deals with all the issues beginning with the rights of

students, the rights of parents, rights and responsibility of school boards, how

school boards will operate schools, how principals themselves and the staff will

actually run schools, all of those issues are contained because this is a

revision that has been promised and started upon and worked upon many times over

the past thirty years or so, but it is now consolidated in this particular Bill

48, so there are a range of issues, Mr. Speaker, that go well beyond those that

have dominated the media over the last few days and I think members of the

education community, like Dr. Warren who was recognized here today, who spent

some time in this administration of 89-90 and so on, as the Minister of

Education, would have recognized that when people see, hear and read that there

is finally a provision in this particular Schools Act in Bill 48 that outlaws

corporal punishment in the school.

There will be many people who would have thought that, that

was the case because of course, the flagrant, open use of corporal punishment

had ended as a policy matter some time ago, a long time ago in many instances,

there were still a few isolated incidents under very strict conditions, Mr.

Speaker, where, it could legally be used in the Province but it has fallen out

of practise, but to give assurance and Legislative guarantee to that kind of

provision, Mr. Speaker, it is this bill that finally brings in the language that

others in education have worked on for many years, and I am sure they will be

very pleased to see those kinds of things being highlighted in the bill. So I

might point out, if I could, Mr. Speaker, by just making reference to certain

sections of the bill as we go through, the significance of them, what it is

intended to accomplish, and I will spend a few minutes with respect to the

issues that most people have felt have been tied in to the referendum of 1995,

the debate about changing the Constitution, the denominational issues, the

further functioning of schools in the Province as either single denominational

schools or multi-denominational schools, the viability issues that were raised,

I will deal with those in a little more detail but there are a number of others

as well that I will mention in passing.

I would just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, to members of

the House, that the bill is divided into several sections. The first section,

part one, deals with issues relating to students and this is the way the bill is

organized, Mr. Speaker, deliberately so, and interesting to note, that students

would be the first

section of the bill because all of us here acknowledge of

course, that it is for the students that we run and organize the whole of the

education system and they should take priority. So sections three to fourteen,

after we get pass some

definitions and terminology, Mr. Speaker, these sections

make provision which directly affect students such as the students right of

access to an education program, the continuing adherence to a policy of

compulsory attendance in the Province, Mr. Speaker, because that has been

debated over the years as to whether it should continue on or not as a

compulsory feature.

The provision for and allowance for home instruction under

certain circumstances and I might point out here, Mr. Speaker, that the members

of the House may have actually been approached recently by a group who are

proponents of home schooling and home education, who are asking for the act to

be changed beyond what is in this proposal. Currently, we are re-enforcing and

restating, Mr. Speaker, the provision for home schooling provided the parents

because we have a compulsory attendance system but if the parents go to a school

board and go to the Director of Eduction and apply to have their children

educated at home, it can be agreed to; the proponents for home schooling, Mr.

Speaker, are hoping that rather than have to apply to a school board, they could

just inform the school board that they were going to keep the students and

children at home and teach them themselves.

We debated the issue and came down on the side of the

argument, Mr. Speaker, that we would provide for home instruction home schooling

but we certainly would not encourage it beyond what it is today and we are not

promoting it as a choice of schooling in the Province. We are allowing for it in

the legislation and that is all, so I am sure that the group that we have been

dealing with might be somewhat disappointed that we did not go further but there

is no impediment to what they are doing now in the Province with home schooling,

but there is no enrichment of the right to do it and no promotion of it further

in this particular legislation.

Sections 3 to 14 also guarantee the right to the instruction

of French for individuals who have and want to exercise rights under

Section 23

of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also deals with the issue of

student records, who can avail of them, who can have access to them and under

what circumstances and conditions.

After those sections are covered in the new bill there is a

second part of the act, in Bill 48, that deals with rights and responsibilities

of parents, because the parents, of course, are charged with the responsibility

to exercise the rights on behalf of these children who are of school age.

Sections 15 to 20 that follow up on that obligate parents to enrol their

children in school, and also to establish an entitlement for the parents

themselves to receive information regarding a student's progress and their

record as they move through the school system.

In there as well, Mr. Speaker, there is a

section that

provides an appeals procedure relating to decisions which affect students, and

it also points out that because we have students in the schools now who are

nineteen years of age and older, that they are treated as adults in their own

right and can access records as if they were a parent the same as the parent

themselves. Once those rights, obligations, and responsibilities are spelled out

for the students and the parents the bill moves on to a third

section which

talks about the schools themselves, how they should be organized, about the

length of the school year, the length of the school day, and issues of that

nature.

Section 24, for example, requires that a principal be

appointed for every school and it outlines the duties and responsibilities of

those principals in the schools. It goes on further in Sections 25 and 26 and

sets out the requirements for every school to have a school council, a new

initiative that has already begun in the Province and is very popular where it

has been in use, and is a direct result of recommendations made from the

Williams Commission Report, and proposed and promoted by educators in the

Province even before that. It is a real direct way to give parents, teachers,

and members of the community a real say at the school level as to what their

school is going to do, how it is going to function, what the priorities are

going to be, and what kind of schooling parents want their children to be

exposed to in the actual physical building that they attend.

Sections 27 to 32 provide for the opening and closing dates

of school for the year. It spells out the length of the instructional day for

students, and establishes conditions under which schools may be closed. Member

might be interested to note that there were some recommendations from the

Williams Commission Report, again, suggesting clearly that the length of the

school day and the length of the school year should be increased in this new

legislation. That does not occur in this legislation, but we have had dialogue

with the Teachers' Association, and as they are now already involved in a round

of collective bargaining, it has been made clear that government would hope that

between the Teachers Association and the Department of Education we might be

able to convince parents of the concern they raised before the Williams

Commission Report that gave rise to those two recommendations.

The recommendations were to lengthen the day and the lengthen

the year. The issue was referred to, in education circles, as Time on Task.

Parents were concerned that the school year was a bit too short, or that there

were too many interruptions, or that some day the school day was being

interrupted to the point where they were not sure there was enough effort being

put into the basic education for students focusing on the direct prescribed

curriculum. The issue has been described as issue of Time on Task in the school

system, and we have asked the negotiators with the Teachers' Association at the

bargaining table to try and come forward with proposals so that together we can

go forward, and afterwards, the government and the Teachers' Association, in

unison, suggest to parents that we have made some improvements in terms of Time

on Task and may not need to legislatively change the length of the school day,

or the length of the school year, so there are no changes with respect to that

in this particular legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does it say anything about school busing?

MR. GRIMES: Busing is not a legislative right. It is a

regulation and a necessary part of the system, but there is no reference

anywhere in this to an entitlement to a school bus for any purpose.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) Time on Task.

MR. GRIMES: The length of day and the length of year, and

it is being discussed at the bargaining table. The other commitment that the

Premier gave on behalf of this particular government during the election last

February was that issues that impact directly on the teacher's work day and the

teacher's work life would not be determined by a unilateral act of the

Legislature but would be bargained at the bargaining table and they were

presented with proposals from government last week when negotiations began. The

basic proposition that we put forward, Mr. Speaker, that I addressed also at the

teacher's annual general meeting last spring was that we know it is an issue.

The public has brought it forward as part of their public dialogue and if we

cannot convince anybody after the negotiations that we have done anything about

it and if the only thing that is going to convince parents in Newfoundland and

Labrador that there is more time spent on task in schools is going to be a

longer day and a longer year then we would revisit the issue and see if we would

need to legislate if we cannot find other productive solutions. So that is an

issue that we will wait to hear back on in another year or so, Mr. Speaker.

Section 33, Mr. Speaker, it repeats again - it outlines the

responsibilities of teachers in the system.

Section 36, this is the one that for

the first time, outright with no ifs, ands or buts prohibits the use of corporal

punishment in the schools.

Section 37-40 outlines conditions under which students may be

suspended or expelled. These are to try to help again with teachers with respect

to classroom management issues, particularly when there is repeated disruptive

behaviour that there are suspensions of a certain maximum time allowed. All of

the officials, educators get together and try to come up with alternate means of

addressing improper behaviour. If at the end of the piece, Mr. Speaker, there is

no way to properly control and/or correct a student's behaviour and if they

continue to be disruptive to the point that other students are being denied and

deprived an education in the final analysis, even though there is compulsory

attendance in the Province between the ages of 6-16, students can be denied that

right and expelled from school if their behaviour is not corrected through all

other measures that are attempted.

Section 41, Mr. Speaker, requires the minister to establish

methods to ensure that schools maintain adequate programs and performance

standards. It is an important section, Mr. Speaker, because in this particular

bill, as we deal with the rights and responsibilities of school boards and the

duties and responsibilities of the department on behalf of the government, hon.

members and the public, generally those involved in education, will see a shift.

There is clearly more autonomy given to school boards to make the decisions at

the local level and the government, Mr. Speaker, will carve out for itself the

role defined in

Section 21, which is to monitor performance standards and

guarantee that an adequate program is maintained in all of the schools that are

operated in the Province.

I will address that issue again, Mr. Speaker, briefly when I

come to

Section 77, which deals with viability and is a major issue that has

been discussed publicly in the last little while because it is a tie-in between

Section 77 and

Section 41, that is going to make the system work in terms of

viable schools and what will be viable. It will be viable if it meets the

criteria established by the minister under

Section 41.

Sections 43 and 49, Mr. Speaker, provide for the

establishment and operation of private schools. Again, as with home schooling,

the government and this legislation is not encouraging that approach but it is

certainly providing for private schooling just as it provides for home schooling

under certain circumstances.

Then, Mr. Speaker, it looks at the whole issue in

Part IV of

the school itself, school boards and how they will run the system locally in ten

geographic areas now on behalf of the people of the Province. So we have had a

section looking at students, a

section looking at parent rights, a

section

looking at the schools themselves, how they shall run and then a

Section

outlining duties and responsibilities now in

Part IV for school boards.

It requires in

Section 52 that the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council divide the Province into school districts. Everybody knows, Mr. Speaker,

that we now have ten that will be totally in charge of the system as of January

1, 1997.

Sections 53-67, Mr. Speaker, point out and allow for the

establishment of school boards for each district. It provides for the election

of interdenominational school boards. We discussed these matters, Mr. Speaker,

in detail in the summer when we passed the legislation and allowed for the

interim boards. The election will occur on the same basis. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, today we have provided a first draft to all members again of the

suggested ballot forms that might be used in the school board elections, to

allow for the election to occur as contemplated in Term 17, two-thirds elected

by denomination on a per capita basis, and one-third elected at large.

We are open for comments with respect to the forum. We will

have to finalize it in advance of the first election that is slated now for

September of 1997.

Also, that

section provided for the appointment of the

interim school boards, which we have done, and for the operation of such boards

with all the powers that the elected boards will have afterwards.

I should also point out that in the election process it is

clear that with respect to the ballot there have been some issues raised

publicly that are not dealt with in the legislation, but the regulation and the

by-laws of the school boards governing the school board election will make it

quite clear that in order to run for office there is no authority needed from

any other source, even in a denomination, as to whether you can offer yourself

or not. The at-large need no prior approval from anyone to put their name on a

ballot. Neither do the denominational representatives need prior authority from

anyone. They have to declare that they are of one of the denominations, and they

ask to have their name placed on the ballot to represent that group.

Voters do not have to declare their affiliation as they go to

vote, and everybody is entitled to vote for the at-large and for one of the

three denominational categories, if they choose. It is entirely up to

themselves.

Those matters will be made more clear and will be presented

publicly prior to the election in September, and be part of the constitution and

by-laws of the boards and also the by-laws that run the actual election

themselves, but those issues have all been dealt with already and they will be

appended as regulations with respect to and accompanying this Act.

Sections 68 to 72 are new sections dealing with conflict of

interest by school trustees. It has been considered in the last few years that

the trustees are in positions where there should be certain guidelines with

respect to possible conflict of interest. They are introduced in Bill 48, in

sections 68 to

Section 75 outlines the duties of the school boards, and

section 76 goes into detail as to the powers those school boards have as a

result of exercising those particular duties.

Section 77 is critical to this whole piece and is more

relevant to one of the current debates that has been going on in the Province

for a couple of years. It describes the conditions which are necessary for a

school to be viable in the Province, so the whole viability criteria. Members

would remember that back in January the government produced a piece of

legislation and some appended regulations on viability that indicated that if

you did not have certain minimum numbers of enrolments at certain grade levels,

you could not run schools. That issue has been totally set aside in this bill.

Viability will be basically any school which can meet the requirements set out

section 41, and

section 41 basically says that the school has to be able to

offer the minimum prescribed curriculum that is prescribed in any one year by

the Department of Education through the minister's office.

I believe also we have available, if members want - there is,

every year, a prescribed curriculum that every student from K-VI is to be

exposed to, another curriculum and guide and so on for VII-XII, and everybody

knows there are very detailed guidelines with respect to curriculum options for

graduation requirements in the High School, Levels I, II, and III.

What it amounts to is that a school board, in consultation

with the parents locally, can continue to operate any school in the Province as

long as that school, in their judgement, and they can convince the government,

offers the minimum core program to every student in the school. If there are to

be course options that are in the minimum core program that cannot be offered in

the school, then one of two things will occur.

If the school is so isolated that there are no other options

for students but to go there, the government must provide additional resources,

either in human resources, teachers and/or technological age, Distance

Education, and those type of availabilities.

At the end of the piece there is a

section that actually

says, all of the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador that are established and

operating in September of 1997 must be viable schools, so they will be viable by

virtue of the fact that they will be enriched, enhanced, and built up, so that

they can be viable when they are in isolated areas, or they will be viable by

virtue of consolidation and coming together in other areas. In any event, every

school that operates in September of 1997 will have the capability of offering

the minimum prescribed core curriculum.

As we know, Mr. Speaker, there will be instances, as there

are today, and this will continue into the future, where because there are

larger groupings of students in some places, some schools, many schools, will be

able to offer, and thankfully so, more than the minimum prescribed curriculum.

But everybody in the Province will be exposed to and will have an opportunity to

take advantage of the minimum prescribed curriculum. If people want to see what

the list is, if we have not already circulated it, it can be provided readily. I

will get some copies sent over from the department for distribution in the

House.

MR. FITZGERALD: Does the minister have the final say on

which schools are viable (inaudible)?

MR. GRIMES: At the end of the day, the minister, Mr.

Speaker, under

section 41 and a combination of

section 77, could actually

override the decision of a school board to run a school if the minister believes

the school is not offering the minimum program. If the school is offering the

minimum program, the minister has no ability to override the decision of a

school board to operate a school.

Mr. Speaker, those are the issues that are there. It defines

a school which must exist, and if it must exist because it is necessarily

existent for geographic reasons, then it must be supported by the government to

the extent that it can offer the minimum core program. It obligates government

to provide additional resources to small, isolated schools. What we are going to

do with the school boards in January is develop a list of the schools which will

be entitled to additional resources, and that will actually be appended to the

Act as a

schedule to the Act. Rather than have questions, we will work out that

issue with the schools boards in consultation, and everybody will agree as to

which schools will get additional resources.

That does not mean that schools that do not get additional

resources will have to close. They will all have to be viable, but there are

some by virtue of their physical location and their limited number of students

that will need additional resources. The ones that are entitled to additional

resources to help them stay open because of their isolated position are the ones

that will be listed in the Act, and we will consult with the school boards on

that very early in the new year.

Before I go on from

section 77, hon. members should know that

there is one other very important tie-in to

section 77 and viability. We will be

changing an allocation formula for teachers. We have discussed it with the

teachers' association, we have discussed it with the school boards. It was

discussed regularly in our public consultation. The notion is that to make sure

that we can provide the additional resources as needed to these necessarily

existent small, isolated schools we will be changing the small schools

definition to match that. Because there are many small schools now which avail

of additional teaching units under a current definition and they are actually in

the same community with other small schools.

They know that they will not be getting the additional

resources. They will still have to decide whether or not they can run the

minimum program with their reduced number of teachers, or whether they should

consolidate and become one school, and those types of issues. Everybody has been

placed on alert. They are all fully aware that in communities where there are

two or three small schools which are all now getting additional teachers under a

small schools formula, none of them will get additional teachers. Then they will

have to decide what level of program they can run with the reduced number of

teachers.

That may, in some cases, we admit quite frankly, it may lead

them to a decision to consolidate where they otherwise may not have chosen to do

so, but we feel that is the right direction to take, it is the right approach to

take. We will work with the school boards to go through that system of

determining viability and determining how many schools they actually need to

physically run for 1997 through the first couple of months of the calendar year.

In sections 78 to 82 with the school boards: This again

provides, as we did in the summer legislation, for the establishment of

denominational sub-committees for the school boards, and it delineates the

powers of those committees with respect to uni-denominational,

single-denominational schools, and the powers of the committees with respect to

interdenominational schools.

A number of changes that hon. members might note from the

summer legislation. This again is an issue that has been in place with the

interim boards now for a few months. We had a provision saying that the

different denominations that have rights under Term 17 under the Constitution

could have subcommittees in each board of three to eight, there were reasons

given why they needed three and some cases eight in others. The unfortunate

outcome is that in almost every case, the denominational committees decided to

nominate eight people, there now prevails a circumstance in many boards where

you have a board of eighteen and you have three subcommittees that total

twenty-four, the school boards have come back to us and said: it is

non-workable, there are too many, you do not need eight people to exercise the

rights that are laid out in this legislation so we are proposing an amendment

here - and I think it was part of the debate in the summer - that it was

proposed actually and suggested by the Opposition, that if people maximized the

subcommittees that it would be too large and non-workable and we have

compromised here and indicated that the maximum should be four, Mr. Speaker.

There are also a couple of other issues that have arisen just

by virtue of the first time going through and they are: Members of the

subcommittees will be elected members of the board unless they do not have

enough, that is clarified, and also, Mr. Speaker, in the public consultations,

while most people thought it was fair for impartiality at the board and most

appropriate, that whoever becomes the chair and the vice-chair of the school

board, no matter how they get on the board, because there is a separate election

for chair and vice-chair, that they not sit on denominational subcommittees,

that they remain impartial or neutral and conduct the overall affairs of the

board rather than getting involved in the affairs of the subcommittee for a

particular denomination. So those changes are made with respect to that, Mr.

Speaker, from the summer legislation.

Then sections 83 to 88, Mr. Speaker, provide for the

designation of schools as un-denominational or interdenominational and again, I

believe today we have provided a form, a first draft of a form that we intend to

send out to all of the parents who will have children in the schools for next

year and the whole notion is laid out that the parents would indicate to the

board whether they want their child, and there would be one registration form

for every child in the system next year, so that the school board, Mr. Speaker,

at the end of the piece, would have a clear indication of what kind of school

every single student for the next school year should be in if they can arrange

for it. So the designation process provides for that.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, and members opposite might be

interested to note as well, that we have been having some discussions with the

integrated group who have a right to act as a single group under Term 17, and we

are asking them I guess, through this process, to basically not ask to have

integrated schools designated as un-denominational, that they would allow all of

the integrated schools to automatically become inter-denominational because that

is what they say they are in any event and then that the only un-denominational

schools might be Roman Catholic, Pentecostal or Seventh-Day Adventist.

We have not heard back from them directly yet. I spoke with

the chair of the IC on Friday, we had a good discussion about the matter but the

forum that we are proposing is one that suggests that all of the integrated

schools would switch their names to inter-denominational and they would have all

the same rights and privileges in that respect. The understanding that we have

is that the schools involved in integration, want very little or nothing

basically to do with governance and running schools. They just want to guarantee

that there is a religious influence and that is the whole notion of an

inter-denominational school, Mr. Speaker, so we are hoping that they will

publicly agree, to not ask to have un-denominational integrated on a

registration form as a choice because a lot of people find that confusing in any

event, and we have had some discussions to date. That is not language, Mr.

Speaker, that is in the legislation but it is language that is in the form that

has been presented with respect to the registration and designation process.

Section 89 allows the boards as well to establish attendance

zones, Mr. Speaker, which will be critical in this process, requires the board

to appoint directors, assistant directors which they have already done, outlines

the duties and then, Mr. Speaker, there are some sections from 95 to 101, that

after detailed consultation with the denominational authorities and the current

twenty-seven board representatives, we think we have come to a reasonable and

satisfactory approach as to disposition of properties because some properties

held by school boards, some properties held in the names of the churches and so

on, and we believe that in sections 95 to 101, we have had extensive

consultation, we believe we have laid out the scenarios whereby the properties

are always available to the ten new boards as long as they need it for

education.

If they are no longer needed for education, Mr. Speaker, and

there is a disposition of the property, that the disposition would follow, who

put the money in, so that if it were built by the churches, it seems logical

that it would revert to a denomination. If it were built by the people, it would

revert to the school board on behalf of the people. If it were a shared cost and

if the building is disposed of, any proceeds would be shared, Mr. Speaker,

between the school board on behalf of the people and between the particular

denomination. So those issues are there, it allows twelve months from January 1,

Mr. Speaker, for them to work out all the details of the individual properties

and if there are still a few in which the boards, the DECs, have not been able

to work out the disposition issues, then the minister is given the right to make

a ruling or intervene at the end of a twelve month period.

Section 102 and 104, Mr. Speaker, provide the authority to

pay the grants for operations and maintenance that the school boards get from

the government.

Section 105 outlines the powers of the minister with respect to

education, and

Section 106 is one that is required to allow us to establish

regulations to run things like school elections, a designation process, and

those types of issues, and also to set up regulations relating to issues like

school busing.

Section 111 goes on to provide the enabling legislation to

establish the Commission Scolaire Provinciale Francophone, and that particular

section, again, we will probably not be in a position by the time we close this

debate before Christmas to do as the Francophone population would like. They

would like for all of the organization, duties, and responsibilities of the

commission Scolaire to be spelled out in the act just like they are for the

anglophone school boards.

However, we will do it by regulation at this point because we

have not progressed far enough in our discussions with out Francophone

representatives to finalize the legislative language in the next few days. If we

can get it done in the next week or so we will certainly bring it forward, go

through committee stage, and try and introduce it. We have given them that

commitment. I have checked with the legislative people and with our own

officials who are still discussing it with them but they do not feel that they

are going to be able to resolve the issues, and the language, between now and

Christmas. We only started the discussion in detail in the last week or so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you bring it in in the spring

session?

MR. GRIMES: We could bring it in as early as the spring.

Then the last

section deals with the consequential things

that have to occur with respect to that. Other items are dealt with, a couple of

other items, in Bill 27 with respect to the provincial construction board and

the Denominational Education Councils and what their future is, but that will be

a separate debate as a companion piece to this.

I felt it important, Mr. Speaker, to give that much

commentary by way of introduction because this is a very comprehensive piece of

legislation. It does deal, as I said, with a lot more issues than the three or

four that have been dominate in the public in the last little while. It is the

first major reworking of the schools act in almost thirty years, and I think

there are a lot of issues here, their time has come, it is time to proceed, and

we certainly look forward to participating in debate. We look forward, as well,

Mr. Speaker, to entertaining any notions where we might still have to make

adjustments or change through the committee stage clause by clause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Would the hon. members give me permission to

move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 o'clock?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice has moved that the House not

adjourn at 5:00 o'clock, carried.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to participate in the debate on this

somewhat historic occasion with respect to Bill No. 8, "An Act To Revise The Law

Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province". I think the minister will

agree that this particular piece of legislation has been a long time arriving to

this point. There has been significant debate, in not only months but years.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) Tory Senators.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I remind the hon. minister that we are

not only talking Tory Senators. We are talking many interest groups, we are

talking about citizens of this Province, we are talking Liberal Senators, we are

talking people from various backgrounds, and that is not the purpose of the

debate here this afternoon. The purpose of the debate here this afternoon is to

deal with the legislation as it is before us. The purpose of this debate this

afternoon is to try and make sure that the piece of legislation that will govern

the operation of schools in this Province is the best possible piece of

legislation that this government, and this House, can present.

Mr. Speaker, we could get into a long account of the history

of the development of education reform and why we are where we are today. We can

begin with the discussions and the debates leading up to the referendum. We can

talk about the referendum exercise itself. We can talk, Mr. Speaker, about the

fallout as a result of the referendum, however, as I have indicated, that is not

the purpose of this debate. This debate is to point out weaknesses which members

on this side of the House perceive to be existing in this legislation and to

point out to the hon. the minister some possible suggestions for improvement.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this legislation appears not to

address significantly issues and recommendations which were illustrated in the

Williams Royal Commission, for example: classroom-oriented reforms, length of

school day, no change, length of school year, evaluation and evaluation of

students. These classroom-oriented recommendations are not evident in this

legislation. So it is unfortunate that these particular recommendations are not

seen, however, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean, obviously, that this legislation

is something which is not welcomed. It is clearly welcomed by Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. It is welcomed by educators, by parents and by students alike

who want to see, Mr. Speaker, once and for all an end to this education debate.

The minister is quite correct, it seems to me, when he says

to the members of this House that there are other features or other areas of

concern which are being addressed in this new schools Act, the new Act, by the

way, which is some thirty years since the original Act, to the best of my

knowledge.

There is much more to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, than

dealing with the viability of schools or dealing with the designation of schools

in this Province or dealing with the busing issue which, as the minister points

out, is pursuant to regulation in any event. Most of the discussion, Mr.

Speaker, on the topic of education reform has dealt with the designation of

schools, the definition of interdenominational schools, the definition of a

uni-denominational school and what schools will remain open. In other words, the

viability criteria. That is what most of the discussions have centred around.

But there is much more, Mr. Speaker, and it is my opinion, and having discussed

this with my own colleagues on this side of the House, that the features of this

legislation, in particular, those sections which deal directly with the affairs

of students and parents, it is some of these provisions which upon reflection,

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest need improvement.

What I would like to do, for the benefit of those present, is

make some suggestions or point out areas within the legislation, which it is the

opinion of members on this side of the House, need to be reviewed and carefully

scrutinized to ensure that this legislation is, as I said at the outset, the

best possible legislation that can be given and presented to the public of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, some of the clauses, to say the least, upon

reading them closely, appear to confuse the reader. This bill was clearly rushed

in order to deal with education reform expeditiously and it is important

therefore that we look carefully at certain sections. We, as an Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, have an obligation I would suggest, to ensure that all sections, all

clauses of this Act are not ambiguous, are clear, are not void because they are

uncertain or unclear but they give a clear message to the people of this

Province as to exactly what the intent of the legislation is.

What I propose to do for the next few minutes is just review

some of the provisions. I would ask the minister and his colleagues to perhaps

give some attention to some of these points. Some, I am sure, he may claim have

some validity and others, I am sure, he will claim do not, and that is fair

enough. But at least, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to give some

consideration to the points that are being raised.

I begin, Mr. Speaker, with

section 5.(

c) of the proposed

legislation, and this deals with the issue of students being excused from

attendance at schools. It states: Notwithstanding

section 4, a student is

excused from attending a school where the student... (

c) with the prior written

approval of the director, is under instruction satisfactory to the director, at

home or elsewhere, for a period specified by the director.

The problem, as I see it, with that particular section, is

the blatant inconsistencies which will exist throughout this Province. Let us

remember, we have ten school boards, each with its own director, so clearly, we

have ten different directors who will establish the guidelines and the

recommendations as to under what circumstances a student may be excused from

attendance.

It seems to me that there ought to be some guidance given to

directors, and perhaps a series of criteria which ought to exist for directors,

to ensure that this practice of students who may well, for a legitimate reason,

and once it has been established that they wish to be at home or have

instruction other than at a regular school, that there be a consistent set of

criteria.

The wording of subsection (c), what this will suggest, is

that we can have ten different sets of guidelines, ten different sets of rules,

ten different directors, ten different school boards, establishing when a

student may legitimately be excused from regular school attendance.

Section 6.(1): A parent of a student may provide, at home or

elsewhere, instruction for that student where the student is excused from

attending a school under paragraph 5.(c).

So, clearly, the legislation makes reference to the fact that

it is well within the law, and it is clearly acceptable, for a student to be

educated in a setting other than a traditional school; however, I repeat:

Section 5.(

c) suggests that we could be in for a problem due to the possibility

of inconsistencies from board to board.

Section 7: The period for which a student may be excused from

attending a school under paragraph 5.(c): (

a) shall be valid for no longer than

a school year; and (

b) may be renewed upon application to the director each

school year.

Again, this only fosters the inconsistency, because we have

the legislation, under

section 7.(

b) even extending this arrangement for an

education outside of the traditional classroom, and again, it being at the

discretion of the director as to when this arrangement may be renewed or

extended.

Mr. Speaker, I see some weakness with this particular

provision, and again the minister may want to review this.

My next point is really more in the nature of a question, and

maybe the minister, either in response or at some later date, can make some

comment with respect to

section 10, where it states: Where a student's parent

requests in writing, the principal of a public school or person in charge of a

private or provincial school or a school established under

section 51 shall

excuse that student from participation in religious education, activities and

observances conducted in the school.

It seems to me that this provision is somewhat incongruous,

and I will suggest why. In certain situations, the determination of a

uni-denominational school will be determined by the numbers. Obviously, if

numbers warrant, a school can be declared to be uni-denominational pursuant to

the legislation now before us. What

section 10 attempts to suggest is that a

student whose very name and application helped create a uni-denominational

school may now apply to the principal of that school to be excluded from

religious education. My question, therefore, to the minister, and this is

perhaps for clarification more than anything, is: Is that a situation that can

in fact take place? that a student or a family or a number of students or a

number of families, whose statistics are needed for the formation of a

uni-denominational school, can simply turn around and ask to be excluded from

religious education, religious activities, et cetera?

If that is what this

section is saying, pursuant to

section

10, and I believe it to be the case, well, Mr. Speaker, clearly we have an

inconsistency. Because we have other provisions of the Act clearly establishing

how and when a uni-denominational school may be created. Now we have a

section

that once you are in the loop you can withdraw or apply to get out of the loop.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of

consideration where I would ask, upon careful review of Hansard by the minister,

perhaps this evening or tomorrow morning, that he may be in a position to

respond.

Continuing on with the issue of student records. It is a

delicate issue because we are now dealing with a very sensitive issue of student

rights, the rights of the child and the rights of a parent.

Section 12 creates

the provision, in (1), where "A student record shall be maintained for each

student in the manner required by a policy directive of the minister."

The wording of subsection (6) has to be improved, in my view.

Section 12(6), and I will read it for members' benefit, says:

"Without the written permission of the parent of a student,

or the student if the student is 19 years of age or older, (

a) a student record

shall not be admissible in evidence in a trial, inquiry, examination, hearing or

other proceeding except to prove the establishment, maintenance, retention or

transfer of that student record."

One suggestion to the minister would be maybe just simply to

put this in reverse. The presentation of this wording is most ambiguous, and the

wording, I would suggest, simply has to be reversed, to ensure that this

legislation can be written and understood clearly by those individuals who

simply want to be in a position to understand the law with respect to the

Schools Act.

Section 12(6)(

b) states: "a person shall not be required to

give evidence respecting the content of the student record in a trial, inquiry,

examination, hearing or other proceeding." Again, the way this

section is

written, it is just unclear. One suggestion may be that subsection 6(

a) in fact

introduce that section, and that it then be followed by the body of

section 6

itself, just to make the reading of the legislation a little bit more

straightforward from that point of view.

Section 13, with respect to school fees. This is an issue, I

would say to the hon. the minister, although, as he pointed out in his

introduction, busing is not a factor with respect to this Act because it is

pursuant to regulation; however, regulations are pursuant to this Act.

Therefore, indirectly, busing is, I would argue, part and parcel of the Act,

although specifically pursuant to the various board regulations.

My question to the minister is this, with respect to

section

13 and school fees. It states quite clearly in (1) that "A fee shall not be

imposed upon a student or parent of a student with respect to the enrolment or

attendance of that student or a program or course of study undertaken by that

student in a public school." So if we take the word "attendance," it is clear

that clause 13 of this Act states that fees shall not be imposed. My question to

the minister is: How is it in certain jurisdictions today parents in this

Province are being charged a user fee for busing, when in fact it says "A fee

shall not be imposed...with respect to the enrolment or attendance...?" It may

be an issue that requires some clarification.

Because it seems to me, if this government is insistent on

establishing a system of user-fee for busing, there could easily be a challenge

with respect to that practice being carried out, if the legislation makes it

clear that fees shall not be imposed for attendance. I would ask the minister to

give some thought to that issue as well.

Mr. Speaker,

section 14 needs clarification, in my view.

Section 14 deals with failure to pay a fee. It states: "A person shall not be

denied enrolment or attendance at a public school or a program or course of

study in a public school by reason only that a fee referred to in subsection

13(2) has not been paid."

That makes sense; however, the next

section creates a bit of

a problem. It is only a minor point, but it could create a problem, and that is

subsection (2). Again, for the benefit of the minister, I am referring

specifically to

section 14.(2), which says: "Subsection (1) shall not apply to a

student who possesses a student authorization under a Canadian visitor visa and

who has come to the Province from outside Canada for the purpose of attending

public school."

Mr. Speaker, this particular

section needs to be tidied up,

and I will give the minister the reason why. It is quite conceivable that you

could have a person who is in Canada on a Canadian visitor visa but who comes to

this Province from another province in Canada. The way the legislation is

worded, if you have a person here on a Canadian visa, therefore an excluded

person in terms of fees, that person is obligated to make payment. If that

person comes to Canada with a visa, clearly he is in that class. But if that

person arrives, say, at another province in this country, and comes to

Newfoundland from another province within the country, there is an argument that

he or she may be excluded from this provision. It is a small point, but a point

that could be argued by simply a person who comes to Toronto, for example,

obtains a student visa for a non-resident, stays in Toronto, and then makes

application and is given permission by Citizenship Canada to attend, say, a high

school in Newfoundland. The wording of this legislation will do this government

a disservice because this government may not be in a position to request and

collect fees which it deserves in that situation. Again, it is an inconsistency

that perhaps the minister may want to - or an area that may be improved upon.

Mr. Speaker,

section 16, I feel, is a very critical

section

and one that really requires further scrutiny and consideration by the minister

in finalization of this Act.

Section 16 states: "A parent shall ensure that his

or her child attends school unless the child is excused from attendance under

this Act."

So there is a clear legal onus and obligation on every parent

- and a parent is defined in the Act; a parent can be a guardian or a person who

has legal custody, or the natural mother or father - that parent has a clear,

legal obligation to ensure that his or her child attends school.

The next

section 17.(1) states: "A parent who neglects or

refuses to enrol his or her child in school or does not ensure that his or her

child attends school is guilty of an offence."

Mr. Speaker, if the wording of this provision continues in

its present state, I would suggest there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds

of parents in this Province who are subjecting themselves to prosecution by this

Act, simply because their children refuse to go to school. It goes without

saying, and all of us can speak of our own friends or our own relatives, or

people whom we know as acquaintances, who have difficulty with their

fourteen-and-fifteen-year-olds. Now, if they are sixteen, we are not under the

legal shroud. I think the minister would agree with that. You can have, and

there are - all we have to do is look at our young offenders' court -

fourteen-and-fifteen-year-olds who refuse outright to attend school. Very often

they end up in young offenders' court as a result of it. There are problems.

Parents are at their wits end to ensure that their very children attend school;

however, for whatever reason, there is a problem and a student refuses to go.

Now, if we carefully look at

section 17, those parents -

granted, they did not interfere or attempt to block that child from going to

school, but it could be argued that that parent neglected to enrol his or her

child. If this wording continues, I would argue there are hundreds, perhaps

thousands, of parents in this Province who are subjecting themselves to

prosecution under the terms of the School Act and the penal provisions which

apply, perhaps not necessarily - yes, it does apply under subsection (4). There

has to be a qualification, I would suggest to the minister, and wording like,

`under reasonable circumstances' or `when it is established that all efforts and

attempts have been made by parents.' At least that kind of wording is supportive

of the parents and to put it bluntly, Mr. Speaker, gets them off the hook. They

need no longer be concerned about the strong arm of the law and some day being

given a summons to appear in court pursuant to

Section 17(4) of the Schools Act

because their little Johnny or their little Mary was not in school today and has

not been there for the past week. So I think, again, a rewording of that

section

can save many parents a lot of grief, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that I

would ask the hon. the minister to give some consideration to.

Section 17(4) is the enforcement section, Mr. Speaker, of

that very

section that I just spoke of. It states, "A person who is guilty of an

offence under this

section is liable on

summary conviction to a fine not

exceeding $500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both a

fine and imprisonment." So my question is: How is that enforced, Mr. Speaker, if

there is no qualifying wording in the earlier section? A reasonableness test, a

reasonableness standard, in my view, Mr. Speaker, has to be applied so that this

Act will mean something. Then it is clear that if a parent wilfully violates the

act there is a penal provision of some strength but if a parent, in good

conscience, tries his or her best to have his or her troublesome

fourteen-or-fifteen-year-old boy or girl go to school but because of problems

beyond that parent's control, that child does not go to school, there has to be

a mechanism in place to get that parent off the hook. The existing wording, Mr.

Speaker, is a weakness. In conclusion on that point, I would simply ask the

minister to reconsider wording of that section.

Section 18, Mr. Speaker, requires careful examination as

well. This has implications, I would suggest to the minister, not only to

parents of children but to each and every Newfoundlander. Let's look at it,

Section 18, a duty to report, "

(1) A person who has reason to believe that (

a) a

child who is required to be enroled under

section 15 is not enroled..." So in

other words, you have a delinquent fourteen-or-fifteen-year-old or, "(

b) a child

who is receiving instruction under

Section 6..." So that goes back to the home

situation. That would be a rare example. Here is the kicker, Mr. Speaker, "shall

report that belief to the director for the district in which that child

resides." This puts a legal obligation, a legal onus on every single

Newfoundlander and Labradorian who may be aware of the fact that there is a

little Johnny or a little Mary who is not in school today. There is a legal

obligation, a duty to report. It is almost, I would say to the minister, similar

to the obligation under child welfare legislation that if a person becomes aware

of abuse there is an obligation to advise the department and to report

immediately. It clearly states in

Section 18, that there is a duty to report.

Now it says, under subsection 2, if I could just carry on

with that for the benefit of the minister.

Section 18(2), "An action shall not

lie against a person who makes a report or the director with respect to an

action taken as a result of a report received under subsection (1) unless the

report is made or the action is taken maliciously." So, in other words, if a

person conjures up a report or simply wants to get somebody in trouble, then an

action can lie but, Mr. Speaker, this

section 18 says nothing about what happens

if a member of the public simply fails to honour his or her duty to report. Mr.

Speaker, there is perhaps an answer to that question and it lies towards the end

of the legislation when there is, what I would call a basket penal provision, or

a basket penalty provision. I forget the number, but somewhere in the Act it

states that if there is no specific reference to a penalty for any particular

clause there is a global or a basket penalty that can be applied.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, and I believe it to be, if

a member of the public fails to recognize his or her duty, and fails to report a

child who refuses to go to school, there is a penalty provision in the Act, and

anybody, I would suggest to the minister, who has knowledge of a person not

attending school, and pursuant to this Act should be, and fails to report it,

that person can be penalized. I think it requires clarification. Otherwise,

everybody is at risk of prosecution under this Act, because of perhaps a wording

which simply does not go far enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am just told by my colleague that the

penalty provision that I have just referred to, is

section 107(1). The minister,

I am sure, is familiar with it in any event. It states: "A person who violates a

provision of this Act for which another

section of this Act does not provide a

penalty," - so that would be this

section - "commits an offence and is liable on

summary conviction." Mr. Speaker, it is a

section which needs some cleaning up,

I would suggest.

Section 19 deals with regular attendance. It states in

(1) that: "A teacher, principal and director shall make every reasonable effort to

secure the regular attendance of students at school."

Section 19(3) is a

somewhat lengthy section, and it states that: "Where the director receives a

report under subsection (2) and is satisfied that every reasonable effort has

been made to have the student return to regular attendance and these efforts

have been unsuccessful he or she shall" - again we see the wording `shall'; so

there is an obligation, not a discretion, he or she shall - "refer that matter

for investigation to the nearest detachment of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."

So, Mr. Speaker, if it has not been drawn to the attention of

the authorities by a member of the public, because of the obligation which is

placed on the director of the school board to report it to the RCMP or the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary, it will obviously then become known to the

appropriate police authority. Therein is the reason that the police authority

will have to lay charges against a member of the public who failed to exercise

his or her duty to report. It is an area that requires, in my view, some further

attention.

I would ask the minister to really listen to this particular

issue under

section 21. It says: "Where property of a board or of an employee is

destroyed, damaged or lost by the intentional or negligent act of a student,

that student and his or her parents are individually and collectively liable to

the board in respect of the act of that student." In other words, property of a

board or of an employee is destroyed, damaged or lost. If there is an

intentional act by a student in that school who, say, goes into the staff room

and steals the purse of a female teacher with $500 in it, okay? that clearly is

an intentional act. I have a feeling that most people would not argue with the

fact that if a student conducts himself in that way and commits that criminal

offence, and if the student is not in a position to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Well, apart from the Young Offenders

Act. But if the student is not in the position to compensate the victim for

losses, that the parent then has to own up. I believe most people will agree

that is a reasonable law. However, the word "negligent" causes a bit of a

problem. You could have a student, Mr. Speaker, who through no fault of his or

her own, no act of intention, no malice, no forethought whatsoever, simply out

of his or her own negligence conducts himself or herself in a way which causes

significant financial loss to that school. What I am getting at, Mr. Speaker, is

that the word `negligent' is loosely referred to in this section. It has to be

more clearly defined, there has to be criteria, Mr. Speaker, which will make it

clear to the reader of this legislation, exactly under what circumstances have

to exist in order for a student to be declared to be negligent and then having

the parents possibly be responsible for the losses.

Section 22, Mr. Speaker, talks about an appeal. I simply ask

the question: An appeal for what? You know where a decision affects a student,

the parent of the student or a student may appeal the decision. It is not clear

under what circumstances an appeal may be, number one requested, and number two

granted. The answer may be an easy one, it may be any issue that directly

affects or impacts upon a student. That may be an appealable issue, but again

the legislation is not clear as to when and how that is done.

Mr. Speaker,

section 25, deals with school councils and the

hon. minister will be pleased to know that I am not going through every

section

in this legislation. Most of the provisions dealing with designation of schools

and the constitutional issues, we have all discussed those at length, perhaps ad

nauseam. What I am talking about now, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of the rights of

students and how those rights affect the rights of parents, because this is

really what is new in this legislation. This is what is being revised. It is the

old Schools Act that is being repealed and we have these new sections which deal

directly with a person's legal interests, which really, are being seen for the

first time, and again, it is imperative, I would submit to the minister, that

we, as I have stated from the beginning, we present to the public of this

Province, the best possible legislation. To rush it through, a week or two

before Christmas in the interest of saying it is done, is unfair to the people

of this Province, when their very legal rights are at stake and it is important

that we debate these, that