November

16, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 62

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Justice about the Hiland

Insurance affair. Yesterday the minister tabled a letter he wrote last December

15 to his Superintendent of Insurance ordering an investigation into complaints

he had received the day before. According to the minister, the superintendent

reported back to him about Hiland thirty-six days later on January 21. My first

question is: Why did the minister's department issue a new license to Hiland on

January 1, while the investigation was ongoing? Why didn't the minister's

department at least delay the issuance of a new license until the superintendent

finished his investigation and reported to the minister?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the first question

is that I don't believe the license was issued on January 1. I don't have the

exact date, I will undertake to get that. The hon. lady may have a copy of the

license there. I have one and I will try to look it up so that by the time she

gets to her second, third or fourth or twenty-third question, I will try to

answer it.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had trouble hearing

the Minister's response. Perhaps he will clarify it when he rises again.

The superintendent's report to the minister obviously raised

some serious concerns about Hiland, because the minister said yesterday that he

then directed the superintendent to, `do whatever is necessary to protect the

policyholders of Hiland.' What was in the report that caused the minister to

believe the policyholders of Hiland needed protection? Since the minister has

referred to the report, will he now table it so that we can all see it?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say, I

have now found here in this paper a copy of the license issued over the

signature of the superintendent to Hiland - and this is a public document in any

event - but the copy I have here, was filed with the Supreme Court as an

attachment to an affidavit and the license is issued effective May 31, 1994

until March 31, 1995, so the full answer to the hon. lady's first question is

that there was no license issued on 1 January 1994, the license was granted on

May 31.

Secondly, let me say in response to her other question, that

I am assembling the documents; there is a series of letters and memoranda and

reports with a view to tabling them here in the House. One of my staff has had a

conversation or perhaps an exchange of letters, I am not sure what form the

communication has taken, with the gentleman who wrote the letter in December -

the House will recall I referred to that yesterday. Obviously, I need the

permission of that person before I can table it. Assuming I get the necessary

permissions, I will table all of these documents and then the hon. member and

any other person who wishes to see, will see exactly what went on.

Now, I think she asked what was in the report that came to me

in January that led to my Minute fax, the one that I -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) table the report.

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. lady would not interrupt me - I

did not interrupt her. If she would not interrupt me I would be deeply grateful

to her. She can ask as many questions as the Speaker will permit, but I would

ask her that she extend, if not me the courtesy, the House the courtesy, of

which she is a member.

Now, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, if I

can find the report here my recollection is, it dealt with issues other than the

ones that were in the report that led me subsequently to lift the license and

put the company into a form of trusteeship. I am trying to find the Minute -

well, I will find it in a moment and I will read it back. The hon. lady can ask

her next question.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have other questions for the Minister of Justice.

Why did the minister wait ten months from when he was first

formally alerted through correspondence about the problems at Hiland before

doing anything to warn Hiland clients? Why did he wait from January when he got

the report from the superintendent until October before he did anything to

protect the policyholders of Hiland? Isn't it a fact that for nine or ten

months, everything he did was to protect Hiland from its own consumers, from the

policyholders?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that assertion is unfounded, in

fact, and unworthy of the hon. member and I reject it categorically.

Having said that let me go on to deal with her situations. I

was told in December by another insurance company that that other insurance

company had some concerns - I have been given information which has caused me to

have serious doubts about the long-term viability of the Hiland Insurance. I

addressed that issue fully and completely. It was resolved and in due course

tomorrow, or Friday, whenever we can table the papers, assuming we get

permission to table them, and I believe we will, that will take care of that.

MS. VERGE: And in due course thousands of people lost

thousands of dollars.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will not ask Your Honour to

intervene to protect me from the attacks of the hon. lady for Humber East but I

will say that if she persists in being rude, and she has been in this House for

many years, she ought to know better, Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask her, if

she really wants the information which I understand she wants, as she is asking

for it, then let her not interrupt rudely. She is allowed to ask questions and I

am allowed to answer.

Now, her next question was, why wait ten months before, as I

had it, notifying the customers, the clients of Hiland Insurance. The reason

there was no notification given was because there was no reason to give any

notification. Mr. Speaker, the reasons that led to the suspension of the license

had nothing at all to do with the concerns which (

a) the outside agency raised

with me in December and which were addressed at the time, or (

b) the matters

which the superintendent discovered of his own volition and reported to me in

January to which I responded in the minute which I tabled yesterday.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there she goes again. She is

like a little child. She is allowed to ask a question and I am allowed to answer

it. Now, if she is not prepared to do that we degenerate this House into a bear

pit. I am not prepared to be part of that but I will gladly try to answer any

question.

MR. SIMMS: Sit down.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, now the Leader of the

Opposition, rude bully that he is, is over there shouting, sit down. The hon.

gentleman has been in this House since 1975 and you would think he would know

better.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health.

With today's trend to keep elderly people in their homes for home care services,

personal care homes are now operating with underutilized beds. Is it the

minister' intention to phase out personal care homes, and if not what plans are

they going to play in the future health care system?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you

for the question. The answer to the first part of your question is, no, there

are no plans to phase out the operation of personal care homes.

The answer to the second part of your question as to what

role they will play in the future in the deliverance of health care is simply

this. They will continue to play the role that they are currently playing, and

that is a role that makes provision for the accommodation of individuals who are

largely at the level I need of care. These are people who are basically

ambulatory in terms of their capacity and ability to get around on their own and

that sort of thing.

I see the personal care homes as continuing to serve a vital

and an important role in the delivery of health care and in the provision of

services generally to that spectrum of our population who have need of care and

who are getting very good care, I would say, in those homes as they operate

around the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your department has

an independent report stating that personal care homes are at risk of having

unoccupied beds unless the level of care changes. Personal care homes were

intended for light care, but one-quarter of the residents now are of a medium

care level. The minister has stated he has no intention of extending that beyond

level I. He said that is the plan. I ask the minister again: Is your department

intending to allow personal care homes now to have residents with level II care?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we have no plans to allow

to be accommodated in personal care homes people who are beyond generally what

is considered to be level I. There is provision in certain circumstances and in

certain homes where we do allow them to accommodate individuals who are

incapacitated to the extent that they are confined to a wheelchair. Where

personal care homes have the capacity to look after that type of person

adequately, and where they have bed space available, we do in instances have

that type of person in a level I personal care home. Level I personal care homes

are not built, they are not in a position generally, to look after people beyond

level I. Level II's and III's will continue to be primarily accommodated and

cared for in long-term care institutions and long-term care beds that are in the

system and that, I might add, we have sufficient of in the system to take care

of those types of people.

There are some vacancies in level I beds in personal care

homes. That has developed over the years because of beds being licensed and

people not being able as operators to fill them.

The other reason why we have some excess in Level I beds is

because generally as our population gets older they require more Level II and

III care. Hence, the diminished number of Level I entrants, and the increased

number of Level II and III people who are in the system.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now your department is no longer subsidizing new personal

care homes, or any additional beds to existing homes. Your department received

recommendations that home care be further increased by 2 per cent over the next

seven years, resulting in further unoccupied beds in personal care homes. The

minister has a report to that effect.

I ask the minister: When is he going to let operators of

personal care homes know what the future plans are for their businesses?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity just

two days ago, I believe, to meet with the executive and a fairly extensive

delegation representing the organization that represents personal care homes. It

was a good meeting. We discussed all the issues that they brought forward, and

the people who are operating Level I homes share and understand, and are more

than willing to work as partners with government in seeing that their business

operates to provide care for the people that they are best suited to serve.

Government will not arbitrarily or indiscriminately, or

without much thought, licence additional personal care home beds. We have, in

the licensed, or in the subsidized beds out in the system now about a 12 per

cent vacancy rate. In the non-subsidized portion of personal care home beds we

have about a 30 per cent vacancy rate, and this is of concern, of course, to the

operators. It demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity out there to meet

the need. The operators are doing an exemplary job by and large in meeting that

need, and there is really no crisis or no difficulty that I am aware of in the

personal home care sector of the health care system.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Premier.

Last night CBC's Here and Now carried a story on the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations use of a residence outside of Tors

Cove to claim housing and per diem allowances. The minister made those claims

while he was Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, and while as minister

recently appointed.

I ask the Premier: Are you aware of what these claims were on

behalf of his former Parliamentary Assistant, now the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations? And do you, as Premier, condone those actions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I didn't see the CBC story. I am not aware

of the detail. I had been made aware by the minister, whom I called last night

on a labour matter because I was speaking to the Newfoundland and Labrador

Employers Council today at noon, and he mentioned to me that this was done but I

have not had any time to give any thought to it since that time. So that is all

that I know about it at this stage.

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

Kilbride.

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

It gives me no certain pleasure to discuss this issue in the

House today but this is, in my opinion, a very serious issue that was broke by a

reporter with CBC Here and Now and it deserves attention in the House

today. Let me ask the Premier, in view of his answer then, will he at least

conduct an inquiry into whether there was any illegal activity on the part of

the minister? Especially in view of the fact, Premier, that there were three

documents last night referred to in the news program that clearly demonstrated,

Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is enumerated

on the municipal voting list for St. John's East in Arnold's Loop. On the newly

enumerated provincial list for St. John's East, during the municipal election,

claimed that he was a resident publicly in The Evening Telegram and

stated that he would be supporting and voting for a certain candidate. So let me

ask the Premier, will you at least check this information out, take appropriate

action and if necessary ask the minister to resign from his portfolio?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will do a full assessment of the

allegations and I will advise the House what action I think is appropriate at

that time. I will not say at this time what action would or would not be taken.

I will do a full assessment of it.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Social Services. I want to

ask the Minister of Social Services why she released information on the

employment history of a Mr. Terry Mallenby, the former operations manager at the

Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre, in clear violation of the Freedom of

Information Act and in violation I believe of the Privacy Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have violated no

act.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, not only did the minister

violate the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act but she also gave false

information, Mr. Speaker, about Mr. Mallenby's employment history. The minister

said that Mr. Mallenby had been fired for reasons related to job performance.

The official record of employment the department gave to Mr. Mallenby and to

Employment Canada says he was dismissed for breach of trust and loss of

confidence. Now I ask the minister, did the minister know, Mr. Speaker, that she

was giving false information in her press release? Will she now admit Mr.

Mallenby was fired because he blew the whistle and disclosed the information as

to what was actually happening out at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth

Centre?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I gave no false

information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly seeing the

incompetence of the hon. minister.

Mr. Speaker, under our system of ministerial accountability

ministers are dismissed from Cabinet for revealing medical, financial,

employment or other private information about individuals. The most recent case

was in Nova Scotia and there was another case just a year ago in the Province of

Ontario. In this case the Minister of Social Services went even further, Mr.

Speaker, she gave false information. Let me ask the Premier, will he immediately

request the resignation of the Minister of Social Services?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We shall come back to

that issue in due course. I remember similar situations occurring in Ontario and

Nova Scotia where the Premier of the day said: No, I will not request the

resignation of my ministers. We will see what will happen.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier some questions related

to the information he tabled in this House on Monday in response to questions I

was asking him with respect to the Marystown Shipyard. He will remember he

tabled copies of three letters, exchanges of correspondence between he and Mr.

Hull.

In that letter of October 25 written by the Premier to Mr.

Hull - which was by the way a week after you, the Premier, and the government,

had agreed to let this work go to New Brunswick, a week after - you put in

writing a number of issues that you said the people of Newfoundland wanted

answered. In fact, you said you yourself couldn't answer them. Here is your

quote: "...[P]eople cannot see the logic in moving the contract to Saint John. I

cannot explain it to them because, as I indicated to you in our last meeting, I

do not understand it either."

Now this was however -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to move to a question.

MR. SIMMS: This is my first question, Mr. Speaker. Just a

short

preamble if I may. This was one week after they had already agreed to let

this work go to Saint John, New Brunswick. All the issues in his letter were

ones that we have been raising over the last number of days.

I want to ask him this. This is the question. Why didn't you

raise those issues in fact before you had agreed to let HMDC move that work to

Saint John, New Brunswick? Were you simply trying to cover your tracks after the

barn door had been shut? Is that what this letter is all about, a week later?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: May I have the letter please so that I can

read from it accurately? I don't have a copy of it here, and if the Clerk has a

copy or if the Leader has a copy available I can read it easily.

MR. SIMMS: What do you think, I didn't read your quote?

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, no -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - I just want to be sure that the answer I

give is unquestionably accurate. May I borrow the copy of the letter? Mr. Clerk

MR. FUREY: What is the date on it?

PREMIER WELLS: October 25.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) October (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Okay, alright, I have a copy.

MR. SIMMS: The third paragraph.

PREMIER WELLS: Third paragraph.

MR. SIMMS: First three sentences, or first three lines I

just read.

PREMIER WELLS: It says I -

MR. SIMMS: People cannot see the logic. See that in

paragraph three? Line one? That is what I read.

PREMIER WELLS: Then he asked: Why wasn't it raised

before? This was a week after, why wasn't it raised before? The letter itself,

just go back and read it. It says it was raised before: "However, people cannot

see the logic in moving the contract to Saint John. I cannot explain it to them

because, as I indicated to you in our last meeting...." Now, when do you think

that was?

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) still didn't have the answers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, he still didn't answer the

question. The question was: Why did you still allow and agree to allow the work

to go to New Brunswick if you weren't understanding of all the answers to the

questions that you were putting yourself? Explain that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I think I've explained it fourteen times.

It is obvious that he doesn't understand the difference.

MR. SIMMS: Word games.

PREMIER WELLS: I disagree with Hibernia about their

judgement that -

MR. SIMMS: You didn't say that!

PREMIER WELLS: I disagree with Hibernia -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If a member asks a question then it makes it much easier to

get an answer, rather than have it back and forth across the House. I would ask,

let's get the answer and then we will allow another question.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I disagreed with

Hibernia's position that Marystown could not complete in time. I told them so at

the original meeting. I told them, as my letter indicates, that I indicated to

them at the meeting I did not understand or accept their position. My original

letter of October 17 told them the government didn't accept their position, but

I told them something else. That the government recognized that they, HMDC, had

the responsibility for the integrity of the

schedule of the overall project and

the government was not prepared to take responsibility for pressuring an action

that might cause the delay of the overall project. We would not have that kind

of responsibility on the government's head.

That is why I said: It is your decision. I disagree with you,

but I have no right to substitute my judgement for yours. Mr. Speaker, I have

explained that through the media, in the House, and in a variety of places

numerous times since.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, dealing with

this question of responsibility, and this line that the Premier keeps throwing

out, I want to refer him to his interview with John Murphy, the one he has heard

about, I guess, Thursday, October 25, in the transcript. After Mr. Murphy

introduces the session by saying: Mr. Wells says: in the end the Province can't

afford to be responsible for any delay in the Hibernia project.

Here is your quote: `We don't want the people of this

Province to have responsibility for the hundreds of millions of dollars a delay

might cost.' Now that's your quote.

On the same day, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, in an interview in The Evening Telegram , said - and this is a

direct quote: Legally we are responsible for any overruns and any consequential

damages that are affected to the overall project if we are, at the end of the

day, the sole people responsible for holding it up. Can you imagine the cost

that would be to the Treasury of this Province if, in fact, that ever came to

be?

Now, I want to ask the Premier this: Knowing, as you now

admit, and as you admitted on Monday, that in fact this Province could not be

held liable legally for the cost overruns on the overall Hibernia project, why

are you and your minister participating in this public relations scam to try to

con the public and people of this Province into thinking that somehow they would

be liable or responsible, as you so carefully put it, for hundreds of millions

of dollars?

Technically you may not have told a lie, but I can tell you,

as sure as the sun rises, you wanted the people to believe a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have brought members to order. Words like `con' and `scam'

are, I think, in my view, inappropriate. The member cannot infer that another

member has lied indirectly, so I would ask the hon. members to eliminate it from

their conversation.

I recognize the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour can well

understand the difficulty of answering questions framed in that way without

treating them in kind and dealing with it on the basis of what it is.

Mr. Speaker, I will stand by every word I have said. I will

either accept total responsibility or reinforce it. I will apologize for

anything that is wrong, but nothing that the hon. member quoted I said is

incorrect. Nothing is incorrect. I don't want the people of this Province to

have responsibility for causing the delay, for causing hundreds of millions of

dollars, perhaps, in loss. I don't want the people of this Province to have that

responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I will let the minister speak for himself.

I don't know that he even said it. The hon. member says it is reported in The

Evening Telegram . That is not confirmation of anything in particular, but I

will let the minister speak for himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are attacking The Evening Telegram .

PREMIER WELLS: I am not attacking The Evening Telegram .

I am just saying that The Evening Telegram and all other news media have

frequently misquoted or misstated positions. That is not unusual.

MR. SIMMS: I would imagine they have it taped.

PREMIER WELLS: I have no doubt. I will let the minister

answer for himself.

I say again, Mr. Speaker, the position of the government and

the position that I stated conveyed no suggestion whatsoever that the Province

had any legal liability, or no implication whatsoever. What I did say is that

the Province would not take responsibility for pressuring them to do something

that they didn't want to do and causing millions of dollars, or hundreds of

millions of dollars, worth of damage or loss. The Province didn't want

responsibility.

Now I know of no basis in the contract that would give us

financial responsibility for that. Whether we are responsible at law or

something is another point. I don't know what might be the circumstances. If we

did something, or caused something to be done that resulted in a consequential

loss, whether we would have a responsibility or not I don't know.

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one more supplementary

from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the Premier responding to these

questions it brings back the memory of the great Hydro debate that we had in

last spring's session when one day he said something and the next day he said

something else.

Clearly, what you said and what you are quoted as saying, but

what you said and what your minister has said, did leave the impression that in

fact you wanted the people to believe that they were going to be responsible, or

we could be responsible. Now that is what everybody thinks in the Province.

Whether the Premier doesn't believe that or not I don't know, but everybody else

in the Province believes it.

I want to ask him, since he just said he is not sure whether

in law we would be responsible for the consequential damages in overruns and so

on, if that is true, why didn't he advise his minister of that before his

minister said legally we would be, we are responsible for any overruns and any

consequential damages? And he went on to even elaborate and say: can you imagine

the cost that would be to the Treasury? Now, if that does not imply that the

people of the Province would be responsible then nothing does. It does not make

sense. His explanation does not make sense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The only thing that does not make sense is

the convoluted representation of it by the Leader of the Opposition. Look, if

the members will just sit tight for a minute I will give them a brief

explanation. Just keep the words to a moderate level for a moment.

There are two relationships. There is the contractual

relationship between Vinland and HMDC that has certain legal obligations one way

or the other. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in that contract

that would place any liability on Vinland owned by government, for any delay -

to the best of my knowledge.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: That's fine. That's fine, I have no

quarrel with that. Now, this was not Vinland interfering or saying we are not

going to let you move it, what you are asking is: government, you interfere and

prevent it from being moved.

MR. SIMMS: That won't wash.

PREMIER WELLS: No, it won't wash.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I ask hon. members just to keep their

tongues quiet for a minute and I will give them the explanation and they can say

what they like about it after, but at the very least hear it and you can say

what you like about it after. Now that is the one relationship and I agree there

is no responsibility that I know of.

Now, even if I knew that the law was such that no matter what

government did, it would not have a financial responsibility. Now I do not know

that that is so, because if government acts in a certain way to the detriment of

people, government can have a responsibility for that. Government has been sued

dozens of times, okay, but let me be fair, even if I knew that government would

not have a legal responsibility for that, I would not place on the people of

this Province, through its government, the responsibility for causing a delay in

that project and resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars lost. I would not

do that. I would not be so grossly irresponsible as to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a personal point of privilege to comment on

dark journalism that was perpetrated on me and my family last night. Now, today

in Question Period, the Member for Kilbride raised some questions to the

Premier, and I might add, that member participated in that particular

documentary last night. And he participated in it, I say, to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, that is an issue I will deal with

later.

I feel, because of that particular story last night, that I

have been impeded in my ability to perform as a member and as a minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say that in 1989 when I was elected

to this House, I built a 1200 square foot home in Tors Cove on a piece of

property, the only piece of property that I own. It is not a cabin as reported

by the dark journalist from that 3 per cent outfit that holds on to the

taxpayers of this country. Let me say it sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that was

nothing short of dark journalism.

Subsequently, two months after I became a member of the

House, after staying at a hotel, through no fault of my own as all other hon.

members have, I was advised by the Speaker's office - you, Your Honour, at that

time were not Speaker, but I was advised by the Speaker's office that I was

entitled, because of where my residence was, to a per diem when the House was

open. I put my name on a list with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and three

months later was notified by them that there was an apartment available down in

Pleasantville. I took that apartment and have subsidized that apartment to the

tune of $5,000 per year ever since. It is an apartment - it is not my home. The

only house I own, 1200 square feet of it, is in Tors Cove on the Southern Shore.

I did absolutely nothing wrong, and the innuendo last night about me and my

family is extremely disturbing.

Now, the Member for Kilbride referred to three documents. I

will answer his question - there is no need for anybody to hide anything. He

claims that I was enumerated twice. Anybody can take Tom Murphy out of the phone

book or anywhere else. I signed no slip of enumeration, I say to the member,

none whatsoever. If my wife gave the information at the door, then I am not

responsible for that. I am not responsible for that, and if I live in Timbukto,

I can support anybody who runs for council, I say to the member, anybody, and I

say to the media, that is my business as a citizen.

I was slandered last night, and I tell you in all honesty,

Mr. Speaker, that I have not done anything on which I have not been directed by

Your Office. I asked and cleared all of the points in my expenses. Now, I say to

the fifty-two members who sit in this hon. House, if there is going to be an

investigation and if the Member for Kilbride wants an investigation, then

sobeit, I have no problem with it, but let it fall on fifty-two members, not on

me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: We will go back as far as we want, because I

have information, Mr. Speaker, that maybe the press gallery would like.

MR. SIMMS: Well, of course you do.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I certainly do, I say to the Leader of

the Opposition. I know in my heart and soul I did nothing wrong and I say that

with all sincerity to this House and to the people of this Province. The

innuendo in that dark journalism will find its way out into the truth and those

who participated in it may find themselves somewhere else.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

of privilege.

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

Let me begin with this, that the questions I asked in the

House today are not meant in any way, shape or form to personally attack the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations suggested that I participated in some dark journalism

perpetrated by the program and the reporter last night. Let me say this for the

record, that on Thursday last the CBC Here & Now reporter showed up in my

office late in the afternoon, stuck a camera in my face, put before me three

items of evidence which he produced on t.v last night, and asked for my

commentary. If the reporter had portrayed the entire interview, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations would not be insinuating today that I

participated in innuendo to strike him down as Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations.

The fact of the matter is that there are questions

surrounding it. If the truth be told, and the minister is correct in what he

says, then I will be the first one to stand and apologize. But the questions

deserve to be answered, the people of the Province deserve to have those

questions answered. That is why today - and the minister will know if he

listened when I asked the Premier the questions, that I did so from a point of

view of asking: Would he enquire into the situation, and if there were anything

unbecoming the conduct, or there were conduct unbecoming a minister of the

Crown, would be take the appropriate action? That is all I asked.

The Premier has given that assurance. If there is nothing

unbecoming the conduct of a minister, then there will be no action taken, I

submit to you, Mr. Speaker. And if there is anything after such an enquiry, if

there is anything after the enquiry is levelled and the minister is proven to be

true, in light of the Speaker's office and the rules governing members, then let

me say to him that I will apologize if I have caused him any harm or his family

any harm. But there was not any personal intent to go after the minister

personally. It was a legitimate question and I asked it on behalf of the caucus

and on behalf of the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: I believe we are dealing with the motion of

the Leader of the Opposition, motion 5.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to say that I am delighted to have this

opportunity to put forward for debate an issue and a topic, I think, that

preoccupies the mind of a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It

certainly preoccupies the Minister of Education's mind, of that I'm certain, but

also the minds of an awful lot of people in this Province.

I know for a fact, it preoccupies the minds of many members

on that side of the House, and I know it preoccupies many members on this side

of the House. It is a very difficult issue to deal with, that I will grant right

up front. Members have to make their own decisions. Unfortunately, the issue we

are dealing with is one that requires - at least if the government is the one to

pursue it, then it requires the majority support from the members opposite. We

shall see at the end of the day whether or not this House is prepared to show

the government that it supports its effort in this regard to seek a

constitutional amendment or if it doesn't. We will see. Hopefully, if everybody

stays around, at the end of the day, we will have a standing vote and we will

see.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all, the resolution - I

don't need to read it all again, although I probably should just to make sure it

gets into the record. Let me just point out the first two BE IT RESOLVEDs. The

first indicates that the "...House expresses its desire for reforms to address

the need for better quality, higher achievement and greater efficiency in our

school system." I would expect 100 per cent support for that aspect of the

resolution. So we are not going to be too concerned with dealing with and

debating that today.

The second: that the House ask the government to bring in

legislation to enact those changes recommended in the Williams Royal Commission

back in 1992 that can be dealt with entirely within and is entirely within the

legislative authority of this Legislature, and urges the "government and

denominational representatives to negotiate an agreement for greater

co-operation and co-ordination among denominational school systems in the

delivery of educational services." That is motherhood. Everybody agrees with

that, I would think, and I would anticipate there wouldn't be too much deviation

in terms of support on that aspect.

Then, the final one, I guess, really gets at the nub of it,

the final BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that affirming its desire, that is the House's

desire that the negotiations between government and denominational

representatives proceed in good faith, let the House give its solemn pledge to

the holders of the educational rights and privileges already protected under the

Constitution, that it will not, repeat, not, arbitrarily remove or amend those

rights and privileges without their consent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I fully expect members opposite to try to

find some way during this debate to avoid embarrassment. Either they will do it

with the use of verbal trickery, of which they have become masters over the last

little while; they will use some verbal trickery in the debate or, they will

move some kind of carefully thought out amendment that will somehow, they think,

take them off the hook. I fully expect that to happen, maybe it will not. I hope

it does not. I hope it will just be a straightforward debate and then a vote at

the end of the day, but, Mr. Speaker, that is what people can expect and that is

what people would expect from the way this government has operated. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say right at the outset, I want to indicate at least five

reasons that I am bringing in this resolution, at least five reasons.

First of all, what is contained in the resolution,

essentially, mirror's our party's policy on the issue which we developed over

two years ago back in the fall of 1992 before the last election.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: That was after Harvey made his original

(inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, no, that was before Harvey was even in the

House, I say to the Minister of Finance, this was our policy back in 1992 and -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I only have fifteen minutes now, Mr. Speaker,

so it will be difficult to try to compete with all these interactions. Anyway,

it reflects our policy and it is a policy, Mr. Speaker, that we have repeated

time and time again inside this House and outside the House; in answer to

hundreds of letters that we have received on the issue over the last couple of

years, in discussion on dozens of petitions presented in this House over the

last couple of years; in debate on a resolution in Hansard in this House, put

forward, ironically enough by the Member for Fortune Hermitage, a year ago last

fall, asking the House to approve Adjusting The Course and we have also

articulated this position.

I know the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation would

have heard me do it in his own riding one time I believe it was, and we did it

at several other public meetings attended by MHAs on both sides of the House I

guess from time to time, certainly we attended our share if not more than our

share. So, Mr. Speaker, it is our party's policy, there is no question about it.

Let me just quote for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation who has

expressed a keen interest in this issue and I can assure him that the

constituents whom he represents in Exploits will be interested in knowing his

interjections and what the questions are because I will make sure they find out

about it. As he knows, I have done that in the past of some of the things that

he said in the House.

Here is a copy of a letter dated December 7, 1993, just last

December, but it is the same letter that we sent out months and months before

that - thank you for your letter and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is after the election.

MR. SIMMS: This one was, yes but it was long before that.

Since the release of the Royal Commission, here is our position - You can talk

about what the member said and all that old nonsense but the fact of the matter

is, here is our position and we stated a hundred, hundred, hundred times,

thousands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, this is one that has been in writing for

two years; two years. Since the release of the Royal Commission Report nearly

two years ago, we have consistently taken the position that government should

not act unilaterally to change any of the Constitutional rights that adherence

of certain religious denominations have in relation to denominational schools. A

Progressive Conservative Government would respect existing Constitutional rights

and would not try to change them without the consent of the people who hold

those rights. That was our position long, long time ago. It is in the Hansards

and said at public meetings and so on.

Now, we also went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that respect for

Constitutional rights and the right of choice, does not mean that there are no

options for administrative and cost improvements to our school system. In fact,

we said the Royal Commission itself, makes many excellent proposals which could

be implemented without taking away existing constitutional rights. In addition,

there are opportunities for denominational schools to work out sharing and

cooperative arrangements within constitutional protected jurisdictions. Our

priority in government, if we were to form the government, would be to

aggressively pursue those areas for direct government action and for cooperative

action among denominational groups.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation might not be to interested in this issue but I know a lot of his

constituents are because they have been in to see me and he should know it as

well.

So that is one of the reasons because it mirrors our party's

position in any event. It is our party's policy and has been for two years. A

second reason is because of the Premier's word. His word in this House in

particular and in Hansard back on March 12, 1993, which ironically was a couple

of weeks before the election was called last year when he said, Mr. Speaker,

`government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking change to the

Constitution that would remove the constitutionally protected rights of classes

of people specifically provided for.' So that was a commitment by the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, of course, we had

commitments from the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education who has

said, Mr. Speaker, in this House and I quote for, Your Honour, just to refresh

your memory, that on page 223 of Hansard, March 16, 1993, the minister says,

"Mr. Speaker, right from day one - the very day on which the Williams report was

presented to government -government has stated that it is not our intention to

in any way take away the rights of any of our people." That is his quote and he

went on, Mr. Speaker, if that was not enough, he went on to make a further

quote, Mr. Speaker, on March 23, page 357 of Hansard, the Minister of Education

said, "So, we are going to see major reforms to education, the like of which has

never been seen before in the history of this Province. Major reforms. But they

are going to be made under the protection of the Terms of Union with Canada."

That, Mr. Speaker, is the key point. He said, the reforms they make will be made

under the protection of the Terms of Union with Canada.

Now the Minister of Education made those two commitments, the

Premier made a commitment, the one that I quoted which he gave in the presence

of the church leaders right here in the gallery. There are many other quotes,

all kinds of quotes the minister and the Premier have made inside and outside

this House that would cause us reason to believe or give us reason to believe

that they are truthful and that they in fact do not intend to seek a

constitutional amendment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is three reasons why we decided to

introduce this resolution. Fourthly, it is because also of the contradictory

statements made by the Premier and the Minister of Education over and over and

over again on this issue, not to mention several other issues, we will stick

with this issue for today. One day the Premier says: oh we are going to continue

on with negotiations. The next day his Minister of Education is interviewed and

he says: no, no, no, I think we may have to look at a referendum. The next day

the Premier is on saying: no, no, no, we will have to consider negotiations,

trying to keep them going. Then in August the Premier says: we can only go so

far. We have had this underway for a year. It is time for the government to act.

A few days later the Minister of Education floats out the idea of the referendum

again.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard him as well as I have. The

Minister of Education alludes quite frequently to the possibility, or

probability, that government may, in fact - I think these were his words -

government may, in fact, have to proceed to seek a constitutional amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: None of that is true.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, all of that is true. The Minister

of Finance knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, no, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance

is an honest gentleman. I am sure he would admit to me privately; he may not do

it here in the House - that in fact what I am saying is true. The government,

the Premier and the minister in particular have been contradictory. They have

been walking contradictions throughout this whole debate on denominational

education. I don't know if they can get their act together. I don't know what

their problem is, but it is certainly confusing for people out there. I don't

have to say that; everybody knows that there have been changes in your

positions, flip-flop, flip-flop.

Now they are going to accuse us of a flip-flop because of

what the critic said originally one time, and that is the only thing they have

to hang their hat on, that little bit. They will get up and flick that out.

So, Mr. Speaker, because of the contradictory positions, that

is a fourth reason for introducing this resolution, but there is also a fifth

reason for introducing this resolution. There is also a fifth reason, and it

goes back to what transpired in this Province about two months ago - I think it

was a couple of months ago - when the Premier had his Cabinet shuffle. In the

wake of the uprising in the Liberal back bench where eventually, I think - well,

many backbenchers reined in the Premier, contrary to the headline that said the

Premier reined in the caucus, I think it was totally the other way around - but

after the Cabinet shuffle, for several weeks Liberal members were suddenly very

outspoken in their positions on various issues, but let's stick with this issue

alone, denominational education.

They spoke about Hydro, and garbage importation, the

fisheries department changes, and all those other issues - I am sure everybody

remembers it - but the issue, the one issue that I have heard more public

references made to by members opposite, backbenchers, private members in

particular, is the issue of the government's stated intent to pursue a

referendum and to pursue a constitutional amendment that would, in fact, take

away the rights of certain people in this Province.

Now I heard it myself out in Central Newfoundland as I was

driving through, one day on the radio station, VOCM reported - and I presume

accurately; some of them were accurate - comments of the Member for Lewisporte.

He wasn't in support of this procedure.

Mr. Speaker, I heard then a report of the Member for

Twillingate, who has outspokenly said that he is not going to support this kind

of an approach.

Then, lo and behold, my good friend, my comrade, my seat mate

for fifteen or sixteen years, the Member for Windsor - Buchans, who I thought

was solidly behind this initiative, said no, he is not in support of this. He

was heard on the public airwaves opposing the denominational educational

approach. Not only that, he put it on the public record by his letter to the

editor, which I will refer to momentarily. I will give you a few quotes.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we heard the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage indicate his disapproval. Now that is the same fellow who introduced

the resolution that I referred to earlier back in the fall of 1993 or 1992,

whatever it was, asking everybody to agree with the government's Adjusting

the Course . All of a sudden, the Member for Fortune - Hermitage is having

some pain to stay in line with respect to his position.

Now we have the Member for St. John's North, present Minister

of Health; we have in print the Minister of Health's stated position - it is in

print in The Evening Telegram , and I think he has repeated it here in the

House - that his position basically is the same as the one I articulated at the

beginning of this debate, our position, the resolution, without the consent of

the people he would not support Constitutional amendments, or that approach,

without having the consent of the people. I have the clip up there and I have

the newspaper clipping.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Well, he does agree without having the consent

of the people to proceed with the constitutional amendment then, does he? Is

that what he is saying? Can't he say, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, remember what the

resolution says I say to the Member for St. John's North. Read the last part of

the resolution. You agree with the last part of the resolution because you have

stated publicly that you agree with that approach. Then, of course, the one man

who has remained steadfast in my view on this issue, in his position and on his

principle, the one individual who has stood on principle on this issue and has

not wavered one way or the other, and it probably cost him a Cabinet post

although I know he would deny it, but he has remained steadfast on principle on

this issue. He already had a terrific amount of respect, I believe, but I think

he gained an enormous amount of respect with respect to the coverage of that

exchange a couple of months back, and that is the Member for Port au Port who

clearly has indicated he would not support constitutional amendment without the

consent of the people whose rights have been protected under the Constitution.

All these others that I have mentioned have said that, too. He is not the only

one but he is the one that has remained steadfast all throughout.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are comments I have heard myself, or

have read myself. I think the Member for Harbour Grace was reported as well, and

I believe the Member for Bellevue, if I am not mistaken, was reported on the

public media as well, so there were eight, nine, or ten who have expressed their

dissatisfaction with the approach of the government on denominational education.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine how that sounded to us. It was music to our ears

because this is the policy that we had been pursuing and advocating for the last

two years.

I only have a couple of minutes, I say to my friend here. We

will have a chat later on, okay? I only have a couple of minutes. Let me quote

from the letter of my friend the Member for Windsor - Buchans. I want to quote

from his letter because it was a superb letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SIMMS: I did not receive any notice.

MR. TOBIN: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: First of all I do not want to speak by leave.

I will get to speak in conclusion, but we did not get any notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: We are talking about another point.

MR. SPEAKER: I had started the stopwatch when the hon.

member rose to speak and twenty minutes had expired on it but the table tells me

there is maybe two or three minutes left by their estimate, so, whichever.

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

Not to use up my time but on another point I always thought

members got a notice of two, three, or four minutes, but the clerk says we did

not, so maybe we will in the future.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the letter written

by my friend, my seatmate, my soul mate, the Member for Windsor - Buchans, the

excellent letter that he wrote in The Evening Telegram and appeared in

newspapers all over the Province. Everywhere you went, every time you opened

Page 2, editorials and Letters to the Editor, there it was staring you in the

face, a letter from the Member for Windsor - Buchans. I tell you right here and

now that I support him 100 per cent, and I tell him that this will appear in

The Advertiser back in our riding, how he and I strongly support and have

the same position. I am not sure what our friend for Exploit's position is. We

will make sure of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not a game because I am reading his

letter.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Listen, the member was removed from the

Cabinet. He will be removed from the House in a minute because he is not even in

his seat and he is not allowed to interject. This will go in The Advertiser

too.

Mr. Speaker, his letter said: A number of Liberal MHAs were

concerned and troubled over this issue, not only from a political point of view

but from a point of view of principle and conscience. That is the Member for

Windsor - Buchans saying that: There is no circumstance in the world in which I

will support amending the Constitution to remove the rights of the churches or

the classes of people from that Constitution. Nor will I support a referendum as

a means of seeking permission to amend the Constitution for the purpose of

removing those rights.

I couldn't have said it more eloquently myself than the

Member for Windsor - Buchans said it there. We support him 100 per cent. He is

right on side with the position we have been advocating for the last two years

and he knows that. He also goes on to say, and I will conclude with this,

because I will get a chance to close the debate at the end of the day. I want to

conclude with this, something else he also said: There are indeed a significant

number of Liberal MHAs who will never support a constitutional change which

would remove existing rights or a referendum that would seek permission to

remove such rights and I will be proud to be remembered as one of them.

Mr. Speaker, so will I, so will he, and I suspect and hope

there will be others on that side before the day is out who will be able to say

they too are proud to be remembered as one of those who expresses that same

approach. We will see what the other members have to say opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: I will open my remarks by giving hon. members

some background. Hon. members will recall that when this Administration was in

opposition back in 1988 and 1989 we considered that there were three areas of

the Province that we would have to deal with as soon as we formed the

government. We were concerned about the problems in health, in development, and

in education.

Consequently, shortly after the election of 1989 one of the

first things which government did was put in place a royal commission. The whole

Province was aware that there were major concerns with the educational system in

this Province. We knew that the system was under performing, we realized that we

had the highest illiteracy rate in all of Canada. It was causing some concerns.

At no time did we blame that on the churches but we have said, and we continue

to say, that we blame the failures of our system on the fact that there are four

distinct educational systems in this Province trying to deliver education to a

dwindling number of students, which at this moment stands at about 115,000 and

by the turn of the century will be below 100,000.

We realized that something had to be done in order to deliver

to our people the best possible education that we could do, an education which

is essential in this shrinking world that we live in. Because the children in

Conche today no longer compete only against the children in St. John's. They

compete against the children in Korea. The children in Nain no longer compete

only against the people in Corner Brook. They compete against the children in

Japan. These are the realities and we want to be ready with the world, to make

the educational opportunities for our children which will be second to none.

We put in place the royal commission. We chose three top

educators in the Province: Dr. Len Williams, Trudy Pound-Curtis, and Regina

Warren. These members of the commission with their support staff brought forward

for public presentation in June of 1992 the recommendations of the royal

commission. Two things were obvious. It was obvious that this report was in the

forefront of educational thought. This report was progressive. This report was

so progressive that many other provinces throughout Canada today are

implementing ideas which are similar to the ones that are contained in that

report. No one has yet been able to dispute the fact that this report has

educational merit, educational recommendations which are sound, can stand the

test of time and will take us into the next century.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it was obvious that if government were to

implement this report, one of two things would have to happen, we would either

have to reach consensus with the churches who hold certain constitutional

rights, or we would have to change the Constitution, the Terms of Union between

Newfoundland and Canada.

The report contained 211 recommendations. About 190 of these

recommendations can be implemented without the consent of the churches. I say

about 190 because some of the recommendations are in doubt - the churches say

one thing, government says something else. Twenty or so of the recommendations

would impinge on the rights of the churches.

In the summer of 1992, government put in place the

Implementation Committee for the Royal Commission. We seconded Dr. Bob Crocker

from Memorial University to head up the Secretariat, which would implement the

Royal Commission.

Now, Mr. Speaker, many of the recommendations have been

implemented or started off. For example, the curricula, major work is going on,

on curricula and outcomes and standards at key stages. Just a few days ago we

had a report of what is happening in the system. We have developed a program for

the full-day Kindergarten. The preparation of policies, a handbook for

multi-grade classrooms, has been completed. A full review of senior high school

curriculum is under way, Mr. Speaker. We have money in place, through the Human

Resources Agreement, to put a centre in Newfoundland to deal with the teachers,

as they continue to upgrade themselves so that they can do their jobs as they

are supposed to do them. Teacher certification and professional development: the

start-up funding is now in place for a professional development centre.

So we are going on and on with the implementation of the 190

or so that we can do. And while it is possible for us to go ahead with 90 per

cent of the implementation of the Royal Commission, we cannot achieve the full

effect of the 90 per cent without addressing the governance issue, without

addressing the structure of the system, Mr. Speaker, and that is where our

problems have been.

The Premier quite rightly said to this House that government

is not seeking a constitutional change. We are not actively seeking a

constitutional change. Our preferred method of handling this is by consensus. We

say that, Mr. Speaker, because we want a denominational system. But, now,

remember denominational does not mean the same thing to all people. We are not

talking about a denominational system which will exist in uni-denominational

schools whether or not they are viable. We are not talking about a system where

two or three people of a particular denomination can have a school and the

reality is, Mr. Speaker, under the present day rules, seven members of a

particular denomination can start a school. It would not be viable. There is no

way it can be made viable but yet that is the reality.

For the last eighteen months, government has been trying to

reach a consensus with the churches. We have departed from the Royal Commission

significantly, Mr. Speaker. The Royal Commission talked about ten

publicly-elected non-denominational school boards. We are not talking about

non-denominational school boards. We are talking about inter-denominational

school boards. We are talking about a unified denominational system of

education. So we have departed from the Royal Commission. We have gone the

second mile, we have bent over backwards, we have left no stone unturned, Mr.

Speaker.

The last meeting we had with the churches, sometime in late

summer, it seemed as if we had reached a stalemate and government started the

process then to try to break the deadlock. But before we went ahead to find a

way to deal with the deadlock, a couple of private citizens came along and said,

`Look, government, you are closer to the churches than you realize. You can

still reach a consensus.' So we said to those private citizens, Dr. Warren and

Dennis Browne, `Bring forward your recommendations to us on paper and let's look

at them.' So they came forward, and they said, `Here is where government is.' It

wasn't difficult - our position has been written for months - and they wrote

what they perceived to be the churches' position.

We have since written the heads of the churches and said:

`Here is a perception of your position as put forward by two private citizens.

Is this accurate? Is it not?'

I am proud to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that just a day or

so ago, we received word from all the churches, saying they want a little more

time to evaluate the situation and see if that is accurate, and we are waiting.

So the negotiations are not finished. The process is still going on, and the

reason the process is not finished, and the reason the process is still going

on, is that we, as a government, still prefer to reform the education system

with the consensus, yes, and with the blessing of the churches.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Now, this resolution before us today is not

going to help what we are trying to do. This resolution, as the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition pointed out himself, was put forward - he explained it in his

fifth reason, when he went through the reasons why he did. I commend the hon.

member for his honesty, for his forthrightness. He said this resolution was put

forward to embarrass members on the government side of the House. Now that is

the precis of what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that what he said?

MR. DECKER: That is the whole point of it, and it is

smart. I don't blame the hon. member. We would have done the same thing when we

were over there, look for your weaknesses, get in there, drive in the knife and

try to cause whatever mischief you can. It is cute, mischievous, but there is

only one little problem. It is government who sets the agenda in this House. It

is government who sets the agenda for reforms in education and health and

development and everything else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: All hon. members opposite can do is shout and

scream and squeal and try to pretend that they have more power than they

actually do, but it is the majority elected by the people of this Province who

will set the agenda, and when the majority of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador make up their minds that they want to change that, they will do it in

due course.

We are not ready today to deal with all of this motion. We

are not ready to vote and say that the House will give solemn pledge to the

holders of educational rights and privileges protected in the Constitution, that

we will not arbitrarily remove or amend those rights and privileges. We are not

ready to deal with that today, but in due course we will deal with it. And it is

going to be a very emotional issue, because hon. members on both sides of this

House have very strong feelings about this issue - let us never underestimate

that - but we will deal with that when government sees fit to deal with it.

However, what I will tell the people of this Province, what I

will tell the churches, what I will tell hon. members in this House, is that

before government brings this issue into this hon. House of Assembly to be dealt

with, one of three things will have happened: either we will have reached a

consensus - and don't rule that out -we have not yet closed the door on the

churches; we are still talking, we still listen, and if there is any criticism

that you can lay upon this government, it is not one that we don't listen,

because we do. We listen to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: And we are still listening. So one of three

things; we will either have reached a consensus, or we will have gone to the

people of this Province in a referendum, and we will have given the people, the

classes of people, the right, the privilege and the opportunity to tell us, in a

referendum, whether or not they are prepared to adjust the Constitution, because

we don't want Term 17 removed. We want a denominational system, but in wanting a

denominational system we have to respect the rights of all our people.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, there are more apostolic people in

this Province today than there are Seventh Day Adventists. Yet, in order for an

apostolic person to be a teacher in Newfoundland and Labrador - to be a teacher

- that person has to come in under the guise of being a United Churchman, an

Anglican, or a Salvation Army person, or a Roman Catholic, and don't anyone dare

contradict me because I have personal friends who belong to the apostolic faith

who are teachers and they were certified as United Church people. That cannot

continue to happen.

Mr. Speaker, there are more Jehovah's Witnesses in this

Province than there are Presbyterians, that is the reality, so we have to make

sure that when we go to our people we ask all of them what their ideas are for

an educational system. So we will come to this House with our legislation when

we have either a consensus or a referendum or, Mr. Speaker, a general election.

Maybe it will take a general election where, we will go to the people of this

Province and we will say that our issue is to reform education and that will

involve an adjustment to the Constitution or consensus. What is your wish?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that?

MR. DECKER: I am not afraid to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Roman Catholics were asked - they were given this question: The rights of

churches to control aspects of education have been protected by the Terms of

Union between Newfoundland and Canada, now part of the Canadian Constitution.

Would you support a change to the Constitution, if this were the only way of

breaking the stalemate between government and the churches? Seventy-one per cent

of the Roman Catholic people in this Province said yes; 88 per cent of the

Integrated people said yes. That was October past, just a few weeks ago. Fifty

per cent of the Pentecostal people said yes; 77 per cent of the others - `The

rights of the churches to control aspects of education have been protected by

the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada, now part of the Canadian

Constitution. Would you support a change to the Constitution if this were the

only way of breaking the stalemate between government and the churches?' Mr.

Speaker, the hon. members opposite shout: Go for an election!

We are not afraid of an election on this issue, Mr. Speaker,

but I will make the commitment today, that before we attempt to ram legislation

through this House with our majority, we will go to the people of this Province;

we will either have consensus or a referendum or a general election.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite can try to play all the

games they like. They can try to set the agenda all they like, but I am going to

save them from their folly. I am going to save them from their foolishness and I

am going to propose, before I sit down, that this resolution be amended by

deleting all the words that follow the phrase: `higher achievement and greater

efficiency in our school system', Mr. Speaker. That proposed amendment is

seconded by my friend and colleague, the Member for St. Barbe and that

resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a resolution that hon. members on this side of the

House will be proud to support. And, in due course, when the time comes, when we

are ready, Mr. Speaker - we are ready - then we will deal with the bigger

question and we will do what is right for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador and for the children of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, I believe, that

the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) copy is gone.

MR. DECKER: Do you want me to read it? Is the copy fine?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the minister moved and seconded

that the amendment be resolved - or be amended rather, by deleting all of the

resolution that follows the first resolution, after the words: `higher

achievement and greater efficiency in our school system', and it reads as

follows: that the resolution be amended by deleting all the words that follow

the phrase, `higher achievement and greater efficiency in our school system'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Delete the last two sentences.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the last two resolutions are, in

effect, deleted.

Was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rising -

MR. SIMMS: I rise on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, this absolutely takes the

cake. This shows the charade that this government is performing.

MR. ROBERTS: Point of order! Point of order!

MR. SIMMS: It is a point of order, I say to the Minister

of Justice, and if I didn't know better, his fingerprints are all over this. His

fingerprints are all over it, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: The point of order is that this amendment

totally negates and goes against the intent of the original resolution. This,

that he is putting forward, is not an appropriate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I have to rule on a point of order, it would be helpful to

hear the hon. member making it. Thank you.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take up a lot of

time of the House because there are other members who want to speak. I will put

it in a nutshell and say that the amendment proposed by the Minister of

Education - he knows full well. The Minister of Justice will get up and try to

argue, show us some of his great expertise in the area of parliamentary

procedure and that sort of thing. The bottom line is, we simply argue that the

amendment put forward totally changes the intent of the resolution put forward

by myself.

Mr. Speaker, this is a game they are playing. I said when I

spoke in the introduction to my resolution that they were going to try to pull

some silly little game. Well, the people of this Province want to know what the

expression of this House is on this issue. I would submit that the amendment put

forward totally negates the intent of my resolution and is therefore out of

order.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have smoked them out and they can't

stand it.

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

MR. FLIGHT: The people don't want to know based on your

resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: When the government decides what they are

going to do (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was

recognized.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I -

MR. ROBERTS: Have I been recognized?

MR. SPEAKER: Again, if we could have a little order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You lost your nerve (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like for hon. members to allow me to hear the hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say to the

point of order, it ill behooves the Member for Grand Falls to talk about

political grandstanding. The whole resolution is nothing but cheap political

trickery and grandstanding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it ill behooves the

Member for Grand Falls to talk about amending a private member's motion. I

wasn't here in the 1985 House, I did not stand for re-election, but I

understand, in the 1985 House, in which he sat to Your Honour's left, he

participated time and time again in just this kind of manoeuvre, which is

perfectly in order. Now, when he is getting the boot up the rear end instead of

the other way around, he is up against it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I would refer Your

Honour to the current edition of Beauchesne, the 6th Edition, citation 567, page

175. That is the first citation in the

section entitled Amendments, which comes

within

chapter fourteen entitled "Motions, Amendments, Notices of Motion."

Citation 567 in its entirety reads: "The object of an

amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its

acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an

alternative to the original question." It gives a citation of Sir Erskine May,

the 20th Edition, in support of that.

Your Honour, I would submit that the amendment moved by my

friend, the Minister of Education -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West voids himself again and makes a spectacle of himself. Let me say

to the point of order, that in my submission -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will not be shouted down by

the likes of the voidable gentleman, the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I

have the right to speak in the House when Your Honour recognizes me and the rude

bully -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to address the point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm always grateful

when Your Honour brings me back to the path of righteousness when I'm distracted

by the rude bully, the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

It is my submission, Your Honour, that this proposed

amendment, this amendment that my friend, the Member for the Strait of Belle

Isle, that noble, great, historic and very wise district - that the amendment he

has moved is in order on either of the two reasons put forth by Beauchesne.

Accordingly, I would ask that Your Honour rule it in order so we can get on with

the debate and hear other speakers on this important matter as to whether or not

we should vote for a real resolution or a piece of political trickery.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, to the

point of order.

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, the real leader.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, just referring to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, unlike hon. gentlemen opposite,

we know who our Leader is. He sits right here.

Referring to Beauchesne, the 5th Edition,

section 436: "An

amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage,

is out of order." By deleting the sections referred to in the amendment, it

clearly reverses the intent of the amendment and it is therefore out of order,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, in response to

the point made by my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl, the same citation

appears in the current issue of Beauchesne but unfortunately the citation does

not apply. The alternative proposed by my friend, the Member for Strait of Belle

Isle, is an alternative and not a negativing of the main motion.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just one final submission and

then that is the end of this game from my perspective. I can tell hon. members

opposite that if they don't have the guts to stand up and vote on the original

resolution, then that is their business and not mine, and their problem.

I refer, Your Honour, to Beauchesne, 6th Edition, page 176,

paragraph 578, subsection (3). "An amendment approving part of a motion and

disapproving the remainder is out of order." Now, Mr. Speaker, I would submit

clearly that is the appropriate parliamentary reference and ask Your Honour to

carefully consider this amendment. Because it is a very serious issue, a serious

matter, and I can tell members opposite that there is a considerable amount of

interest in it, from the public perspective and from other perspectives. And I

guarantee them, I will not hesitate to point out the flaws in your approach on

this debate today, and the foolishness.

MR. SPEAKER: I will hear a final submission from the

Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I will not attempt to deal with the bluster

of the Member for Grand Falls, but I would say that 578 (3) says, as my friend

said, "An amendment approving part of a motion and disapproving the remainder is

out of order," does not apply here. The amendment, if approved, would approve

part of a motion by preserving it and delete the rest. That is neither approval

nor disapproval. It just deletes it, and therefore, presents an alternative

within the meaning of citation 567.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there was a resolution put by the

Leader of the Opposition before the House today. We all realize the sensitivity

of that issue. We know that it is not an easy decision or an easy topic for any

member of this House, and the fact that some members opposite were going to vote

against the government, I think it is totally unfair for the Government House

Leader and the Minister of Education and Training to place the burden on the

shoulders of the Speaker on an issue as sensitive as what we are dealing with

today. Be men and women who have the courage of your convictions, vote on the

issue or resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We will recess for a few minutes and

consider the submissions.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The amendment sought is to delete the last two resolutions of

those three proposed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for

Grand Falls, and that is by deleting all the words that follow the phrase,

`higher achievement and greater efficiency in our school system.' I note first

of all that it is not a negative resolution. It doesn't, in any sense, negate

the last two parts of that resolution, and it is clear that the parliamentary

precedents go against proposing a direct negative to a positive proposition in a

resolution.

The form in which it is proposed is proper. If you read our

Standing Order 36, it states as follows: "A motion may be amended: (

a) by

leaving out certain words," which this, in effect, does. There is a general

prohibition that any amendment cannot so substantially change the resolution as

to render it completely different from that originally proposed. However, in

viewing what this resolution proposes to do, it follows within the proper way to

do it and, secondly, it does not change the nature of what the Leader of the

Opposition proposes, rather, it leads to specific resolutions and leaves a

general first resolution in there.

For those reasons, I rule that the resolution is in order

both as to form and as to the substance of what is proposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: The amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

MR. GRIMES: I would like to speak, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understood at the beginning of the debate today on this

Private Members' motion put by the Leader of the Opposition, that in building

his five-point case, he expressed to the House with great sincerity, while he

struggled to keep a straight face, that in fact this was a very critical,

important issue and it is why, in the first opportunity since the House has

reconvened, that the Leader of the Opposition, for one of the very few times in

the five years I have been here, has actually taken advantage of the opportunity

to place a private members' motion on the Order Paper, to try to indicate the

importance with which the Opposition felt it should be dealt, and to recognize

how the issue should be dealt with, as a matter of public interest in this

Province at this time. But because, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled an amendment in

order, and I heard no challenge to that ruling - I heard some scoffing and so on

- but now the members who just a short half-hour ago were suggesting this was of

critical importance, seem to be giving up their right to speak any further on

the motion because it has been amended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to continue my few remarks, I was looking forward from

the beginning of the day to speaking in this particular debate, because I have

always felt that this is an issue that is extremely important for the Province.

And it is unfortunate, I think, the reaction just witnessed by everybody in the

Legislature of the Leader of the Opposition, and of those in the gallery and

those in the press gallery who saw it. It was a perfect demonstration of why we

brought forward the amendment in the first place, because, as my colleague, the

Minister of Education and Training pointed out -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation. I ask members to allow the minister to be heard. He has

that right, and I ask hon. members for their co-operation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

As I was pointing out, my colleague, the Minister of

Education and Training, in his remarks with respect to the commentary provided

by the Leader of the Opposition in presenting the resolution - he did, my friend

and colleague, the Member for Grand Falls, who is the Leader of the Opposition,

go through great pains to point out the five reasons why he was introducing this

motion at this time. Then he really did, though, spend twelve or fourteen of his

twenty minutes dealing with the fifth of the items, because it was the only

reason that he brought this issue forward today.

He talked about the fact that a couple of months or so ago

there was a change in the Cabinet by the Premier and this particular government,

and that some members had spoken out about this particular issue, and therefore

he figured it was a prime opportunity to put forward a resolution to try to get

everybody to jump up in the House today and say whether or not they would ever,

ever consider a change to the Constitution.

It showed clearly, Mr. Speaker, that it was exactly the way

this Opposition has operated since 1989. He tried to dress it up and pretend

that he brought the issue, as Leader of the Opposition, to signify its

importance and to speak about how critical an issue this is, but he spent more

than half his allotted time admitting that really, just like in every other

major issue that we have dealt with since 1989, the Opposition, any time a

really critical issue has come forward, even when given an opportunity to have a

free vote, for some magic reason every one of them on that side, even though

some of them changed a year-and-a-half ago, in 1993 - every one of them, even

when given a free vote, for some unexplained magical reason, always seem to be

of one mind and we can go back with the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, we can go back

to the first test of them after they were thrown out of office unceremoniously

after seventeen years with the Meech Lake debate, where we even recessed the

House and went around the Province and gave every member an opportunity to have

meetings in their districts to find out how their constituents really felt about

the changes being proposed by the federal government and the fact that the

provincial government was opposed to them, and member after member, Mr. Speaker,

on the opposite side, given a free vote, because it was already decided there

was going to be a free vote. Everyone could stand and speak and vote as they

chose, no party ties, no commitments, just go out and represent your

constituents and they came back, Mr. Speaker, at that point in time, and stood

up one after the other and said: even though all my constituents told me that we

agree with the Premier and we disagree with the Prime Minister and we agree with

the provincial government in opposing the changes to the Constitution as

outlined in the Meech Lake Accord, they got up and admitted that to a person,

even the Leader of the Opposition because I attended some of his meetings in the

District of Grand Falls which happens to be my home town. Person after person

after person, stood up in these meetings and said: we support the Liberal

Government.

These members, half of whom are the same, some are brand new

so they cannot be tarred with this brush even though they support the group who

did it and ran with them, so they did support them, it means they would do the

same kind of thing, these members here, Mr. Speaker, came in and said: even

though my constituents believe that the Premier is right, even though my

constituents believe that the provincial government is right, we are going to

support the federal government because we are PCs and they are PCs, and they

showed and demonstrated then, Mr. Speaker, one clear lesson that has been

consistent to this day -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin Placentia - West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what this has to do

with the resolution or the amendment to the resolution, unless the hon. member

is trying to point out that in Meech Lake, the Premier did not want the

Constitution amended, he thought it was improper to amend the Constitution; no

one should touch or meddle with Constitutional issues. Is that what the minister

is trying to point out and now he wants to meddle with it and twist it and turn

it and do what he likes, is that the issue?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point raised by the hon. member, the hon. member did

not establish a point of order but I caution the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation to keep his remarks relevant to the topic that is under

discussion here.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for

your guidance in the matter because I was just trying to tie that point that I

was making to the debate today.

That example, Mr. Speaker, of the political opportunism that

they tried to seize at that time, because there was some very small, limited

constituency that opposed what the provincial government was doing at the time,

very small, because I would have guessed that 99.5 per cent of the Province at

that point in time agreed with the provincial government, but that for that .4

per cent, they thought there was a constituency and they said well we do not

want to embarrass our federal colleagues because we are of the same party, we

are of the same political stripe. It was more important for them, Mr. Speaker,

at that point in time to be politically aligned with their counterparts than to

deal honestly and openly with a very serious issue and it is the same thing

today, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition rises and pretends that he has

placed this motion on the Order Paper because of the fact that it is a critical

issue and very important in the Province, and then he admits, in over half of

his twenty-minute presentation, that the only reason it is there, is because, he

thinks there is a group of people on this side who may not be going to side with

what some people think the government may or may not do at some point in the

future, therefore maybe, we better try to get them all to declare themselves

today, but the reality of it, Mr. Speaker, is that, that kind of attempt at

political opportunism does nothing to serve this issue, does nothing to move the

agenda forward and does nothing to serve the people of the Province that they

and we represent. It is cheap, political gamesmanship trying to be played at its

finest and because of the fact that we move a serious amendment so we can debate

at least part of the resolution that will have hopefully, the unanimous consent

of the House, that we want reform, we want to improve the education system and

we want to work towards it and make it happen.

Then the leader in a huff gets up and walks out of the House

and may or may not, Mr. Speaker, may or may not, only time will tell if the

Leader of the Opposition, if that hon. member will return to his place and use

the allotted time that he is given to bring this debate to a close. That will be

the test as to how important an issue this is for the Opposition and its Leader

in whose name this private member's motion stands.

The reality of it - the proof is in the pudding in this case.

It was a cheap attempt at a political trick which has nothing to do with

promoting the agenda, pushing forward the education reform efforts, and deciding

whether or not people are for or against it. It was just an attempt to try to

embarrass some members on this particular side of the House.

The Minister of Education and Training spelled out quite

clearly what is happening. We are taking a very serious issue and dealing with

it very seriously. We have now for almost two years. Everybody in this caucus

knows that we are getting close to a resolution and very close to some very

serious decision making with respect to this matter. We are now at the stages of

asking the representatives of the classes of people, as embodied by the church

leadership and so on, to give us some final reactions to certain positions that

have been put back and forth. The commitment has been clearly given to this

caucus that no decisions in any regard will be made and nothing brought forward

to this House and so on for any kind of final decision making and approval here

until this caucus has had a full chance to discuss and debate the options and to

see - because I've heard members on both sides of the House say: A lot of people

really think that there is probably still a deal available here, that we might

even get that consensus that the Minister of Education and Training talked about

today, that it might still be possible.

Here we are in a very critical stage of some very serious

discussions, very well intended discussions, to try and make sure that we do

something that is in the best interest of everybody in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and all the Opposition is interested in is a cheap political

grandstand play of trying to get some meaningless vote put on the record. So

that in fact somebody can go around and say: That means that nobody will ever

under any set of circumstances consider option A, B, C, D, E, F or G.

Let me make this point in my few brief comments. Again, it is

very appropriate today that the Leader of the Opposition introduced this

particular motion in his name. Again, to try to give the significance of how

important it was and so on. It wasn't some new fresh member in the back who just

arrived last year that has spent most of the last year cleaning and wiping their

hands when we've accused the Opposition of doing something from 1989-1993.

Members up in the back who were fresh said: You can't blame that on us, we

weren't here. Oh no, you can't tag us with that little brush. Don't tar me with

that. I didn't say that back in 1992, I wasn't here.

They've done that for a year, but in the meantime they

supported the same group that did all that nonsense in those three or four years

and tried to obstruct good government in the Province. They supported that. They

ran for a party that supported that. They are sitting over there because the

people in the area in their ridings supported them, but they are sitting over

there because the majority of the people in the Province don't support them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: So you can see -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. GRIMES: You can see, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of

the Opposition didn't have one of the members up in the back row introduce this.

Because that wouldn't have given it the proper amount of importance. These are

new members, like rookie members. You have to take the Leader, you have to take

the biggest figurehead that they have, and let him present the motion. First

time in five years he has done it. Let him present the motion so that everybody

in Newfoundland and Labrador would know this must be serious. Because the Leader

of the Opposition introduced this motion. Not the Members for St. Mary's - The

Capes, Baie Verte - White Bay, or Placentia, but the Leader of the Opposition.

That is how critical and important it is.

We will find out whether he will even bother to come back to

the Legislature and use his last twenty minutes to reiterate how important this

issue is. I doubt it very much but I have great respect for the Leader of the

Opposition, a friend of mine for many years. I would really be disappointed if

he doesn't return to the Legislature and again take another twenty minutes to

reiterate how critical and important an issue this is for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The point I was leading up to before members opposite tried

to distract me as well was that the Leader of the Opposition - some of the

members of his own caucus probably don't even remember this. They are too young

and they spent so much time declaring they had nothing to do with the party that

they mightn't remember when he was President of the Treasury Board. He was

President of the Treasury Board in a previous administration. He prided himself,

Mr. Speaker, in being a tremendous conciliator and negotiator. He bragged about

it as a matter of fact because he was put in there after his predecessor had had

people dragged off in paddy wagons and all this kind of stuff and caused people

to go to jail. As a matter of fact, he took the leader of one of the public

service unions and put him in jail for awhile and made him the richest man in

Newfoundland. He did him the greatest favour of all time I think.

So he became the great new negotiator for the Progressive

Conservative Administration of the day, prided himself in it and here he is

today - as a matter of fact, I believe one of the things he did, he bragged

about the fact that when he took that job he went to Memorial University, took

some business education courses because he wanted to understand business and he

took some labour relations courses because he wanted to understand labour

relations and he did those. So that's what he did to make sure he would be a

good President of Treasury Board. Knowing as he did - and we acknowledge that he

must have been a real good negotiator because he bragged about it for two or

three years when he was in that position - and knowing as he does that there are

very sensitive talks going on between representatives of the government and

representatives of the classes of persons who have these educational rights in

the Province as represented by the church leaders and now he comes to the

Legislature with a little grandstand play to say, never mind these serious

talks, never mind if they are good or bad, never mind if they might reach a

consensus. Let's try to sort of fool up the whole thing today. Let's try to make

a big splash in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, by having everybody jump up and

talk about whether they would ever consider voting to change the Constitution or

not.

Then, Mr. Speaker, they talk about using the words. They go

through great lengths, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the fact that the Minister of

Education and Training and the Premier talked about some kind of words, that

some of us went around in the election and passed out sheets saying that we

would never change the Constitution. There is no point in arguing over those

kinds of words. The words are clear. I passed out those sheets myself and I

talked to people about that issue in the election. I said just as the Premier

has always said, just as the Minister responsible for Education and Training has

always said, that this government was not then and is not now and it is not our

plan to seek a change to the Constitution. Our plan is to try to get needed

reforms for a better education system by consensus. That was the plan then, Mr.

Speaker, it was the plan last week, it's the plan this week, it's the plan this

afternoon, it's the plan tonight, it will be the plan tomorrow and it will be

the plan until the day we die.

Now whether we are successful or not we will not know, only

time will tell. A lot of things have developed, Mr. Speaker, a lot of changes

have been made in positions and so on and we are getting to the point where some

very serious decisions will have to be made.

The Minister of Education and Training again pointed out that

at one point in the latter part of this summer we thought that the discussions

had pretty well stalemated and we started to explore some options as to how to

break the stalemate but as everybody in the Province now knows there are again

another series of discussions that have occurred and are continuing. We take

that very seriously, Mr. Speaker, because again, the greatest wish of every

member on this side of the House is not to play politics with this issue, not to

try to put on a big show and jump up in the House and ballyrag and get on with a

lot of foolishness about this, that or something else, or try to force some kind

of a vote.

But this government, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister of

Education and Training taking a lead and supported by everybody in the Caucus

said: Look, we want to try to come forward with meaningful education reform in

the best interest of everybody in the Province. We are getting much closer, we

are closer than we have ever been and we still hope to do it by consensus, Mr.

Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the Opposition today, in the

embodiment of its illustrious leader, had to put forward what they now recognize

by his stalking out of the House and they acknowledge to be a cheap political

grandstand play to try and force a very delicate important issue. But it is more

important to them, Mr. Speaker, because again, like some of the other parades

they have seen going by where they rush out and try to jump in front, they think

there is an issue here. All of a sudden every member on that side, even the

reformed Member for Waterford - Kenmount who came out in the first instance on

behalf of the Opposition and said: yes, we agree with the initiatives stated by

the government. It is a great way to go. It is the right thing to do. Ever since

then he has been silenced because a day later the leader who spoke today about

this critical issue, who will come back in the House and spend twenty more

minutes talking about how important it is as he concludes the debate, that

leader had to turn around and say: no, no, no, we're sorry we made a slight

mistake.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: The Member for Waterford - Kenmount didn't

know what he was saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Our real position said he doesn't support the

government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker,

to participate in the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if nobody on the other side

wishes to speak for or against this amendment, I should like to say why I intend

to support the amendment, and if the amendment carries I shall support the

amended resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say - I only have five

or ten minutes worth of notes here, but there are some points I would like to

make. I have heard members on the other side bawl out an elegant phrase that

those of us who sit on this side of the House, Your Honour, do not have "the

guts to vote" on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I don't mind cheap, partisan rhetoric. Perhaps

on occasion I have slipped into it myself, but let me say that not only do those

of us on this side have the courage to say where we stand on this, every single

one of us, all thirty-four of us, to say where we stand, we have the courage -

Mr. Speaker, my friend from St. John's East has come back into the House - at

least we stand, unlike him.

Mr. Speaker, we have the courage on this side to work for

change. The most difficult thing in the world is to bring about change. There is

not a person of intelligence and good will in Newfoundland and Labrador today

who has put her mind or his mind to the educational system of this Province who

does not agree with the need to change it. There is no dissent on that. I would

venture to say even the gentleman from Burin - Placentia West would agree with

the need for change. The difficult

part is to achieve that change. If there was

any easy way to do it, I venture to say it would have been done years ago.

I have been in this House now for a year or two and I have

heard debate after debate and speech after speech about the need to change this

system. I was in the Cabinet of Mr. Smallwood when we brought about the last

great educational reforms in this Province, and that was the implementation of

the change that came as a result of the Royal Commission headed by my friend,

and later my colleague, the former Member for St. John's North, Dr. Philip

Warren, and I can say that was one of the proudest achievements of the Smallwood

administration -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from

Humber Valley, better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all,

which is where he finds himself, the wallflower that nobody ever asked to the

dance, the story of my hon. friend's life.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If he didn't say it, I apologize, but I

heard him say it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, no, it wasn't my friend from Waterford -

Kenmount. He doesn't have the wit to say it. Nobody ever accused my friend from

Waterford - Kenmount of having the good sense to make those witty comments.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Burin -

Placentia West has neither good sense nor wit. He does have good humour on

occasion because he can say the most outrageous things with a straight face even

though, like Pagliacchi, was crying on the outside and laughing on the inside,

my hon. friend is crying on the outside and laughing on the inside, too, like

Pagliacchi.

Now we have the Rasputin from Ferryland coming along. You

know, they used to say that a certain member of the Parliament of Canada stalked

the halls of Parliament with a bible in one hand and a stiletto in the other. My

friend from Ferryland stalks the halls of the House of Assembly with a stiletto

in each hand, and given his colleagues one between his shoulder blades as well.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back. The point I am trying to make,

Sir, is that it is difficult to bring about change. This government is committed

to trying to bring it about, and this government has the courage to do it, and

we have the support of our friends on this side of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the times comes - there is a great

phrase, when the time comes - we shall stand and be counted, and we shall make

it count. We are not going to indulge in the kind of empty political posturing,

the cheap political rhetoric, the - what is the word I want - the eunuchoid of

Opposition, demonstrated by the resolution moved by my friend, the gentleman for

Grand Falls.

Mr. Speaker, let me just try to set out the position very

simply because this is why I am going to support this amendment, and why I am

going to ask my friends on this side of the House to support it. I doubt if I

have any friends on the other side, but they can make up their own support.

The first is, this government is committed to the reform of

the educational system of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SULLIVAN: You had us fooled.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to fool the

gentleman for Ferryland. That is like blindfolding the devil in the dark or

taking candy from a little child, fooling him.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get into

badinage with that particular gentleman. Let him go stalk the halls, stiletto in

hand, and get on with it.

The point I'm making is we are committed to reform which is

generally along the lines of the royal commission report, the royal commission

headed by Dr. Williams. Our position has been set out in detail in a document

called Adjusting The Balance , and the commentary that has gone - all of

which is public. Let me say, that is more than the Opposition has done. I've yet

to see a detailed position by them on anything except their `agin'. If they see

the chance to curry a half a vote there and a quarter of a vote here, and run

over there and scurry and slither and get another third of a vote, that is their

policy.

MR. FUREY: No principle.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for St. Barbe says they have no

principle. He is doing them a favour. They don't even know what principle is,

let alone have any.

Mr. Speaker, the second point is it is our strong desire to

bring about -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend for Burin - Placentia

West can void himself all he wants but he is not going to shout me down in the

House.

It is our strong desire that these reforms come about as a

result of and in agreement with the churches that have established rights in the

denominational system. There are eight of them, in fact. They have traditionally

spoken for the holders of rights, the classes of people. Even though the

churches are not named in Term 17 the term used in Term 17 is classes of people,

not churches. The term used is classes of people.

We want to achieve an agreement and our policy and our

actions reflect this. There has been a detailed and a prolonged series of

meetings. There have been meetings at the officials level. There have been

meetings between the Priorities and Planning Committee which has been delegated

by the Cabinet to act, in the first instance, for the Cabinet in this matter,

and a committee made up of what is called - the so-called committee on

principles. That is Archbishop MacDonald and -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, the Archbishop is the sole member

representing the Roman Catholic Church on this committee, I say to my friend for

St. John's South. Pastor King, for the Pentecostal Assemblies, and Bishop, or is

it Archbishop, Harvey for the Anglican communion in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No. There were representatives there. Pastor

- not Pastor Matthew, the Pentecostal gentleman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, the Seventh Day Adventist gentleman.

Colonel Moore, is it, from the Salvation Army? Each of the churches. Mr.

Carmichael has come from the Presbyterian community. They come, and there have

been a very numerous series of meetings between those two groups.

There have been a series of meetings between my friend the

Minister of Education and Training and myself and the Archbishop and Pastor King

and Mr. Norman and the Reverend Mr. Crook and Bishop Harvey, going along for

three or four months. There have been a series of meetings between the Premier

and my friend the Minister of Education and Bishop Lahey and Archbishop

MacDonald and Pastor King and Pastor Batstone and others as well. There have

been a great long series of meetings. We have not yet achieved agreement, Sir.

There are two groups of people in this country who regret that: The government

and the heads of the churches. There is one group that doesn't regret it: Hon.

members who sit opposite. They try to make mischief of it.

We are trying to achieve an agreement and I believe that the

heads of the churches are trying to do that too. We are going to continue to

strive hard to reach a consensus, Mr. Speaker, and we believe that that can be

done. We are not there yet, there are still some very difficult issues; there

are strongly held beliefs, there are very firmly held positions. Everything I

have heard and everything I know of my own - my own knowledge on this is that

the heads of the churches are as committed to trying to achieve an agreement as

we are. Both sides to these discussions want to try to reach a consensus that

meets their points, that satisfies their concerns and satisfies the other

concerns and that is what a deal is, and if it were easier to do, it would have

been done a long time ago. It is not easy to do. It takes courage and goodwill

on both sides; it does not take the kind of mischief that this original

resolution, the unamended resolution would bring about.

That has not been brought in to try to achieve an agreement,

it has not been brought in, in my judgement, Mr. Speaker, to try to move the

process forward, it has been brought in simply to try to create mischief, cheap,

political chicanery. Now, Nr. Speaker, that is not worthy of the Leader of the

Opposition. I have been there in his job, I know the pressures he is under, I

understand the frustrations he must feel when he sees a government that meets

difficulties head on. The government of which he was part, marched right up to

difficulties, looked them squarely in the eye and then turned away and left it

to their successors to try to deal with these problems. We are not that way,

Sir, we will deal with them and try to resolve them.

Mr. Speaker, we believe as I said, we can reach an agreement

and my colleague, the Minister of Education and Training and my colleague, the

Premier, all of us are committed to trying to reach that. We hope we will. We

believe it is worth the effort and we know the churches share that view, but,

Mr. Speaker, if we cannot achieve an agreement, freely and willingly achieve an

agreement among the parties to these talks, the government will not abandon this

project. We shall not abandon the project if we cannot reach an agreement freely

with both sides. No coercion, no persuasion simply grown men and women putting

their minds to it and saying: this is a freely achieved agreement that all can

accept. We will not abandon this project, we shall not.

We shall not because we feel we owe it to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador to carry the project forward to a decision, so as my

friend the education minister said, if we do not achieve an agreement, we shall

take it to the people. We shall let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

decide this and there are two ways we can do that. One is to have a referendum,

the second is, the Premier could advise His Honour to dissolve the House and we

will take it to the people in a general election. One could argue in favour of

one or the other. We would be doing the Opposition the kindness not to have the

election, a great kindness not to have the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Call one.

MR. ROBERTS: I cannot call it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am flattered. I will say to

my friends on this side of the House that for a short time, a week or so ago, I

found myself as the senior minister in the Province in the government and I was

sorely tempted to ring His Honour and say, I will perhaps drop down, but the

gentleman from Ferryland was on the phone pleading, he said: Ed, don't; the

gentleman from Burin - Placentia West said: I haven't got my pension built up

yet, don't call the election yet. The gentleman from Waterford - Kenmount said:

I haven't yet had a chance to take a position on anything before this House, he

said: don't have the election yet.

The gentleman, Byrne secundus, the gentleman from Kilbride

said: I am hoping sooner or later to be able to ask a question and make some

sense, don't have the election yet. My friend from Placentia -

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be three in a year for him.

MR. ROBERTS: It will be three in a year for him and he is

saying third time is out, he could not have that. My friend from Labrador West

said he wasn't ready to go back to driving the bus yet. My friend from St.

John's East was on the phone saying: don't do that, Ed, he said the practise is

good but it is not that good. My friend from Humber Valley said he didn't want

to go back to being a U-picket, he would rather be picked on than be a picket.

My friend for Green Bay, the original silent member, the gremlin from Green Bay,

now you see him and now you don't, every now and then he pops up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the leader of this party put

forth today a very serious resolution, let me say to members opposite. This

party decided to make a mockery of that resolution, and the wishes and concerns

of the people of this Province. Now, in making a mockery and amending the

resolution we now know why they have done it, and the Government House Leader

just demonstrated for the last two or three minutes how serious he really is

about reforming the education system in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour has ruled on that

but let me say I was simply responding.

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Ferryland on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating the

amendment to delete the last two resolves in the resolution, whether to delete

those two parts of the resolution or whether or not to debate them. That is the

point that is being debated, not the original resolution. We are only debating

to include or not include it. It has not been carried. The amendment has not

been voted on in this House. Whether or not it should be included has nothing to

do with the original resolution. Since that amendment was moved we do not have

the authority here in this House to debate the resolution because we have not

dealt with the amendment. I say get on with the vote on the amendment now and

get it over with.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has

obviously demonstrated once again he knows no more about the rules of the House

than he knows about most things he speaks about. All I was doing was responding

to the clamour of those gentlemen. They clamour here but in the back rooms they

are clamee, not clamour.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back as I only have a minute or two

left. I agree that this is a very serious matter and I am stating the

government's position as my colleague did and as others will. My colleague for

Exploits, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation -

AN HON. MEMBER: The next leader.

MR. ROBERTS: He may be the next leader. Good, we have

about thirty-four on this side. They have sixteen and a half on the other side,

assuming my friend for St. John's East is only half way home yet. He is only

half way home. Let me say one can tell when the gentlemen on the other side -

the lady is not here, when the gentlemen are getting gored, when their oxe is

getting gored, because they are on their feet blinding and screaming and

bleeding.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman for Burin - Placentia once again

voids himself publicly and makes a spectacle of himself. If he did not have any

self pride you would think he would do it for the sake of his family, his

friends and his supporters. He has people who vote for him, and repeatedly. I

admire them for voting for him and t