October

23, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 40

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address a question to the hon. the Minister

of Health. In July of this year I learned that your department was capping the

Enrich Needs program to approximately $2100 per person, resulting in a maximum

of about eight hours per day of home care. Now, as a minister you confirmed that

there was a cap placed on the funding. I ask the minister if his department has

been enforcing that cap on an individual basis, and if not is it your intention

to do so?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Enrich Needs program that before April 1 was administered

through the Department of Social Services came to the Department of Health with

a reduced budget allocation in funding this year. That is correct. It was

reduced from about $27 million down to about $20 million. To put that in

context, Mr. Speaker, I should inform the House and let them know that that

budget started at $300,000 about seven years ago and grew from $300,000 to $27

million over the short period of about six or seven years.

Obviously, the reasons for that growth were to some extent

driven by real need, however there are other factors that caused that to grow

disproportionate with the need and inconsistent with how other programs have

grown in health and government generally. So, in that sense we have put that

global $20 million budget in place and as a result of that we have had to

implement some measures to live within that budget and at the same time deliver

the appropriate level of services to people in their homes who need a certain

amount of support for daily living.

The program was never intended to make the home, a person's

residence, an institution, and unfortunately that is what has happened, not only

in Newfoundland in some cases but right across the country. So, in the context

of what the program was designed to do versus where it went we are putting in

place a ceiling of $2100 that will be the maximum we can offer to support an

individual living in their home for home maker purposes, if you like.

It is a program separate from the home care which is the

medical side. It does not include the nursing and the early discharge things.

These things go on outside of that program in another program, but we believe we

are operating and acting consistent with what is good management, and consistent

with what the taxpayers of the Province can afford in that type of a program.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the minister has told us was actually in the March

Budget, the $27 down to $20 million. I asked him was there a cap on an

individual basis to - in all instances, maybe he can elaborate a little more

when he gets up on a supplementary.

Now recently there has been many cutbacks in hours that

individuals are receiving. Now in some cases there is justification but in many

cases there is a distinct need. Now some of these people either have no family

members to care for them or their sons or daughters are working. The elderly

people cannot afford to pay for that service themselves, they are on a fixed

income. These people cannot get into nursing homes because there are hundreds of

people on the waiting list to get into nursing homes. I ask the minister, how

can a person with alzheimer's or some other serious problem, who cannot get into

nursing homes, how can they be left alone in their homes? What solution is the

department pursuing in those types of matters?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, to the

original question, the implementation is proceeding in an orderly fashion. There

are three populations served by that program. It is not only the seniors but it

is the mentally and the physically challenged and we have not moved yet to put

in place limitations or revised policies with respect to the other two groups.

So at the moment, as we speak, the Enriched Needs Program is being ministered

partly by the Department of Health officials and partly by officials from the

Department of Social Services because the resources have not been transferred

over, part of that reason being because all of the community health boards did

not come into existence at the same time, hence the single entry system, hence

the new delivery mechanism for the program.

To the other question, if an individual is unable to find an

appropriate place, be it a personal care home or a nursing home and they need

that level of service, we will not see that individual left in their home at a

level of service that is not sufficient to meet their need or inconsistent with

their demand. We will work with the client to ensure that we can live within the

$2,100 cap to ensure that the families of that person - if they have families -

are offering the highest level of support they can. We will ensure that nobody's

life is in danger, nobody's health is negatively affected and nobody's social

condition will deteriorate as a result of that government policy.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now many people

have appealed the cutbacks in service that they have been recently given in the

reduction in the number of hours. Now the Enriched Needs Program was

administered, as you indicated, by the Department of Social Services prior to

April 1 and they could have their appeals heard by an appeals division of the

Social Service Department, an independent appeal. Now since April 1 the

Department of Health now has the responsibility for the Enriched Needs Program

and after seven months, with the responsibility for this program, there is still

no external appeal procedure set up for these people to appeal their individual

cutbacks. Now many families can't cope physically, mentally or financially with

those cutbacks, and I ask the minister: when is your department going to set up

an appeal process so these people can put forth their cases?

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

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

I indicated earlier or I thought I did, that we are

implementing this change over, this new capping in an orderly fashion. We

started actually as of mid-October to do two things. No. 1, not to bring on new

recipients above the $2,100-level and No. 2, work with people who are already on

the program to ensure that they can have the appropriate services within the

$2,100-level. One of the reasons why, is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: One of the reasons why -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a disgrace (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: There are other disgraces in the world

that I won't name at the moment, they are close at hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - and some of them are in the House, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: One of the reasons why we could not

fully implement the policy on April 1st, was, we had to work out details such as

mechanisms for appeals and the hon. member is correct, the appeals mechanism in

the Department of Social Services was not appropriate by virtue of the legal

advice that they obtained to hear appeals from the Department of Health.

As a result of that, I have moved within the last two weeks

to ask my officials to put in place the appropriate appeals mechanism. There has

been nobody denied right of access to an appeals mechanism as a result of the

switch to the program to the Department of Health because it is only now, the

middle of October, that we are starting to implement it; we are working with

individuals on a client by client basis and the mechanism is being put in place

as we speak, to ensure that appeals can be dealt with if they come forward and

that they can be heard in a timely and in a reasonable fashion.

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

Many times in this House, over the last two years, the

minister has stood and talked eloquently about the role and the positive impact

rural development associations have had on this Province. He is also aware, Mr.

Speaker, that the task force that his government implemented releasing the

document, community matters, was fully participated, with rural development

councils fully participated in that process.

My question for the minister then, Mr. Speaker, is this: Why

has he denied a request from the rural development council for interim funding,

until the zones recommended in the task force are in a position to assume

control over the request from the subregional boards?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, just to back up for a little

history. The Change in Challenge Report was released in June of '92. At that

particular point in time, the Province, as I recall was divided into seventeen

economic zones; coming out of that a conference was held at Memorial University

called Learning From Ourselves, which was a jointly sponsored conference of the

Federation of Municipalities and the Rural Development Council. Coming out of

that conference, Mr. Speaker, came three requests from the Rural Development

Council.

The first - and I will cite it for the hon. member; it is on

page 21 of the task force report - was to set up immediately an independent

non-partisan commission, to look at ways that community economic development

could be more efficiently delivered throughout the regions of the Province. That

was recommendation one. We accepted it and set up this task force that the hon.

member is quoting from. If he looks at the first

section of the report he will

see that it was signed off by the central v.p. of Rural Development, the

then-president of Rural Development, and two former co-ordinators.

The second thing they asked for in this particular task force

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name them! Name them!

MR. FUREY: - was to take all unencumbered funds at that

time, redirect any project funding into administrative funding. That was the

second recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and I'm proud to say that we agreed with

that recommendation. The third recommendation was to set up an extraordinary

membership meeting of the NLRDC sometime in January of 1994, and that was set up

as well.

When the hon. member asks me why I wouldn't extend to the

Tural Development Associations the $36,500 funding that they receive under the

old rural development agreements, I should tell him that in June 1994 we

extended the agreement to the tune of $1.4 million. That took them to March 31

1995. From March 1995 to September 30 of this year I extended it again for $1.3

million. At the end of September this year to November 30 I extended it again,

for $400,000, all the while covering the administrative burden for the Rural

Development Council for another $1.2 million, for a total of $4.3 million in

extensions since back when they asked for this report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker -

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

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand, and the

government fully understands, the apprehension that is out there amongst Rural

Development Associations. I have said consistently and the government says

consistently: We support the rural development movement. We think they have done

extremely good work over the last number of years. We are living in difficult

times, with shrinking transfers, shrinking co-operation agreements -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - and we are trying to find ways to deliver to

the communities in the most effective way possible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology gave an excellent history lesson for those of us who have

not read the report. I have, I say to the minister, and this is Question Period,

I would like to remind him.

Let me ask the minister this: He must admit - or will he

admit - that the task force itself... If he wants to quote from the task force,

let me quote something for him that the task force said itself, recommended,

that while phase one was being introduced that funding be provided to the

economic development boards, to rural development councils, to Community Futures

Association, until phase one was completed.

Now, will the minister admit that the task force itself

seriously underestimated the time it would take to implement its own

recommendations; and will the minister admit that the provisional boards are

operating under a six-month time frame, and that the permanent boards have up to

one year to develop their plans, thus creating a situation whereby economic

development initiatives throughout the Province by Rural Development

Associations, will be placed in jeopardy today?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of pictures in

this report; I would ask the hon. member to read the words on page 63 of the

report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: This report did not come from us, from the

government down; it came from the people up. It was a series of consultations

across the Province, and the hon. member may not like it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Let me read this to him: Where local

organizations require support for administration or staffing, we, the reporters

of this report, propose that these allocations be made by the regional economic

development boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I will read that for the hon.

member, too, in a second.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say: The regional economic

development boards should be the sole - sole - source of government funds for

the core operational expenses of community development organizations. So, when

he says that somehow we have abandoned the rural development movement, I say,

that's utter nonsense. What we are doing is streamlining.

Now, I should also say to the hon. member, of the nineteen

zones, there are seventeen provisional boards up and running, and they have been

up and running for the last three or four months. Thirteen of the seventeen

budgets are approved; four more will be approved this current week. The two that

are not developed right now, I will just say to the hon. member, is zone one,

which is Northern Labrador, for geographic reasons. It has been difficult to

corral and bring all of the people together. So I've asked Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador to deal with that concern on the Coast of Labrador.

The second zone, Mr. Speaker, zone eighteen - the hon. member

shouted across about zone eighteen. I understand the problems there and we are

having that matter addressed. I think there have been a few meetings so far with

Dr. House and Mr. Slade and we will wait for those recommendations.

With respect to the hon. member's question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that he is

playing around with a very serious situation. He is also aware that the Rural

Development Council fully participated and supports the recommendation emanating

from this report. If he wants to quote from the report, let me quote him this.

On page 70 the report says: "It is important that the umbrella organizations of

the various regional development stakeholders play a co-ordinating role during

this transitional period." And this is the period that we are talking about,

Minister. "The NLRDC, which is currently funded by government, should have its

funding continued during this period." That's what we are talking about.

The minister must recognize that government's own actions in

this regard in refusing interim funding for a process that they put in place,

for a process to let it naturally evolve, for a process supported by the Rural

Development Council of this Province - he must admit that his department and his

government are putting in jeopardy the process that they put in place

themselves, thus, Mr. Speaker, alienating the very people they say they are

trying to help.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this government is on record as

supporting and commending the rural development movement, make no question about

it. The rural development movement had a substantial role to play in this

particular report. In fact, the government appointed the then-president of the

rural development movement, the then-central vice-president, and two people who

were former co-ordinators. I say to the hon. member, we have put an extension in

place from June 4 1994 to March 3 1995 of $1.4 million. They weren't prepared or

ready to move forward at that time. I accept that. This is a major piece of

re-shifting and redirecting what will happen in the rural economies. So we added

an extra six months to take us to September 30; that was another $1.3 million.

On top of that, we put together $1.2 million for the administration of the

umbrella group that he talks about. The transition was still going forward and

lots of boards still weren't in place, so we put an additional $400,000 on the

table to take us to November 30.

Let me say this to you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to meet with

the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council on

Wednesday. If there are some compelling and overwhelming arguments that I have

failed to see to date and he can make the case, yes, I would be glad to bring it

back to my colleagues in Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to follow up, if I could, from questions on

Thursday to the Premier. In the Premier's speech on Tuesday he commented on the

spending on educational services in our Province compared to other provinces in

Canada. If I could quote: "Our total education expenditure per capita, which is

another significant figure to look at, the total amount we spend per person, is

higher than New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and

Saskatchewan." We all know that per capita means every man, woman and child in

the Province.

I ask the Premier: Would he put forward the figure that we

spend per student in this Province, which I would think would be more important

than per capita. Isn't it considerably less than any other province in Canada

except Prince Edward Island?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: When you look at the amount of money spent

per student as a per cent of our GDP it is higher than any other province of

Canada. Now, if you look at it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Okay. If you look at it in terms of the

ability of somebody who earns $100,000 to spend $10,000, that is one thing. That

is one ability. If you look at it in terms of somebody who earns $20,000 to

spend $10,000, it is quite something else. So you look at it on that basis. I

will get the figure on a pure per student basis and see what that figure is.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, according to documentation put

forward by the government, a Catholic school may be established by a school

board if enough people come forward and make a formal request; also, a Catholic

school may be established if it does not adversely affect the viability of the

common school. Now, I want to give the Premier an example.

In my hometown of St. Bride's, there is at present a Catholic

school, Fatima Academy, and if I understand the government plans correctly, that

school, after Term 17 becomes law, will be known as a common school. This is the

only school on the Cape Shore that is 100 per cent Catholic and in order for

that school to be re-established Catholic, enough people will have to come

forward to make the request. Furthermore, it must not adversely affect the

viability of the common school.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier what constitutes

enough? Is the common school being referred to, the present school, the Catholic

school? Who, then, will make the decision whether or not the common school is

adversely affected?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are two things that I think are

necessary to answer that question. First, I am not quite sure what he means by a

common school. The term isn't used. It is his term, not mine. I have never used

the term.

MR. MANNING: Multi-denominational.

PREMIER WELLS: A multi-denominational school, is that

what he means by it, one of the general denominational schools?

MR. MANNING: After Term 17 becomes law, what will that

school be called then?

PREMIER WELLS: It is a school, a denominational school.

MR. MANNING: Is it (inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I don't know, that will depend upon

what is put in place, and this is the second part of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Don't get too excited. Just stop and be a

bit rational.

We have talked to the churches about meeting with us to

discuss how this might be implemented, how this might be achieved. So far, I

think, some of the churches have indicated they want to meet and others have not

indicated their willingness at this stage to meet. That position has not, as far

as I know, been finalized but the Minister of Education can provide the member

with a better answer than I can.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with

another question to the Premier if I could. During his speech on Tuesday, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier touched on two main reasons for the changes and they

concerned cost and student achievement. I say to the Premier that as of today,

the government has total control over teacher accreditation in this Province,

total control over student evaluation, the length of the school day, the length

of the school year, all these things which play a

part in student achievement in

this Province. You have control over every part of the curriculum in the schools

except religious education. I ask the Premier, would he please try to tell the

House today, what changes does he see coming that would affect student

achievement beyond what he already has the power to do now?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, and he

will have to admit, that at no time did this government blame the churches for

the achievement level in this Province. Hon members know that the problem with

the system is that we have four separate systems. Now, those four separate

systems translate throughout the 479 schools in the Province and you will find

that the problem lies with the small school.

Now, the hon. member is going to give me an exception. There

are always exceptions, but generally speaking all literature will back up, that

in general the performance in the small school is not on par with the larger

school. As a result of the four systems in the Province there are about 115

schools that are small which should not be small. Now, if we leave the present

system in place, and as long as the churches -

MR. TOBIN: Boy, I tell you something (inaudible)

Pentecostal so important and now you are taking it (inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Pay attention to the Speaker.

MR. DECKER: No wonder they remain in ignorance, Mr.

Speaker, they won't listen to the answer. As long as the churches have control

of the governance of the system their policy, especially the Pentecostal and the

Roman Catholic policy, is to integrate within the denomination before they go

across denominational boundaries. So the Pentecostals, for example, are busing

all the way from Seal Cove into St. John's past eight or ten perfectly viable

schools. They have indeed integrated within the Pentecostal denomination and

this leads to a whole lot of unnecessary busing. The Roman Catholic's have the

same policy and they will integrate within the denomination causing unnecessary

busing. When government gets control over governance and are allowed to put in

place viability guidelines, based on educational criteria, then the incentive

will be there for schools to amalgamate across denominational lines so that we

can deal with the problem of the small school, Mr. Speaker.

Now, there will always be small schools in isolated regions.

I have no problem in going to my colleagues in government and asking for extra

funds to deal with the Conche's, the Red Bay's and the Harbour Deep's which are

small because it is geography but I do have a problem, Mr. Speaker, asking my

colleagues in government to give me extra money under the small schools

allocation for the Pentecostal school in Deer Lake. There are two other

substantial schools in Deer Lake but yet, by the same time, we provide four

additional teachers to the Deer Lake Pentecostal school on a small school basis.

I don't think the rest of the taxpayers should be required to put in these extra

services. So the short answer to the hon. member's question is, it is the small

school and we will deal with the small school in a much more effective way. To

leave the present system in place we will only seek increased busing where

children are bused past perfectly viable schools.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is about

education as well. Recently I attended a parents night at the Seventh-Day

Adventist School in St. John's, a school which has been in existence for more

than 100 years and which has educated five generations of Seventh-Day

Adventists. The present building was built and paid for in about four years

without one copper of government funds -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: - by church members, some of whom added 5

per cent to their usual tithes and some of whom were able to add just 2 per

cent. This is a good elementary school with a lively Christian ambience. It

shares guidance, speech therapy and other services with other denominations.

Last week, in a conversation with the Premier, he indicated to me that he hoped

some way could be found for that school to continue. My question is this, can

the Seventh-Day Adventist people in this area be assured that their school can

continue should this constitutional amendment and related legislation be passed

by this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I recall the conversation to which the

hon. member is referring and we have indicated all along that in larger

communities, larger school areas where there can be more than one school, if

enough parents want to send their children to a school, that it can be a viable

school and not adversely affect the viability of any other school, it is very

simple -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to allow the Premier to answer the

question.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, to start again, I indicated

to the hon. member that the government's position has been made clear all along,

we want the schools in this Province to be clearly viable schools and standards

of viability have been discussed. They have been discussed with people from the

churches too, not agreed upon admittedly but they have been discussed. They

know, generally speaking, what the government has in mind and the reasonable

standards established on educational basis only and only on the basis of quality

of education.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if in accordance with the viability

standards that are applicable to all schools - it does not matter, not

differentiating between uni-denominational schools or multi-denominational

schools, if on the basis of those principles, generally applicable to all, any

school, whatever its denomination, can come forward and say: we've got the

number of people, the number of rooms, 482 students or 316 or whatever the

standard of viability is, if it is francophone, aboriginal or whatever it may

be, if they can establish that we can run a viable school the government will

have no difficulty accepting that. We have never had any other position then

that. So I say to my hon. friend from St. John's Centre, if the Seventh Day

Adventist come forward with a proposal: look we've got 384 or 516 or 282

students and here are the rooms, here is the breakdown that meets all of the

general principles of viability, we would like to continue to run this as a

Seventh-Day Adventist School, then upon that being established, the government

will have no quarrel with that denomination running it. The same applies to the

Pentecostal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Church, United Church,

Salvation Army, Presbyterian, Moravian or, those five acting together as a

single. Those are the rights that will remain and the government will accept

that proposition from anyone.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hereby table six copies of a Special Warrant. It relates to

the operations of the Committee of looking into no fault insurance in the amount

of $160,500.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following resolution:

WHEREAS the rural development movement in Newfoundland and

Labrador has played a lead role in social and economic development in this

Province for almost thirty years; and

WHEREAS the fifty-nine regional development associations

making up this movement, provide an unique mechanism for rural people to help

determine and shape their own economic destiny; and

WHEREAS many similar communities rely almost entirely on

their own local development associations as a forum and a focus for issues of

concern to them; and

WHEREAS the recommendations of the task force on Community

Economic Development, as presently being implemented, could lead to seriously

jeopardise the opportunity for increased co-operation among all community

development organizations at the regional and provincial levels; and

WHEREAS effective community economic development depends on

the involvement and participation of a strong and committed volunteer sector,

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly unanimously agree

to provide administrative support for development associations and their

volunteer members until such time as zonal boards are in a position to provide

such administrative support and assistance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition from the communities of Port

Anson and Miles Cove, in my District of Green Bay, signed by 178 people in those

two communities. Those two communities constitute the people on what is known as

Sunday Cove Island in Green Bay, the island on which I was born, incidentally,

and the prayer of the petition is as follows:

We, the people, request to have the trees and shrubs cut from

the highway for the safety of the travelling public and the school bus.

Mr. Speaker, this petition came in in the interim period

while the House of Assembly was closed; it came in in August. I indicated to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that I had the petition, and I

wrote him a note on it. He came back in a general way to that note, indicating

some hope that something could be done in the upcoming year or whatever, but in

this particular case we have a situation where there is bussing going on. We

have trees and alder bushes, et cetera, growing very close to the highways. It

has become an extremely common problem, certainly in many areas of Central and

Northeast Newfoundland.

Moose, being the way they are, have a tendency to step out

into the road with little or no warning, and in the last few years there has

been very little done in terms of a maintenance program in terms of keeping the

sides of the roads open. Now when we see major new construction along the

Trans-Canada, we see considerable clearing of the brush well back from the

shoulders of the road, but unfortunately in a matter of a few years - and this

is especially the case with alder bushes; they have a tendency to spring up

very, very quickly - and there is nothing unusual within a few years to have six

to ten feet high underbrush growth leading right out to the edge of the pavement

nearly, and this is providing a tremendous hazard to traffic.

One of the ways that this could have been handled, had this

provincial government acted in co-ordination with the federal government as

regards the TAGS program, we have many people, middle-aged and a bit older, who

are forced to go to school, who are normally outdoors people, who would much

rather be doing something with their hands in the open environment than being

stuck in a classroom against their will. These kinds of people could have been

put to work on brush clearing projects, to the public good, over the last few

years since the NCARP and TAGS programs came into being.

The Department of Social Services could also put some of its

clients to work at a wage above what they would normally get on social

assistance, a wage large enough to provide a decent incentive for working. These

are the kinds of things that the government could be doing to help people retain

a degree of dignity in terms of work, and also at the same time provide a level

of public service.

I sincerely hope that in the upcoming budget year government

will see fit to take some action in this regard before we have some serious

accidents, especially as regards moose and car accidents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the

constituents of St. Mary's - The Capes, and the prayer of the petition is as

follows:

To the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador,

WHEREAS the Janeway Child Health Centre has served the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador and their children for more than twenty-five years

as the only acute care children's hospital; and

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador show their

support for the Janeway by contributing millions of dollars every year to

enhance the services provided by the children's hospital,

WE, the undersigned, support the continuation of a

stand-alone children's hospital to provide quality health care for the children

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was brought forward to me over the

past couple of weeks because the people of my district, as many other districts

in the Province, are concerned about the government's plan to shift the Janeway

Child Care Centre next to the Health Sciences Centre. Basically, what they are

planning to do, is to close the children's hospital as we know it today, the

Janeway Hospital as we know it on a stand-alone basis, and this is a concern of

the people in my district because many people, Mr. Speaker, with whom I talk on

a day-to-day basis. have had reason over the past few years to visit the Janeway

Hospital with their children.

I am no stranger to that myself; both my children have had to

be rushed to the Janeway Hospital in the first couple of months of their lives

for health care that was desperately needed and I have to say, that as soon as I

walked inside the doors of the hospital -as a matter of fact, one was at two

o'clock in the morning after travelling from St. Bride's - Mr. Speaker, as soon

as you walk into the hospital you felt like you were home, I say to the hon.

minister who is listening.

There was a feeling in the Janeway Hospital, Mr. Speaker,

that it was for children and children only and the feeling there was that, you

were at home, and I have to say that my concern lies with the people in my

district, the fact that the children's centre is now going to be moved and that,

that feeling of home that you have when you walk into the Janeway, will not be

there in the years to come and that is certainly a concern that the people of my

district are bringing forward through this petition today.

Mr. Speaker, the level of care at the Janeway over the years

has been second to none; the dollars that are raised throughout the Province and

the Janeway telethon and many dollars coming from my own District of St. Mary's

- The Capes, have people who believe in the children's hospital and people who

believe in the fact that we have a hospital here in this Province of which we

can be proud; it is on a stand-alone basis that people can associate with

children, and my concern is, when this hospital is moved next to the Health

Sciences Centre that, children's concern may be lost in the shuffle, and I

believe that is the major concern the people throughout this Province are

feeling and I ask the minister to look at it.

I know he is under restraints and the government is trying to

save dollars but, I don't think we could put a dollar on the lives of these

children, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say that my own experience with the Janeway

have led me to believe that the Janeway should be on a stand-alone basis and

definitely should remain as part of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the

Janeway Hospital is not a St. John's hospital, it is not a hospital for the

Avalon Peninsula, it is indeed a provincial hospital. When I was at the Janeway

with my little boy a few years ago, I spoke with people from Labrador, I spoke

to people from the Straits of Belle Isle, I spoke to people from Gander, they

were all there, throughout the ward, people who had to bring in their children

and have had fond memories of the Janeway and the care that they received at the

Janeway and I think that the stand-alone hospital that we have there now, Mr.

Speaker, speaks for itself.

The history of that hospital, without a doubt is second to

none and I believe that the government is on a wrong course of action. I believe

in restructuring, I believe in saving dollars where we can, but I believe that a

stand-alone children's hospital in this Province is definitely something that

should remain.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support my colleague from St. Mary's - The Capes

regarding the Janeway Hospital as a stand-alone hospital. I think it is

important that here in this Province we have a hospital dedicated to paediatric

medicine. It raises a lot of concerns and a lot of unanswered questions with the

recent announcements, just this past few months about the consolidation of

hospitals in the St. John's region.

Now, I am certainly in favour of any consolidation that is

going to show more efficiencies in administration without taking away from the

level of services that are provided. There have been some remarks made in public

and stated I think, by the minister in the House last week, that raised some

concerns to me about the viability of this proposal and the ability to maintain

the services that are currently provided. Now the minister made some reference

to having a shared operating space.

Now, in this city today, there are only about twenty-four

operating rooms in use in this city; there are operations cancelled because

there are no operating rooms. To eliminate six operating rooms at the Grace

Hospital, to eliminate the four operating rooms at the Janeway Hospital and to

have to share space, Sister Elizabeth Davis, stated three weeks ago in public,

that one of the problems they have with heart surgeries and other surgeries, is

the availability of operating space, and if we are going to take and reduce the

operating space in this city by 40 per cent, what type of service are we going

to have in the future? We are going to have longer waiting lists and I have a

list of people who are waiting for surgery. There are about 180 people waiting

to have heart surgery in this Province and if they have to compete for the same

space as young children from the paediatric hospital in the Janeway, somebody is

going to suffer as a result.

I think it is incumbent upon government to show what the

proposed costs are going to be, to lay out a cost analysis, to show what an

extension would cost. The one that they are talking about now to me is the

option ten, the new one added by government, that shows a cost of over $300

million. If it is only going to cost $100 million let's look at the cost of

adding on this new extension to have a separate hospital. It is my understanding

now that the power plant in there - now the central heating system supplies the

M.U.N. campus and Health Sciences. There could be additional expensive cost to

increase this. My understanding - emergency power system supplies the University

and the Health Sciences of other cost. There are very expensive alterations

which may be needed in the capital cost to such a point that the capital

expenditure, if they are up to $300 million, that extra financing of that alone,

about $30 million a year, could be greater than the efficiencies achieved in

administration by closing the Janeway Hospital.

I think it is incumbent upon government to lay out this cost

and to show us what the new costs are going to be, what the savings in

administration. Because what is going to happen I fear is that there is going to

be a scaled down number of beds in hospitals, scaled down operating rooms,

scaled down emergency departments, and you can't move as many people through the

system today. The kids in this Province are going to be hurt as a result of

being gobbled up by a larger Health Sciences complex where there is going to be

sharing of laboratory facilities, there is an admission there is going to be a

sharing of operating space, x-rays and other services.

It is not going to be a stand-alone, separate Janeway

Hospital in light of statements made by the new executive director. The

minister's statement raises concerns. I feel that it is going to be detrimental

to the continuation of proper paediatric service to people in this Province

there, and I call upon the minister and his government to lay out the cost

analysis, to let's see where the savings are going to be. Don't go making a

fly-by-night, hoping things are going to change. Because the reason they aren't

producing one is it is not there. We are going to have a scaled down service

with less people availing of it and longer waiting lists. That is going to be

the final result. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I should

respond to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, and also my critic the Member for Ferryland.

I have to agree first of all with the comments of the Member

for St. Mary's - The Capes. Yes, the Janeway Hospital is a provincial hospital,

no question about that. It is a hospital that has provided care for children for

paediatric services for a goodly number of years and they have provided it at

the highest level of competence with the highest quality of care being delivered

from that site.

I think anyone would also agree with his suggestion that the

people who work at the Janeway - the doctors, the nurses, and all of the other

health care givers - are providing an exemplary service, a high-quality service,

and a service that we cannot afford to lose in this Province. Let me assure the

hon. members both again, that this government has no intention of allowing the

service of the Janeway to diminish, decrease or to be lost to the health care

continuum of care in this Province.

If the hon. member wants assurance that there is going to be

a stand-alone facility, as long as he understands that "stand-alone" doesn't

mean that it can't be attached to another building or another premises, yes, it

will be a stand-alone operation in the sense that it will be a dedicated

service.

I mentioned a couple of days in the House that all we have to

do is look at the magnificent new facilities that have been provided through the

Bliss Murphy Cancer Clinic at the Health Sciences complex. Is that a stand-alone

service in the member's mind? Yes, it is a stand-alone service. It is a

dedicated amount of space with dedicated and specific programs, dedicated and

specific clinics run to deliver cancer care and cancer treatment. So on the

basis that that is a stand-alone clinic, or a stand-alone facility, the Janeway

will be a stand-alone facility. That doesn't mean that it can't be attached to

another building for certain other shared service purposes. That is what we are

committed to providing at the Janeway.

Now, the question was raised as to whether or not we can

replace the Janeway, over at the Health Sciences, dedicate a space for $100

million? Well, I need to again - because the message has to get out there - it

is not only the Janeway services that will be put in this new space or moved

over to that site, if you like. We will also be moving over the obstetrics and

the gynaecological services that are provided at the Grace, so as to be able to

provide a full continuum of care at that new site for babies from the date they

are born, mothers who have given birth, sick babies and also the services that

are delivered to children at a later stage in their life at the Janeway. So the

cost we are talking about being associated with this move involves far more than

just the Janeway as a facility. It also involves the moving of the other

services that should correctly and properly be associated with and contiguous to

and integrated with the services of paediatrics. So that whole continuum of care

will be provided in new space over there.

We are not going forward on the basis of not knowing what we

are doing. What we have done is set a direction in terms of reorganization of

health care and the direction that we set on June 29 was to provide for two

acute care sites from which we would deliver acute care services in the future.

The direction has been set, the detailed planning as to what programs will be

moved where and when, as to what capital needs to be spent to put the facilities

and the infrastructure in place and as to when that will be done, will be laid

out in full and complete detail, not only to the members of the House but it

will also be laid out to the people of the Province so that everybody will

clearly understand how it is we are proceeding and how it is we intend to get

the job done within the reasonable resources. I agree that it is an unreasonable

proposition to spend $30 million or $40 million extra if you are only going to

save $20 million or $30 million and not provide as good a service. That is not a

reasonable proposition and government won't be doing something as foolish as

that. The people of the Province understand that we won't do anything that

foolish.

As to the question of whether or not there will be enough OR

space -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Well, let me conclude by saying as to

the proposition that there won't be enough OR or out-patient space -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member doesn't have leave.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we resume the debate on

Motion 4, that is the Term 17 Resolution, and I believe my friend, the Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay had the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I am sorry, I say to my friend, I apologize

to both of them for confusing one with the other. It is really unforgivable to

confuse either of them with the other.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the hon.

House Leader would throw an insult at me after my lending him a hand a couple of

days ago; I won't say what the event was for, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I can't tell the event, but I was very

good to the member, I say to him, and would do it again - I gave him a hand.

Mr. Speaker, I think I do have a few minutes left on the

education debate here today and I would like to just refer back to - I think,

when I closed debate on Thursday, that I was about to speak very briefly on what

the Minister of Education said when he responded to a petition that I had

presented earlier that day. He talked about if he had to put forward $50,000 or

$60,000 to construct a road up around Anthony Paddon Elementary to allow

students to enter and exit buses that it would mean giving another 37 per cent

to another school board, another 7 per cent to another school board. Mr.

Speaker, that is wrong and it should be changed. There will be no argument from

anybody here or from anybody anywhere else in this Province. That that system

doesn't work anymore and should never be a part of the education system as we

know it today. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any need of a

referendum, and I stress that, because a referendum is very divisive and, as we

have seen, very expensive.

If we look at much of the duplication this government

continues to speak about, I can read you a few items here which will show you

that much of this duplication has already been eliminated, and I think the

government was using it to their own advantage and fearmongering when they put

the cost of duplication forward. Much of the duplication has been eliminated

from the system, and any excess in the system is continually being removed, the

way it should be removed, up until now, through co-operation.

Today, there are schools in 293 communities in this Province

and in Labrador. In 1967, there were schools in 800 communities. Today, there

are fewer than 480 schools in the entire Province. In 1967, there were more than

1,046 schools. Today, 260 communities, or 89 per cent of all the communities in

Newfoundland and Labrador, have a single school system. Today, thirty-three

communities, or 11 per cent, have more than one school system. Today there are

twenty-seven school boards. In 1967 there were 270 school boards. There are

thirty formal joint service agreements. These agreements have resulted in

consolidation of seventy-seven schools.

Mr. Speaker, that just goes to show that there have been many

changes brought about within the school system today as it exists. There have

been many agreements reached with the churches and other players in this whole

process. Contrary to what government says, I believe there could be a lot more

changes brought about, and brought about much more quickly than we are going to

see as this process unfolds and is allowed to go on the national stage, and

bring in other players from outside this Province. Things will slow down and we

will not see any co-operation whatsoever between the churches and the

government, and I fear it is going to be a long time before we see any changes

or anything positive happening in this Province as it relates to school.

The question itself, as it was put forward in the referendum,

consisted of two parts - two parts which should have been answered in two ways,

not just one answer. Yes, everybody wanted reform; no, I don't think a lot of

people wanted to change the constitution in order to bring about that reform.

They didn't want people's rights trampled on, people's rights taken from them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, just a second to clue up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a sentence or two, Mr. Speaker. I

stand here today and I can assure the House of Assembly that I will support the

57 per cent who came out in my district and voted `no' to the referendum. I will

be counted here in this House, and I will be one among the many who stand up and

vote `no'.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange for me to have to stand in

this House to announce that I will be voting against this measure. It is the

first time that I voted against the government for twenty-five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: I want to explain why I am doing it, because

it is a very important issue.

I want to go back before the last election, to all these

discussions that we had. I remember presenting petitions in this House from my

district. From all around this Province there were 45,000 Roman Catholic

petitioners who begged this House to continue their rights in education - 45,000

people from whom petitions were presented in this House. Fifteen thousand

letters were written by Pentecostal people, representing 85 per cent of the

Pentecostal adults in this Province, letters signed with addresses and phone

numbers attached, asking government to continue the rights which had been

granted to them just six years previously. We had 12,000 cards that were

delivered, and I have these now - I didn't have the 12,000 but that is roughly

what was delivered - I had several thousand, and I have them now, and when I

look down at the names that are on that, they are great people, the finest kind

of people who - `I believe,' this person says, and so do the rest, `that

Catholic people have the right to continue to choose to send their children to

Catholic schools which are fully funded by the Provincial Government.' Looking

down the list you see solid citizen after solid citizen after solid citizen,

people who worked for me in my campaign, people who didn't work for me in my

campaign, all sorts of people, who signed these cards and the 45,000 who signed

the petition. And Mr. Speaker, as a result of all this discussion in the House

of Assembly, an agreement was made with the church leaders, and we were part of

that. On behalf of this side of the House, I remember our leader made a

statement in the House, in the full context of - and the church leaders were in

the galleries and we were all so happy to hear that statement. I was very happy

and everybody else was happy.

Now, let me read it, just to refresh your memory as to what

that said. `Mr. Speaker, in response to the church leaders' concerns that

implementing certain recommendations of the Royal Commission Report would

jeopardize their traditional rights, 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.' And he goes on, `It was recognized by all at the meeting that if after the

conclusion of these discussions there is consensus amongst the leaders and the

government that some adjustment or changes to the Constitution are necessary or

desirable then they could be pursued.'

Now, that is what was said in the House of Assembly on March

12, 1993 by my leader. And I was very happy, and so was everybody else on this

side very happy with that. I think they were. It was all sides, everybody was

very content because we thought it was under control, and as a result, shortly

after that an election was called and I offered myself for re-election. In my

brochure - you can have a copy if you like, because I won't be using it in the

next election anyway, it says this, `A vote for Kitchen means a commitment to

preserve educational rights presently guaranteed under the Constitution of

Canada while supporting co-operation among churches and education.'

Now, I went with that because of the statement that was made

in the House a very short time before, and as a result of that I got re-elected

by a majority greater than before. Had that commitment not been made, I would

not be in this House today, and I tell you something else, the member in front

of me would not be in the House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: And other members on this side would not be

in the House today, we would not be the government today - that is my judgement.

Now, as far as the Opposition is concerned, because there is some waffling over

there, let me say this - I am reading from a statement made by the Leader of the

Opposition on December 15. This is prior to the election. `Our party's position

on this issue, basically a two-part position, has been in effect for a long

time. It is in writing and it has been sent to many people around this Province.

That position is that the government should not act unilaterally to change any

of the constitutional rights that adherents to certain religious denominations

have in relation to denominational schools. We should respect constitutional

rights and not change them without the consent of the people who hold these

rights.' Both sides are committed to that. So the question comes up: How can

anybody on either side of the House go against these promises before the

election?

When I was a child and somebody got hold of your arm and

started to twist it, and asked: Will you promise to do so and so, you would

probably say, yes, but after it was all over you would say, Ha, Ha, I got my

fingers crossed, and if you had your fingers crossed, it did not count. Now, I

forgot to cross my fingers, but I wonder did other people have their fingers

crossed? Who had their fingers crossed because you can't make a commitment? I

can't see how you can make a promise before an election and go back on it

afterwards.

Now, of course, the referendum was called, and the

referendum, I suppose, if it gets the wishes of the people, could very well be

looked upon as excusing you from a pre-election promise. Can it, I wonder? But

the question again is: did we have the right to go with that referendum when we

had already made the commitment? Now, that's the question. I find it very hard

to come to grips with this one. Then I wonder. Right after that election we were

back at it again. Did we just park the churches while we were taking on the

teachers? Is that what happened? I don't say that, but it is a question in my

mind. What happened? Why didn't we go into the election, if we had that in our

minds, and say: Boys, when we get out we are going to remove the power of the

churches in education and take our chances with the people. That would have been

the right way to do it, I suppose. But it is hard thing to do when you are

taking on teachers and so on.

Now then, I want to look at minority rights in education. Let

me say this: that just as this government wouldn't have been re-elected without

that commitment, so would there have been no Canada. There would have been no

Canada unless Term 93 had been written in that constitution. That is well-known

historically. Because the Protestants in Quebec wanted a guarantee of having

their minority schools, just as the Catholics in what became Ontario wanted the

same thing. But it was basically the Protestants in Quebec who wanted that

guarantee to have their schools. Without that there would have been no Canada.

That is one of the fundamental principles underlying Canada in 1867.

Certainly there would have been no union of Newfoundland with

Canada in 1949 unless we had Term 17. It was hard enough for Joe Smallwood and

Greg Power and Bill Keough to fight Archbishop Roach and all - you know how it

went on. We all know what went on with the Orange and so on. But there were a

lot of Catholics who voted for Confederation. Greg Power in Placentia area and

Bill Keough and all the rest were re-elected because they could reassure the

people that education rights were there. And that was a very powerful reason -

without that we would not be part of Canada today. It was a fundamental right. A

fundamental part of the union which brings us to Canada, which brought Canada

together, is denominational rights. In 1987, the previous governments in Ottawa

and here enabled the Pentecostal Assemblies to have the same rights as other

denominations had - ten years ago. Can we give someone constitutional rights in

1987 and take them away eight years later? It seems very strange.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario and B.C. have recently increased the

rights of denominations. When Confederation occurred, Catholic schools in

Ontario were elementary schools and they weren't funded at the high school

level. They weren't funded until quite recently when the Ontario Government

increased and gave funds to fund all separate schools right up to the end of

high school. British Columbia, which didn't have denominational schools except

as private schools, began to fund, and now they are funded to the extent of 50

per cent. So the trend in Canada, if you can call it a trend, is to give more

denominational rights rather than fewer.

I find it strange that we are giving people rights on the

basis of language in this Province. The french-speaking people want their own

school board and they haven't been denied it as yet. They want their own board.

But the fundamental right in Canada is not for language in schools, it is for

religion in schools. That is the fundamental Confederation right. This other

right on language is a more recent one.

Aboriginals want their own school boards. So, in my view,

they should have them. But just listen: the schools that came to Newfoundland

years ago. There were none - that isn't part of the culture. Schools, they

weren't - not part of the traditional culture, even though I agree that there

should be some control over aboriginal schools by aboriginals. But it is the

religious right. I can't understand some people who believe in aboriginal

schools but they don't believe in Catholic schools or Pentecostal schools or

Integrated schools. I can't understand their reasoning.

The prior right is the right of religion in this country on

that issue and then we are also giving rights - we have private schools governed

separately. We have several private schools in this Province, and we are going

to give rights to private schools? We are going to give rights, we are going to

take away rights of others? Mr. Speaker, I respect the right of the minority. I

respect the right of the minority. Catholics in this Province are in a minority.

There are more Protestants than there are Catholics; Pentecostals are in the

minority.

I am going back to the Harbour Grace affray. I am going back

to it because my grandfather was involved in that affray. He was involved in it

- he was an Orangeman. The Orangemen decided they were going to parade on Boxing

Day in 1883. They were going to parade up through Riverhead. My grandfather, who

had been to the ice with Skipper Shea of Riverhead, said: `Boys, let's not go up

Pippy's Lane, that's a private lane, let's not go up there, let's make our

parade and turn around and come back.' `No, boy, we are going up, to heck with

it,' and as a result of that - and if you want to read Fred Rowe's book; and I

will put it out here, because Fred indicates, here it is, he says: `The proposed

route took the marchers through the most Catholic Riverhead

section of Harbour

Grace. A confrontation occurred, some of the men on both sides, and guns and

shots were fired. Four Orangemen and one Catholic were killed and fifteen or

more men were wounded.' And as a result of that, the government, the Whiteway

Government was overturned, and interdenominational relations in this country, in

this Province, were set back for many, many years.

Mr. Speaker, I don't like this business of saying that

Catholics are not in the minority. They are in a minority. The Anglicans, the

United Church comprise about 55 per cent of the population and I believe the

recent vote in the referendum was largely along religious lines but not

entirely; there were a number of Catholics who voted `yes', most of them voted

`no' and we can look by the statistics within the districts and so on to prove

that pretty well, although a fair number of Roman Catholics did vote `yes',

because they told me. Some very prominent Roman Catholics voted `yes' and they

have good reasons for doing so and I respect their reasons; and some very

prominent and other Anglicans, United Church voted `no' and I respect their

judgement as well. But the point is, that the Protestants in this Province

outnumber the other Protestants, the Anglicans, the United et cetera, outnumber

the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians and the Seventh-Day Adventists so that the

majority, in my view, is taking away the rights of the minority under this

referendum. And you also have to realize that fewer, if you look at it, only

50-odd per cent voted in that referendum, so there is really no clear mandate to

change our promises prior to that election.

Article 26, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

says: `Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that should be

given to their children.'

Article 2, Protocol No. 4 of the European Convention

of Human Rights reads: `In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in

relation to Education and Teaching, the State shall respect the rights of

parents, to ensure such eduction and teaching are in conformity with their own

religious and philosophical convictions.' That's Europe - the first one was the

Declaration of Human Rights.

Now, sometimes I believe it is impossible to keep an election

promise, sometimes it is impossible; you do the best you can but you can't keep

it, that happens. In 1989, we were elected on the expectation that we would be

able to create jobs. We all tried to create jobs and this government has worked

very hard in that respect, very, very hard; we give credit to all the people who

tried, we tried hard. We haven't been nearly as successful as we had hoped but

we tried, we tried. Now then, in a sense, what people expected was not fully

delivered; I can understand that, because people tried. But I don't believe it

is necessary for us to go forward with this amendment, and I will tell you why.

From my discussions with the Denominational Education

Committee representatives and others, I believe, almost all that we want to

achieve can be achieved. I believe that before the end of this week, the

Minister of Education could announce the new school construction board, could

ask the denominations to name their three, government names its three chairmen

to put in place and then they divide up whatever money government is prepared to

give them for school construction on a needs basis. That has been agreed, I say

to them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: - because this is what has been told to me.

But you will only agree if the whole package is put in place. And they say:

`Nonsense - that is not true. We were prepared to go with that.'

Now, that has to be clarified. Are the denominations prepared

to go ahead tomorrow with the school construction board or are they not? I

believe they will. They tell me they are. Other people tell me they are not.

This has to be clarified.

I believe that the number of school boards can be reduced to

ten - ten common school boards. It can be done within a week or two. The

election for those boards can be called this week, and the election can take

place in the appropriate time. That can be done. In fact, the denominations

wanted to go down to nine and the figure of ten is the government's, as I

understand. So that is not a problem, and we can take a lot of excess cash out

of the system by reducing the number of boards and reducing the number of

supernumerary executives who are operating those boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about doing away with DECs?

DR. KITCHEN: Similarly, the hon. member says, what about

the DECs? The DECs have agreed to a reduction in what goes on there, a

substantial reduction, to have committees but with somebody responsible for

religious rights - somebody, but not as elaborate a structure as is there now.

That has already been agreed.

I believe the transportation problems can be worked out very

quickly, not as easily, but they can be worked out very quickly and an agreement

can be in place.

Mr. Speaker, a number of us on this side had been hearing

that the denominations would not co-operate with government. We had been hearing

privately that the denominations would co-operate with government. Presented to

us was a statement of denominations' position. Government presented us, the

Department of Education presented us, with the denominations' position on a

number of issues. We went to the DECs, the three executive directors, and said,

`Look, here is what government is saying. Is that right?' We went down over it,

and we were dumbfounded by what they told us. What we were being told and what

they told us was very different. Let me indicate.

We wrote a letter, then, to our Premier, and I am going to

read part of that letter. The letter is signed by me, by Graham Flight, Walter

Carter, Walter Noel, Beaton Tulk, Doug Oldford and Melvin Penney. We wrote this

letter to the Premier:

`Dear Premier, for some time now we have been concerned that

statements made in caucus, Cabinet, and elsewhere by the Minister of Education,

and to some extent by yourself, concerning the positions and attitude of the

churches toward educational reform were not matching what we have been hearing

privately from them and from other sources. This was especially evident in the

presentation to caucus on October 28. On November 1, seven members of caucus - I

just named them - met with the three executive directors of the DECs and

confronted them with government's statement of the churches' positions. We were

all dumbfounded by what they said, and how different their statement of their

churches' positions on various issues were from those portrayed as theirs by

government. Subsequently, we studied the correspondence and all other documents

available to us, including the Williams Report, and held conversations with a

number of people. Attached to this letter is a list of what appear to be

inaccurate statements by government. We regard these as extremely serious and,

if accurate, unacceptable. We believe this matter to be of the utmost urgency

and look forward to your taking appropriate action within the next week.'

We have yet to receive a response to that letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? When was that written?

DR. KITCHEN: That was written November 15, 1994.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are in some rush, aren't they?

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, that attachment lists twelve

inaccuracies, and if any member wants a copy I will gladly provide it, because

the time has come to let it hang out, I think, on this issue.

I don't know what the problem is. I believe that the churches

are prepared to negotiate with government, and that government can get almost

everything they want from the churches, particularly after the thrust of the

referendum, which was in the government's favour.

I remember negotiating the amalgamation of the hospital

boards in St. John's, and that wasn't an easy job; I don't mind telling you. I

can remember the meetings we had with various individuals there, meeting after

meeting, and they were quite hot and heavy. But we were able to negotiate with

those boards. The one that we had the most interesting negotiation with was with

the Sisters of Mercy about St. Clare's. Because basically it is their hospital.

They built it there just like the Salvation Army built the Grace, pretty well.

We negotiated, we went back and forth. They had a position, we had a position.

We put it all down on the table and we were able to bring about a meeting of the

minds where they are happy, we are happy, it is done.

I will tell you the basic ingredient to that. The Premier was

involved, I was involved, the Sisters of Mercy were involved, the chairman of

the board, various people were involved. But I will tell you why we were able to

come to grips with that problem and resolve it successfully. It was because we

were bargaining in good faith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: I believe we have to bargain in good faith

on the education issue. I don't know what the problem is. I honestly don't know

what the problem is. I'm perplexed. I don't want to vote against the government.

I am a Liberal, I don't want to vote against the government. I've been

twenty-five years trying to get us in power and to keep us in power. I don't

want to vote against us. But I do want this thing resolved because it is very

important.

Now, what is the problem? Is the problem the official who is

doing the negotiating, Dr. Crocker? If he is the problem, well, you can transfer

him to some other part of the hierarchy. Is it the Minister of Education? Well,

he can be exchanged. I don't know who it is. Is it the Premier? I don't know, I

don't know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: I question. I don't know. I don't think so.

I don't know what the problem is. Maybe the problem is on the other side. Maybe

the problem is with the churches. I don't know what the problem is, but I do

believe, from what everyone is telling me, that this can be resolved without

putting us through the misery of a constitutional amendment.

Is there another agenda? Do some people want to get the

churches out of education completely? I don't know what the agenda is. People

have been asking questions. I have to ask questions, too, because I am

concerned.

I believe that most members of this House would wish this

thing to be negotiated and done quickly. I am going to appeal to all the

members, both sides of this House, to vote against this amendment and let's get

down and negotiate, and get it done and, if necessary, put the proper team in

place to do it. It is no good. You know, for the last generation it isn't enough

to say: I'm just carrying out orders, I'm a foot-soldier in the army. You can't

plead that anymore. Every individual has to answer for what he or she does. You

can't say: I'm just a foot-soldier, I'm just a back bencher, I'm just a lowly

member of the Cabinet. One has to take the responsibility oneself for what one

does.

Another point I want to make. The fundamental question that

we have to answer is: Is there a role for churches in education? Some people

believe their time has come to go. Very sincerely, I believe that there is a

role for churches in education. At one time in my life I thought churches had

far too much power and I believe they did, but that is far from the truth now.

In fact, I don't think that churches perhaps have enough to say about the issues

that are facing people. I am concerned about values and morals in this society

in which we live. I am concerned with the number of children who come from

broken homes. I am concerned, as you are, with all this heartlessness that seems

to be emanating from governments across Canada and the world, the Ralph Kleins

and this fellow Harris up there - Jack's brother, is it? - up there in

Ontario...the heartlessness which blames the problems of the nation on the poor

and are trying to balance the Budget on the backs of poor people.

This is un-Christian. We need the Catholic church in

education, we need the Pentecostal Church, we need all the churches in education

to tell us that you have to be good to your neighbour. When a guy or woman is

down you have to help them out because there is far to much of the other side of

the coin. If they are down give them a shot, give them a kick and that is what

we are up to. I believe we have to have - and I think the churches - there is no

other institution in this society which has, as its formal responsibility, the

protection of morals and values. You cannot leave it to the law - can you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: - you cannot leave it to the judges. This is

a role of the church and it is through the schools that the church has their

biggest influence. It is very difficult these days to operate in any other

fashion.

Let me read a letter that I got the other day from the

Chairperson of the Parish Council of St. Pius X. The St. Pius X parish is in the

district of St. John's Centre. I will read part of it. I had a delegation in

from Pius X the other day, the parish, the PTA and the alliance. They came in,

we sat down and had a good chat about what they were doing and I had not fully

realized how much the parish contributes to the school. Anyway I won't read it

all: At this time we wish to provide you with some examples of the tremendously

positive impact our parish has on the education of our children in our parish

schools - this is the parish, not the school board and not the PTA - St. Pius X

parish has provided its parish hall for use as a gymnasium for the St. Pius X

Elementary School children. This hall is also used by the school for parent

meetings, school assemblies, inter-murals and parent-teacher association

functions.

The recent renovations to this parish hall was a direct

benefit for the school. With the school board the parish also shared the cost of

the recent exterior painting of the elementary school and parish hall. The

church itself has been made available to the school for school concerts. The

original elementary school was built by the Roman Catholic Church in 1955.

During the 1960s the people of this parish made it their priority to provide the

financing to build extensions to that school and also to build another new

school, now the junior high school, in 1967. The parishioners carried those

debts for many years before they paid them off. There has also been substantial

funding by the Society of Jesus for the operation of Gonzaga High School.

Numerous other financial contributions have been made and continue to be made to

the schools.

The school lunch program received a start up funding in 1993

and it continues to receive money from the parish. Our ATTN, attention to the

neighbourhood committee donates $1,000 annually to provide transportation for

students to participate in after school activities and to help fund the school

lunch program. The parish council has provided $1,000 this year to purchase

material for a volunteer reading program which strengthens the reading skills

for poor readers. Many non-monetary contributions have been made by the parish.

We have a sacramental preparation program which coordinates the efforts of the

religious programs in the schools with the parish programs of instruction.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

DR. KITCHEN: I will finish up this letter and then I will

sit down.

Pastoral visits are made in the schools by the parish

priests. Pastoral youth groups; Brownies, Beavers, Cubs and Scouts serve the

school population and use school and parish facilities.

Our Tragic Events Team combines school, school board and

parish personnel as well as parent community volunteers. In 1993 this team

responded quickly to support our children when one of their classmates was

killed by a drunk driver. The emotional and spiritual support offered by this

team helped the children cope with this horrific event. In some ways the school

and parish community emerged even stronger as a result of the well prepared

intervention of the Tragic Events Team. This team was the logical outgrowth of

the caring culture developed among the school, parish and community over the

years. This parish feels it has the responsibility for the education of the

whole child, shared with the school. Sometimes the influence of school and

parish are so closely intertwined that it is difficult to see where one ends and

the other begin. The benefit to these children is so obviously positive.

The St. Pius X School score among the best in the Province,

in national and provincial standardized testing. I might add and this is me not

- that 30 per cent of the children attending Pius X are from families below the

poverty line, even though the school itself is in a fairly elite area. This

result of the testing is due in no small measure to the parish support, both

financial and otherwise. This support allows the teachers and the school

administration to pay more attention to the task of teaching. Here is the

crucial question. Could the financial community and moral support given by this

parish continue, or would it be welcome if our Catholic schools become common

schools without the strong ties that presently bind them to our parish

community?

St. Pius X parish has developed a sustaining relationship

with our schools and that relationship will be irrevocably altered if the

Catholic nature of our parish schools is lost. The cultural value of the

spiritual learning that takes place in our schools is as authentic and worthy of

respect and preservation as the traditions held sacred by the brothers and

sisters of our first nations, and on they go. This is signed by Mary Kearsey,

Chairperson of the Pius X Parish Council.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks now, and perhaps I

will get another chance later on.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

Today I cannot say I am pleased to rise in my place and speak

on the resolution Term 17 put forth by the Premier because I do not think it is

necessary that this resolution be before the House today. I would like to

compliment the Member for St. John's Centre for getting up and speaking his

mind. I can honesty say that I do not think there is one thing he said that I

can disagree with.

Mr. Speaker, Term 17 guarantees denominational schools in

this Province. This amendment, regardless of what the Premier says, is open to

interpretation by the courts. If this resolution passes both houses the courts

will decide what will happen, or what will not happen, with the schools in this

Province. I voted, no, on September 5 for different reasons and I will give you

some of them now.

I believed at the time that changes and progress in education

in this Province is happening, and I can elaborate on that after. I believed

that changes required could be done with the existing Term 17. I believed that a

referendum would be divisive, is divisive. In 1949 we saw what happened with

respect to religions in this Province when we were trying to join Confederation.

If we had not had Term 17 we would not today be part of Canada. With respect to

being divisive. I come from a large family of twelve brothers and sister and we

had members of my family voting yes, and members of my family voting, no,

getting pressure from both sides to vote, yes, to vote, no. That is how divisive

it can be, and possibly will be in the future.

I honestly believe that why I voted, no, is because this

resolution would actually delay education reform in this Province and I say that

because I think once this goes through the House of Commons, if and when we

approve it here, I believe the Premier would not have brought it to the House of

Assembly if he did not have the numbers to force it through, but I believe once

it goes through the House of Commons there will be actual delays and we will

have the bigger provinces, such as Ontario, etc., and the MPs of Parliament,

taking a very serious look at this when it is applicable to themselves, Mr.

Speaker.

Also, from what I can gather, normally amendments to the

Constitution are introduced simultaneously in both Houses and the wording is

bilaterally agreed upon, but this has not been the case with respect to this

resolution. I vote, no, because 90 per cent, from what I can gather, of the

changes that were wanted by government could have been actually agreed upon, so

that only left 10 per cent. I believe that this resolution, and the result of

this resolution, boils down to a matter of trust, trust with respect to the

Premier of this Province, and the Member for St. John's Centre alluded to that

from my perspective. This government, led by the Premier, and he is not here now

to hear these words, but hopefully he will hear them in due course, has a very

poor record when it comes to trust. On March 12, 1993 a number of people spoke

on this, weeks before the election call, the Premier stood in this House and

gave his word that there would be no unilateral constitutional amendments by

this government. He went back on his word. The Hydro debate, which was against

the wishes of the people in this Province, he forged ahead with that, knowing

full well that 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the people of this Province didn't

want it. He said he wouldn't go against the wishes of the people. Only when

members of his own caucus this last summer had a meeting and put it to him point

blank, back off on Hydro, did he decide to back off on Hydro. I firmly believe

that.

With respect to the regional fire fighting. Why I'm making

these points is I want to show the history of the mistrust that I have for this

Premier and this government. I attended a meeting on regional fire fighting,

myself and three other mayors, and the minister at the time, who was Eric

Gullage, and the Premier. We made a number of points. The Premier looked at me

when I was mayor at the time of a small town and said: Tell me why this isn't

fair. I looked at him and I said: Listen, and I told him the whole reason why.

He turned right to the minister at the time, Eric Gullage, and these are his

exact words, almost word for word, he said: Minister, tell Mayor Duff if she

believes that there is going to be a policy put in place based on assessed value

only, tell her it is not going to happen. What do we have today? We have the

Minister of Provincial and Municipal Affairs washing his hands of that and now

we have a policy in place, or formerly in place, based on assessed value only

and nothing else.

We had the Meech Lake situation. This is where I first began

to mistrust the Premier. Three times, as Peter in the Bible, he went back on his

word. I can't say it word for word but I know that he certainly led the people

to believe that: first, if there was only one province that was going to stop

Meech Lake he couldn't see our Province of 500,000 people doing that, and he

just could not allow that to happen. He changed his mind. He said the least he

could do was go to the people on a referendum. He didn't do that. Third, the

least he said it could happen was a vote in the House of Assembly. What

happened? Last minute, no, he didn't have a vote in the House of Assembly. I was

an ordinary citizen out there looking at the situation and it appeared to me

that he was going back on his word and I completely mistrusted the man. Now we

have the situation we are looking at next Monday with respect to the Quebec

referendum. This Premier may be going down in history as the architect of the

destruction of this country. That is more to be talked about later on.

He campaigned on hospital beds opening up when he first got

elected in 1989. What have we seen since? Nothing but hospital bed closures in

hospitals. Last week, it just goes to signify the mistrust I have with this

situation, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes asked a question to the

Premier, a very basic question. It dealt with denominational or

uni-denominational schools and the viability. The Premier couldn't answer the

question. If he couldn't answer the question that tells me he doesn't have a

plan; if he wouldn't answer the question that tells me he isn't being upfront

with the people of this Province once again.

The question, and I have it here from Hansard, that the

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes asked was this:

"My first question has to deal with the future of the present

denominational schools. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier: Will a

Catholic school that is located in a [Catholic] community or an area that is

entirely of the Catholic faith automatically remain a Catholic school after the

amended Term 17 becomes law, or will that school take on a new status and, if

so, what will that status be?"

The Premier says this. Now, the Premier who is leading the

charge on this education reform. The Premier says: "The minister is better

qualified to answer this than I am, because he is dealing with it on a constant

basis." Further he says: "We suggested that there should be parental choice, but

you have to bear in mind that if you have sort of a breakdown of one-third

Salvation Army, one-third Pentecostal, and one-third Roman Catholic, you cannot

have it one -", Mr. Speaker.

He goes on to say: "If it is a situation where there are five

or ten students who are, say, not of the Roman Catholic faith, as the hon.

member refers to, and there are 200 who are Roman Catholic, I cannot imagine

that it would not be a uni-denominational... school. My expectation is that it

would be...." Not that it would be or it definitely will be, but: "My

expectations" and "I cannot imagine."

He goes on to say: "Now, the basis or the precise manner in

which that is done I do not know for the moment, but I did mention at the

outset, at the start of this question...." He goes on. Obviously he definitely

has no plan with respect to this situation. Just come up with the brain wave and

do it.

Mr. Speaker, I have to go on with respect to some of these

questions that were asked last week by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes,

who said: I have been over this time and time again and I cannot recall seeing

anything that puts forth any criteria. I would like to know, Mr. Premier, what

is the answer to it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Education

and Training.

The Minister of Education and Training answers, not the

Premier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand that assuming we get the

permission of this House, the Commons and the Senate, to change the

constitution, that the next day there is nothing - will be a total change.

Now, leading up to September 5 the Premier led people to

believe that this would be through the House of Commons this fall, and he is

after saying here in the House already that it may not go through this fall.

He goes on to say: Now in a case where there is room for two

viable schools, there will be no major problem because we will use a

registration process whereby ten, twenty, fifty, sixty, or 100 parents in a

given area will register in a Pentecostal, Roman Catholic or uni-denominational

school.

Ten, twenty, fifty, sixty, what is it? He does not know. He

did not answer the question, because I honestly believe he is hiding something.

The question was on viability criteria, the impact negatively on another school.

He would not refer to that. How far are we going to go with that? Can a school

in St. Bride's be impacted upon by a school in Torbay? Can it be impacted upon

when they are preparing the budget? What is the definition for criteria and

viability? I believe that there will be no uni-denominational schools, and I

believe the Premier's trickery and manipulation tactics are at work again. When

the minister got up to answer the question, he bluffed it; he did not answer the

question.

On September 5, after the referendum results came in and the

Premier was interviewed on television, you could actually see the

disappointment; he was visibly upset. Before the referendum he was expecting -

and the polls probably showed him - that he would get a 70 per cent result, and

that is what he was really expecting. He was hoping to get something where he

could look in good favour to the public again, because he had fallen behind with

respect to the hydro and other issues. He expected a high turnout, and what did

he get? A 52 per cent turnout, with a 54 per cent majority. I accept the

results, but a 52 per cent turnout of the people of this Province... From what I

can gather, and from what people tell me, normally in a referendum situation, 60

per cent in other jurisdictions is what is normally accepted, a minimum of 60

per cent. Obviously this referendum was not clearly decisive.

Now some people compare an election to a referendum, but if a

person is elected today - if I am elected, or the Member for St. John's Centre,

or whatever the case may be - in four years time, or three years time, when an

election is called, I can get the boot, the Member for St. John's Centre can get

the boot, or any member can get the boot, but in a referendum situation, once an

amendment is made and a constitutional amendment is done, it is no easy task to

change that amendment. So you cannot make that comparison, in all fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Premier may have a legal

right to go ahead with the constitutional amendment, but I have to question the

moral rights there. We have not seen the new Schools Act legislation. I have to

ask the question, `Why?' The no side were putting forth the new Schools Act

legislation. The people of this Province should see it all and know what they

were voting on. They have worked on that for years, from what I can gather, and

there is no Schools Act put in place yet, and it begs the question, `Why?' At

least the members of this House should certainly see the new schools legislation

before you ask to pass this resolution.

What will we see under the new Schools Act? When will we see

the new Schools Act? My concern is, what will we see? With respect to the

history of this government and this Premier, as I have stated earlier, there is

no trust there from my perspective. The wording on the referendum versus the

bill itself. When it goes through the House of Commons, and the Members of

Parliament have a look at it and decide to make amendments, it will have to come

back here for possible amendments or rewording. All this over again; I have to

ask the question, `Why?' when it is not necessary.

The Member for St. John's Centre, was asking: Why are we not

getting the co-operation? Who is the problem? What is the problem? I think it

comes back here, one saying this will end up in having more delays and more

delays. Personally, I support education reform, I always have and I think

everybody in this House of Assembly supports education reform. Obviously, the

people in the Province support education reform. But, when you are talking about

trying to compare students' achievements with the national average, and what

have you, I would have to look at the curriculum and what is being taught in

schools.

I have been in business and private business for a number of

years; I have had people coming out of school who worked for me and I would have

to question what they have been taught in school compared to what we learned.

Now, when I am up speaking, Mr. Speaker, or any of us, we have the Newfoundland

dialect and we have our own way of saying things but when we put it on paper we

know what to say and the correct form, paragraph, sentence and structure and

what have you. But I would have to look at the curriculum, Mr. Speaker, and what

is being taught in the schools.

During the referendum debate, I don't think there was much

talk about the students themselves, how they should be number one. The Premier,

as I have said, and the Minister of Education, referred to them a number of

times actually, as being substandard. Mr. Speaker, after the referendum, after

the amendment goes through, we would have the same teachers, we would have the

same curriculum. So I would say, it is not the fault of denominational

education, that if - and it hasn't been proven to me from my perspective, that

there are substandard students in our Province.

Now, during the Premier's speech, in introducing the

resolution, I believe he is actually manipulating figures again, as he normally

does, and the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes referred to this, too, with

respect to spending in other provinces. He talked on a per capita basis. The

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes asked him a question on that today. He should

have been referring to a per student basis and today, he tried to skate around

it again. The Premier tried to skate around that point today. But my information

tells me that we are actually spending $1,500 per student, per year, less than

say, an average for Ontario or some of the other provinces.

Now, you take a small school like St. Francis in Outer Cove

with say, 200 students and you take $1,500 per student per year, that will be an

extra $300,000 a year, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine what a small school in this

Province could accomplish with an extra $300,000 a year? They could have extra

teachers, they could have extra equipment, Mr. Speaker, and the money to go

along with the equipment they would need.

In May of 1993, when I was first elected to this House,

within weeks I had parents from the St. Agnes school PTA in Pouch Cove contact

me, Mr. Speaker. Flatrock lost its school in 1988. Now, I am giving you this

little story so you can understand where I am coming from, because I am going to

be asking the Premier for something now in a minute. Students of St. Agnes in

Pouch Cove decided that they would come together with the Pouch Cove Elementary.

I would say education reform is happening and this is a prime example, Mr.

Speaker.

Education reform is happening for a number of reasons: one,

the numbers of enrolment in the smaller schools; the money available to schools

is lessening, and common sense will dictate that we would have a natural

evolution of education reform in this Province. Mr. Speaker, education reform is

being forced by the Premier of this Province for some hidden reason. I don't

know what it is. All of us should have the interests of the students at heart,

all of us agree on reform. But we know that something else is driving the

Premier. We know something else is driving him but we don't know what it is. I

am going to give a situation now where I will ask the Premier to back up what he

is saying.

In the summer of 1993, I met with the parents of St. Agnes

school in Pouch Cove with the intention of getting a new school in Pouch Cove

and I fully supported it then. St. Michael's in Flatrock was amalgamated with

Pouch Cove in 1988 - St. Agnes and Pouch Cove. St. Agnes has an old building

down there, they have no gym. cafeteria, no playground, the parking lot is very

small and there are other problems with respect to leakage and the structure of

the building. They have no band, glee club or sports teams because of numbers in

the school. Other problems, St. Agnes has Kindergarten to Grade VI; Grades VII

and VIII have to go to Torbay, Holy Trinity, and then, two years later, they

have to go to high school.

The students of St. Agnes, as I said, go from Kindergarten to

Grade VI, VII to VII, Holy Trinity, IX to XII, too many changes, Mr. Speaker,

for young students coming up through the system today. In 1988, as I said, St.

Michael's in Flatrock closed. The Roman Catholic School Board at that time,

recognized that they - and committed to a new school. They recognized that a new

school was needed in the Flatrock and Pouch Cove area to service Pouch Cove,

Flatrock and Bauline. Pouch Cove Elementary, with less then 200 students, is

experiencing downgrading. They are into a multi-grading situation, and the

building itself requires upgrading.

I had meetings with the Roman Catholic School Board and I had

meetings with the PTA of the different committees. I have had public meetings

with both St. Agnes and Pouch Cove Elementary. I have had meetings with the

Avalon Consolidated representatives and parents this past winter, and the Pouch

Cove Elementary, which is part of the Avalon Consolidated School Board, voted at

that meeting to form a joint service school. Now, the RC School Board has listed

this as a number one priority, Mr. Speaker. The RC School Board and the Avalon

Consolidated School Board - basically the two biggest boards on the Island -

formerly agreed to a joint service agreement. A committee was struck, a tender

has been put out for design and site location this past few weeks and it is

going to be awarded in the very near future. So, to me, this shows co-operation

between the boards, between the parents, students and what have you, PTAs. So,

actually, education reform is happening within this Province where it is

required.

Parents and teachers of both schools are proud of their

accomplishments, Mr. Speaker. So, on behalf of the parents, teachers, boards and

students, most importantly students, I would like to ask the Premier - and he is

not here now - if he would back up what he has been saying and back up what he

has been preaching, get the $3 million to $4 million that is required for that

school in Pouch Cove and show that what he is talking about works and can work.

Obviously it can work - mutual co-operation between the boards, parents and

schools themselves, Mr. Speaker. I personally supported the concept, as I said,

and met with all involved. I believe education reform is happening.

Now, with respect to the district itself, in St. John's East

Extern, there was a 67 per cent voter turnout, Mr. Speaker, 55 per cent said

`yes' and 45 per cent said, `no.' There was a very high turn out. I believe it

was probably the third highest in the Province. Now, the Premier has actually

stated in the media and in this House - talk about laughable! The minister has

actually stated that all the `no's' turned out and anybody who didn't turn out

to vote were `yes'. Now, can you believe that, Mr. Speaker?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is rationalizing again why he

should go ahead with further action on amending the Constitution. When I was

going around my district, a number of people told me that they were not going to

vote and they were refusing to vote for a number of reasons. The main reason was

that they didn't understand the question. They thought the question was too

vague and they didn't know what the end result would be. Now, I believe that

this is a good reason to sit down with the churches and renegotiate.

Since the referendum and this education debate came up, I

have thought a lot about it, because it has weighed heavily on my mind. I have

analyzed the results of the referendum, I listened to the Premier's speech and I

studied the resolution. Now, most people who know me personally know that I am a

pretty decisive individual. In any given situation I weigh the pros and cons on

an issue and I make a decision and I am usually satisfied with my decision. I

have had reason in the past number of years to make some very serious decisions

with respect to my health. Let me tell you, I give less thought and

consideration to that than I give to this issue. The bottom line for me is

trust, as I started out in my few words, Mr. Speaker, it boils down to trust. We

have seen changes already, we have seen the Premier not answering questions, Mr.

Speaker, and I have to ask the question: why? Does he know the answer or does he

not know the answer? I don't believe that he has been up front with the public.

I believe that changes in education reform could have been

implemented in the past few years since he got the Williams' Commission Report -

over the past three years - and nothing was done. Why, Mr. Speaker? because of

an attitude? The Member for St. John's Centre was asking why or who? It is

because of an attitude, that is why we have not seen education reform in this

Province, an `all or nothing' attitude, Mr. Speaker. I honestly believe that

education reform could be and should be well under way in this Province this

very day, and it isn't. I, personally, would like to ask the government and the

churches to sit down for at least one last try. Let's negotiate reform, 90 per

cent of the way now, Mr. Speaker. The referendum results were so close that I

think the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve no less.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you voting now?

MR. J. BYRNE: Wait and find out.

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

Kenmount.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to rise and

speak on one of the most important resolutions that have come before this House

since Confederation with Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: This resolution will form the basis for

fundamental changes in the governance of the educational system in our Province.

These changes were first envisaged by Sir Robert Bond in 1908 and have been

advocated at various times over the past four decades by many leading educators

and community leaders, but heretofore have been viewed as too politically

sensitive for legislators of any party or stripe to embrace or to endorse.

This resolution is founded solidly on the fundamental right

of each child in this Province to receive the very best education possible, and

to learn in an environment that facilitates his or her maximum potential. This

resolution is not primarily about additional powers for the government, rather,

it is about empowering parents and children, urban and rural alike, to have

equal access to educational opportunities. It will facilitate the reduction of

duplication and inefficiencies that serve no educational purpose and do, in

fact, often compromise access by students to better educational programs.

Some members of this House, myself included, come to this

debate with strong opinions that reflect our varied backgrounds and our

experiences. I have deep respect for the differing opinions on this issue,

including those expressed by my colleagues on both sides of the House, and those

who have spoken on behalf of the churches, and others who have been advocates

for an opinion that is different from mine. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to

acknowledge with gratitude the decision of my party leader and my caucus to

facilitate an open debate without the discipline that normally is associated

with party politics.

Mr. Speaker, to some extent, my position on this resolution

is grounded in the values that were passed to me by my parents. In addition, my

viewpoints reflect my career as a teacher and administrator in the Salvation

Army and amalgamated school systems prior to integration in 1969, and with the

Avalon Consolidated School Board from 1969 until 1993. I was raised in a family

with very strong commitments to education. While my siblings and I began our

schooling in the Salvation Army School in Creston South, only one of seven

children completed their Grade XI there. When it came to their children and

educational opportunities, my parents did not feel constrained by their very

active membership in the Salvation Army, even though that school was the nearest

to my home. They separated their religious affiliation from the school system.

Thus, while my older brother graduated from the Salvation Army school in

Creston, my older sister and I completed our Grade XI at St. Michael's Anglican

school, and another brother graduated from the United Church school system. We

attended whatever school my parents thought had the very best teachers. Church

affiliation was never a primary factor in deciding what school I should attend.

Mr. Speaker, that background leads me to one of the most

fundamental principles that I hold firmly and which I would like to see

reflected in the educational system of this Province, that is, the right of

parents to choose the schools their children will attend. Religious affiliation

should not be a factor in deciding whether or not a child is accepted into a

particular school. I am firmly supportive of the neighbourhood schools concept,

and the right of every parent to choose the school his, her, or their child

attends.

Neighbourhood schools should operate in the same way as do

the neighbourhoods themselves. To some extent, the denominational structure of

our school system is an anachronism and is based on a philosophy that serves

only to separate rather than to unify communities and families.

Mr. Speaker, the structure of the school system should not

separate the children who live on the same streets, play in the same

playgrounds, attend the same day cares, and preschools, or visit each other in

their own neighbourhood homes. It is hard to explain to a four or five year old

child that his or her friend cannot attend the same school as they do because

that friend attends a different church on Sunday. All of God's children should

be able to associate in the same school just as they associate in their own

neighbourhoods, or for that matter as they associate in their own extended

families.

Mr. Speaker, since I believe this resolution before the House

supports the concept of neighbourhood schools, and viable schools, and places

the educational needs of the child before his or her religious denomination, I

am left with no alternative but to support the resolution and I do so with pride

in my past, conviction in my heart, that the reforms of governance are best for

the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, and with the hope that the new

efficiencies and the new cost savings will be used to enhance programs for those

children who need early intervention and for those with learning disabilities

whose potential will not be realized without a determined and dedicated

allocation of new funds. Let us not forget that real changes in education occur

at the classroom level. This is where issues of child poverty have their

greatest negative impact and this is where the needs for changes in curriculum

are most evident, and this is where positive teacher, parent, child partnerships

have the greatest potential for success.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not note that the

churches have contributed greatly to the educational system of our Province. The

denominational system began as an initiative of an Anglican clergyman, Reverend

Henry Jones, and was supported by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.

That first school was built in Bonavista in 1723. The churches operated schools

in Newfoundland and Labrador for 132 years before we were granted Responsible

Government in 1855.

If it had not been for the initiatives of organizations like

the Benevolent Irish Society, and similar church groups, education for children

in the early days of settlement would not have occurred at all. Basically, each

denomination looked after the educational needs of its own children and as a

consequence the denominational system evolved over time and was put into law in

Mr. Speaker, when the governments of the day assumed more

responsibility for educational matters each denomination therefore was given

formal rights to establish and maintain schools. The denominational system

became part of our legacy and was enshrined in many pieces of legislation, like

the Education Act of 1927, the Terms of Union with Canada 1949, and the

Constitution of Canada itself, including amendments made in 1987 that granted

rights to the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador. Throughout

all that time, however, the churches viewed the school as an extension of their

respective mandates to their adherents. In philosophy we did not move very far

from that which prevailed in 1723 when the first school was build for the

continued propagation of the gospel.

Mr. Speaker, while I respect the right of churches to be

involved in Christian education programs, while I promote the teaching of

Christian values in our schools, and while I would never want to see Christmas

concerts, Easter programs, the Lord's Prayer, etc., removed from the school

system, I believe strongly that the primary purpose of the school system is to

educate and not to indoctrinate children.

Mr. Speaker, that is why two years ago when I was reflecting

on the reactions of the church leaders to the proposed changes to governance

contained in the Williams Royal Commission I stated publicly that I believed

that church leaders in their negotiations with the government were more

motivated by power, position in society, and protection of property than they

were by a sincere desire to facilitate learning environments where each child is

encouraged to reach his or her full academic, social, and physical potential.

Mr. Speaker, in short the church leaders were determined to

maintain the status quo philosophy and to use the protections contained in the

Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada as their ace card at the

bargaining table.

I would have preferred, as many people in this House would

have preferred - in fact, everybody in this House would have preferred, and it

would have been much more practical and desirable - if a consensual agreement

could have been reached between the government and the church leaders. However,

after two-and-a-half years of bargaining, two-and-a-half years of concerted

negotiations, it became apparent that real changes in governance could only be

achieved if this Legislature were given additional powers.

The voters of Waterford - Kenmount knew exactly where I stood

on the proposed amendments to Term 17 and educational reform before they went to

the polls on September 5. A total of 7,256 citizens of Waterford - Kenmount

voted on the referendum question. That, Mr. Speaker, was the highest number to

vote in any electoral district in this Province. Of that number, 4,721 voted in

favour of the resolution we have before the House today. I thank my constituents

for their participation in the referendum. When the vote is called, and with all

due respect to those constituents who voted against the proposed changes to Term

17, I will be supporting the resolution. To do otherwise would be an abrogation

of those principles which I hold dearly and which for me are matters of

conscience.

The people of Waterford - Kenmount want to see an end to

duplication that sees competing schools built across the street from each other,

an end to a system that sees children transported thirty miles to a school of

their own denomination, even though these children pass several very viable

schools along the way. While I support the right of parents to choose the school

their children attend, I should also note that if parents want their children to

attend schools other than the nearest and most viable school, these children

should attend at their parents' expense.

On the other hand, each parent has a right to have his or her

child's religious principles respected in the school system, and where numbers

make instruction practical, to have religious education courses offered by

teachers who are members of a child's faith, and have the necessary professional

accreditations. The people of Waterford - Kenmount want to see an end to a

school construction practice that is arm's length from the government and that

is encumbered by petty religious jealousies and one which is often out of touch

with Province-wide needs assessments.

The citizens of this Province want to see better learning

opportunities for every child, especially those in rural Newfoundland. I believe

reforms in the educational system are long overdue, and I ask the government to

commit itself to using whatever savings accrue from the new efficiencies to the

development and implementation of programs and support systems in the schools of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I noted in my earlier background my role as a teacher and an

administrator. It is in that context I regret the resolution doesn't address

some of my other concerns about the governance of education in this Province. I

refer specifically to the conflict between the religious character of our

schools and the rights of Canadians as contained in the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, as well as in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 2 of the Charter

of Rights and Freedom reads, and I quote: Everyone has the following fundamental

freedoms: (

a) freedom of conscience and religion; (

b) freedom of thought,

belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media

of communication; (

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d), freedom of

association.

Section 15 of the same Charter continues: Every individual is

equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal

benefit of the law without discrimination, and in particular without

discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,

age or mental or physical disability.

Again, the Canadian Human Rights Act,

part I,

section 3(1)

reads: For the purpose of this act, race, national or ethnic origin, colour,

religion, age, sex, marital status, daily status, disability and conviction for

which a pardon has been granted, are prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, the right of denominational school boards to

maintain their denominational character has been expressly recognized in

Canada's constitution, and the individual rights of teachers who are employed by

these school boards often comes into conflict with the group rights that

denominational school boards claim they have been accorded in

Section 29 of the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads: Nothing in this Charter abrogates

or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the

Constitution of Canada with respect to denominational separate or dissentient

schools.

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that teachers in our Province,

and teachers throughout the nation, find themselves caught in a profound

conflict when the employment rules of a specific school board restricts their

religious choice and private lifestyle. The courts, both in Newfoundland and

other provinces, and under appeal the Supreme Court of Canada, have given

priority to the rights of denominational groups to the detriment of the

individual teacher. Therefore, for a teacher, failure to conform to the rules of

a specific denominational code usually means dismissal. As a teacher of thirty

years