October

27, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 44

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sylvester Lynch died

at his home in Bay Bulls on January 29 1994. The Honourable David Orr, a Judge

of the Provincial Court, was subsequently appointed to carry out an inquiry

under the provisions of The

Summary Proceedings Act . Judge Orr held

public hearings last May and June, and submitted his report to me recently. I

now table the Report, in its entirety.

Judge Orr made several findings, which are set out in the

Report. These include:

1.) With respect to the cause of death, Judge Orr concluded

that Mr. Lynch died of "natural causes, specifically heart arrest brought on by

thrombotic inclusion." He concluded further, and again I quote, that "in this

instance, it is evident that if [Mr. Lynch] had been admitted and appropriately

treated in the [Grace General Hospital] on the 27 of January he would most

likely have survived."

2.) The family of the deceased raised questions at the

inquiry about the response time of the ambulance service and the training of the

Emergency Medical Attendants aboard the ambulance. Judge Orr addressed both

points in his Report. He found that, and again I quote, Sir, "on the issue of

the time, it is clear that the time was not a factor. In addition, it is clear

that the ambulance arrived as quickly as was possible and in any event once the

[cardiac] arrest had started in this case, being outside a hospital there is

little that could have been done." Judge Orr also concluded that there was, and

again, Sir, I quote, "no evidence that that was anything improper or inadequate

as regards the conduct of the ambulance attendants."

Judge Orr made three recommendations, which are set out on

page 10 of the Report. The first was that copies of the Report be sent to a

number of individuals and institutions. This has been done. The second was that

"appropriate levels of training for the Emergency Medical Attendants be made

available to ensure that there is always an EMA II available to respond with an

ambulance and that efforts be made to upgrade all EMAs to level II." His third

recommendation was that "steps should be taken to ensure that patients who are

identified as having Cardiac problems be seen by a Cardiologist at the earliest

possible time, preferably at the time of their arrival at the hospital." My

colleague the Minister of Health has instructed his officials to follow up on

these recommendations, and to take appropriate action.

A copy of the Report was provided to the representative of

Mr. Lynch's family ten days or so ago, at my direction. I have a number of

copies of the report, Mr. Speaker, as well as of the statement I've just made.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the report it was mentioned that Dr. Stone, the

cardiologist, testified that there were text book symptoms of unstable angina

when Mr. Lynch went to that hospital. Dr. Stone testified that the immediate

course of action should have been admission to hospital, bed rest and treatment

with drugs to alleviate potential blood clotting, and he went on to say an

inquiry judge agreed. And, as the minister read, if the deceased had been

admitted and appropriately treated on January 27, he would most likely have

survived.

It is public knowledge that in the wake of health funding

cuts, the waiting lists for in-hospital procedures have increased significantly.

It is regrettable that this inquiry was not instructed to probe into whether or

not the restrictions on hospital beds and the constant limitations on hospital

admissions were forcing doctors to apply more stringent criteria for hospital

admissions. Now that is the central worry in the minds of Newfoundlanders today,

that their health care is being compromised by hospital bed closures and funding

cutbacks, and they want more than anything else to have that reassurance, not

from hospital administration or the Department of Health, but from an

independent inquiry, so the government might be well advised -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a couple of seconds to conclude?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: The government might be well advised now to

ask that judge to reopen his inquiry to examine whether there have been changes

in admission criteria, or more subtle pressure on doctors to limit hospital

admissions, and move immediately to implement one of the recommendations of that

inquiry, that "steps should be taken to ensure that patients who are identified

as having cardiac problems be seen by a Cardiologist at the earliest possible

time, preferably at the time of their arrival at the hospital".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform hon. members of the publishing and

recent availability of the 1995 edition of the book entitled Protecting

Canada's Endangered Spaces. A copy will be made available to all members of

the Legislature shortly, Mr. Speaker.

In 1989 an endangered spaces campaign was launched by the

World Wildlife Fund Canada and was locally driven by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Protected Areas Association. In keeping with this campaign, government

is dedicated to protecting 10 per cent of the Province's total land mass within

a protected areas network by the year 2000.

Through this project, government is ensuring that areas

representative of Newfoundland and Labrador's nineteen natural regions will be

available for future generations to enjoy. To this end, the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation has assembled a Systems Planning Committee

comprising representatives of government and interest groups.

Mr. Speaker, it is through the dedication of these interest

groups, the Federal Government's preserved areas including Gros Morne and Terra

Nova national parks, and the proposed park for the Torngat region currently

under discussion, and this government's effective wilderness and ecological

reserves program, that this Province can hopefully look forward to realistically

meeting its goal by the year 2000.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to particularly

recognize Ms Laura Jackson, the author who researched and penned the book's

chapter on the situation currently in Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms Jackson is

both well-known and respected by individuals who advocate the need for increased

protected areas in this Province. Ms Jackson's journalism degree and background,

coupled with her membership on the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory

Council, has ensured quality representation for Newfoundland and Labrador in

this publication.

I am very pleased also, Mr. Speaker, to point out that Ms

Jackson is in the gallery today, along with Natalie Zinger, the Quebec

co-ordinator of the Endangered Spaces Campaign; Mary Grantskou, the Executive

Director of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and Mr. Kevin Kavanagh, the

Research Manager for the World Wildlife Fund.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While I acknowledge the work of a fellow-Newfoundlander, Ms

Jackson, the minister mentioned nineteen natural regions. I wonder, are they

supposed to be incorporated with nineteen zones? He mentioned Torngat. What has

that to do with Voisey's Bay? And will the steering committee be going around

Newfoundland talking to people? Because what this government is - like the old

American song: Don't fence me in.

The title: Protecting Canada's Endangered Spaces - I

tell you one example of spaces that are going to be endangered, and that's the

Liberal spaces over there, for what they have been doing over the last six

years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding with Oral Questions, I

would like to welcome, on behalf of all members, nineteen Journalism

Communication Art Skills students from Lawrence College along with their

instructor, Mr. William Callahan. As well, we have nine students from I. J.

Sampson school along with their instructors, Iris Goulding and Myrtle Guinchard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Natural Resources about

forestry. The Chretien Government announced in last winter's Budget that the

Federal Government is drastically scaling back its participation in forestry in

Newfoundland. The minister and the Premier have said little or nothing about

this to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. What have they been saying to

the Federal Government, and what is the latest word from the Federal Government?

Is it still the minister's understanding that federal forestry, the Canadian

Forest Service in Newfoundland, number one, will be shrunk from about 75

permanent full-time professional and technical positions to about 22; number

two, will be reduced from regional office status reporting to head office in

Ottawa, to node status reporting to Fredericton, New Brunswick; and number

three, will be mandated to shift its focus away from Newfoundland and Labrador

forest research to national work; and number four, will be moved from St. John's

to Corner Brook?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in what

the hon. member is talking about, or saying. There is no great big new

revelation in it. Forestry matters have been well debated, and well discussed

between us and Ottawa. As a matter of fact, it is going to be improved over what

the original plan was expected to be last year when the Federal Government made

its initial plans about the reduction in forestry centres across Canada. Now, we

do expect to have a centre that is going to be a focus for excellence for

forestry remaining in this Province, and we are talking about a facility in

Corner Brook. We have not finalized that yet but it would be some forestry

centre similar to what is now in New Brunswick, while not of the same scale,

where we would be co-operating between the Province and Ottawa, but also

involving Memorial University and the model forest. I think it is an excellent

model for us to continue to co-operate together among all sectors.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister is saying, thank you, Uncle Ottawa, for

reducing us from seventy-five full-time jobs down to twenty-two, and thank you,

Uncle Ottawa, for relegating us to the status of a node reporting to

Fredericton. I would like to ask the minister to indicate his understanding of

the timing of the move of this reduced federal forestry presence in our Province

to Corner Brook - the timing - and the cost of what is his understanding of the

plan for a facility to house federal forestry in Corner Brook? Is it his

understanding that the new facility will also house his department's personnel

in Western Newfoundland, as well as Grenfell College and the model forest?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet finalized what

the exact arrangements are going to be in Corner Brook. We are still having

discussions on that and when we have finalized our plans, we will announce them

to the public. We have not done so yet.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister tell us where the money will come from to

provide the new facility in Corner Brook? Will there be a new facility and where

will the money come from? Will any provincial money be put into the construction

of a new facility?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, not today I will not tell

where the money will come from because, as I said in answer to the last

question, we have not yet finalized the arrangements for Corner Brook and

exactly how it will be funded but when it is all finalized we will be glad to

make it all public in great detail.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like the ask

the minister the most important question of all: How will the Province replace

the scientific expertise and research capacity about Newfoundland and Labrador

forests that is being lost because of the drastic federal cuts and downloading?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are going to ensure, as a

Province, that we do what is necessary in the forestry sector and we ourselves

are already doing some of the things that were done last year by the federal

service. We are already doing it, we are already out there doing the sampling of

the egg counts, etcetera, that normally would have been led by the federal side.

We are doing it ourselves and leading it ourselves. The same thing would apply

in other aspects of forestry. We will ensure that what needs to be done is done.

Where there is still a federal capability to help us, we will get that

capability and welcome that capability, but where it is not available from the

Federal Government, forestry, since it is a provincial resource, will be managed

by us to the maximum benefits.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Education.

Recently, there are huge concerns at Memorial University

about the pending budget coming down from the Province, come May. Can he confirm

that discussions have taken place that will see a dramatic cut in the

University's budget from about 10 per cent to 15 per cent which will effectively

amount to about a $17 million to $25 million cut for next year?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might want to be

a little more specific. He wants me to confirm that discussions have taken

place. I don't know if he is talking about discussions between a couple of

students, discussions between myself and the president of the University,

discussions between CUPE and someone else. The hon. member has to be a little

more specific when he puts the question to me. I don't have the knowledge to

know what he has in his mind. I wonder could he be more specific.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of

Education and Training had been listening he would have understood the question

that I asked. It is very simple. Can he confirm that there will be a 10 per cent

to 15 per cent cut in Memorial University's budget next year which will amount

to a $17 million to $25 million cut from the allocation given by the Province to

the University? Can he confirm that? Very easy question, Mr. Speaker.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm nor deny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday night I

was one of three MHAs that attended a public forum at the University dealing

with the future of the University, the future role it will play, and the future

of what type of education it will offer. Serious concerns about the cut. I say

to the minister that he knows there will be a 10 per cent to 15 per cent cut in

Memorial University's budget next year, and that people are seriously worried.

Let me ask the minister this: Can he confirm that as a result

of such cuts that he, or his department officials, have been in discussions with

the University dealing with the fallout of such cuts, which may look at an

increase of some 30 per cent to 40 per cent in tuition, which may look at a

three-tiered tuition structure, or a three-tiered tuition structure in terms of

professional schools versus general art schools? Can he confirm that such cuts

will dramatically eliminate staff and services? Can he confirm that these cuts

will indeed come and are coming?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, I finally realize the hon.

member is fishing. I will tell the hon. member, though, that because of the cuts

in the transfer payments we are going to see a very difficult time making the

same amount of money available to our institutions as we have done in the past.

It is highly unlikely we will do it. There is no doubt in my mind that Memorial

University will have a cut in its budget. Whether it is 1 per cent or whether it

is 10 per cent I don't even know at this time.

If there is a cut of 1 per cent at Memorial University they

will have many options open to them. One option is to spend wiser. Another

option would be to increase tuition. Another option would be to have a

combination of spending wiser and increasing tuition. They are in talks with

their union. I certainly hope that when these talks are over that they will have

an agreement that they can live with and that the Province can finance; so there

are a whole lot of things that can be taking place.

My simple answer to the hon. member is this, that it is most

likely that there will be a cut in Memorial's budget this year. I am not in a

position at this time to say how much that cut will be.

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

supplementary.

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

Every hon. member in this House fully understands and is

aware, and if they are not they should be, that Memorial University was based on

the fundamental philosophy of offering post-secondary education to every

Newfoundlander in this Province, regardless of socio-economic background.

I ask the minister: Are his officials, or the government, or

the Cabinet, looking at Memorial as an institution in the way it delivers its

programs? Are they looking at opening up the books in terms of getting

government more involved in the way that Memorial runs itself as an institution

as a result of the pending cuts that are coming?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about

an institution which the people of this Province have come to respect over the

years. I would assume the hon. member himself probably attended Memorial, as did

I, and the last thing the people of this Province would want to see is a

Government of Newfoundland university. If he is suggesting that we are going to

poke our noses in and say: Here, give a course in NDP economics, or give a

university; we would have a farce, and the suggestions that the hon. member is

coming up with are repulsive, to suggest that we should poke our noses into a

university - the University of Russia prior to the last revolution - the utter

nonsense the hon. member is talking, no wonder he is where he is, and thank

goodness he is going to stay over there for a good many years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The GST rebate to municipalities of 57.14 per cent of the 7

per cent that is paid, the intent of the rebate is to assure municipalities pay

no greater or more tax on the GST structure than they previously paid under the

manufacturer's retail tax system. In view of the fact that the Province has

informed the NLFM that the Province is pursuing the harmonization of the PST and

the GST, has the minister prepared a financial analysis of the impact on

municipalities, and would he share that analysis with the NLFM and with this

House?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the answer to my hon. colleague's

question, `Have we prepared..." would be: No, we have not prepared. We are in

the process presently of trying to determine exactly what it will mean to

municipalities as a whole around the Province. This question has been dealt with

through the Federation of Municipalities as well as the FCM just recently. The

question was discussed at the FCM level at our Federation of Municipalities

level, and within the confines of the ministerial committee set up to look at it

as well.

There is a fair amount of lobbying going on around the

country right now as it relates to the harmonization of the GST and the PST, but

I am not in a position as of today to provide this House or the hon. member with

the exact data. I will say to him that I have been asked from a Department of

Finance perspective to provide some data to them, and when that data is

available and I have provided it to them at that particular point in time, then

I would imagine it would probably be available to the hon. member or to the

public in general.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount

on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the loss of the GST rebate will

be substantial. The rebate, as I said before, is 4 per cent of the 7 per cent

paid, or 57.14 per cent of GST. If the harmonization is pursued and there is no

commitment to follow the principle of no greater tax burden to municipalities

than they have now it means, for example, the loss of $6,000 to Witless Bay,

$65,000 to Bay Roberts, $15,000 to Bishop's Falls, $114,000 to Stephenville,

$850,000 to St. John's, $125,000 to Mount Pearl. The total for all the

municipalities across the Province could be as high as $3 million a year. Will

the minister today assure the municipalities of this Province that harmonization

will not add more tax burdens to our already financially stressed towns, cities

and communities?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, municipalities around this

Province have on numerous occasions lobbied both myself, Cabinet, government and

the Premier on this particular issue and the answer to them has been that all

those figures and facts will be taken into consideration at the end of the day

if and when we finally reach a point of accepting or rejecting a combined GST

and PST. I am not in a position and the hon. member knows full well that I am

not in a position today to make that commitment to him. At the end of the day,

when we weigh and balance the pros and cons of combining GST and PST, at that

particular point in time then the question of the effect of what that will have

on the municipalities in the Province will be discussed.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we have 120 municipalities that

are financially broke and sixty of them which may have to declare bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a situation where this 4 per cent is going to

be either kept by municipalities or it is going to be lost by the municipalities

and the money - we know that 4 per cent is there, it will either be given back

to municipalities or it will be a tax grab by the ministry and the Department of

Finance. This could be a windfall for the Province but another slap in the face

to the towns, communities and cities of this Province. Will the minister show

some real resolve and say that as a department, as a minister, he is committed

to keeping that money in the municipalities where it belongs and where it now

is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House, nobody

including my friend from Waterford - Kenmount, can stand here and accuse me, as

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, of doing anything in the past twenty years

but to try and help municipalities in rural Newfoundland and I think he would

agree.

An example of this government and myself trying to help

municipalities, Mr. Speaker, was yesterday when I met with the Mayor of Baie

Verte and sympathized with a community which was working darn hard to try and

survive in hard economic times. I take exception to the fact that the hon.

member would say that we would have sixty communities that were on the brink of

bankruptcy in this Province because that is absolutely incorrect, that is

absolutely incorrect. I say to the member, I cannot as the Minister of the

Crown, stand in this House and make a solemn commitment to do something or I

suppose, reply to his request. The only thing, Mr. Speaker, that I can say is

that I will try my utmost and not only me but every member of this government,

will try their utmost to protect municipalities, to help, I suppose, at the end

of the day, let rural Newfoundland and the communities of Newfoundland and

Labrador survive and that is the commitment I make to the hon. member, nothing

other than that. I believe in Newfoundland and Labrador and that is the end of

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of last week I

asked the Minister of Finance some questions relating to the projected deficit.

I indicated to him that we have been hearing that the department is now

projecting a $50 million deficit by the end of the current fiscal year. I was

wondering, can the minister confirm that now or can he tell us what his latest

projection - surely two weeks later now he has had plenty of time to find out

from his officials what their latest projections are. I also asked him how many

temporary positions had been filled. We have been told there is upwards of 1,100

temporary positions filled at a cost of some $50 million, happens to be the same

$50 million perhaps of the deficit that is proposed. Would the minister like to

confirm now both of those numbers for us?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the time I

indicated to the hon. member in the House that I would be making a full

statement in the House probably, I guess within four or five weeks, which would

be about mid-November. I expect that will be about the time when I can indicate

to the House the current fiscal position of the Province. I will deal with the

numbers that he requests and perhaps indicate to the Province what interim

measures we might have to deal with any deficit as he alleges there may be.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, in another four or five weeks

we could be another $50 million in debt the way this government is going. It is

time that the minister found out where we are and took some action about it.

Would the minister like to explain to us, Mr. Speaker, a

review of the Special Warrants that he tabled in this House last week, some $26

million worth of Special Warrants? Would he like to tell us how he is proposing

to deal with that extra financing that was required and, could he explain to us

$7.2 million required for new water bombers? Would he like to tell us why this

capital expenditure was not in the Budget in the first place and what was the

great emergency that required a Special Warrant, which is what a Special Warrant

is really meant to be used for? Would he like to tell us about the $9.3 million

for capital financing for Marble Mountain and operating for the Cabot 500

Anniversary Committee? Would he like to explain why those items were not in the

Budget last year and had to be brought in as Special Warrants, and of course,

the $1.8 million in the referendum for Educational Reform we can understand,

would the minister like to explain that to us, please?

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

Treasury Board

MR. DICKS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be delighted to deal with the facts.

I believe the hon. member asked about three specifics, I will

deal with them as they are in the public domain at present.

First of all with regard to the water bombers, Cabinet makes

a decision that it is probably to have water-bomber capacity on hand rather than

see the forest burn should there be a major fire. It is important to the economy

of the Province that we have sufficient capacity; our mills are operating at

full bore right now, Corner Brook, Stephenville and Grand Falls. The opportunity

arose after the Budget was prepared to replace some of our water-bomber fleet

which as I understand may be as much as fifty years old. I think those were

built in the late 1940s early 1950s. As the hon. member knows, having been here,

Special Warrants are used to authorize expenditures that were not foreseen. This

was one. I was not in Cabinet at the time, Cabinet reviewed it and came to the

conclusion that it was a prudent decision to do it and it was in the order of

$7.2 million, so the idea was to replace them and as I understand, it was a

prudent decision and that will be in our Budget figures as well.

The $9.3 million as well, I believe he mentioned for

operating for capital and for Marble Mountain, the Province is right now

negotiating with the federal government on cost-shared programs, those have not

been finalized; in order to proceed with both events - and I am not sure that

that is the exact figure - but in order to proceed with both matters, it was

necessary that they be done this year, money had not been authorized because the

agreements had not been finalized, but because of the nature of work in the

Province, it had to go ahead at this time and we didn't see cancelling the Cabot

celebrations for example and preparations for it, so it was in the provincial

interest to authorize those expenditures now, and hopefully recover some portion

of those from the federal government under our cost-shared agreements.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am aware some of our water

bombers are fifty years old. That would seem to be plenty of time to decide that

you needed to put some funding in the Budget. This is not something that comes

up in the middle of the year that you didn't know about. You knew last year when

the water bombers were put away for the winter, the condition that they were in

and whether or not you needed to replace them for this summer. These are not the

kinds of expenditures, Mr. Speaker, for which Special Warrants are required.

Would the minister like to tell us - I don't accept the fact

that the minister doesn't know what the projected deficit is, he does know what

it is. Would the minister tell us how he is proposing to deal with it? Are we

looking at a mini-Budget in four or five weeks time, is this what the minister

is proposing to do? Is this why he is not going to tell us exactly what the

situation is now, is that how he is going to deal with it or is he waiting to

sell Holiday Inns perhaps, and get another cash cow to try to balance his Budget

or is he going to wait for Christmas and let Santa Claus bring him a solution?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I think the Province once tried

having Santa Claus bring it its solution some years ago when the hon. member was

minister and that didn't work.

On to several questions, dealing with the water bombers,

first of all, Mr. Speaker, what happened was, as the hon. members knows, we are

quite aware and we review the condition of all our vehicles and fleets at any

given time. What we don't know and can't predict is that we may see a good deal

on the market; it is as with any expenditure that a person makes, you may not be

planning to replace your car, but if you know you have to do it within the next

several years and you find that there is a very good deal that you hadn't

anticipated, you may very well go to the bank and borrow money to do it even

though you hadn't planned to do it. That's the case with the water bombers. It

happened that elsewhere in Canada, another Province was, as I understand it,

trading in and buying new water bombers and were prepared to sell these at what

our fleet staff told us were -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bargain prices.

MR. DICKS: - bargain prices, thank you Roger - and that

was in fact a Cabinet decision and I believe it was a good one.

As regards the Holiday Inns, are we waiting to sell the

Holiday Inns to balance the Budget? That would be a nice thought, one hopes that

it may be so but at this stage I do not anticipate it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

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

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Eleven months have passed since the minister dropped motor

vehicle inspections and permitted junk on our highways. The minister stated that

he would review his decision after a period of time and plenty of time has

passed. Would the minister tell us what conclusion he has reached on the

adequacy of the current policy and table all information which led him to this

conclusion?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't see the junk on the

highways that the hon. member is referring to, except on occasions when I passed

a few of his - hon. members opposite over there on the highway. To stand in this

House of Assembly and say there is junk on the highways is absolutely false.

There is no more junk on the highways than there ever was in the past. We have a

done a number of highway stops by the Motor Registration Division, the RCMP, and

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and on each and every occasion, the pieces

of junk that the hon. member has referred to, are not found, and they won't ever

be found.

People are responsible in this Province. The same laws remain

in effect on keeping your car, your truck, or any vehicle in a safe driving

condition, and if the hon. member is saying that people are not doing that, then

he is saying that the people of Newfoundland are irresponsible, and I, for one,

do not believe that. The percentage of people who would violate the law are no

greater now than in the past, when they used to take the inspection slip and go

to a friend with a garage, get it ticked off, signed, and go on without getting

the vehicle inspected. That happened on occasions with a small percentage of

people. The numbers are no greater now but the enforcement agencies are now

picking up those people on the highway stops, with road checks on the highways

and trunk roads.

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

Extern.

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

I believe this is the same minister who said the people in

the Province are litters and they wouldn't obey the littering laws. Surely the

current policy is not perfect. How many vehicles have police officers removed

from the roadways this past year for reasons related to safety and

roadworthiness? Doesn't the minister have eyes? Can he not see the junk on our

highways, slipping by the police and threatening the safety of motorists and

pedestrians?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Let us deal with the last part of the

question first. Is the hon. member saying that in less than one year all of the

vehicles on the highways have deteriorated to a condition where they are all

junk?

MR. J. BYRNE: Not all.

MR. EFFORD: Do you mean to say, in twelve months - if

that is the case, then we should not be going to vehicle inspection, we should

be going to the manufacturers, because there is obviously something wrong if the

vehicles are falling apart in less than twelve months. It is kind of silly for

the hon. member to say that.

The first part of the question - in one police stop, in one

check, there were 500 vehicles stopped and six required a vehicle inspection.

The same argument was put last year when we brought in the .05 legislation. All

the members were against bringing in new legislation and now we have 30 per cent

fewer accidents on the road in less than a year, and over 40 per cent fewer

convictions under the Criminal Code of Canada, and we are getting

congratulations from every police enforcement agency in the Province, the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary, the RCMP, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and all

other people who use good common sense, trusting Newfoundlanders to do the right

thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on a final

supplementary.

I would like to ask the minister how many vehicles have the

police pulled over on roadside spot checks this past year, and how does this

compare with the number of vehicles on our roads? This is the most important

one: What extra training, if any, have police received to help them fulfil the

impossible responsibility of certifying vehicles as roadworthy in these

impromptu roadside spot checks? Answer that one.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I would like to ask the hon. member who wrote

the question for him, because he sure didn't write it. First of all, the police

enforcement agencies and the motor vehicle inspection people all over - I can't

tell him the exact number but there have been several thousand vehicles checked

on roadside stops all over this Province.

Number one, the people with Motor Registration are all

mechanics. They are all trained with a mechanical background. The Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are very

competent people to check - the safety equipment can be checked by an individual

on the roadside. They also have the intelligence, if they see a car they

consider to be, as the hon. member says, a piece of junk, to require that that

car, within forty-eight hours, have a vehicle inspection done.

You are trying to make an issue out of what is really no

issue. Our highways are the safest highways in all of Canada. Look at the

situation on the reported accidents - thirty per cent fewer accidents this year

than last year in the same period of time. You can take it all the way you want

- you know that we made the right decision, and we are going to stick by it.

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

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

I thought the minister was going to say that he has armed the

Constabulary with a tool kit but I don't believe he has done that.

I want to ask the Minister of Natural Resources a question as

it pertains to the reactivation of the St. Lawrence fluorspar mine. Can the

minister update the House as to what activities are taking place in St. Lawrence

now, where we are with the process, and when we might expect some decision to be

made as to direct reactivation of the fluorspar mine?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, Alex Harris, who

is working with Burin Minerals, who has the option on St. Lawrence fluorspar, is

in town this week and we have had discussions in the last couple of days. He is

making good progress on the feasibility study that he and his colleagues are

doing relative to St. Lawrence fluorspar. The option on the property is good

until next April, but clearly, the company is going to have to complete its

assessment probably in the next two or three months, I would think, and then try

to get financing for the project. We are into the final six months, anyway, of

trying to get this one done, but they have made great progress.

We have been very pleased with the work that we have seen

from them on the marketing possibilities. They are very pleased themselves with

what they see on the technical side, the quality of the mill and the work they

have done on the ore underground. So I am hoping, as the minister responsible

for mines, that all this can come together in the next six months, but it is not

quite there yet. As I said, we have been having some discussions with them,

myself and the Minister of Environment, in the last couple of days, because he

is in town now for the mining conference.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

Earlier, I introduced to you a group of students from

Lawrence College, along with their instructor, Mr. William Callahan. What I

failed to acknowledge was that Mr. Callahan was a former member of this Assembly

for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions for which notice has

been given.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: As for answers to questions for which notice

has been given, yesterday the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

promised to table in the House, in the afternoon but certainly no later than

today, answers to the questions that I asked him regarding some statistics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have two comments.

As I suspect the hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia West

realizes full well, that is not a point of order. Secondly, may I remind him

today is not over.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Ferryland, is he

speaking to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I was making another point

of order.

MR. SPEAKER: We have to deal with the...

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, sure.

MR. SPEAKER: There is really no point of order. The hon.

member will have taken notice, and there is no point of order when the minister

will table that information.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The Minister of Health gave a commitment yesterday to this

House to table how many of the 101 recommendations of the Cancer Foundation have

been implemented, and he did not do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is basically the same point of order. There is really no

point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we go into Orders of the Day, perhaps I could make two

points. First of all, I know that members on all sides, or both sides, would

want me to take note of the fact that these two soul mates on the other side,

the Leader of the NDP and the Leader of the PCs, who share so much also share a

common birthday. I understand today is their birthdays, so I know that all

members will wish them a happy birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: One of my colleagues said, `kissing

cousins'; my answer is no, because that would be incestuous.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out as well, I am told by those

with better knowledge than I have of astrological signs, that this is the month

of Scorpio. Now I am Virgo, but these two are Scorpio and one can read what one

wants into that, particularly when we realize that the Premier is also a

Scorpio. Now that should give the astrological admirers something to think

about.

PREMIER WELLS: It says something about leadership.

MR. ROBERTS: It says something about leadership, and the

Premier, being Scorpio, does not mean scorpion.

Mr. Speaker, may I come to a more substantive point.

MR. TOBIN: Snook is a Scorpio.

MR. ROBERTS: I will take the hon. gentleman's word. I

have seen many Snooks, but only he has ever been snookered in this House.

Your Honour, I think we can probably anticipate that the

debate on Term 17 resolution, which will be called in a second or two, will

conclude probably not today but likely on Monday at some time. Now there are

many members who wish to speak who have not yet spoken, and I understand there

is a possibility there may be an amendment to be dealt with as well, so we will

have to play and see, but I have had some consultation with my friend from Grand

Bank and my friend from St. John's East, and we are going to suggest to the

House - and I say it now so members can arrange themselves accordingly, arrange

their schedules - because of the importance of this matter we will

schedule the

vote on it. In other words, if the debate finishes at some particular time which

is not the time set for the vote, we will carry on with other business until the

time comes, so members will have a number of hours notice, perhaps overnight, so

that every member who wishes to be present - I anticipate there will be a

recorded vote - will have an opportunity to do so, and it will not be a matter

of members coming to me and saying: Can I catch an eleven o'clock airplane to my

constituency? Or, I have a funeral to go to; can I go today? If that is

agreeable, that is the way we will proceed.

With that said, Your Honour, I would ask if you would call

Motion 4 on today's Order Paper. My friend from Menihek was coming to the part

of his speech where he was going to tell us how he was going to vote on the

resolution, I think, and also how the stocks are today.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, the hon. the Member for Menihek.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It hasn't changed; I am still upset, and so

is the stock market.

MR. TOBIN: Imagine how upset Roberts is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: It is undoubtedly true; he undoubtedly has a

lot more to be upset about.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my few brief remarks with regard

to -

MR. TOBIN: Chuck, bought pesos. I heard that you bought

pesos.

MR. A. SNOW: He went short on the Canadian dollar and

bought pesos but, Mr. Speaker, I will continue my remarks on the resolution to

amend Term 17.

I will continue along with last night when I adjourned debate

I had talked about how the government had called the referendum. People

questioned the very date of the referendum and how that left a lot to be desired

with regard to having the election on a day preceding the school opening. A lot

of people felt that it would have been a lot more appropriate to hold the

referendum at a later date, Mr. Speaker, if indeed there should have been a

referendum, in point of fact. A lot of people suggest that most of the reforms

that are necessary in education could have been done and should have been done

over the last five or six years and naturally the referendum, to removed the

constitutional rights of individuals or classes of people, would not have been

necessary, Mr. Speaker, and still is not necessary.

In my particular district I did not participate in the

referendum campaign per se. I did state in interviews with the media that I

would be voting no, for reasons that I had articulated at the time and I did

vote no. I voted in the advance poll because I had made arrangements to go

hunting, my annual caribou hunt in Northern Labrador on Election Day but I voted

in the advanced poll, I did vote no. The majority of the people in my district

voted yes, 63 per cent and 37 per cent voted no. With approximately 51 per cent

or 52 per cent of the electorate voting.

The campaign itself, Mr. Speaker, I guess that to the people

who campaigned in the referendum - I suppose you could say the no side, there

was a campaign team that seemed to be mostly involving representatives from the

Roman Catholic church and representatives from the Pentecostal Assemblies of

this Province, Mr. Speaker, on the no side. On the yes side the government

campaigned, undoubtedly. They sent literature to every household in this

Province. The Premier and the Minister of Education campaigned every time they

did interviews, meeting with editorial boards or in the media generally, Mr.

Speaker, they undoubtedly campaigned. I would suggest that it was a very hard

hitting campaign, not a soft campaign. There was nothing soft about the type of

things that were said and done during the campaign, Mr. Speaker, the forums, the

misrepresentation and the misstatements that were made by people. Now I am

neither a Roman Catholic nor a Pentecostal, Mr. Speaker, and I say that, not

that I have anything against either faith but I just wanted to make that known

right up front, that I am not and I did not take

part in the campaign per se.

A lot of people questioned the actual question itself, Mr.

Speaker, in my district, the wording, the ambiguity of it. Most people I would

say, there would have to be something wrong with you to feel that something

cannot be changed or reformed to improve. So people voted for reform in a lot of

cases, I believe, because it is necessary at all times to have reform and to

improve. There is nothing that is perfect that cannot be improved upon but quite

often some people change things and it is to the detriment. The question itself

should have been debated. I believe that the government should have had more

consultation with regard to what the question was going to be. The government

should have made people aware of what the new schools act is going to do, what

exactly does viability mean, how does one get there. These are the types of

things that people should have been made aware of so they could vote with a

clear knowledge of what the effect their vote would cause.

Maybe the people in Cabinet are aware of what the new schools

act will mean. I am not. Nobody who I'm aware of in my district is aware of it.

At least, nobody that I know of. I would assume - maybe it is a large assumption

- that the people in Cabinet know what affect the new schools act will have on

education in this Province.

If indeed this government saw fit to send a legislative

review committee around this Province made up of legislators to see if it was

appropriate to have a name change, shouldn't we really have sent a legislative

review committee around this Province on something as important as this reform

is going to do to Term 17, as a removal of constitutional rights from a minority

group? Something that basic, something that fundamental. Shouldn't we have made

an attempt as legislators to make people more aware of the consequences of

changing the Constitution? I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is incumbent on a

government to make people more aware of consequences of changing such a thing as

the Constitution. I believe that the government was negligent, irresponsible,

for not doing it.

I suppose everybody in this Province knows that there is

nothing in Term 17 that talks about busing. Yet the Minister of Education and

Training in his campaign did more talking about busing than anything else. You

would swear to God that Term 17 was all about busing. I suppose half the

newspaper articles and media reports and interviews that he did during the

campaign were about busing. Then a couple of days before the vote we had a study

released where he was going to save his $10 million. It got diluted down to

around $8 million, I think. They had this big study commissioned. They were

going to save a whack of money in my district; they were going to be one of the

hardest hit, Labrador West. Going to save over $300,000 in busing in Labrador

West. Three hundred thousand dollars they were going to cut out of busing in

Labrador West, going to cut out of an area that produces more wealth per capita

than any other district in this Province. That is what they were going to do.

They sent some fellow in during the exams, during June, he

came in to do the study on busing. Followed the buses around, he said, in June.

Going to take $300,000. The suggestion was to have triple busing. Can you

imagine the kids in Labrador West going to school 7:00 in the morning, pitch

black, in April, thirty below zero? If you are less than a mile from school you

have to walk. People weren't made aware of that before the referendum. They

didn't know about that in Labrador West. If they had known they wouldn't have

supported it. So there were misstatements. People were misled, or information

kept from them. This government was negligent on that.

The effects on the busing in Labrador West is that the winter

season the busing occurs within a mile from the school, but about 85 per cent of

the people live outside this mile, or inside the mile, because of how Labrador

City had been developed, and Wabush. So in the spring busing this is where they

are going to save all the money, from April 15 on. They are going to save a

whack of money there, but at whose expense are they going to save this money?

Weather reports done in April in Labrador City - sounds good,

you know, when you can sit up in your ivory tower in St. John's with your

six-inch carpet on the Cabinet Room floors, your oak tables, nice soft cushy

chair, and suggest changes to the busing in Western Labrador in April. Mr.

Speaker, in April in Labrador City, we had chill factors twenty-three below

zero, April 16, twenty-five below zero, April 17. It continues on down, with

thirty-three below zero. Can you imagine a kid in Kindergarten, six feet of snow

on the sidewalks, and the minister is going to trot him off to school at 7:00 in

the morning -

MR. DECKER: You could be talking about (inaudible) the

same as the teachers.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education

and Training raises a good point.

MR. DECKER: Why should we treat busing differently from

(inaudible)?

MR. A. SNOW: I will tell you why, because you should

level up, not down. Don't haul everybody down with you. You tried that with the

quality of debate in the House.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) Sprung (inaudible)!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister tries that with

everything in this Province. He tries it with the level of debate. He wants to

bring it down to his level. Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, rules protect people

in this House.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I want people to be treated -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: He doesn't have the floor - the Minister of

Education and Training. Didn't he have his say, in thirty minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: I rest my case with regard to how the

minister feels about levels. He thinks he is above the debate in this House

because he happens to be appointed to the Crown. He can rule with his iron fist.

He is part of the problem in the whole debate. The whole debate could have been

settled a lot easier if there had been a different minister.

We had a guest in the gallery last night, a former Minister

of Education, who I would bet would have had this debate settled, would have had

this reform through, finished, if he had run and been appointed Minister of

Education and Training. If Dr. Phil Warren had run for re-election and had won

and had been appointed Minister of Education and Training, most of these reforms

that people desire in this Province could have been in effect right now, Mr.

Speaker.

Instead of that, we have an individual as a Minister of

Education and Training who wants to bully everybody. We just witnessed it here

in the House. It is rules that - and thank goodness we do have rules that

protect a free debate. You can't get shouted down. Mr. Speaker, his attitude of

levelling down services where will that bring us? We continue bringing down the

level of service. We saw Western Labrador, which has received national awards

for delivery of education services to the mentally disabled. This government

used that same practice of attempting to wipe that out, to take these kids and

put them back in the closet,

whereas they rightfully belong in the classroom.

AN HON. MEMBER: That isn't true!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training, on a point

of order.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can't allow this to go

unchallenged. The hon. member knows full well that there is a system in place in

this Province where handicapped people, whether they live in Conche or in Lab

City, are entitled to certain privileges and certain rights. The hon. member

would have it that one part of this Province would be left with a Cadillac

system that the Province cannot afford.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: So the hon. member - I can't leave this

unchallenged.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get - Order,

please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: The more the minister speaks, Mr. Speaker,

the more he tells and shows the people of this Province what the problems are

with education - the more he attempts to bully, the more he attempts to qualify

what he is doing to reform education. He wants to bring the level of education

down. That is what he aspires to. Can you imagine? A minister of the Crown

aspires to level down the delivery of service. Make no wonder he would run out,

make no wonder he would leave, make no wonder he escapes. Why? Because he is

ashamed. He has to be ashamed of that attitude, of levelling down services.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Western Labrador are proud. They

are proud of the education service that we have. The delivery of education in

Western Labrador, I feel, is by far the best in the Province. Should we be

ashamed of that? No, Mr. Speaker, the people of Lab West are not ashamed of

receiving national awards for delivery of education for the inclusion of

disabled people. Children in the classroom have received national awards. They

have been recognized around this country for being in the forefront of

education. Ninety-two per cent of the people who finish high school in Labrador

City actually go on to further education, 92 per cent go on for post-secondary

education, and 98 per cent finish high school.

I am proud of those statistics - but yet, what you want to do

is take that system and bring it down.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. A. SNOW: What we should be doing is taking the rest

of the scores - the CTBS scores in Labrador can compare with anywhere in the

country. In most cases, they are higher in Labrador, but what does this

government want to do? They want to take those systems and bring them down to

the low average. That is fundamentally wrong, Mr. Speaker, it is fundamentally

wrong with an idea that you level down. You should try to level up. If we

continually level down we will revert to the cave. That is where we will end up

if you continuously level down. You should always level up. It is a fundamental

mistake of this government, of attempting to level down. I always thought that

Liberalism was to bring the level up and not down.

Mr. Speaker, they misled the people during the campaign and

that is unfortunate. This Province probably never would have entered

Confederation in 1949 if there had not been a guarantee of rights to an

education in certain denominations. We would probably never have been part of

this country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: May I have leave to continue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you.

This country probably would not have even been created if

there had not been an inclusion of minority rights in 1867, as my colleague, the

Member for St. John's Centre so readily pointed out to us a couple of days ago.

If we had not included minority rights to classes of people in 1867 the country

would not even have been created.

Mr. Speaker, what we are now debating here is removing the

constitutional rights of a minority and, to me, there is something fundamentally

wrong with a society when the majority takes advantage and votes to take away a

minority right, a minority right that was only given to one group of people in

1987. And seven short years later, because there is more of us than them, we are

going to take it away. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Mr. Speaker, a German theologian once said, `First they came

for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for

the Socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. Then they

came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade

Unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.'

Now, think about those words when we are taking away the minority rights of

people.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The District of LaPoile, as I guess a lot of hon. members

know, contains within it a complete integrated school system, a single school

board, and the religions involved in the school system out there participate

through the school board itself. It, of course, represents the classes of people

that are within the integrated system plus they have other representation being

made through pastoral services and pastoral care for the other people who are

participating in the school system there. It is an unusual situation to have a

completely integrated system, within the Province, in one given electoral

district.

The people of the area, during the referendum, did speak very

clearly, in light of the fact that I think it was some 77 per cent, voted in

favour of the change that the government has put forward, that was of those who

voted. I don't have any doubt that if there had been a higher voter turn-out

that the number of voters who would have selected the government's option would

have been higher in percentage. There is a general view that an integrated

system out there is a system which certainly is a model for the Province. I

certainly, with respect to the hon. member opposite who speaks of us bringing

the level of education down, I say that is such a negative commentary on what

governments aspire to. For those of us who have children in this Province, it is

almost disturbing to hear someone acting so politically with respect to an issue

such as this. To think that we, as members on this side of the House, would

aspire to level down, as opposed to wanting improvement for the people of our

Province, for the children, our children, our grandchildren I suppose, those of

us who have grandchildren, and those that will follow us, not only into this

Chamber but into the future. It is disturbing and certainly -

I understand, from a certain standpoint, where the gentleman

is coming from, because in areas where there are good economic prospects, where

you have certain elements of the community doing very well economically, you

have different results, Mr. Speaker. You have a case where, because of the

overall outlook and the influence, I suppose, of economic prosperity on students

who have come up and had a good socio-economic background to bring into their

school system, they tend to do a bit better. It has been proven that without the

worry of finances - and this goes right to the heart of the upcoming strategic

social initiative that the government will bring forward, but it is certain that

these people do better. Of course, if anything that these individuals have is at

all going to change, there is a certain element of threat. So I understand, to a

point, where the hon. member is coming from but it is certainly not to point the

finger at the government and say that we intend to level down the system. It

certainly is, I feel to the hon. member, that such is not the case. I

respectfully disagree with the position that he has put forward because we don't

aspire to level down. We aspire to utilize the administration funding that is in

excess in the system, to level up, to bring everyone up to a good provincial

average to try to correct the problems associated with the education system in

this Province.

Now, this resolution that has been put forward by the

government is a resolution which will effectively change the Constitution of

Canada. There are a number of things that we have to keep in mind though, first

and foremost, we have to recognize that the churches have contributed so well

and have essentially, I suppose, started the education system in this Province,

that the churches - it is certainly a fact that they have contributed so much to

the social and community fabric of our Province. They have been the pioneer

builders who have put the cornerstones down for our corner of the world. They

have nurtured the framework for democracy in this Province by participating in

the education of our people here in the Province and by setting the foundations

on which we maintain the system that we currently have. Some would suggest and

some have suggested on the other side and some on this side, that government's

action in this educational debate would have the effect of undertaking changes

against the wishes of minorities.

Now, I disagree with that because we have the ultimate method

of canvassing the majority of people in the Province, the referendum, in which

everyone of voting age was eligible to vote and in which all people had the

opportunity to choose to vote for or against this proposition by government. The

majority of those who voted, of course, gave us the necessity by which we now

must proceed. We certainly would wish that a larger percentage of individuals

had voted but the opportunity and the option were there and, of course, part of

our democracy, I suppose, is not being forced to vote as we have seen recently

in Iraq, where, I suppose some 99.5 per cent of the population voted. Here, it

is an option we have. Part of democracy is the option to vote or to choose not

to, and as much as some of us would wish that the whole population would vote,

it is not reasonable to expect that.

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre, my colleague who

sits here in front of me, has gone as far as to suggest that the largest single

group involved in the governance of education constitutes a minority. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that really, I would suggest, is stretching it somewhat; that would be

so, I would think, only if the person who speaks of such has his fingers

crossed, to suggest that the largest single group would be a minority. That only

can happen, Mr. Speaker - and it must be the new math, because you can only

create a minority out of the largest group of people by adding together all of

the others. So, really, to suggest that a single group, the single largest

group, constitutes a minority can only come about if you add all of the other

minorities together, to constitute a single group. It is certainly convoluted

logic and something that sounds like the creation of a very rich mind.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we must move forward from

this point. My children are just now moving into the school system. I have a

five-year-old daughter who just started Kindergarten this year, and another who

is four and has just entered into the preschool system once a week, doing

half-a-day, getting used to the school system in a preschool program that is in

place in our district. I feel very strongly about the school system and about

the problems associated with the funding of schools in the school system, not

just because I have children in there myself, I also have two other daughters

who are sixteen and fifteen and are in the high school system, and I see a

difference, of course, in the attitudes that have prevailed in that gap between

the two families, I suppose you could say, and how the approach is changing now.

I must say, the improvements are very, very marked

improvements in the delivery of education at the younger levels, and hopefully

that will spawn some new interest and encouragement in the education of the

younger two, and, as well, the older two, of course, are doing very well. They

have a desire to do well in school and are doing quite well at this stage. Some

of the offerings, though - I should suggest, in the smaller areas such as the

district where I come from in the Town of Port aux Basques, which is the largest

school in the area, we have a system where they don't even offer a physical

education program in the largest school in my district. So to understand why we

can do that and yet still maintain the administration of three school systems in

some districts - in Central Newfoundland, for example, we have a Roman Catholic

School Board, a Pentecostal School Board and an Integrated School Board, and the

administration that is associated with the three -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of shared services.

MR. RAMSAY: A lot of shared services, yes, but there is a

duplication and possibly a triplication in some elements with respect to

superintendents, assistant superintendents in some cases, co-ordinators from

each of the programs, and that, in essence, is the kind of thing that we must

seek to change. Now, granted, I know we had some form of agreement to change

that kind of thing and lower the number of school boards anyway, but I feel that

it certainly could be improved much by bringing in this measure to make sure

that there is no duplication and essential growth of bureaucracy in the

administration of education that appeared to me to be the case if we continued

on the course of negotiating incessantly and going to a point where our

negotiations led to nothing but a maintenance of the status quo.

The people of the Province have directed us, by virtue of the

majority vote in the referendum, to move forward with this. I don't feel we have

the moral right at this stage to do anything different other than what has been

proposed, which is to move forward with the resolution as was proposed in the

referendum.

So what is the problem in the school system? Why do we, here

in this Province, have a school system which is considered by many to be behind

in certain respects; I shouldn't say behind overall. We have our scholars, we

have a general system which has served us well over the years, but in areas of

excellence on an overall basis there is something missing. Maybe it is because

we don't spend so much per student. Maybe it is because of the socio-economic

factors in our society.

I know that in one case in my own work activity in the past,

I was doing some work for a cable TV company and it entailed some door-to-door,

somewhat a prelude, I suppose, to politics and knocking on people's doors, but

it involved going to communities and signing people up for subscriptions to

cable TV. Through different communities in the Province... The hon. the Member

for Harbour Grace, I went through an area in his district. I went through other

areas up through Conception Bay, and I also at that time had the opportunity to

go through the area of Fox Harbour and Long Harbour, and it was very, very

interesting to note that in that area where there was a really good

socio-economic, I suppose, background, because of the fact that there were jobs

in the area, there was good money, the community was doing very well, the people

had a situation - and it was very noticeable, I must say - the situation was

much better than it was in some of the outport areas where I had visited and

knocked on doors and assisted people with their subscriptions to cable TV. And I

couldn't help but notice it, it was very, very noticeable, that the students

appeared to be not only better dressed, which they were, but they also appeared

to have benefited greatly from that financial situation that most of the people

in that area experience because of the proximity of the phosphorus plant. It was

really noticeable, so much so that myself and an associate of mine who was

working with me both remarked at the time that the students appeared to be so

much more eager and interested in school that there were less worries, you heard

less regretful stories when you visited their houses. Really, I know since that

time the area has had some severe economic problems because of the closure of

the phosphorous plant, but it was so noticeable that I thought to myself: If

only we could have that kind of economic impact in other areas of the Province,

maybe all of these things would improve. All of the educational opportunities

would improve because the overall effect on the students in that given area

would of course be one of less worry and one where they could concentrate and

focus their efforts on their school work much better without having the concerns

of their parents' finances as a part of the process.

My own situation, Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in Port

aux Basques, and raised in that school system. Just at the time when I started

school was when that school system changed over from being a separate school

system to consolidated. I remember at first it was called the Consolidated

School Board. I started in 1967 and went on from there. At that time the school

board was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the principal?

MR. RAMSAY: No. Art Bull actually was the principal at

the time.

Just to explain that I went through a school system where -

it was an old school. All the way up through school of course we went through

the buildings. The first one that I went into that was either bit new was built

in the late 1960s. It was the high school at the time when we moved into the

high school. It still never had some of the necessary facilities that one would

expect in an area of such a large population, a population of about 6,500 people

at the time, and we never even had a proper gymnasium. The gymnasium that was

there was built down. As the hon. member said we were going to bring it down;

well, that gymnasium was brought down because the integrated educational council

of the day couldn't afford to build it in the right way.

We had a gymnasium where when you played some of the sports

you were always knocking the ceiling tiles out of the ceiling of the gym. If we

had a tournament of some kind no one could even come in to watch because the gym

was so small. This was a large centre in the Province that had this kind of

multi-purpose, or multi-religion. Everyone went to the one integrated high

school in the area. This is what we had. Even as far back as the mid- to

late-1970s this was the case.

I know there are cases throughout the Province where others

had facilities that were not as good or were probably even worse and others who

had better. At one point in time when I was first elected I mentioned to one of

the hon. members opposite, I remember the hon. Member for St. John's East, the

former Mayor of St. John's, who preceded the current hon. member, and I

mentioned to her that the photocopying budget for one school in Mount Pearl

exceeded the total budget of one of our schools, with the exception of teachers'

salaries and that, but exceeded the total discretionary budget for the full

school in one of the areas in my district.

Certainly she argued it with me. We got out the figures and

we looked at it. She said: It is hard to believe that a small school in a

community of 1,000 people in your area that serves X number of students, and a

similar school in here, and the difference is so marked. Such a difference that

one would not believe that the small school in an outside area of the Province

would be suffering along with so little when some of the larger schools in this

area and the larger urban centres would have so much.

When we go through the school system sometimes of course we

wonder what is it that stimulates us to aspire and succeed. What is it about the

schooling that we take? Is it the fact that we do certain academics? Is it the

fact that we are influenced so much by certain teachers? I think really the

teacher side of the thing, having a teacher that is a special teacher, one that

gives you some of life's lessons, along with your parents, but a teacher or some

person you look up to who offers you little comments and life lessons that you

carry with you into the future. I had a few like that and I am sure most hon.

teacher said: If it is worth doing it is worth doing well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Billy.

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, it was always Billy. Certainly, it is

the kind of thing we look back on, and you sometimes wonder, I suppose, what it

is that will help a student who is an underachiever to achieve and succeed in

the future, which is what we want, I suppose all of us here. If you look at that

as an example to our community in the Province, the achievement of students in

the school system, how does that then relate to people's ability to achieve in

business, to succeed as members of the community and to succeed in respect of

their offering of community service and public service to the Province?

These are the things, I think, we have to look at and

hopefully this measure will improve. We have no guarantee that what we do here,

no one has any guarantee that what we undertake as government, or even as

members of the Opposition for that matter, will have a positive impact on future

generations whose best interests we are looking out for. We certainly hope that

our efforts here do have some positive impact on those we aspire to lead.

Another point, I wanted to mention about the integration of

the school community in the district I represent, and what it has done to the

social fabric of the community. There were, of course, the differences not only

between the Roman Catholic community, which was very small in our area, and the

Protestants, but there was also the Anglican against the United. It was not such

that it was a terrible thing but it was a rivalry that was laced with snowball

fights. The situation of a snowball with a rock, of course, was a terrible thing

and you were sent to the principal for that type of thing, but it existed, there

was a difference and a gap between the different religions in the area.

Since the integration of the different religions totally into

the school system, into one melting pot, so to speak, the religious differences

are still here but as a community the integration has done so much to bring the

people, regardless of their religion, together in the community. As I recall it,

an ecumenical spirituality. We have a case where you have a rotation of the

spiritual leadership for the church in the school system and it works very well.

The most recent high school graduation I attended in Port aux

Basques had the Pentecostal pastor for the area, representing a very small

percentage of the population, giving the blessing at the graduation church

ceremony. It was very moving to see the members of the congregation and the

students who were there to participate so much in this ecumenical service. It

was certainly the kind of thing that was an example for the Province, to see

that this integration and this type of overall activity can be very helpful for

the spiritual healing of the community, and for bringing people together in such

a way that religious differences and any bigotry that existed in the past can

disappear.

I note, as an example, that nearby in the district of the

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture - and I know a lot of people from

the Codroy Valley as it is very close geographically to my own area, and that

kind of harmony is not as prevalent in the Codroy Valley area which has a very,

very strong population of a single school system. It is much improved over what

it was, but it is not as harmonious as it is for the integrated system in our

area - so to look at what we did...

We tried to reach a consensus amongst the churches, which was

the way we preferred to proceed. That attempt, of course, there was a

considerable effort made on the part of churches, on the part of government, to

try to bring about a resolution to this without having to proceed to any

legislative or constitutional measure. We reached a point at which the

integrated schools, schools in integration, were comfortable with the situation;

they had reached their limit, and they allowed us then to negotiate further with

the Pentecostal and Roman Catholic school boards, or the DECs, and as far as the

Pentecostal and Roman Catholics were concerned at that time, we had to go

further.

So we went further along, but then we reached a point where

the schools in integration informed us that they were not prepared to go as far

as the others had said, so we were left with a problem. What do you do when

those with whom you are negotiating cannot agree? What do we as a government do

when we have one group that is in agreement to a certain point, and another two

groups that say we have to go further, and it is an impossibility. It was an

intractable situation, one which we really had no choice but to choose another

way of proceeding. We had to take another course of action, and basically if you

look at that in comparison to what the Opposition is saying about us, they are

criticizing us for having held a referendum. They will criticize us for not

acting on the recommendations in the Royal Commission Report. They will

criticize us for having showed the leadership that we have shown in the face of

a difficult situation.

I think if the Opposition were in a similar circumstance to

us, they would have either done one of two things. They would have capitulated

and allowed things to remain as they were, or they would possibly have gone back

and come up with something that would have been nothing but the status quo, and

I sincerely believe that.

The Royal Commission on Education is certainly something that

the Opposition is always suggesting that we should have followed in changing the

education system. Well, a lot of the recommendations in there are being acted

upon, and a lot of the parts of this Royal Commission, Our Children, Our Future,

certainly are the basis on which we have acted. They are the basis on which we

have proceeded to the point that we are now, and I feel that we have been very

justified in proceeding the way we have, and in light of the view of my

constituents that changes should be made, I really feel it is no difficulty for

me because I have always felt this way and have said so in previous speeches in

this Chamber on anything to do with education.

There are a number of parts of this which I do not really

have time to get into, with the limited amount of time we have to comment, but

certainly I have noted out some of the recommendations about equal access, equal

opportunities to programming, the tie-in with the problems associated with

socio-economic status, and certainly I would say to the people of the Province

and to the Opposition here that this is not a conspiracy for us to conspire to

go off and create some education system that was not what we thought would be

the best in the first place.

Opposition would have the people of the Province believe that

government conspires to hurt people, that governments are - and I understand

that is part of the process of governing, having an Opposition to call you to

task, but some of the comments that the Opposition make, you would swear we are

all a bunch of evil, three-headed monsters over here that were out to do nothing

but hurt people.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are.

MR. RAMSAY: I know that they say that we are, but it

really shows just how ludicrous the comments of Opposition sometimes are, and

how much they grasp for straws in the administration of opposing government. So

this exercise in democracy that we have come forward with here in this

resolution to eventually change the constitution is our best judgement of what

should be done given the circumstances of the day, so we plan to lead by example

in this, and we will make the decisions that are necessary. We must achieve a

more integrated system here in the Province. We need and demand nothing but

excellence in the education system, and we need a minimum of duplication in the

delivery of school administration, and that is a necessity for our children.

Now we do not enjoy the conflict of putting churches in a

position where they have no choice but to oppose us, but at times for the

benefit of all of the people of the Province, and all of the students and

children in our Province, we have to bite the bullet I suppose, and move forward

with something that is not as we would like but it is the best possible solution

to the problem; and we consider these changes necessary, I certainly do for the

benefit of my children, for the benefit of the children of the people in my

district and I certainly hope that the future will allow us to free up some of

those administrative funds that have previously been wasted through duplication,

and I don't mean wasted as if someone was throwing them into a furnace or

anything like that, I mean that we allowed the system to grow to a point where

bureaucracy and the administration of education became more important than the

school supplies and the teaching supplies given to a small school in the

community of Petites as an example, so for the sake of our children and our

children's futures, I don't think we can shirk our responsibility because of

disagreement with the churches on how we would proceed.

The people of the Province and the people of the District of

LaPoile voted for reform, it is plain and simple, they voted for the specific

prospect put forward in the resolution that government proposed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RAMSAY: - and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say

that we would be remiss if we did not proceed as we intend to, and I look

forward to the vote on this to express the wishes not only of my constituents,

but of the majority of the people in the Province.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to yield to my friend from Eagle River because I

thought he might have some other chores to attend to before lunch, but I looked

at the clock and I said: he has lots of time after I sit down to have his few

words and still get to whatever he has to for lunchtime.

Mr. Speaker, the question that a lot of people around this

Province and I am no exception, had on their minds when government and

especially the Premier and the Minister of Education and Training, over the last

number of months - over the last couple of years really, because I can remember

back in the House I think it was a little over a year ago what the Premier said

here, it was on a Friday morning - really it was on a Friday morning when he

said it when he spoke to - I think it was in the form of a Ministerial Statement

if I am not mistaken, when he told the church leaders in this Province that

there would be absolutely no changes and the government wouldn't go for a change

in the Constitution in Term 17 with regard to changing the constitution

referencing the denominations in the Province, and the part that the churches

were playing in education in the Province.

However, Mr. Speaker, all I can see that is happening - I

mean, we had the Royal Commission on Education, we had approximately I think it

was something like 90 per cent of the 211 recommendations made in that

particular report implemented, if not, could have been implemented and probably

more. I was looking at the report and as far as I am concerned, probably 95 or

96 per cent of the recommendations could be implemented and the other small

portion could have also been implemented with the consensus and the dialogue

that could be carried out between government and churches.

Over the years, Mr. Speaker, a lot of changes, especially in

the last ten years, have come to education in the Province. In a way, it was an

evolutionary thing, the way that school boards came together, the way that

different schools, R.C. Pentecostal and Integrated in certain areas of the

Province came together, I suppose, consolidated in a lot of cases and made the

school system better for school children in the area and as a whole, saved

government money and saved the people of this Province large dollars, all done

by consensus, all done by agreement.

There was no need to change Term 17 to do that, there was no

need of changing Term 17 to do it today and there would not have been any reason

to change Term 17 to do it tomorrow, if they got their minds together.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing obvious, there was one thing

obvious from members opposite and especially the government of the day, and it

is evident ever since they came to power in 1989 and that is, power. You go back

to some of the legislation that has been introduced into this House over the

last six years, examples, municipalities in the Province. Strip municipalities

of the Province of their MOGs, of their formula for the repayment on the capital

debt, it was done arbitrarily, Mr. Speaker. Those are volunteer groups carrying

on the government of municipalities in the Province, at their own expense. It

was dictated to them what to do, what they have to do in order to survive, what

they have to do in order to get funding from the government, that was dictated

to them. Library boards in the Province is another prime example. There was no

consultation, there was absolutely none. We will tell you how to operate. We

will tell you how to spend your dollars and we will tell you where to operate in

this Province. If you want anything more then do it voluntarily and go to the

community in which you live, ask the people, if not, you do without.

There are all kinds of examples, Mr. Speaker. There are

examples now from the federal cousins in Ottawa, our social programs, our UI,

our health care, education, not a word, not a whimper. I can remember a few

short years ago when there was a $32 million or $33 million shortfall in

equalization payments in this Province, when there was another government in

power in Ottawa and everybody was hitting the ceiling. The concerns expressed by

individuals opposite were unreal. We were going to be bankrupt. We could not

provide this program; we could not provide that program. Today there are

millions, hundreds of millions - billions like Mr. Smallwood would say -

billions and on top of billions going out of this Province being stripped from

the coffers of this Province and there is not one word said about it. We know, I

know, Mr. Speaker, and the people of this Province will know in another few

days, another few months as we progress and as we go on in bringing in the next

provincial budget, the next federal budget and so on, what is going to happen to

our social programs in this Province and to everything else, but the big one is

education.

We had another prime example this morning, in questions to

the minister as it pertains to the university, what about cuts to the university

over the next little while? The minister admitted that there will be cuts. He

did not know what, 1 per cent, 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent but he

knew there was going to be cuts. They know now how much it is going to be but

who is saying anything about it? If this government is so concerned about the

children of this Province and about the education of the children of this

Province, how come there is nothing being said now about what is going to happen

with the shortfall of dollars coming from Ottawa? Not a word, not a whimper but

yet they are so concerned about the denominational system in this Province and

the dollars that are going to be saved, those large millions of dollars that are

going to be saved over the next little while is going to save the educational

system in this Province. Isn't it rather hypocritical? Isn't it hypocritical to

think that the measly $15 million or $20 million - if that is so, that remains

to be seen, there is nothing proven - is going to save the educational system in

this Province, is going to make all Einstein's out of everybody that comes out

of our educational system in this Province? Everybody all of a sudden is going

to be able to go off and say that we just graduated from the educational system

in Newfoundland, you have to accept us.

Mr. Speaker, the monies that are going to be saved from the

changes that are going to be made as it pertains to Term 17 in this Province and

the doing away with the denominational system in this Province is going to be

minuscule. It will be nothing compared to the cuts in education alone from the

federal government over the next six to twelve months; they will be

insignificant, Mr. Speaker.

I say to members opposite and to the people of this Province,

if you are so concerned about the education of people in this Province then you

better start speaking up. If not members opposite will be the ones who will be

answerable in a very short period of time for what is going to happen to the

education system in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well no, you are right. Nobody listens. I

never forget the time that I was in Pollards Point in my district to talk about

the insignificance of what you say in the House of Assembly and the

insignificance of the place itself as far as I'm concerned. I went down to visit

this old gentleman, he said: Rick I haven't seen you for a few weeks. I said:

No, I haven't been around; I've been in the House for the last few weeks. He

asked: What, were you sick, did you have the flu or what? This is, Mr. Speaker,

indicative, I say to members opposite and my colleagues on this side of the

House, of how the House of Assembly is seen in the rural areas of this Province,

anyway.

In and around the precincts of St. John's and so on - I mean,

you look around this House in the last week or so, with the debate on education.

It was supposed to be the most significant piece of - well, it isn't

legislation, resolution, really. It is supposed to be - you know, all the people

in the Province, 75 per cent or 80 per cent really in the polls suggested they

wanted change. I look around this House this week and what do I see? Five

members. It makes you wonder. There is also another message in there. It

translates further, it brings more of what I was just talking about earlier

about the concerns that they should have over the next few months as it pertains

to education in the Province.

Another question that I would ask, and I ask a lot of people

around this Province, especially parents who have children in school today, and

had children in school yesterday, and their fathers and mothers who had children

in school before that, and the schools that they went to, the schools that I

went to, and every other member of this House. Are we any less human beings or

educated people in this Province because we went to a religious school? Are we

any less educated because we went to a public school? Are we less educated if we

went to school at all?

Poor old grandfather used to say to me, he said he went to

school and he left in what they call primer. He said: I only spent two or three

weeks there and left. He said: As far as I'm concerned, there are two kinds of

education. I asked: What would they be? He said: The kind you get going to

school and the kind you get after. He said: What I got after was a lot better

than what I got going, and some of the people who continued right on through.

You know, you could ask that man a question about pretty well anything on

current affairs any day of the week and he could answer it. Because they were

well versed, well read and so on. I'm sure other members in the House can speak

the same way about their grandfathers, grandmothers and other kin.

I went to a school in Buchans. I went personally to St.

Theresa's Academy in Buchans. My colleague the Member for Windsor - Buchans

knows what I'm talking about. He went to the integrated system just down the

road. I went to St. Theresa's Academy, RC school in Buchans. I had the sisters

teach me. I had some great clergy there at that time. One I remember fondly is

Father Fitzgerald, old Father Fitzgerald an old-time priest years gone by,

well-respected in this Province, well-respected among his peers and so on. We

always got together afterward. There was never any animosity between the

schools. We played hockey, different teams, we played basketball. I will never

forget Grand Falls Academy and St. Mike's in Grand Falls. Same thing. There was

never anything about religion. Nothing.

In fact at midnight mass, I would say, 50 per cent of the

congregation were from other religions. Always came to midnight mass. We lived

in harmony with each other. We lived without animosity, went to church suppers

here and there. There were all kinds of get-togethers and so on, and there was

never anything said.

Now, all of a sudden, I ask members and I ask the people of

this Province: How come, since 1949, all of a sudden the problem with education

in the Province is because we have religion involved in schools? Because that is

what it is all about. This is not about anything else. This is about absolutely

nothing else. This is not about school bussing. This is not about curriculum.

This is not about whether a Protestant teacher is any better than a Catholic

teacher. If so, why haven't we asked the questions before, why an R.C. teacher

would be any better than a Pentecostal teacher would be any better or any less

than an integrated teacher? They live and work together in the same communities.

They share the same buildings. They share the same interests. Their children go

to the same figure skating, the same hockey, the same everything, yet all of a

sudden the problem with the education system in this Province is religion, since

1949. That doesn't say much for the political leaders of this Province over the

years, when all of a sudden it comes down to a few measly $10 million or $15

million over the next number of years to put the so-called education system back

to where it should be, and the insinuations are made that all of a sudden we are

all going to be AAA overnight.

I say to members opposite, and the people of this Province,

that they are being misled. There is no way; this is a cover up for something. I

do not know what. I mentioned earlier that it has to do with power, and as far

as I am concerned that is absolutely what it has to do with, nothing more,

nothing less. For the minister to get up in his place this morning and say there

were going to be cuts to university, where is the money going to come from the

so-called savings in the communities around this Province after the resolution

is passed?

I said, when the referendum was on - I did not tell anybody

in the district; if anybody asked me I told them; I did not go public - I wrote

to the coalition that asked me, and I put it on record that I was going to vote

no in the referendum. I did not go around my district preaching it. If they

asked me I told them, and if they asked me why, I told them. That was it. That

is where it stopped, but there was something more to it. I let the people have

their say. I did not want to interfere. I did not want to interfere at all.

The question I want to ask members opposite: What are they

going to do after this resolution is passed? Will there be legislation? Because

I told the people during the referendum: If I were voting on the actual piece of

legislation that was going to govern the schools in this Province and the school

boards in this Province, right the next day, or the day after the referendum,

then I would be able to look at it in a more educated way and have a better

handle on what I was voting for. What was I voting for? The question: Do you

support revising Term 17 in the manner proposed by government?

I asked some members opposite would they mind elaborating on

the manner proposed by government. I couldn't get it. I don't know if other

members could get it, I was never told. I asked him, what was the manner

proposed by government? What was going to be in the legislation? What was going

to be in the small Schools Act? This small Schools Act came up here four or five

years ago - where is it? They could have made changes in that. That was a big

thing here one day, with a Ministerial Statement. Absolutely nothing - it

disappeared. All of a sudden it is after resurfacing again. That is going to be

the legislation that is going to govern the schools in this Province. What

legislation, Mr. Speaker? What legislation is going to govern it? Let the people

of the Province see it. Let the members of the House of Assembly see it. We are

voting on a resolution that says nothing. This resolution says that they are

going to go to Ottawa and the Senate and change Term 17 to accommodate the few

changes that are contained in this resolution. There are a few words being

changed, `continue to' and so on in (

a) and `continue to' added in

Section C,

who is going to direct and determine the set up of schools after and the type of

schools. That is it, the bottom line here is that we are taking away a minority

right.

The bottom line here, Mr. Speaker, that we, in this Province,

had people go overseas and fight and give their lives to protect the rights of

this country and the people of this country. We had people go overseas in 1939,

in the '40s, the Second World War, to give their lives, and this country and

this Province paid dearly for that, Mr. Speaker, dearly, to give us the right to

operate and to carry on the functions, whether it was education or freedom of

speech or whatever you had in this country and this Province. We and the people

in it paid dearly. All we had to do was go around this Province, look at some of

the cemeteries around here. All we have to do is go to other countries and look

at it, all we have to do on Remembrance Day, Mr. Speaker, is go to the Legion's

around this Province and the memorial grounds, in the cenotaphs and have a look

at who's laying the wreaths.

When I see a government in this so-called great Canada of

ours that we are debating so much about in the last couple of weeks and when I

see the minority rights taken away from people, whether they are church groups,

whether they are someone in a community, municipality or whatever they might be,

when I see this happen, Mr. Speaker, whether there is a referendum or no

referendum - there was no referendum when those people went off to fight the

battle for freedom of speech, there was no referendum to say how long they would

stay over there. There was no referendum for that, but there was a referendum to

take away the rights of an individual to have something in their communities

that they want. Those same people, Mr. Speaker, whether they are RC,

Pentecostal, integrated, Anglican, United or whatever, they pay taxes in case

people don't remember. They pay taxes in this country; they pay taxes in this

Province.

A prime example in my area, the Pentecostal people put up

$785,000 in a very short period of time to pay for their own school out of their

own pockets, hard work and hard earned money. Now if the rest of the people in

this Province wanted to do otherwise, why should they be condemned, put down and

belittled because they tried to do something with an education system in their

Province, because they tried to enhance the education of their children, because

they tried to do something beneficial and positive and they were optimistic in

doing so? They could not get money from government. At the same time they did

it, there was no money from government. Government was out cutting school

boards, cutting maintenance in school boards. I mean, Mr. Speaker, if people

would only realize and wake up and look around within their own communities,

they would see that this is nothing but a bluff, an absolute, as the hon. member

calls it, a charade - a charade, that's what it is.

This would all be done by evolution, this would all be done

in communities, is done by necessity. In my area now, the R. C. School Board in

Deer Lake has a junior high made out of one school; the rest of the people are

going to the integrated system and the Pentecostal system has 340 to 350

students in their school. We have a prime example of the hypocrisy of this

particular resolution in the petition I presented the other day to the House of

Assembly.

I am down in what is called the White Bay south part of my

district. In the communities of Jackson's Arm, Sop's Arm, Pollards Point,

willing parents came together; this, as the minister says is going to be

parental-driven. Big deal, parental-driven! This is not going to be parental

driven, they are going to be told what to do, when, where and how to act. They

are going to be told how much money they are going to get. Well, Mr. Speaker, I

say to you and members in this House, three-and-a-half years, long before a

referendum, long before a resolution change in Term 17, the people in the bottom

part of my district in the White Bay south part of my district have cried out

loudly for a school.

They were willing to close four schools, Mr. Speaker, four

schools, but it fell on deaf ears and then, someone in government has the gall

to tell those people: Well, it is not efficient to close four schools and build

one, Mr. Speaker, whom have we around this Province not efficient to put away

four schools and put up one, where is the money? $4 million out of $6 million

this year, to do what? It is not enough to caulk the windows in the schools

around the Province, not enough to put caulking compound around the windows and

yet, we are talking about all the schools that are going to be built after this

resolution goes through. Everything is going to be hunky dory.

Children will come out of the classrooms with Grade XII ready

to go off to Ontario or Harvard, no problem, they will be able to pass right on

by the university here, pass right on through the doors, no problem; apply for a

graduate program in this Province after we get this resolution through, no

problem you will be accepted. Masters program will be a thing of the past, Mr.

Speaker. There will be more money, Mr. Speaker, more money I would say in

selling bubble gum. There will be more bars sold, more calendars bought and more

doors worn out in this Province from youngsters knocking on them, trying to get

donations to try to even get through Grade XII, let alone do any extra

curricular activities.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing evident in this resolution

and I started this debate with one word, and that was `power'. This government

knows nothing else, only power. If they are going to make such a good

educational system, if all of a sudden, overnight, someone has actually wakened

up, where is the money the last six years? Where is it going to be tomorrow,

when the legislature kicks in? I say after Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, that probably

this resolution will die. This resolution will never see the light of day. If we

vote on this legislation come Monday, I am not a betting man, Mr. Speaker, but I

would say that this resolution will probably never be seen anywhere else. The

House of Commons, it might go to the House of Commons but I guarantee you, I

will be very, very, very surprised if anything is done with that after Monday. I

will tell you that, Mr. Speaker, I will say, because I will say there is more to

this, if people look a little deeper, than what is on the surface, what is

presented here. The facts are, if we had the legislation we could see it, and

sit down as grown men and women and have a look at what is actually going to be

implemented, what schools are going to have to go by, what we are going to be

governed by. Where is the legislation? Granted, I admit, they want to go this

route and change Term 17. Do it if that is what they want to do, but where is

the legislation and what is the need of this?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I will let the hon. member know what I am

voting when I stand in the House to vote.

MR. ROBERTS: I have it marked down as, no, anyway.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, you can do that but you have been

fooled before. Mr. Speaker, members opposite have all alluded to the monies that

were wasted over the years. Members opposite talked about the $21 million or $22

million that was put into Sprung, they always get up and talk about Sprung.

Well, I say to members opposite, why don't they go now to Hydro Quebec and ask

them for 10 per cent of the $700 million they are getting every year from

Churchill Falls? Ask for 10 per cent and you wouldn't have any problem with

keeping up the maintenance of schools and the construction of schools in this

Province. And members opposite rise and talk about the $21 million or $22

million that was spent by a Tory government on Sprung.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province should wake up and

look at what Hydro Quebec is dragging out of the coffers of this Province and we

have nothing and are wondering why we can't build a school. There is $700

million to $800 million a year going into the coffers of Quebec and we are

talking about $15 million or $20 million over seventeen years. I say to members

opposite and members on this side of the House, and the people of this Province,

that we should be very careful.

There is one note I would like to leave with members - I

don't know if other members have seen it. On August 28 there was an

article in

Time magazine which talked about the federal constitutional court in

Germany and what happened. In the Bavarian state in Germany, in Bavaria, they

have a law there which says you can display the crucifix in the classroom. There

was a couple complained that the half naked, dead male figure frightened and

intimidated their three children, and when school officials replaced that with

just a plain crucifix, the parents amended their objections to add that such

symbols contravened the Constitution by influencing their children to accept

Christianity. By a five-to-three vote, the court accepted the constitutional

argument and the country erupted in controversy.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere down the road, if this resolution is

passed, if the legislation comes in based on some of the things in here, because

there is a lot of

interpretation here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Does the member have leave?

MR. WOODFORD: Just one minute?

AN HON. MEMBER: One minute.

MR. WOODFORD: There are a lot of questions asked by this

Mr. Irving who is supposed to be a constitutional expert. He made some glaring

remarks as to inequities in this resolution, and the possibilities and the

probabilities of this happening. Now, I know, as the hon. member said, that

lawyers are there to interpret the justice system.

AN HON. MEMBER: And also cause trouble.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I say to the hon. member, to cause

trouble, too. They can do that quite well with all due respect to my colleagues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, and that as well.

Mr. Speaker, I will finish up with my few short comments on

this particular resolution. I say to all members in the House there is no doubt

from the way members are speaking and what they have said, publicly, and in the

confines of the Legislature, how they will be voting. There is no doubt in my

mind that this resolution will be passed. What happens after it leaves this

Chamber will be very important, as far as I am concerned, to the people in this

Province. It will be very important to the church groups in this Province. The

people when they voted in the referendum didn't vote to take away minority

rights. They voted for reform in education. They did not vote to take away

minority rights. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I have been in this Legislature over six years. Whether I get

re-elected again the next time or not I am pleased today, more so than any other

time that I've risen in this Legislature, to be able to support what I think is

a very historic piece of legislation, to support what I think is a very

progressive piece of legislation, to support a great liberal piece of

legislation. In the next little while that I have I want to talk about why there

is a need for educational change, and I want to talk about why this educational

reform is not a partisan issue, and why it is an issue of good government. And

obviously, I want to talk about my role as a member of this Legislature and what

I should do in representing my people.

In 1989 we got elected on a message and sought the mandate of

the people for real change. When we approached the government of this Province

we approached it because we felt that there were some fundamental changes that

had to happen in our society in this Province, and not the least of them was in

the Department of Education, and what education we are going to put in place for

our children as they strive for excellence towards the 21st Century. That was

fundamental in our 1989 election campaign. In 1993 we got elected again,

endorsed by the people because we wanted to continue to meet the challenges of

the day. Fundamental to meeting those challenges of the day were the glaring

problems that we had in education and what we needed to do in that particular

field.

In my riding, not unlike other ridings in other parts of this

Province, there has been a lack of educational program, a lack of educational

facilities, particularly in the sciences, particularly in being able to give our

students, our children, the ability to go on to post-secondary education

equipped with the best information, the best education, when it came to

chemistry, physics, biology, or any of those other sciences. I didn't have it

growing up on the Coast of Labrador. I never knew what it was like to be in a

laboratory. I know the Minister of Education and Training and many others in

this House were in the same category. We did not have it.

When I wanted to go to University, I never had the luxury of

being able to say whether I can decide to be a doctor or to be an engineer

because I did not have the opportunity, I did not have the facilities, I did not

have the system to provide me with the basics to approach those very noble

professions, and that isn't right. That isn't fair. Our children on the Coast of

Labrador should be no different from the children on Merrymeeting Road. They

should be given the same opportunities for educational excellence, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, I am in a position where I look at

our most challenged children in our society. I happen to be a parent of a child

who has some challenges far above all of us, and, Mr. Speaker, it bothers me

when I hear people talk about minority rights. It bothers me when I hear people

talk about whether 6 per cent or 7 per cent of the Christians in our society

should be getting some special rights, because I know firsthand that the

greatest service we can do to our society is to reach out to our most vulnerable

people, our most vulnerable children, listen to what they need to have so that

they can strive for a quality of life like all of us. Look to them and say: Is

there anybody in our society who needs to have education so they can have the

dignity of living by themselves, the dignity of being able to get a job, the

dignity of being able to have an income and a bank account, and be able to go

out and participate in society. The only equalizer that is available to them is

education. Education is the thing that can equalize their participation in our

society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, it is so unfortunate that even in the

Year of the Child, even in the Year of the Disabled that has been proclaimed by

the United Nations, that it has still not reached the consciousness of us here

in this Legislature, or indeed in this country, that there is no other more

valuable contribution we can make with our education dollar than to give it to

those people who have the least ability to be able to go out and manage

excellence in their community, and they want that.

In rural Newfoundland and Labrador today we cannot provide

that opportunity. We cannot provide it in many other places in this Province

because funding is a real issue. The Minister of Education is not insensitive to

that. The Minister of Education does not want to break down the excellent

quality of education that those students in Labrador West have built. He does

not want to do that.

I participated in that debate, and I tried to do what I could

to manage a solution to that situation in Labrador West a couple of years ago,

but you know what was so disheartening was that there was $40,000 or $50,000

required so that we could get those student assistants to be able to provide

that care, but we could not do it. Yet, there was a superintendent on one side

of the lake, a superintendent on the other side of the lake.

My wife went through J.R. Smallwood Collegiate when there was

one manager, or one principal, in that school. They combined it and made it a

model - not as good a model as I think we have here, but yes it was a good model

for the day - but they still kept the two sides. They still kept the principal

on two sides of the room. They still kept the superintendents on two sides of

the lake, but they could not get $40,000 so they could get the student

assistants and give our disabled community in Labrador West the excellence that

they deserve and that, to me, was despicable. That was wrong, and that was

something I hope I will have the opportunity to effect some change to, and I am

very grateful to be part of a government that has that vision, to be a part of

that team that has the courage to move on that issue because it may be not in

vogue, but we are being progressive, we are being visionary, and when I say and

hear people talk about minority rights, I say: Think about those minorities out

there who have the least opportunity to be able to get that education and

participate in our society like they yearn to, like all of us do.

It is not an issue of whether one religion should be getting

greater precedence over another. We are all Christians. There is only one Bible.

Those who are not Christian certainly also have an opportunity to go and have

access to the best education that we can. This is not an issue of partisanship.

This is not an issue of trying to get one-upmanship for the sake of political

expediency. I think this government has demonstrated more than anybody else that

this is an action issue of good government which we have approached with

sincerity, with vision, with courage, with dedication. We have had

two-and-a-half years of negotiations. We have had tremendous work being put in

by our Planning and Priorities committee, by our caucus, by our