October

19, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 39

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for

the Fire Prevention Act, I have received a briefing on the fire that took place

at the Irving Oil storage tank facility at Southside last night. As the fire

investigation is in the early stages, it is too early to attribute cause. The

fire itself, while extensive, was contained within the tank and all damage

sustained was confined to that individual facility. A number of injuries were

sustained by persons who were reportedly at the scene when the fire started and

two of those people have been hospitalized.

The Office of the Fire Commissioner and the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary are conducting an investigation of the cause of the

fire. This report will outline any appropriate actions which may be required as

a result of this investigation. In the meantime, as a result of the concerns

expressed about safety conditions at the Southside Hills fuel storage tank farm,

government has authorized a thorough safety review of the entire storage

facility complex. Arrangements for this safety review are to be undertaken as

soon as the necessary expertise and resources can be put together. Once

conducted, government will be in a position to ensure that the facility is

maintained in a fully safe manner.

A great deal of credit, Mr. Speaker, is due to the members of

the St. John's Regional Fire Department, the St. John's Airport Fire Department,

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and, as well, other groups including the

Canadian Coast Guard and Emergency Measures Organization, at the scene to

provide additional support if required. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, an emergency

such as this proves to us how, with advanced planning, our resources can be

brought together on a co-operative basis in the interest of the citizens at

large and in a most efficient and effective manner, and indeed this was done

last night. Neither I nor any of my colleagues, nor any of my officials will be

making any further statements about the fire or the circumstances surrounding it

until the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary investigation is complete. Thank you.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to join the

minister in complimenting the members of the St. John's Regional Fire

Department, the St. John's Airport Fire Department, the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, and all other support agencies who worked so co-operatively and so

well last evening to prevent what could have been a major disaster for the City

of St. John's and for the region.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion over the years

about those storage tanks. Many of the people who live in St. John's,

particularly in the Shea Heights area, have been advocating for years that the

storage tanks represent a substantive hazard and that they should be removed. I

hope that the minister will move expeditiously on his review and that this

review will include the option of seeking the removal of those tanks from where

they are now located to a more safe part of the St. John's region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier. Last night, the people of

the Province saw the Minister of Finance on television saying there has been

considerable growth in the number of government staff at Confederation Building

and other government offices. CBC TV estimated the extent of the growth in the

government bureaucracy since this Liberal Administration took office, at 11 per

cent. Does the Premier admit there has been a ballooning of government

bureaucracy under his Liberal Administration, and does he agree there has been

an 11 per cent growth?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. In the overall

bureaucracy, the answer is no. In the senior executive management I think it is

probably nearly cut in half, certainly cut by close to 40 per cent I would

think. I think there were something like 129 deputies, and assistant deputies,

and so on, when we took office and I think it is down now to something like

seventy-odd. It is about a 40 per cent reduction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, indeed they are not. In the overall,

as we tried to put in place cuts and reductions, one of the things we discovered

recently is that in the public service generally, there has been an increase, in

fact, in the last three to four years. Now, probably if I were to go back and

look at the numbers I would say there is still less than there was in 1989, but

I will check that and let the House know. I don't agree with the proposition but

I will check the figures and make sure what the situation is.

We searched for the cause of that problem. We are having some

assessment done now. One of the causes we think is the system we have of

determining pay, the so-called Hay system that the former administration put in.

Unfortunately, that system rewards people, or increases their level of pay in

the administration, based on the number of people they have working under them

and the amount of money they spend. So it works against government's objective

instead of for it. So we have to try to get that corrected. All of that is under

assessment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) how many more criteria

(inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: There is a variety of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: That is two of four.

PREMIER WELLS: That is two of four, as the minister says.

Mr. Speaker, there are a variety of reasons for this. The minister's

observations are, of course, quite correct and he is doing an extensive

assessment of it. He has a good deal more knowledge about it at the moment than

I do. He is having a full assessment done.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Premier to react to the comment of the

Minister of Finance on television last night, and I quote: `Unfortunately, the

administrative level in government is actually growing.'

I would like the Premier to turn his mind to the number of

administrative positions in government departments and also government agencies,

such as Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, ENL, `Employment for Noted

Liberals.' I would like the Premier to indicate whether CBC t.v. is not in fact

in the ball park when they estimate that there has been 11 per cent growth in

administrative positions since the Premier came to power.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, that is not what was estimated or

suggested. There was no reference to when the Premier came to power. The

minister is doing a full assessment and I can assure this House it will get the

full facts as soon - he is doing it fairly quickly. I think, Mr. Speaker, you

will find - I can speak, for example, for my own office. I know what it costs to

run. It is considerably less now in 1995-1996 than it was in 1988-1989 -

considerably less, with considerably fewer people working there and twice as

much work being done on top of that, so I can speak with personal knowledge for

that part of government because that's what I have direct involvement with so I

can give you the details on that. However, the Minister of Finance is causing a

full assessment to be done of all others and the minister will report to the

House in due course; I suspect he might even report to the Cabinet first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

supplementary.

Order, please!

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm that 11 per cent of the number

employed, the number of administrative public servants employed when the Premier

came to power would be approximately 1,100, and would the Premier confirm that

1,100 positions times an average salary of $45,000 a year is just about $50

million, that is $50 million a year, $50 million this year when the Premier's

government is now projecting a Budget deficit of $50 million?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm any of

those propositions. There may or may not be some merit in it but I will wait

until the Minister of Finance has done his assessment and then I will ask the

Minister of Finance - as a matter of fact, I will ask him now - as soon as the

assessment is complete, would you please inform the House and in particular the

Leader of the Opposition?

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another question for the Premier.

The Minister of Finance confessed on t.v. last evening, that

the government has had a smoke and mirrors approach to financial management.

Smoke and mirrors is what the minister said. The minister admitted that while

pretending to have a freeze on hiring, the government actually carried out

large-scale hiring, not by the regular Public Service Commission route, but, on

a temporary basis. Premier, will you confirm that by hiring on a temporary

basis, you, once again circumvented the law by bypassing the Public Service

Commission, so you and your ministers could hand pick Liberal hacks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Surely, the member does not expect anybody

in the Province to believe that nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister has finished the assessment,

the full assessment will be laid before the House, and I think the hon. member

and the people of the Province will see just how wrong she is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the

Premier.

Would the Premier comment on the remarks of the Minister of

Finance on t.v. last night, and I quote: In fact, what has happened is that

there has been a growth in temporary positions, so that the hiring freeze often

applies to permanent positions. What you really have is smoke and mirrors.

Then he went on to say: The cuts have often been made at the

level where service to the public is, and the public will get service; there are

fewer people there. Unfortunately the administrative level in government is

actually growing.

Would the Premier comment on those remarks of his minister?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) the minister. He will explain.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I would be delighted

to comment.

What I said last night, which the hon. member is obviously

either misinterpreting or misunderstanding, is that at a time when this

government has diligently tried to encourage fiscal responsibility in the civil

service, and efficiency, what has been happening is that while we have been

controlling and cutting at a level that we can control, the senior executive,

controlling the budget and senior management, the executive itself, at different

levels, have been adding more administrative people, while when we insist that

they carry out their services more efficiently it results in cuts at the service

level to the public, and that is only apparent when you do an analysis of who

has been added and where they have been added.

AN HON. MEMBER: The public service is responsible

(inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, it is. As the hon. former Minister of

Finance says, it is the responsibility of the public service. It is what we

intend to deal with, and we will not have service cuts at the level to the

public and at the same time see growth in administration.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the Premier.

Premier, where does the buck stop in your government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is obvious where the buck stops. If the

hon. member does not know that, she really ought not be sitting there, and

certainly ought not to be aspiring to the position. It is obvious where the buck

stops. I have personal responsibility, as do all of the ministers, for

everything the government does, and we will report -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: And we will report to the people of this

Province, first through this House of Assembly, for the actions that we take,

and ultimately we will answer at election time, and we will go forward with

great confidence in that answer.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was the

Minister of Finance himself who raised and exposed these issues. This was not

somebody suddenly discovering this. The CBC did not discover this. This was the

diligent Minister of Finance, trying to manage (inaudible), and I give him full

credit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have supplementaries

for the Premier. I would like to say first that it is interesting to note it

didn't take long for the Premier to turn his back on his former Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board, Winston Baker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member she is on a supplementary and I ask

her to get to her question.

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

isn't St. John's hospital reorganization more smoke and mirrors? Isn't it true

that after a year of operations the St. John's Health Care Corporation, the

so-called super board, is spending no less on administration than the former

combined total spending on administration of the separate hospital boards, yet

direct patient care spending has been slashed and we are seeing still more cuts

at St. Clare's?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The new health

care corporation hasn't been in operation for a year. I would remind the hon.

member that they took over officially April 1 of this year, so they've had

barely six months in existence. During that time, of course, they are

reorganizing the administrative side of the corporation. As a result of that

there has been and there will continue to be some down sizing in management.

Obviously when you reorganize and when people are offered

severance, or if they take retirement or redundancy pensions or severance pay

that is in place, there are costs attached to that type of thing. These one-time

costs have to be recognized in this current year. To the extent that these are

there they will obviously add something over and above what next year's budget

will be in the area of administration to this year's budget. That is an

inevitable cost in reorganization. It isn't a substantial one, but it is there,

and it will work through the system this year such that next year and the years

after the administrative side of health care through the health care corp. will

be less than it has ever been under the accumulation of all of the previous

boards, had they stayed in existence.

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

Kenmount.

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

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. There are more than 2,000 homes in St.

John's, the capital city and largest municipality in the Province, that don't

have adequate water and sewer services, and there are dozens of communities

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that have been refused help under the

federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program. Yet this minister has

approved a $600,000 loan, grant, to finance a two-kilometre sewer line to a

privately owned luxury resort at Terra Nova Park Lodge. Why does the minister

approve programs to help the rich business people get richer at the expense of

the poor and the disadvantaged, and when there is no money for subsidized

housing or new senior citizens' complexes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, without any hesitation whatsoever,

this government has not, and I repeat, not, authorized a $600,000 grant of any

kind to a private hotel operator or whatever he named there a few minutes ago.

That is totally - totally, Mr. Speaker - incorrect.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister played with words.

The loan or grant is actually to the town of Port Blandford with the expressed

purpose to extend that water and sewer line to one business, Terra Nova Park

Lodge. Why would the minister give access of that kind of money indirectly to

Terra Nova Park Lodge through the town of Port Blandford, using the town of Port

Blandford, when there is absolutely no benefit to the municipality directly? Why

is the minister so committed to supporting a luxury golf course, of course,

unless he is more committed to luxury golf courses than he is to the

municipalities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the community of Port Blandford,

over three years ago when we asked for the first round for infrastructure

applications, applied to the government to extend a water and sewage line from

their community up along a road which would connect a number of people in the

Port Blandford community. It would hook on to them as well as going into another

area that is considered to be a local service district, that they have asked to

take under their jurisdiction, which would also hook on a number of people in

the local service district and at the end of the road where Terra Nova Park

Lodge happens to be. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I have no problems whatsoever

justifying contributing dollars to municipalities in the Province if, at the

same time we are contributing those dollars, we can create employment in places

like Port Blandford and we can help promote a tourist destination site in the

Province. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder: when people in Kilbride

and the Goulds last year were screaming and bauling for water and sewage, why

this hon. member and other hon. members suggested we take that money and spend

it on a stadium rather then provide good, decent drinking water and sewage

services to Kilbride and the Mount Pearl area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, there is not one single resident

in this community that you talked about, Muddy Cove, that has a water and sewer

problem, not one. It is rural, they have their septic tanks, their wells, they

are quite happy. So therefore the sole purpose is to service Terra Nova Park

Lodge.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the minister, the $600,000 that we

are talking about will provide sewer services only. Terra Nova Park Lodge has a

substantive problem, so they say, with the quality of their water supply. Has

the minister used this $600,000 for them to get their wedge in the door? Is

there any further commitments coming so that the minister will be asked down the

road to commit more money to this kind of a project?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise

that this government or the federal government - you have to remember here that

the decision was made conjointly between this government and the federal

government, in regards to giving Port Blandford the funding, this $600,000

funding. I cannot accept the fact that we as a government or the federal

government as a governing body, cannot turn around and help promote the

Province. If you remember, Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program was not

designated strictly for municipalities. There was a private sector component in

that as well, there was a recreation component in that as well and it was there.

There was a tourism component in there as well.

Some provinces in Canada - for example, I believe Quebec

spend most of their infrastructure money on education, had nothing to do with

water and sewage services or municipal services in the Province. I do not have

any problems justifying why the committee, made up of representatives of both

the federal and provincial government, agreed to give Port Blandford $600,000 to

run a water and sewage line towards the lodge. Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is a

problem with that then I must have missed it somewhere because as far as I am

concerned one of the main and most important -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. REID: This hon. member, Mr. Speaker, received more

for his district in regards to infrastructure then all the other members on this

side of the House. On two separate occasions he ranked highest in the Province.

I am referring to my hon. friend across. He has no right to be standing here in

this House making accusations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

He is well aware of the problems which have arisen as a

result of the construction of a new

section of the TCH, west of Grand Falls

-Windsor. Now some businesses have been forced to close while those remaining

are facing closure if proper signage and access are not provided, let alone the

dangers that have been created for motorists navigating this

section of the

highway.

The minister says the construction company doing the work on

the TCH is responsible for providing proper signage and lighting. My question

is: why hasn't the minister and officials in his department made sure that the

company doing the construction provided proper signage and lighting when a

section of the highway was closed leaving businesses without proper access?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the incident of which the hon.

member is talking about happened some time ago, actually a couple of months ago

when the local construction company was building the four-laning of the

Trans-Canada in that particular area.

When it was brought to our attention or to my attention

within the department, we immediately sent people out there to ensure that the

construction company followed the proper procedures. It was something that

happened in an overnight situation; it was explained to the business people when

they came into my office, but when you are building highways across this

Province and you have the motoring public to deal with, you have all the

businesses that are going to be affected, it is impossible to keep the same

conditions as if there was no construction at all. Construction upsets the norm

and in those circumstances we tried to do the best possible thing.

Unfortunately, in one instance the local construction company made an error

which we straightened out and there is nothing we can do about it now. Hindsight

is 20-20.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls, on a

supplementary.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware that obstruction is going to take place and I am

no way in disagreement of any progress that has been made; but my second

question to the minister is: Can the minister advise what compensation is

available to businesses which have been forced to close and as well, for those

remaining businesses who are losing dollars because of the interrupted services?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That requires a very simple or quick answer. Absolutely none.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister was quoted in

the October 2, edition of The Advertiser as saying: Business owners who

feel they have been adversely affected by the reconstruction can seek

compensation from government, but there are proper channels to go through.

My question to the minister is: Did the government put in

place a compensation package for businesses that have been negatively impacted

by this kind of development, and if so, what are the proper channels for seeking

compensation?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would advise the new member, and he is recently, a new

member in the House of Assembly, not to depend a whole lot on what's printed in

the news media for complete accuracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Secondly, it is also important when you ask a

question to know the answer before you ask the question.

As far as any businesses that are affected by the building of

a piece of road anywhere within the Island, and we have to take a portion of

that property or all of that property, negotiations are dealt with immediately

in the planning of that piece of road. Any business that is impacted upon

directly by the building of a road and feel that they should have compensation -

I said very clearly the department is not responsible but that does not stop

somebody from taking his case to the legal system. I cannot tell them not to do

that - that is their choice - but there is no compensation for any business that

is not impacted directly on the building of any road within the Province.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Premier.

On Tuesday past I sat here in the House of Assembly and

listened intently as the Premier put forward his presentation as he began the

debate on the amendment to Term 17. Since then I have had, on several occasions,

studied the Premier's speech in Hansard, and the new Term 17 and supporting

documentation. Accordingly, I have many questions and concerns relating not only

to my 99 per cent Catholic district of St. Mary's - The Capes, but indeed many

parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My first question has to deal with the future of the present

denominational schools. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier: Will a

Catholic school that is located in a community or an area that is entirely of

the Catholic faith automatically remain a Catholic school after the amended Term

17 becomes law, or will that school take on a new status and, if so, what will

that status be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The minister is better qualified to answer

this than I am, because he is dealing with it on a constant basis.

When we were negotiating with the churches to try and find a

compromise, we had offered to them on one occasion a proposition of parental

choice in that circumstance, and where there could only be one school in that

area it would have to be a school that would accommodate all students. We

suggested that there should be parental choice, but you have to bear in mind

that if you have sort of a breakdown of one-third Salvation Army, one-third

Pentecostal, and one-third Roman Catholic, you cannot have it one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I know what the question is. You have a

right to direct the question, but not the answer. I will give you the answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: You will get the right answer.

So we have to find a means of making this effective. In a

situation like the hon. member talks about, parental choice again would be the

answer. Now the question is how to determine that. If it is a situation where

there are five or ten students who are, say, not of the Roman Catholic faith, as

the hon. member refers to, and there are 200 who are Roman Catholic, I cannot

imagine that it would not be a uni-denominational Roman Catholic school. My

expectation is that it would be, and my expectation is that the system that

would be put in place would facilitate that. Would it be automatic? No, I think

you would have to have some kind of a process of parental choice.

Now, the basis or the precise manner in which that is done I

do not know for the moment, but I did mention at the outset, at the start of

this question, that during negotiations to try and find a compromise we had

suggested a vote, and if the vote was 90 per cent it would be clearly

overwhelming and it should be, and the 10 per cent should be prepared to accept

it.

That was not acceptable, and in the end we made a compromise

and agreed that if 50 per cent, a simple majority, of the parents of the

students in the area wanted it to be a uni-denominational school, at that time,

as part of the compromise, to achieve a compromise without amending the

constitution, we were prepared to do that, and we recommended that to the

churches. They turned it down. Now, I do not know at this moment, as I stand

here, how it will be done precisely, but we will have to find some way of doing

it on a fair basis. I just note that those two propositions were put forward;

both were turned down during the process of negotiations.

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

Capes, a quick question.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Premier, I say with all respect that the

people of St. Mary's - The Capes would like to know what the future holds for

their Catholic schools.

I would like to pose a question, if I can, Mr. Speaker. My

understanding of the changes is that all present schools, of any denomination,

will become common schools until they establish with government their viability

to be a uni-denominational school. I would like to ask the Premier: Is this

exactly what is going to happen? And, if so, would the Premier elaborate on the

process and the viability criteria that a community will have to follow to

establish a uni-denominational school? I have been over this time and time again

and I cannot recall seeing anything that puts forward any criteria. I would like

to know, Mr. Premier, what is the answer to it?

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

Training has time for a quick answer.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should

understand that, assuming we get the permission of this House, the Commons, and

the Senate to change the Constitution, that the next day there is not going to

be a total change. There is going to be a transition, and during that transition

period we will have to determine how to establish uni-denominational schools.

Now, in a case where there is room for two viable schools

there will be no major problem, because we will use a registration process

whereby ten, twenty, fifty, sixty, or 100 parents in a given area will register

their children in a Pentecostal, a Roman Catholic, or a uni-denominational-

MR. TOBIN: Answer the question. This is a major coverup.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before proceeding, I would like to welcome on behalf of all

members, twenty students from the new Enterprise Store of Memorial University,

along with their instructor, Mr. Frank Nolan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby table the financial

statements of the pooled pension fund for the year ending December 31, 1994. I

further table six copies of five Special Warrants relating to the last fiscal

year, by my predecessor.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would be

prepared to give leave to change Motion No. 13 - I think this is the appropriate

time to do it - which now stands in the name of the hon. the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, to my colleague, the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board. The bill will be sponsored by him as opposed to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. If it is agreeable -

AN HON. MEMBER: What was it, Ed?

MR. ROBERTS: Motion No. 13 on today's Order Paper. It is

An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act. I would simply like to have the

notice of motion changed. If that is in order, then we can deal with it. In due

course the bill will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: Changed to what?

MR. ROBERTS: Changed to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the reason for it is that the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and it is a mistake made by me and

my officials, had declared an interest in this matter under the House of

Assembly. He has taken no

part in the decisions on it. Because he has been

(inaudible) responsibility for Workers' Compensation, the bill came - so it is

no more than that.

MR. SPEAKER: It is agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to give a further response to the question posed

yesterday by the Member for Grand Falls. His question was related to the

antimony development in Central Newfoundland. Roycefield Resources filed a

registration document with the Department of Environment in May, 1995. The

document was examined by our officials.

The questions posed by the member included: number one,

whether or not the mineral antimony had been placed on the hazardous substance

list. In response to that question, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

requires the federal Ministers of Environment and Health to prepare a priority

substance list that identifies substances that could be harmful to the

environment or may constitute a danger to human health. Substances on the

priority substance list must be assessed to determine if they are toxic, as

defined in the Act.

At the request of our provincial Department of Environment,

antimony was added to a list of substances for consideration for inclusion on

priority substance list with the Federal Government. Antimony is not yet on this

list and no assessment of toxicity has been done by the Canadian Government.

Newfoundland is taking a pro-active approach to identify whether a potential

environmental problem exists in advance of a possible antimony mine development.

This work is being done in advance to ensure that we have the research done on

the topic.

On the second question: Can the minister tell the House just

how hazardous this particular find in Central Newfoundland is? Under the

Environmental Assessment Process the Beaver Brook exploration project was

screened in May and June of this year. The proponent submitted a registration

document describing the project and environmental protection plan. The documents

were reviewed by Provincial and Federal Government agencies, and the public. Any

environmental concerns that were deemed to be met have been dealt with, and have

also been deemed to be dealt with through the permitting process.

We are also going to table today, copies of the registration

document, which is a public document. Also, we are going to table the protection

plan that was filed by the company and is now being monitored. Further, the

Mayors of Appleton and Glenwood have been written today with copies of these

documents so that they can be fully aware that these are public documents. Our

officials visited the site on September 23 to ensure that the protection plan

for the exploration phase of this development is being met, that the guidelines

are being met, and there will be a further visit on October 23.

If there are any other questions, please let me know.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I rise to present a petition with regard to the

electoral boundaries issue, the second one in this sitting of the House. During

the prior sitting of the House I presented over 1000 names from my constituents

who did not want to see the existing district of Green Bay split in two, as is

the current proposal which I presume will soon be put before this Assembly. The

prayer of the petition is as follows:

WHEREAS our communities have been in the Green Bay district

for many years; and

WHEREAS a recent government proposal would see some of our

communities assigned to the Baie Verte district;

THEREFORE, WE, THE UNDERSIGNED petition the hon. House of

Assembly not to entertain or approve any proposal that would see our communities

removed from Green Bay district.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by ninety-one people

from the communities of Beachside, Little Bay, St. Patricks, and Springdale, a

few from Springdale but the majority from the other three communities. These

other three communities, Mr. Speaker, are communities that under the new scheme

of things will be assigned to the Baie Verte district.

Now, I have no doubt that my colleague, the current Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay would be an admirable and very effective

representative in this Assembly for those communities, but that is not the

point, Mr. Speaker. If the government does makes these changes, many politicians

in this House are going to have to adapt to new boundaries and new constituents

and do the best they can.

What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where an

existing community of interest that has been established since Confederation is

being disrupted, and for no really good reason. The Liberal Party, in trying to

restructure the boundaries in this Province put up an independent commission

that was going to bring in a significant reduction in seats, from fifty-two down

to forty. There was an intersession at a public meeting and the Minister of

Justice basically got the commission to come in with a forty-four seat proposal.

The Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus, still wasn't able to

swallow a forty-four seat proposal and basically put another judge to drawing a

new set of boundaries based on a forty-eight seat proposal. I spoke to that

judge personally because I had a question during the time he was drawing up his

boundaries and he basically told me that his hands were tied and that he did not

have any flexibility whatsoever in the structuring of the districts. It is one

thing to get a judge to draw up a set of boundaries and have the appearance that

it is an independent process but when the judge's mandate is so restricted that

the only possible combinations he can come up with are district boundaries that

are designed to be favourable to the Liberal Government, there is not much the

judge can do about it.

The new boundaries, as brought in, are as a result of a

massive and ongoing manipulation on the part of the Liberal Party, and we are

going to see some really significant changes. Joining what is left of the

Southern part of Green Bay to half of a newly amalgamated town in Central

Newfoundland makes absolutely no sense in terms of politics, in terms of

geography, and in terms of community of interest, Mr. Speaker, but that would

appear to be what it is all about. There has been no allowance made on the

Island of Newfoundland for significant differences between rural and urban

seats. There appears to be no problem with allowing very small population large

geography rural seats in Labrador, but for some reason, that rule does not seem

to apply on the Island of Newfoundland.

I understand and accept the fact that Labradorians need to

have MHAs covering small populations and large geographies but the principle

that allows that to happen doesn't stop at the Strait of Bell Isle; therefore,

we have two principles, really, in action. The government claims it is one

person, one vote, but that only applies to the Island of Newfoundland, that

principle does not apply to the Labrador Peninsula. In terms of the Island of

Newfoundland, if they want to apply the principle to the island that they have

on the Labrador Peninsula then I think there would have been much more

flexibility given to any person with a mandate to redraw the boundaries to show

indeed a great deal of flexibility in rural areas. There is no reason under the

sun why the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor could not be represented by one MHA.

The locals in that area certainly have a problem with seeing their newly

amalgamated community split and people in Green Bay who have been one distinct

unit since Confederation, they don't want to be split either, Mr. Speaker, so

again I lay their concerns before this Assembly. Thank you.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make

a few brief comments because I know after this debate on the referendum we will

get into the debate for electoral boundaries but my colleagues raised the point

that our districts, Baie Verte - White Bay and Green Bay, will see some shifts

to one side. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in the latest proposal I will

pick up thirteen communities from the Green Bay district raising my total now

from twenty-one communities to thirty-four communities. Now as I said, we will

get into more detail as we debate this particular issue but, Mr. Speaker, we

have to realize first of all that geography plays such an important

part in

these electoral boundary changes and not the one person one vote as the Premier

keeps referring to. If we are going to do that then we will talk about the

Labrador seats but it is very simply put, Mr. Speaker, we have to and everybody

involved, pay particularly close attention to the difference in a rural district

and an urban district. It has to be a point that has to be brought into this

issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem saying that I will do the best

job that I can if I do pick up thirteen seats in Green Bay. I will try to do the

best, like we all will as hon. members of this Assembly. Now, Mr. Speaker, the

reality is, that it is gone from twenty-one communities to thirty-four when we

have my colleagues on this side of the House and the other side who deal in

urban districts, who can, within half-an-hour, drive around their district and

deal with problems and talk to people. That is the practical side of this and

the logic of it. In my district it will take me in the area of eight to nine

hours just to drive through each community and get back to my home again, nine

hours, Mr. Speaker. Now that has to be brought into consideration when we decide

these things. A second point is that I will have to deal with twenty-one

community councils, eleven different fire departments, three different

development associations and so on, Mr. Speaker. We all know, as members in this

House, that that takes a lot of time if we are going to justify our help to

these different groups. It is as simple as that. So, Mr. Speaker, when we talk

about changing the electoral boundaries we should take into consideration those

points.

Second of all, Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse and respect that

people in this Province believe that we can run this Province with less members

in the House of Assembly. I've heard it said for years and I certainly support

that. I have no problem supporting that. If it is going to be significant and a

real change I support it but, Mr. Speaker, by the time it comes to a vote on the

electoral boundaries I certainly won't be supporting it. We are talking about

going from fifty-two to forty-eight seats. Is that significant? No it is not,

Mr. Speaker, that is not significant.

We sent an independent commission costing $300,000 to the

taxpayers of this Province to go around and they came back with their first

report of forty seats, the second report forty-four and I think it went to

forty-six. I even lost track of what was going on. There are so many commissions

going around why didn't we accept the independent one? I'll tell you why, Mr.

Speaker, because there was interference and there was tampering when we finally

ended up with forty-eight seats and that is the reality here. We all should

support a reduction in the number of members if it is going to be done

independently and if it is going to be done in the best interest of the people

that we serve. I will have no problem taking on thirty-four communities or

thirty-eight communities if it is spread out evenly and the whole thing is done

independently without tampering and that is the whole point we all should be

looking at.

We have different geographies to look at, demographics,

different situations with roads and so on in different districts. All of those

things should be considered. But, Mr. Speaker, I will never (inaudible) on

especially if we can do it for one part of the Province, one person, one vote.

We have to look at the make up of the district itself, the geography, the travel

involved, the different groups within the district. By groups I mean councils,

fire departments, development associations and so on.

So, Mr. Speaker, aside from the reality that we have to look

at reductions and of course at the top level which the public in this Province

are telling us, that we have to cut from the top down. I agree with that. I

support reform of electoral boundaries, to reform those as long as it is done in

the best interest of people who you represent as a member of the House of

Assembly. Mr. Speaker, furthermore - and the strongest point that I would like

to make on it - is that we do it independently, not tampered through processes

that come back to this government.

I think that it should be done fairly, and with all of those

points kept in mind, I will support my colleague on that petition, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Term 17 amendment, could we please deal with Motions 4 through 13. These are all

motions for leave to introduce, and then I would ask that the bills be read a

first time, at which stage I assume they can be distributed. I believe most are

ready to be distributed, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we put the motion, is it agreeable

that we do all of these in one motion.

MR. ROBERTS: If Your Honour so wishes, and the House so

agrees, 4 through 13. It is page 3 of the Order Paper today, Motions 4 through

13, simply to move them forward through first reading so we can distribute the

legislation. I am quite amenable, and I leave it to my friend.

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The

Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Crown Lands Act". (Bill No. 35)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act". (Bill No.

34)

A bill,

An Act to Amend The Jury Act". (Bill No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Transfer Of The

Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Central Guaranty Trust Company To TD Trust

Company". (Bill No. 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase

Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions

Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, The Memorial University Pensions

Act,

Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1993 And The Pensions

Contributions Reduction Act". (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting

Credit Unions". (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act and

The

Summary Proceedings Act". (Bill No. 27)

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

26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend the Public Service Pensions Act,

1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act".

(Bill No. 4)

MR. SPEAKER: Order 14.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, please, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 14. The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few brief words to state

my position on this resolution to amend Term 17 of our Terms of Union with

Canada. Term 17, of course, is the

section that guarantees denominational

education rights, rights which are basically exempt from some provisions of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

During the referendum campaign I informed the Alliance for

Choice in Education that I would be personally voting no in the referendum. I

also said at that time that I was inclined to vote no if this matter came before

the House of Assembly, but I first owed my constituents the respect of allowing

them their say in the referendum itself before making my final decision. Mr.

Speaker, the people in general, my constituents in particular, have now had

their say. Now it is my turn.

It has always been the position of the PC Party that

significant educational reform can be achieved without a constitutional

amendment. The vast majority of the changes recommended by the Williams Royal

Commission can and should have been enacted by the government using its current

powers. Many changes could and should have been negotiated with the various

churches holding denominational education rights. I, for one, however, have

always believed - and still believe - that the Wells' government had no

intention or desire to reach agreement or to make early progress on the

education reform issue.

Having polled the public heavily on this issue since coming

to office, the government felt it was on the side of the angels when it came to

educational reform, and therefore sought to use this belief to its political

advantage. Published polling in 1994 showed that 55 per cent of the people of

the Province favoured a non-denominational school system and not surprisingly,

55 per cent voted `yes' in the 1995 Education Referendum. I say Education

Referendum lightly, Mr. Speaker, because it was in effect a political

referendum.

Having been utterly humiliated in its unpopular and failed

attempt to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the Wells government was

possessed of a desperate desire to win something, and that 55 per cent in favour

of a non-denominational school system was too tempting to pass up. As a result,

the Premier and the Liberal Party subjected the Province to one of the most

bitter and divisive debates in recent history. In any case, the people have

voted and the government feels it has a mandate to move ahead with this

constitutional amendment. The question is: What will all this be? What changes

can we expect and how soon can we expect it?

Many of those who told me they voted `yes' in the referendum

expect to see a fully integrated, multi-denominational school system come

September, 1996. They either didn't know about the uni-denominational provisions

of the new Term 17 or simply chose to ignore them. Many people who voted `no'

did so in support of the current system or simply didn't trust the government's

promise of some uni-denominational schools, or religious education and

observances in all schools. Some who voted `no' simply don't trust this

government on anything, Mr. Speaker. Whatever the case, 63 per cent of my

constituents voted `no' in the referendum.

Mr. Speaker, my district has only Integrated and Pentecostal

schools. The few Catholics in Green Bay attend mostly the integrated system. Had

only the Pentecostals come out to defend their system, the referendum vote in my

district would have been much closer. A 63 per cent `no' vote in Green Bay means

many others voted `no'. Take the town of Triton for instance. Triton is about 60

per cent Salvation Army and 40 per cent Pentecostal, yet the Town of Triton

voted 85 per cent `no'. My district is in what the media loosely refers to as

the Bible Belt and people who generally wanted christian schools, whatever their

particular denomination, tended to vote `no'. This also happened, Mr. Speaker,

in districts like Baie Verte - White Bay, Twillingate, Lewisporte, Exploits and

Windsor-Buchans.

The government claims however, that it will abide by the

provisions of the new Term 17 that allows for uni-denominational schools. The

Editorial page in The Evening Telegram after the referendum called for

getting on with full integration of the school system but also allowing for a

certain strong Pentecostal and Catholic areas to maintain publicly funded

denominational schools. At a minimum, this is a commitment that the government

establishment and maintenance of such schools. It is no good to have a

constitutional right to a uni-denominational school if the viability and

operational criteria are so restricted as to make that right useless in a

practical sense.

Mr. Speaker, in Question Period today, the government has

shown that they really don't yet have a plan on how to set up and operate

uni-denominational schools, yet, this is another instance where, we in this

Assembly and the people of the Province are supposed to trust this government to

work something out in that regard. As well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of

Pentecostal schools that I am familiar with where it is literally impossible to

separate church and state. In Springdale for instance, Charisma Pentecostal

School complex has Kindergarten to Grade XII and a church, all under the one

roof.

I have visited a similar complex in the District of Port de

Grave. Indeed, I recently attended the official opening and dedication of a new

$3.5 million Pentecostal church-school complex in the Windsor area of the Town

of Grand Falls - Windsor. That area voted 68 per cent `no' in the referendum. I

understand this Liberal Government was reluctant to approve the construction of

this complex, but finally gave its approval in the light of the fact that

two-thirds of the money in this facility is church money. The classrooms are

used for Sunday School and day school and the church contributes thousands of

dollars per year towards the operations of the school. Throughout the Province,

Pentecostals contribute hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars towards

building and operating their schools. These are commitments and involvements

that cannot and should not be easily dismissed or dismantled.

In the past, even in the face of heckling from the Liberal

benches, I have presented the educational concerns of my Pentecostal

constituents. During the referendum they were joined by many others in defence

of Christian schools. Today I speak for them again and I shall not hesitate to

represent their point of view and stand up for their constitutional rights as

this Liberal government moves to alter the school system.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that a majority of the members

in this House will vote in favour of this constitutional amendment. While I

respect the provincial majority as expressed in the referendum, someone has to

speak up for the minority. I have no hesitation in doing so, and will therefore

be voting no when the question is put on this resolution.

A final point I might make is to those people who are not

pleased that their constitutional rights are being curbed or indeed taken away

by this Liberal government. During the referendum, many thousands of them voted

no to this government. Come the next election they will have that opportunity

again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a

great privilege to rise today to take

part in this debate on Term 17. Before I

get into my remarks - and I will break it down into two parts today, on the

actual reform and then the process that took place as far as the referendum, and

now the process that is going to take place in this hon. House of Assembly as it

moves into our federal system of the Commons and the Senate.

Let there be no doubt that as a former teacher myself, and

having the opportunity to teach in a lot of schools in my short term as a

teacher, because I was substitute teaching for a number of years, I was, I would

say, fortunate, is the way I would put it, in getting into a lot of small rural

Newfoundland schools. As a matter of fact, in my own district alone I've taught

in, I think, eight to ten different small rural schools. As far as education

reform goes, let there be no doubt that I support education reform as much as

anybody in this Province, including government members, teachers, parents and

students. I support it wholly. I knew that this Province had to turn the century

in and make a turn into education reform for the better of our students.

That is what really bothers me; it has from the beginning of

this whole debate. By the beginning I mean some two-and-a-half years ago. Before

I even was elected as the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay I made public

statements in my own district as to what I thought and where I thought education

reform should go. To be honest, so did a lot of parents, teachers and students.

That is another thing I would like to bring into this first,

as we start this debate, is that we should keep referring to students. Somewhere

along the way the students were left at the bottom of this whole debate, at the

very bottom. I don't mean that we have to go talk to kindergartners or grade

sixes, but you can certainly go talk to high school students. We can certainly

talk to especially Grade XII students who are about to go into post-secondary,

and we can talk to university students and people who have just gone through the

system. From the beginning of this debate really two years ago, or even three

years ago as the Williams report came, we didn't give enough time to the people

who are most affected by this, and they are the students. Enough input from

those people.

We can all look around, talk to people in our own district,

and get our input that way. But I'm wondering where the real input started and

how much involvement was from the student level. Then to the parents level, then

to the teachers in this Province, the administrators of education, and then up

to the government levels where we find ourselves today. So as far as education

reform goes, I think that everybody here in this House - and the Premier knew in

spades, as was said, that he would have support for educational reform.

After seeing the process of this referendum I start to really

wonder now if the best interest of the student was the thing on everybody's

mind. Was it really the best interest of the student and having success in our

schools, or was it fiscal, or, after hearing a question from my colleague for

St. Mary's - The Capes today, I'm really wondering how deep-rooted this is in

the Premier of this Province, the leader of this government, to have an

educational change in this Province through a constitutional change.

I have said it since before being elected that I would

support educational reform but I would not support a constitutional amendment to

take away the rights of anybody in order to do that, and, Mr. Speaker, I thought

I hear the Premier himself say that in this Chamber, that he would not do it

unless he had the consent of those involved.

Mr. Speaker, as the process started to evolve you have to ask

yourself who really knew what was going on, and now in light of the questions

from my colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes today I think I have the answer to

that. Nobody knows what the end of the plan for this reform is all about. You

can make it as simple as this, Mr. Speaker. My colleague today asked one

specific question, what will happen to a Catholic school in his district that

has 99 per cent Catholics? He asked the Premier here today, and we all know that

the Premier could not answer that question, so here is my second question. If

the Premier could not answer that question for a school that is 99 per cent

Catholic then what kind of an answer are we going to get when we get into a town

that is split 50/50 Pentecostal and Catholic? What are we going to do when we

get into a community that has five different denominations? What is going to be

the answer to that question?

Today, I think, we were enlightened to the fact that there is

no plan. It is the bottom line but what is the plan and where are the answers?

Mr. Speaker, it all amounts to this: what did the people of this Province, the

55 per cent that voted in the referendum, what were those people voting on? More

than ever, today, after this Question Period, l am convinced that we really do

not know the answers to the simplest questions on educational reform in this

Province, They cannot answer a straightforward question that was put today

concerning a community that has 99 per cent Catholics. That should be an easy

question to answer. What are we going to do when we find out we have a mixture

of five denominations?

Mr. Speaker, to go back just a few steps here. Sometimes the

simplest questions give you the best answers, and I think it was asked today

here in the House of Assembly. While the referendum was in progress I heard

people throughout the Province - and I know you all say the Open Line

show again, but sometimes the simplest stories again can give you the best

answers. A man on the Open Line show from Gambo, I think it was Gambo, he

was trying to get some answers about the referendum, and like most people he did

not know a lot about what was going on. He said, we have five denominations here

in this community. He named them but I cannot remember exactly, Salvation Army

and Pentecostal, etc. He said we are all in the same school. We all use the same

bus system. We just did it a few years ago but we did not need a constitutional

change.

Mr. Speaker, the question is not, do you support educational

reform, it is do you support constitutional change, the taking away of rights in

order to support the school system of this Province? I believe the answer is,

and I have said it from beginning to end, that we did not need that

constitutional change. That is the bottom line. Did we need that constitutional

change? I do not think we did. I think we see it happening throughout the

Province. I think it is a natural evolution of education in this Province that

we are seeing day by day. We saw it in Gander. We saw it in Pasadena. We saw it

in the district of my colleague for Humber Valley, in the White Bay area of his

district, the White Bay

section of the Humber Valley district.

We had the different religions, the different schools all

ready to make a proposal to come together, to co-operate, co-operate in good

spirit so they could have the best system in that community, so I believe it was

happening, it could still happen. Maybe it was not happening as fast as we

wanted it to, but I believe it would happen for two reasons, for economics and

demography. What I mean by demography, in my district again, another example,

Brent's Cove.

I attended the last graduation at La Rochelle for high school

students in Brent's Cove this year and while I was speaking at the graduation

parents were crying and students were crying because it was their last

graduation at the school. You know how so many memories go through a school, and

as I spoke to these people afterwards, the parents and the students, I said it

is terrible that this is the last year for your school but I guess there are a

lot of good memories here and so on. They said, yes, Mr. Shelley, that is true

but I guess that is the way things are. Enrolments are declining and I guess we

have to accept the fact that we have to drive to La Scie to go to school.

Mr. Speaker, those people were not upset; they were accepting

something that was changing, because they knew, through logic and common sense,

that it had to change, and therein lies my whole gist for saying that I believe

we could have attained those goals of reform without the constitutional change,

and the truth is the sad debate that is taking place right here in this Chamber

today, and it is a sad debate. It is sad that we have divisiveness in this

Province. I have sat in staff rooms for the last couple of months, talking to

teachers, or parents who happened to be there in the staff room one day, and all

of a sudden within five minutes we had everybody at each other's throat because

of divisiveness, and it started because of this debate. That is what is so sad

about it. Was there any need for all of that? I still contend, and I am glad I

said it before being elected, including afterwards, that the changes were

coming, the changes were needed, we wanted to see the changes, but they could

have been done without this process.

Mr. Speaker, just a few things on the process specifically,

the referendum itself. Bang, what happens? The middle of summer, summertime,

when everybody has lots of time to think about things, the Premier says. The

last thing on people's minds this summer who I talked to was the referendum.

They were going on holidays and doing things with their families; they did not

want to talk about the referendum.

I can give you another example. Even today - I just finished

another tour of my district, which I do a couple of times a year. I went to

seventeen communities, and do you know what they said to me? They did not want

to talk about it. They said it was a mess, because if they sat in a store

somewhere, one person would agree and one person would disagree, and they would

end up in an argument; they did not want to talk about it any more. They did not

want to talk about it because it is divisive; it tears people apart, and that is

why this process should never have taken place.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the 211 recommendations, 90 per

cent that were agreed upon, but the Premier says the ones that were not agreed

upon were the ones that the denominations did not have a say in anyway. So why

did we not implement the 90 per cent and roll on from there? Why, in the last

six years, have we been waiting for the ball to roll? We could have had the ball

rolling at a good speed by now, and up to this point if we did not have the rest

of the recommendations in place we would work on those, but I personally

believe, and I strongly believe, that the rest of those could have been worked

on in a co-operative spirit, and I think they could have been worked out.

This infamous impasse that they keep talking about - the

government and the churches got together and they had this impasse. I cannot

believe, for the life of me, that we could not implement what we had and move on

from there. Why stir up the grounds at the bottom of the pot? That is exactly

what happened here. So we had a referendum called in the middle of the summer,

when nobody gave much thought to it, came back the first day of school; I cannot

help but think this was all orchestrated so that nobody could really, really

understand what was going on. So I contend today, after this questioning today

from my colleague here on a simple, simple question, I would say now that a lot

of the people who voted in that referendum really did not know what they were

voting on. They really did not know what they were voting on, and the low

turnout...

A lady came to me in my office here just before the

referendum - I know her; she lives here now, but she is from my district - and

said: Mr. Shelley, I am going to vote tomorrow, but I am not really sure; now

what are your views on it? I gave her my views, as I would; she asked me for

them. She had been listening to the other things, of course, and reading

pamphlets and everything else, and that lady, who is an educated woman, said: I

have changed my mind; I cannot vote tomorrow. I have always exercised my right

to vote, but I cannot vote because I do not really know what I am voting on.

We are talking about the constitution of our country, the

basis for us being a free Canada, and what she said to me: This is our

foundation. If I am going to take away anything - if I was adding rights, then I

would probably vote with less information, but when I am taking away rights -

for the first time in the history of this country, by the way, that we are

taking away rights - unless I know for sure, 100 per cent sure, of what I am

voting for, then I am not going to vote.

She told me afterwards that she decided not to vote, and she

was so disgusted and frustrated that she had to stoop to that, because she

wanted to vote. Now maybe some of you will say that is the cowardly way out.

Well, maybe so, but for the first time - this was not an election vote; this was

a referendum. You were not electing one person or the other. I always say to

people: You have the right to vote; please vote. Most countries do not get that

opportunity. When you are voting in an election you vote for a person, so you

have the right, and you should vote for somebody who you think will best

represent you, but this was a referendum. The way I look at this, as far as when

it gets to the Commons, is this: The Premier of this Province, as far as I am

concerned, lost twice in this referendum.

First of all, he begged - and so did the minister and so did

everybody else - please come and vote because I know their tactics. They

figured, that if everybody would come out and vote and there was a high turnout

in the vote, they would win by a landslide, so the Premier begged and begged and

of course, this was a popular issue of the government. Education reform is a

popular issue so they pretty well begged the people of this Province to come out

and vote, and what happened, Mr. Speaker? 55 per cent voted, they wouldn't even

bother to come out and vote and that is the real shame of it and then all of a

sudden, we have this infamous campaign that never was as far as the `yes' forces

say, but there was more campaigning than any of the `no' side or just as much

for sure; the infamous `no' campaign that never was, but it was a full-blown

scale campaign, on both sides, Mr. Speaker, so when they finally got to the

question of the referendum - I have had lawyers say to me, how vague the

question was in the referendum, also the educated members here in this House of

Assembly I am sure - I know I had trouble trying to feel out what the

ramifications and implications would be of this particular vote, if this

constitutional amendment went through. We had lawyers saying they were confused

so can you imagine what the general population of this Province was feeling?

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you again today, that a lot of the

people who voted `yes' because you know, what they were voting for, education

reform, are not really sure what they voted on, and I think what happened in

this House of Assembly today answered a lot of questions for me and I am glad

that the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes brought it forward and it is a simple

question: what did we really vote on in that referendum? What was really voted

on because we don't really know? Where are the schools? What is the viability

and criteria for a school remaining a denominational school? There is not one of

us in this Chamber who can answer that question. When a young student can walk

up to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes and say: What's going to happen when

this goes through in our school? So he asked the Premier, and the Premier and

the minister could not answer the question. They could not answer the question,

Mr. Speaker, and that's scary. That's scary that we have gone this far.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to continue with the process that we have

gone into, what the Premier really has here, or what he was really asking, he

asked - forget the `no' campaign and forget who didn't vote just for a minute -

what he really asked here is for an endorsement of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, the 500,000-600,000 people in Newfoundland, the Premier asked for

an endorsement from all the population of Newfoundland and Labrador to go to

Ottawa to ask them to take away rights that were enshrined in our Constitution.

That's what it was. He asked for an endorsement to go to Ottawa to take away

rights and the bottom line is this, that in my perspective, 28 per cent of the

population said `yes' to him.

Twenty-eight per cent of the population of Newfoundland and

Labrador gave the Premier of this Province an endorsement to go to Ottawa to

take away rights in the Constitution. Forget the fifty-four who didn't turn out

or forty-eight who voted `no' or whatever, he asked us for a `yes'. Before you

take away anybody's rights you have to ask them if you can take it away and 28

per cent of them said `yes' to him, so what happens with the other 72 per cent

who didn't vote or voted `no'? They did not tell him to go ahead and take away

this right.

Now to continue with the process a bit further, Mr. Speaker.

We have to get through the House of Assembly here yet and I guess more members

will get up to speak. I don't know about amendments, I am not sure. I am hearing

some things about amendments, nobody is even sure about that. We don't even know

where we are going from here. Now we have to go to the House of Commons. Mr.

Speaker, we have to be realistic here. This Province of Newfoundland is going to

Ottawa to ask them to take away rights from a Constitution. Here, at the same

time you have a Quebec referendum going on and our federal cousins up there are

up to their necks in constitutional change, so what are we going to find when we

get into the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker, when this first started, I said then and I will

say it now, the biggest fear of all of this is that this will actually slow down

education reform and make it divisive instead of speeding it up. I am afraid,

Mr. Speaker, and I hope I am wrong, but I am afraid that that is going to

happen. We are going to the House of Commons, if they make one more amendment,

one more change, it comes back to us again, another debate, it goes back up,

they could amend it again and then, we have to get them to approve of it. Now

where are the guarantees that we are going to get it approved in the House of

Commons? So we could be stuck again, Mr. Speaker. Then we have to go to the

Senate. Of course they say there are no problems there, because they can bring

it back to the House of Commons again.

But the point being to all this is that we have a path to

take with this that may be so cumbersome, and by the time it is probably

challenged in the courts with the denominations, we could be in a battle of

constitutional wrangling for two, three, four or five years. That is a problem

that I see as major. We could be stuck in the doldrums with this instead of

rolling on with the 90 per cent of recommendations we could have rolled into,

still work on the ones with the denominations, and I think we could have moved

on much quicker than what we have here. So why the constitutional change? That

is the whole point. What are the implications of it?

Yesterday I listened to the Member for Conception Bay South

talk about how she saw the rural schools, and how she felt bad for rural

schools, that they didn't have the equipment necessary and they didn't have this

and that, and whatever. I would wonder if the Member for Conception Bay South

can tell me that after these so-called changes take place, and if we ever get

through this whole (inaudible) through the constitutional changes in here and in

the House of Commons, if we get past all of that, does she really believe that

those rural Newfoundland schools are going to get the amount of dollars that are

saved through this.

Because I had one person say to me: Let's take a scenario

that we get through all of this rather quickly and smoothly and in a year from

now all the constitutional change is done. We will take that scenario. Let's say

we all support it here and it goes through the House of Assembly no problem,

goes through the House of Commons no problem, and a year from now we have the

constitutional change in our hands. And we saved $20 million in a year from now

because we've changed some of the system.

The next question you have to ask yourself, the $20 million

that the government saved, is it going to go back into education? That is where

we have to ask ourselves: Do we trust the system? Never mind what government is

in power. But we all know as governments that priorities change and things

change. So the government saves $20 million on this constitutional change,

saying we got through. Are we sure, and can the public of this Province be sure

and the teachers and parents of students in schools say: That is great, we did

all these changes, we saved $20 million. Now this year I can't wait for all that

$20 million that we just saved to come back into our schools so the little

schools in rural Newfoundland, as the Member for Conception Bay South referred

to, get all these new computers and new services and so on. We all know that we

can't trust that. Nobody trusts that of any government. So the savings.

In the beginning I said I supported education reform. In the

department mission statement - I would like to read that and then quote some

statistics. This is the department mission statement: The mission of the

Department of Education is to enable and encourage every individual to acquire

through lifelong learning the knowledge, skills and values necessary for

personal growth and the development of society.

I just made some comments on the process that we are about to

go through which I still believe will be a major problem, a major obstacle. But

let's really talk about the success and what education is in this Province. Why

are we changing the education system, why are we reforming it? Because we want

better opportunities for our children? We all believe that education is the

answer to our economic problems. Better-educated people, we move on and we grow.

Everybody agrees with that.

The question is, what is success? What do we measure as

success of a student? We all sit in this House of Assembly. We've all got our

degrees. Most people have degrees here and got educated, went through school.

What do you consider success? Nineteen ninety-three statistics:

thirteen-year-olds for performance in reading. For Canada the average was, for

Level IIs - this is in reading, thirteen-year-olds - in Canada the average was

78.6 per cent. In Newfoundland, 78.5 per cent. We are .1 percent lower at

thirteen-year-olds with reading, this was in 1993.

Sixteen-year-olds, at Level III, the national average was

72.3 per cent, CTBS this is. In Newfoundland it was 74 per cent. We were higher

than the national average, sixteen-year-olds in reading, in Newfoundland. Level

IV, first year university, for reading skills, the national average was 33.2 per

cent, in Newfoundland we were 34.4 per cent, we were higher. In all three

categories, Mr. Speaker, we were higher. There were only a couple of provinces

that were higher than us in reading skills.

In writing performance, thirteen-year-olds, Canada's average

was 92 per cent, in Newfoundland it was 92.4 per cent for thirteen year olds in

writing in 1993. We were higher then the national average. For Level III,

thirteen year olds, the national average was 62 per cent. We were 65 per cent,

three percentage points higher. Sixteen year olds for writing at Level III,

Canada was 79 per cent. We were 82 per cent, Newfoundland sixteen year olds for

writing, we were higher.

Now I will give a couple of highlights from this 1993 report.

As measured by the CTBS, Grade 4 students made significant gains in performance

areas of mathematic concepts, computation and problem solving with respective

increases of 8, 13 and 14 per cent all points. Grade 4 performances gained on

CTBS were recorded this year in reading, comprehension, punctuation and work

study compared with 1991 students, registered gains in seven of eleven sub-test

areas. Overall graduation rates have increased substantially from 59.5 per cent

in 1989 to 70.8 per cent in 1993.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a long list here. A long list of

improvements in education in this Province and we have all gone through these

systems. So, Mr. Speaker, the question I ask is: how do we define success in

education? Being a former teacher this is how I define success, it is not always

the point grade that we get on a test, it is the work ethic and attitude of the

students. I have had students in my class, I am sure other teachers refer to

them all the time, the student that works like a dog to get a 65 average, has a

good work ethic and a good attitude but he does not show up on the statistics as

one of our point grades or the high things that I just recorded, is he not as

successful as the person with a 92 average who does not have a good work ethic.

That is certainly not to discourage the children who have the high grade point

averages, that is good. I always say to each student, do the best that you

possibly can.

So success to me, Mr. Speaker, is not the bottom line of a

point grade average, although we do very well in them, we have done very well in

those. The real success of the student is the attitude, the work ethic, the

social interactions and all of those things that come within the school system.

So a good school system to me, Mr. Speaker, is not just the words, the numbers

and the things they work at in school, it is an attitude, it is morals, it is

philosophies. That is what I believe work ethic brings. That is what success is

to me, Mr. Speaker. So when we talk about statistics how bad really is our

system? I don't think it has anything to do with the student and how successful

they are. That is not the real question here, Mr. Speaker, it is how successful

are these people when they graduate, whether it is with a 62 average or a 90

average, if they have the attitude and the intestinal fortitude to go out and

make it on their own, be young entrepreneurs and do good things. When I see

people coming out of our system here in this Province, that is what we are proud

of.

Mr. Speaker, what we should be really ashamed of, as a

Province or as a government, is the number of good people that we have leaving

this Province. That is what we should be concerned about, the people who do

graduate from our school system and have to leave the Province for reasons of

work. So let's judge success and let's define success, not on a point grade

average but on an attitude that we have to fend for ourselves, make work for

ourselves, be entrepreneurs and move on. So, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask the

question, has our education system in this Province been that bad? No, Mr.

Speaker, I don't think it has. Can we make improvements to reform so that we get

the best bang for our buck? Yes, we can do that and we can do it through changes

in education that are happening through natural evolution of education in this

Province.

Do we have to do it through a constitutional change? No, we

do not have to do it through a constitutional change. I believe that

wholeheartedly. I don't believe for one minute, from the first time I spoke in

this debate a couple of years ago, that we ever needed a constitutional change

to meet our end goal and the end goal to me, was to have good, quality students

come out, whether it is a low grade average or a high grade but a good attitude,

good morals, good work ethics.

That's what success in our schools is all about. So, Mr.

Speaker, we have to look at ourselves very carefully when we vote on this

particular Term 17 change. We have to really soul search and, Mr. Speaker, the

question is always there: Because referendum was in place and because we have a

result from our constituents, we have a responsibility of course to respect that

vote, and I guess I do have the luxury that the people in my district supported

what I stood for long before they voted and I am very glad. I know that's hard

on members in the House of Assembly. I know that's tough when you look at your

own district, but you are also elected for your principles, so stand on your

principles as members, that's why you are elected. People thought that you had

good morals, good principles, good judgement and that's why we were all elected.

I hope it was so, Mr. Speaker, there has to be combination once we decide on a

vote in this House and that is: what is the end result, was this process proper,

was it fair, was it up front, did people know what the real plan was and, Mr.

Speaker, the answer to that question, the last one was answered here today in

the House of Assembly, that the plan is not forthright.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, may I just conclude?

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

MR. ROBERTS: A couple of minutes if he has (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just a couple of

minutes to clue up.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very important debate. It is a

debate that has touched all of us deeply; it is a debate that is going to go

beyond our political stripes, it is a debate that we are going to have to do

some soul searching to answer to, but the question we have to ask, and you

always put it first: Is it in the best interest of our students, our children of

this Province? Is it going to actually help with education reform or is it going

to hinder education reform?

Mr. Speaker, that is the question and the question is: do we

need that constitutional change in order to bring about those changes? Mr.

Speaker, I don't think we need those constitutional changes and I will be voting

`no' on this particular debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say at the outset that it is with some trepidation

that I rise to participate in this debate. Of all the issues and concerns that I

have had to deal with during my short time in politics, I have to say that none

has caused me more concern. I have followed and participated in the debate over

the past two-and-a-half years and working from within, have tried to influence

the outcome of this development.

Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members here would know, I come to

this House after twenty-seven years working as a Catholic teacher and

administrator. I was raised a Roman Catholic, attended a Catholic school all of

my life and I am proud of my affiliation with the Knights of Columbus

Organization, which is an organization comprised of Catholic from families

throughout the Province.

Obviously, for all of us, our own upbringing and experiences

shape and determine the values that we hold, and it is apparent to everyone in

this House today I am sure, that on this particular issue that I am indeed out

of step with my party, and if we go by the polls and the outcome of the recent

referendum, I am indeed out of step with the majority of the people in this

Province.

There is no doubt and there can be no doubt and no one should

mistake the fact that this is a very emotional issue, and anyone who tries to

make it otherwise is being less than honest.

We have heard the system that we are proposing to reform

referred to as archaic and outdated. Quite obviously I, for one, and I speak as

someone who has worked within the system, do not subscribe to this view;

however, I feel that I must respect the fact, and all of us must, that there are

a large number of people throughout this Province who do subscribe to this

particular position.

Mr. Speaker, the District of Port au Port, which I have the

honour to represent, is predominantly Roman Catholic, with smaller numbers of

people who are adherent to the other religions, including those of the

Pentecostal faith.

As this hon. House is aware, there are some serious concerns,

particularly among the Roman Catholics and Pentecostals, as to what this

proposed reform in education will entail for them. Well, I personally have no

doubt that this government is acting in the best interest of the children of the

Province. I am also very much aware that among Roman Catholics, many who are my

friends and people with whom I have associated for the whole of my lifetime, do

not share the same view.

The position is held by many people of the Roman Catholic

faith, and it has been expressed to me on a number of occasions, that the timing

for this particular action is in no small part due to the fact that in some

quarters it is recognized that the Roman Catholic church is, at the present

time, in a very vulnerable stage. Everyone in this House, and indeed throughout

the Province, is well aware of - and we have seen it on a daily basis over the

last number of years - the problems within the institution of the church; and

also, all of us have witnessed, through television on a daily basis, the

evidence related to the Mount Cashel scandal.

Mr. Speaker, all Roman Catholics throughout this Province

have felt a great hurt because of the things that have happened within the

church, and within the Mount Cashel Orphanage. The Roman Catholics of this

Province have great sympathy for the victims of this abuse, and in no way are

tolerant of the people who have perpetrated these evils against these very

innocent victims; however, throughout the whole of the debate, everything that I

saw on television and read in the papers, at no time did I see anyone stand up

and say, `There was some good done by these institutions.' Surely, during all of

the years since they existed, in everything that they did, and all of the people

who contributed of their time and energies to those causes, surely, there was

someone, somewhere, who was affected positively.

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but reflect, through the whole

of this debate and over the last couple of days, thinking as to how I would,

myself, present my concerns in this debate. I could not help but reflect on the

words of Shakespeare, from Julius Caesar, when Mark Anthony, in his eulogy on

Brutus, proclaimed: The evil that men do lives after them, and the good is often

interred with their bones.

I think this is one instance, for sure, in which Shakespeare

could very easily have penned those words, in speaking of the Roman Catholic

Church at this stage of our history.

Mr. Speaker, we have also heard some reference to minority

rights. The matter has been raised here in the House, and it certainly has been

raised in the media and it has been raised with me personally, and among the

Roman Catholic people it is something that is of some concern.

When the decision was made to proceed with the referendum, at

the time I, for one, suggested that the vote be conducted among the classes of

people. In this way, at least we could avoid the possibility of anyone

referencing this as a move to infringe upon the rights of the minority by asking

permission from the majority. I was of the understanding that this was being

considered but obviously, I guess, the legal opinions must have indicated that

it was not possible, it just could not be done. But I would hope, and I am sure

that the Premier and his -

MR. ROBERTS: Would my friend yield for a moment?

MR. SMITH: Yes, okay.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my hon. friend, I can assure him

the legal advice was that it was entirely possible and proper to count by

classes. The government offered the heads of the churches the opportunity to

count by classes - they declined to accept it.

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

MR. TOBIN: That is not true. That is not true!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has just

accused me of making a statement that is not true. I ask him to withdraw it or

prove it. I am prepared to table the letters to and from the Premier to the

heads of the churches.

MR. TOBIN: Table it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to

withdraw that comment.

MR. TOBIN: What comment was that?

MR. SPEAKER: `That is not true.'

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I said something that is

unparliamentary, I am prepared to withdraw it, but I am not sure I said

something that was unparliamentary. I ask you to indicate to me what I said that

was unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member clarify what he meant by,

`not true'?

MR. TOBIN: You want me to clarify what it means?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: When the minister got up and said, the

government offered the heads of the churches to have a vote by classes and the

churches refused.

MR. ROBERTS: I did not say refused.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MR. ROBERTS: They did not accept the offer, Mr. Speaker,

and the hon. gentleman accused me of an untruth.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister say - I

thought the minister said and I stand to be corrected, but I think I am right,

that the heads of the churches refused that offer. If that is what the minister

said, then I said it is not true. I sincerely believe it is not true, and I

think, to state that is not unparliamentary. If it is, I will withdraw it, but I

don't think it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that I

was not aware that was the situation but -

MR. SPEAKER: He withdrew.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Your Honour said the hon. member withdrew and

the hon. member said he didn't. Now, may I ask for a ruling on the point of

order, whatever it is.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member said that if it was

unparliamentary he withdrew. So I will accept the hon. member's -

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I can say is I am glad this debate is not being televised

today because I think some of the people back in Port au Port would think I am

probably getting crippled, with the number of times that I have to be getting up

and down, trying to carry on with my comments in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is, I really felt that if

the vote had been conducted among the classes of people, it perhaps would have

given a clear indication as to how the - with regard to this particular issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to not interrupt the Member for Port au

Port, it is unparliamentary. This member is very interested in hearing what the

hon. the Member for Port au Port has to say and if hon. members want to discuss

things, I suggest they go outside the House. The hon. the Member for Port au

Port, under the rules of the House, has the right to speak without being

interrupted.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to

him - I listened attentively to what the member has said. I have an abundance of

respect for the Member for Port au Port. I think he is one of the finest

gentlemen ever elected to this House and I apologize for getting involved, in

this debate across the House, by the Government House Leader. But there is a

time, Mr. Speaker, when the Government House Leader states things that I find

not to be factual and I don't think he should be allowed to get away with it. In

the meantime, having brought in the Government House Leader on how I felt about

what he was stating, I want to apologize sincerely to the Member for Port au

Port for doing so.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon.

member.

Mr. Speaker, when we headed into this referendum debate there

were some warnings that were sounded on both side of this hon. House as to the

kinds of divisiveness that this debate would give rise to, and that we would see

throughout this Province the rise of religious bigotries that we had not seen in

years.

In my opinion, from where I was situated on the West Coast of

the Province, this did not happen, and for this I, for one, was very grateful.

The only thing I could think as I watched that debate unfold was, thank God that

we have matured beyond this stage.

In this debate, while government has agreed that its primary

concern was the cause of excellence in education, I think it is regrettable that

among some people it is felt that by implication the churches are not themselves

concerned with excellence in education. I am sure that everyone in this hon.

House recognizes that the churches, generally, have made a tremendous

contribution.

As for the Catholic Church, it was there from the very

beginning. In the earliest days, it provided educational opportunities to the

general population at a time when the state was not prepared to do so. In more

recent years, dedicated members of the various religious organizations devoted

their lives to providing educational opportunities in the most remote regions of

our Province. Their contribution to the development of our Province and our

people must never be overlooked and never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I stated at the outset how difficult this whole

debate has been for me, personally. For a good part of the time I spent in

education, I not only talked reform, I was actually involved in implementing

reform, and I am proud of the role that I played, along with many others, in

promoting change in the area of the Province where I worked.

During the election campaign, I gave the people of my

district an undertaking that I would fight to retain our denominational

education system, and I would oppose any effort to amend Term 17. In the

referendum just concluded, the vast majority of the people of my district

indicated that they had not changed their minds, and they voted no. I am proud

to say to the people of my district today that I recognize and am grateful for

the trust that they placed in me in electing me as their representative in this

hon. House. I do not take this trust lightly, and I therefore say to them today

that I will be voting with them in saying no to this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as a person who considers himself to be an

individual of honour and principle, I feel I can do no other; however, I

recognize that through the referendum, the people of the Province have spoken,

and I respect the verdict they have delivered. I have the greatest of respect

for my colleagues in this House who find themselves on opposite sides of this

particular issue. I am personally grateful to be part of a party where one's

personal principles are highly regarded, even when it puts one at odds with

party policy.

To the people of my district, I commit myself to continue to

represent their concerns, to ensure that the legislation which will eventually

follow the passage of this resolution - which I feel in all certainty will pass

this House - this legislation, when it does come, will indeed provide the

guarantees that denominational schools will not disappear from this Province.

To those who feel that this resolution does not go far

enough, I say, we need not apologize for our denominational system of education.

Mr. Speaker, for our justification we need to look no further, in my opinion,

than the words emblazed above the Chair which you occupy, "Seek ye first the

Kingdom of God." This simply philosophy has served us well in the past, and I am

confident, will continue to do us proud as we move on into the 21st Century.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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: Mr. Speaker, I believe, a few moments ago, the

Government House Leader misled the House. I am not saying or suggesting that he

did it intentionally, but he stood in this Chamber and he said that the

government offered -

MS VERGE: He interrupted his colleague.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he interrupted my colleague, the Member

for Port au Port. He stood in this House and he said that government offered -

the Member for Port au Port, I think, stated first that he advocated, as did

others, that the classes of people would have the right to vote as classes of

people and indicate their preference to government. The Government House Leader

stood in this House and stated that government offered that to the churches and

they refused.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that what the government offered to the

churches was the right for people to put their names on the ballot and indicate

what your religion was. That is what I suspect happened, that government were

prepared to let people write in their names and say, I am a Catholic, I am

United, or I am whatever the case may be, or a Pentecostal. They did not offer

the heads of the churches, as I understand it, the right for the classes of

people to vote as classes of people, and indicate as classes of people, how they

wanted to respond to this.

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the Government House Leader

intentionally misled the House, but if that is the case, he certainly did not

give us the facts.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My

words, as I recollect them, were that the government offered the heads of the

churches the opportunity to count by classes and that was not misleading. That

is an accurate and a truthful statement. The heads of the churches did not

accept that offer and we make no criticism of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you offer them?

MR. ROBERTS: We offered them the opportunity to have the

vote counted by classes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, those were the words I used.

The words I used were, `count by classes'.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for St.

John's East Extern, the way one counts is one, two, three, four, five, six,

seven. Now, that is what the government, the Premier, speaking for the ministry,

offered the heads of the churches. It would not have involved anybody writing

anybody's name on anybody's ballot or anything like that.

Mr. Speaker, how can one count by classes unless people

indicate in what class they are counted. It is that simple.

MR. TOBIN: Vote by class is what the Member for Port au

Port said, vote by class.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Port au Port

made an eloquent speech, one which I would commend to members opposite. I said,

count by class. We did make that offer and the churches for their own reasons -

there was no quarrel from us - did not accept it, sobeit, that is where it

stood.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why did you interrupt me if that is the

case?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. `Byrne Primus' should

control himself. What I say is that government offered the heads of the churches

the option to have the vote counted by classes. We did. We would have been quite

prepared - my hon. friend, the Member for Port au Port, made the point that it

was raising an issue as to whether it was proper to identify, to do it by

classes, and I said we offered -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) what he said.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Member for Burin

- Placentia West cannot possibly speak as well as the Member for Port au Port.

My friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West proves that every time he

speaks.

MR. TOBIN: I don't lie every time I speak!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: I don't lie every time I speak!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Member for

Burin - Placentia West believes I'm lying, let him be man enough to stand and

make a parliamentary challenge and we will deal with him then.

What I want to say is I made the statement which is correct,

that we offered the opportunity to count by classes, and we did. The churches

chose not to accept it - no quarrel from us. But they were offered that

opportunity. It would have been legally and constitutionally proper to make such

a count. We were quite prepared to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I think I am entitled -

MR. SPEAKER: I will listen to the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I just -

MR. SPEAKER: Could I give the questions for the Late Show

before...?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Under the rules at 4:00 p.m.

Question number one is to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board: Budget deficit projection. That is the hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl.

Question number two is to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations: Level III TAGS appeal program. That is the hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, there are two sets of numbers on the

questions.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, proposed

White Paper on regional government, is number one. That is the hon. the Member

for Waterford - Kenmount.

Number two is the TAGS appeal, and number three is the budget

deficit projection by the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: There are two sets of numbers on the

questions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I put one set

on there, I guess the Clerk has put another set. But that doesn't matter, we

have it resolved now.

I don't want to belabour the point of order as raised by my

colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, but I want to say that the

Member for Port au Port was indeed correct in what he said. If I can recall

correctly, what government offered was an indication on a ballot, of your

religion.

MR. ROBERTS: We offered the opportunity to count by

classes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but what I'm saying is you - in

essence, when I voted, what you offered was that I could indicate on the ballot

my religion.

MR. ROBERTS: How else could we count by classes?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but my point is, that number one, I

might not want to indicate my class, or I could indicate some class that I

wasn't.

MR. ROBERTS: That is correct.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. So having -

MR. TOBIN: That is not voting by class.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I know it is not voting - but my

point is, having said that, is there any wonder that it was rejected, I say to

the minister.

MR. ROBERTS: We are not quarrelling with their position.

I'm simply (inaudible) -

MS VERGE: Then why did you interrupt the member?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but I mean, you left the clear

impression. You interrupted your colleague who was correct in what he said, and

you wanted to leave the impression here -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) count by classes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on - too slick by half.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order. Obviously,

there is no point of order -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Obviously, there is no point of order, it is just a

disagreement between hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I feel very honoured to be able to get up

and speak here in the House of Assembly today on the amendment to Term 17. I

say, there is no wonder there has been such confusion over this whole referendum

affair. I suppose it has been demonstrated here in the House so convincingly

today when we see the Minister of Justice get up and try to make statements and

try to correct facts and muddy the water in order to create more confusion.

I don't know how you could - when you put the Premier and you

put the Ministers of Justice and Education and Training together to try to

negotiate something, I don't know how you can come out of it with any clearer

indication then with what is happening to this Term here as we have seen it

brought forward to the people and debated here in the House. I don't know if

those three people are capable of negotiating a family picnic other than causing

confusion and I suppose this is a clear example.

However, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Premier very intently

the other day when he was speaking and talked about the poor performance of our

students. He talked about this being the reason why we had to bring in a change

to Term 17 and bring in new pieces of legislation and take away people's rights,

an exercise that is unprecedented in western democracies.

Here we see the Premier of the day, the government of the day

not being able to go out and sit down with the churches to negotiate and come to

agreements in order to save funding and to put our education system back on

track. We all know we need reform, we all know that what is happening today is

not what should be happening, we know that our children of today are not being

challenged, we know that the skills tests have not been coming and showing us

the results that we have been expecting, but I don't think we should lay the

blame in any one particular direction.

Mr. Speaker, I have some facts here today that were put

forward by the Pentecostal Educational Council and they are quite a bit

different from what the Premier read when he spoke here a couple of days ago,

and I will just read some of them. It is stated as facts on students

performance. It shows the high school graduation rate has increased

substantially to a present rate of 73 per cent, equivalent to the national

average. High completion rates of advanced courses in mathematics and science

among graduates indicate that the system is producing better quality graduates.

Participation rates of sixteen to eighteen-year-olds in the school system of

this Province have increased steadily and are now among the best in the country.

Performance of urban schools on the Canadian Test of Basic

Skills has consistently been among the best in Canada. Performance of rural

schools on the CTBS compares favourably with rural schools throughout Canada.

Quite a bit different from what the Premier was stating here a few days ago. I

wonder who is telling the truth. Performance of Grade IV students on the CTBS in

the 1993-94 testing was above the national average, was above the national

average I say, Mr. Speaker. Overall performance of the Grade III Provincial

Mathematics assessment indicates that Grade III students are meeting and in most

cases exceeding the objectives of primary mathematics programs.

Mr. Speaker, a few facts there put forward by the Pentecostal

Educational Council and, Mr. Speaker, I think the facts speak for themselves and

are quite a bit different from what the Premier laid before us here the other

day. Even if those facts were correct, the facts that the Premier put forward,

even if they were, Mr. Speaker, I don't see how we can blame it on one

particular group of people. What do the churches have to do with the curriculum

that is taught in schools? What do the churches have to do with the teachers

upgrading themselves and with the length of the school year? What do the

churches have to do with any of this?

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from reading and

listening to people in my district and listening to other people who have been

very knowledgeable about this whole event, that 90 per cent of the changes that

needed to be brought about could have been done now, could have been done with

the consensus of the churches; 90 per cent of them and we could have moved on

and got on with it, got on with it now. Now, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a

battle we have to take on; we have to convince the churches, we have to convince

the people, we have to convince Ottawa, we have to convince the Senate. How long

is it going to take? Is it going to take a month, is it going to take a year,

Mr. Speaker? How long is it going to take before we can bring about any changes?

I grew up and went to school in a system where I didn't know

what denominational school systems were. It was an integrated system where we

all went to the one school and it was never an issue. There were never tags put

on people or people were never looked at and said: Well, that fellow is a

Protestant or that fellow is a Catholic so I find it very hard to relate to some

of the strong arguments that have been brought forward here and have been

brought forward out in the districts by many of our people.

I found it quite disturbing actually when I heard my

colleague the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes get up today and ask a question

to the Premier about a school in his district that is 100 per cent Roman

Catholic. One hundred per cent of the attendance there is Roman Catholic

students. Not because the Protestants aren't allowed to go there, but because

that is the make-up of the community. Asked the Premier: Mr. Premier, how are

the people down in St. Bride's, what difference are they going to see in their

school once this amendment to Term 17 is brought about? They talk about

denominational schools that are going to be allowed to exist if people want

them, if the people living in the area are predominantly of one particular

religion, whether it is Pentecost, Roman Catholic or other denominations.

But here is a prime example that if the Premier believed in

what he was doing, and if they knew what the legislation was going to be, well

then he shouldn't have had any hesitation whatsoever in getting up today and

saying: Your school will remain Roman Catholic, your school will remain

denominational. He couldn't do that. If you can't do it in St. Bride's, then how

can you do it for any other school? How can you do it for any other school, I

say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It's obvious what the decision is. It is

obvious what the decision is, Mr. Speaker. The Premier would not get up and

answer it because he didn't want to commit himself. Throw it over on the

Minister of Education and Training. Fluff it off on somebody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I know what it is, and even if 17 per

cent of those people did vote against it, Mr. Speaker, I still say the 17 per

cent don't make a majority unless you run your polls like the Member for St.

John's North!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 17 per cent (inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: They would be allowed to go there. There

is no reason why the school should be inter-denominational because of 17 per

cent, I said to the minister. But you will have your time to speak. You got up

to speak today to explain that but I say it wasn't done very well, I say to the

minister.

This is the fear that is out there today. A lot of people out

there today went to the polls and voted not knowing what they were voting for,

not knowing what it meant, but the word "reform." No argument with that. You

won't find anybody in this Province today who doesn't want reform. Everybody

wants reform. But you don't have to go and take away people's rights in order to

bring about reform. You don't have to go and take away people's rights. If you

are going to go tomorrow and do the things that the Premier believes in in

reducing the population of this Province down to 200,000 people, would you go up

to Prince Edward Island and ask them to vote, ask them to take

part in the

process, in order to take 500,000 people out of the Province? Of course you

wouldn't.

That is the reason why this whole process is flawed. The

question was flawed. The timing was flawed. It was all done to the government

advantage. You would think the government would have brought the question to the

House. What was wrong with bringing the question to the House and having it

debated here? What was wrong with that? What was the big rush to close the House

down last May? Lots of time left. Nobody minds staying here and representing

their constituents. Why couldn't the question have been brought to the House

then, I say to the minister? Why couldn't the question be brought to the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The lowest turn-out in the Province. I

say to the member, it may have been the lowest turn-out in the Province, and

that was because of the confusion that existed. A lot of people didn't come out

to vote because they were confused. All the people stayed home. All the people

who stayed home were yes votes. They were all yes, Mr. Speaker. The Premier gets

up and he said: All the yes votes stayed home because of the big campaign that

was carried out by the no side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Did I go door-to-door? Absolutely not, I

say to the minister. In fact, I didn't let anybody - well, I shouldn't say I

didn't let anybody know how I was going to vote, I did, but I didn't push my

views on anybody. Absolutely not. I didn't think I should, I say to the

minister, because those people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You shouldn't believe in rumours, because

if you believed in rumours you wouldn't even be sitting here. Right? You

wouldn't even be here! So let's not get sidetracked.

MS VERGE: She would still be with the PCs.

MR. FITZGERALD: You would be still with the PCs if you

believed in rumours. We have pictures to prove that, Mr. Speaker. I remember the

Member for Terra Nova and myself being poll captains for Morrisey Johnson. We

worked well together. She and I went out and we knocked on doors - I believe

that was the only area that Morrisey Johnson got elected in at that particular

time. We did a good job, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, that was the confusion that was created and we

see today the reason why. The Premier speaks about all the yes votes that stayed

home. All the yes votes stayed home in the referendum and all the Liberal votes

stayed home in Gander. What is going to happen when the next election is called?

How are you going to get your people out to vote? How are you going to get them

out to vote? Then the Premier says we did not carry on a campaign. The Premier

says that if we would have carried on a campaign we would have gotten a greater

majority out to vote. It would have been much bigger then it is, they would have

all came out to vote en masse.

That is the reason why we have no other choice but to go

ahead now because we are taking into consideration the people that stayed home

and did not vote, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason. I say to the Premier and I

say to the government that those people stayed home because of confusion, most

of them, not from indifference, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of people were asking

questions and they could not find answers. What I did, I say to the