Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 11 December 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 44)
2002-12-11
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 11, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 44
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to inform members of this hon. House that Ms Joan Luther, a research
scientist with the Canadian Forest Service in Corner Brook, has been named the
2002 award winner for the James M. Kitz Award.
This award recognizes Ms Luther for her contributions to the forest sector
and for her accomplishments as one of Canada's top young scientists. She has
worked with the Canadian Forest Service since 1993, and has focused her work on
developing integrated remote sensing and geographic information system methods
for monitoring forest health conditions over space and time, and developing
methods for assessing and mapping forest disturbances.
Ms Luther has also focused on methods for characterizing tree and stand
susceptibility to insects and disease which provides critical information for
identifying forests at risk to insect infestation, as well as quantifying forest
biomass for input into models to assess impacts of climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask all hon. members to
join with me in congratulating Ms Joan Luther on winning the James J. Kitz Award
for her hard and dedicated work with the Canadian Forest Service.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I stand in this hon. House to pay tribute to a fisherman in my
district. On Monday of this week, Mr. Patrick Barry of St. Bride's was in our
nation's capital to receive the Medal of Bravery for a daring rescue that
occurred on September 23, 1999, at the harbour in St. Bride's. That was the
morning that Hurricane Gert struck with a vengeance never witnessed before by
the local people.
In the early hours of that September morning, Patrick - or Paddy as he is
well known - had gone to the wharf with his father Lar, and his brother Anthony,
to secure their fishing boat. The storm was at its height and many people from
the community had gathered at the harbour to witness the destruction and try to
save the boats from further damage. Paddy, Anthony and Lar had just finished
tying their boat, The Bay Rose, to other vessels when a gigantic wave
broke over the protective stone wall and swept them into the water.
Paddy and Anthony managed to reach the wharf by climbing onto other vessels
that already were tied together. Unfortunately, Lar, Paddy's father, found
himself some fifty feet out in the harbour desperately hanging onto a cable and
clinging to the back of a boat.
Although Paddy could not swim, he quickly ran across the tied up vessels and
jumped into the raging sea. Holding onto another rope, he made his way to his
father's side and tied it around his waist. Lar and Paddy were then pulled out
of the freezing water by other residents who had come to assist.
Mr. Speaker, because of the quick and selfless action of Paddy Barry, his
father, Lar Barry, who was seventy-two years of age at the time of this
incident, is today enjoying retirement with his wife Lena in St. Bride's.
I ask all members of this House to join with me today in congratulating
Patrick Barry of St. Bride's on receiving the Medal of Bravery for saving his
father's life on September 23, 1999.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, a Grade 6 student at Amalgamated Academy in Bay Roberts has won
a national silver medal for singing. Olivia Crane was recently awarded the medal
for her outstanding performance in the Grade 1 singing examination from the
Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto. Olivia's outstanding mark of
ninety-five in this exam was the highest mark for this grade in all of Atlantic
Canada, qualifying her for the Silver Medal honour.
Silver medals are awarded each year to students receiving the highest mark in
each grade, in all of Atlantic Canada. The award recognizes a strong commitment
to musical study and musicianship.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. members of this House to join me as I
congratulate Olivia Crane of Bay Roberts on her outstanding performance on the
singing examination, and for receiving a national Silver Medal for her
accomplishments.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, December 10, United Steelworkers of America Local 6285,
representing workers employed by Wabush Mines, celebrated their 40 th
Anniversary. Jim Skinner, president of the local union, welcomed the many people
who were on hand to take
part in this celebration and acknowledge the important
role the local union has played in the history of the Town of Wabush and the
benefits they have attained for their members.
Mayor Jim Farrell, on behalf of the Town of Wabush, renamed the street where
the union office is located. The street will now be known as Union Drive, a
dedication that reflects the contribution the union has made to the town and its
citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the union also provided highschool scholarships each year.
Yesterday, they named the scholarships in memory of the local union's first
president and a long-time Wabush resident, the late Mr. Frank Barron.
Mr. Speaker, during yesterday's ceremonies, the union also unveiled a
workers monument in honour and in memory of all those who died tragically in the
workplace from disease caused by the workplace, or otherwise suffering as a
result of working to earn a living for themselves and their families. The
monument also serves as a reminder that workplace health and safety is now and
always will be a number one priority.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the steelworkers,
Local 6285, on their 40 th anniversary and wish them well in the
future.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a member's statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, a long time volunteer and resident of Cape St.
George recently received the Order of Canada, as a matter of fact, on November
30, during a ceremony in the Fort Garry Hotel in Winnipeg. Mr. Robert Cormier
was honoured for his efforts to enhance and preserve the Francophone and Acadian
cultures, and for contributing to the economic growth of his region.
Established in 1967, the Order of Canada is this country's highest honour
for lifetime achievement. There are three levels of membership: the companion
level, recognizing the highest degree of service to Canada or humanity; the
officer level, recognizing national service and merit; and the member level, for
outstanding contribution at the local or regional level, or in a particular
field of activity.
Mr. Cormier has devoted his efforts to the Francophone community of
Newfoundland and Labrador for over thirty years, and as Chairman of the Long
Range Economic Development Board, Mr. Cormier is currently working to build the
partnerships that will help Zone 9 reach its economic and human potential.
Mr. Speaker, I would like for the hon. members of this House to join me in
congratulating Mr. Cormier on receiving the Order of Canada at the member level,
for his outstanding contributions to his region, and for his devoted efforts to
the Francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador.
On behalf of the people of Bay St. George and the Port au Port Peninsula,
especially the Francophone community, I say to Robert: thank you very much for a
job well done.
De la part de toute la population de la Baie St-Georges et de la pninsule
de Port-au-Port, particulirement les francophones, je dis Robert, merci
beaucoup pour votre bon travail.
Merci.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the Premier has decided not to play
Santa Claus for Quebec this Christmas I thought we would move from the Lower
Churchill to another gift, another giveaway, Voisey's Bay.
Mr. Speaker, the headlines in the national newspapers, The Globe and Mail
and the Financial Post , last week read as follows: Inco's Goro project
in limbo. Inco shares tarnished over Goro, and higher costs threaten Inco's
Goro Mine. In fact, analyst David Charles said, "The major casualty of all
these changes... is the credibility of Inco's current management team and the
uncertainty created by the review."
In light of the fact that the national investment community is very concerned
about the credibility of the same Inco management team that negotiated Voisey's
Bay and the uncertainty created in Goro, will the Premier inform the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador if he has any concerns about our project which will
see nickel from Voisey's Bay leave our Province for Manitoba and Ontario?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do understand that the Leader of the Opposition spends days and nights and
sleepless nights hoping that things like Voisey's Bay would fail. I do
understand that that is his basic premise in life.
Mr. Speaker, we did speak to the Inco officials right to the highest level,
just prior to and after the Goro announcement, to find out whether or not there
were any possible adverse or negative impacts in Newfoundland and Labrador. We
have been assured that the answer to that is no. In fact, they have legally
binding - which the Leader of the Opposition would know because he has poured
through them for months and months looking for the loopholes that are not there.
We have legally binding commitments that have to be met or nothing - here is the
point, if the legally binding commitments are not met, nothing leaves Labrador,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Although the Premier is not concerned, I, for one, was
extremely concerned when I read the comments about Inco last week. In fact, Mr.
Scott Hand, the good friend of the Premier, indicated and I quote: That
everything is under review, from soup to nuts; to quote Mr. Hand. That review
will cover what reductions can be made in the project through scope or design
modifications, to construction and related plans, to civil and other contractual
arrangements, and alternative project execution strategies.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree that Scott Hand is
saying that the entire project in Goro and every assumption related thereto is
in question, and that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, without the
appropriate safeguards and guarantees in our contract, are subject to the same
risks as the people in Goro?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is this, that is exactly the conversation I did have
with Mr. Hand because I was concerned enough to call him and find out the facts,
unlike the Leader of the Opposition would try to suggest. I did not give an
answer saying I was not concerned. I gave an answer saying that just before the
announcement and after the announcement we spoke to them to find out if there
were any issues impacting adversely on the project here in our jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, we do have the safeguards and the
guarantees so that the full ore body in Labrador will be protected unless the
guarantees and the legally binding commitments in the Voisey's Bay contract
are adhered to as signed on by Inco and the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The difference between ourselves and the Premier is that he
is only now concerned. We were concerned back in May and June (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: In fact, when FPI was under review he was not even
concerned enough to ask any questions, if I remember correctly.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, mining analysts Greg Barnes stated in a story
in the Financial Post on December 7 that, "Inco's warning about
capital cost overruns is a bombshell'". He said, "The fact that
geotechnical issues are causing such huge problems -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: - indicates that Inco's homework' on the project was
not as extensive, or as thorough, as we had first thought and causes us to
question all aspects of the project."
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier inform the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
that if the same 45 per cent cost overrun that could occur in a Goro happens in
Voisey's Bay, what components of our project will be at risk?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the theory that the sky is falling with the Leader
of the Opposition. That is the way he views the world. That is not the way we
view the world. The fact of the matter is this: What is happening, actually, in
Goro - and the Leader of the Opposition said, we were concerned before. His
first question was: Since we heard about the Goro circumstance, are you
concerned? Then he suggests, well, there was nobody talking about any problems
in Goro when we were debating Voisey's Bay in the last year. It was going
ahead, this was also going to go ahead. They would have two projects proceeding
at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: If the same thing happens in
Newfoundland and Labrador, with respect to Inco, as is now happening in Goro,
every bit of the ore body will be still in Labrador to be used for the benefit
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Articles 1.8 and 2.1.10 of the signed agreement - the signed,
legally binding agreement that was signed on September 30 - between Inco and the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, under Inco's warranties, says that
the financial amounts, the levels of employment, the costs of facilities and the
related benefits are merely estimates as of the date of the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier agree that if these numbers are merely
estimates, then Inco could also do a comprehensive review of the Voisey's Bay
numbers and project on the basis that they have only warranted, that they are in
fact estimates and not real numbers, and therefore are not bound by any of them
according to law?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the Leader of the Opposition, rather than try to impress people with
details and numbers and decimal points, might point this out - he might
acknowledge this - that the fact of the matter is this: The legally binding
agreements - and maybe the member might listen; he might learn something for a
change - do say this: that between now and the year 2006, in the next
three-and-a-half to four years, that if Inco does not successfully invest just
about a billion dollars in Newfoundland and Labrador, there will still be 100
per cent of the ore body in Labrador to be used by somebody else if Inco is not
successful.
Mr. Speaker, the estimates have been given. This year we know they met their
targets. They said they were going to spend $55 million; they are almost
completely there. They said they would employ about 200 people; they did. They
said they would get a temporary wharf done, an airstrip and road; they have done
all that. They said they were going to start doing some work in Argentia; they
are going through environmental assessment and securing office space and getting
ready. They said they would start investing in the Inco Innovation Centre, which
now the Leader of the Opposition supports - or at least he did at Memorial with
the students - although he voted against it here.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, every commitment so far they have made, they
have kept, and as long as they keep another billion dollars worth of commitments
over the next four years, then there is a possibility for them to develop it. If
they do not, all the ore is still there, the billion dollars would have spent in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and somebody else will come in and take over the
mine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier, unlike yourself, I feel that details are very important.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, after he signed his little memorandum
of agreement back in August with Premier Bernard Landry, he said, we will let
somebody else dicker over the details. That is what he said. Well the details
were important, weren't they, Premier? That is why there is no Christmas in
Quebec.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in reference to Goro once again, Mr. Scott
Hand talks about the project proceeding if economically feasible on a
financially prudent basis. These words are strikingly similar to the Voisey's
Bay Statement of Principles.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that
section 4.6 of
the signed deal used the same words, economically feasible, and that Inco could
walk away from a hydromet plant on that basis, just as they are indicating that
they could walk away from their deal in Goro?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have had the full debate in the Legislature before. As a
matter of fact, we had a full, dedicated, sole debate with respect to Voisey's
Bay, that covered more hours than three or four weeks in the Legislature under
any normal time, I might say to the Member for Baie Verte.
Mr. Speaker, I guess they were going to examine it in detail then. I guess if
they did not examine it in detail, that is their fault, if they did not do
everything they wanted to do in that debate. The answer to his question is:
Absolutely, positively, no, that cannot happen, Mr. Speaker, and he knows it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: It is a tactic that he uses. He really should be ashamed
of himself, to be going around to the people of the Province saying something
that he knows is dead wrong, but willing to say it just to have it thrown out
into the media and into the public, to cast doubt and suspicion amongst the
minds of the people of the Province. It is a tactic that I will not use, Mr.
Speaker. I commit to the people of the Province that I would never lower myself
to do the like of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what we have today, now, is the Leader of
the Opposition delighted and ecstatic that a Gull Island Project is not going
ahead as we speak today, and now wishing -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - wishing with every bone in his body, that the Voisey's
Bay Project would also fail, because that is what he wants to happen in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This, in fact, is another sad day for Newfoundland and Labrador because, in
fact, what we predicted back in June of last year is coming true in Goro and is
going to happen in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in order to -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier wanted me to go through the
details. Now they do not want to hear the details for some reason. Let's talk
about the details.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in order to get the support of the people of
Argentia and Placentia for the Voisey's Bay Project, clause 5 of the Statement
of Principles states that the concentrate will be processed at a commercial
hydrometallurgical processing plant in Argentia.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier now confirm that there is a new
article in the
signed deal,
article 4.6.4, that says, if it is not economically feasible, the
processing plant will be located at another site in the Province. In other
words, Argentia is not definitely the chosen site.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it is a sad day to see the Leader of the Opposition performing as he
is in this Legislature today. It is truly a sad day for Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The fact of the matter again is this, Mr. Speaker, because we deal with the
facts because we are the government and we take our responsibility seriously,
and we want to be up front, direct and straightforward with the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The fact of the matter is this: It was always left to
the proponent to decide where to put the smelting facilities in Newfoundland and
Labrador. What they have said is this, and what the people of Placentia and
Argentia know, what they have said -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what they have said is this: that their
preferred site, after looking at other locations in Newfoundland and Labrador,
is Argentia. They have already started to open the office. They are already
starting to fence in the ground. They are already starting to put down the
warehouse space. They are already getting ready to prepare the area for lay-down
in Argentia, but it is not the financing that is at question. It is whether or
not it passes environmental assessment.
They have registered for environmental assessment, and the Leader of the
Opposition knows, the member for the area knows, everybody in the Province
knows, that if you cannot pass the environmental assessment you cannot build
something on the site. That is why the clause is there. Their intention is to
put it in Argentia 100 per cent -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - the intention of the company to put it in Argentia.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: They have stated it repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, but they
cannot go around and tell the environmental assessment process that they must
approve the site that is chosen in Argentia. There is a process that determines
what happens there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So, Mr. Speaker, now Argentia is a preferred site, now is what it is. It has
gone from a locked-in deal to a preferred site.
Unless environmental conditions - is what the term is, Premier, at Argentia -
would not make it economically feasible to establish the plant. In such
circumstances, the proponent shall locate the plant at another site in the
Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: I ask the Premier: Why didn't you get the safeguard? Why
didn't you get the ironclad guarantee for the people of Argentia, that, that
would definitely be located in their community?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is great now to see the change in position -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is great now, Mr. Speaker, to see the change in position and the righteous
indignation of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for the area. The
member for the area, to his credit, at least voted for the project. The Leader
of the Opposition said: It turns my stomach, it makes me sick, it would never
happen on my watch. Didn't even want the project, any of it, to occur anywhere
in Newfoundland and Labrador, never mind a smelter in Argentia, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Now he stands up today to suggest that he is the champion
for the people of Argentia.
Mr. Speaker, I would not lower myself to suggest to the people of Argentia or
anywhere else - because he puts it in the context of suggesting an ironclad
guarantee. So the Leader of the Opposition, what he is propositioning to the
people of Argentia and elsewhere, is that there would be no respect for the
environmental assessment process. There would be no acknowledgment that even
exists, that we would write something down if we were in charge -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Of course, what they would write down if they were in
charge is, this would not happen at all anywhere in the Province. Now they are
suggesting that they would bypass environmental assessments, and he suggesting
that there is some guarantee missing.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is despicable, the behaviour of the
Leader of the Opposition today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: It does not say environmental assessment. Environment
conditions are heavy rain, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the December 7 issue of the Financial
Post, mining analyst Barry Allan says, "It's the whole credibility
issue that's being raised.... No company has used hydromet technology in the
commercial production of nickel and cobalt before." He said, "If they
get the earth moving wrong, which is the easy part of the construction process,
what's that say about all the technology?"
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Premier, in
light of these significant errors in Goro, do you still stand by your statement
during the Voisey's Bay debate, that you are 97 per cent to 98 per cent sure
that hydromet technology is going to work and there is only a 2 per cent to 3
per cent risk that it will not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for correcting his first misleading
statement before, that they could walk away in Argentia for financing reasons.
He now admits it is environmental reasons that could cause the problem.
Secondly, it will not be lost on the people of Argentia. The people of
Argentia know who is fighting for them, who is trying to get this project to
work in Newfoundland and Labrador, and who is trying to make something happen.
The people of Argentia also know this, as do the rest of the people of the
Province, that regardless - and this is why we have these guarantees - of
whether hydromet works or not, there is a 100 per cent guarantee that the
company must build another type of processing plant if it does not work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in
section 21 of the Statement of Principles submitted in June,
Inco was, "...committed to processing the Voisey's Bay
nickel/copper/cobalt concentrate in the Province...".
section 22 of the Statement of Principles, the failure of economic
feasibility testing for hydromet technology was referred to as an "unlikely
event".
If the self-proclaimed champion of Argentia is sticking up for the people of
Argentia, could he please explain why the words, committed to processing Voisey's
Bay concentrate in the Province, have been deleted in the signed deal, and why
the words, unlikely event, have been removed in reference to the failure of
hydromet technology?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know, and it is a sad day and it is unfortunate that the Leader of the
Opposition is still so desperately, desperately, desperately opposed to the
Voisey's Bay Project. I understand that, and everybody in the Province
understands that he, personally - it turns his stomach, I think is what he said.
It would never happen on his watch. Those are the kinds of things that we are
talking about.
The fact is, the language that he talks about in the Statement of Principles
has been replaced by even stronger language in the legally binding agreements
because two things will happen.
SOME HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Because two things are guaranteed to happen: that it must
be processed - not a commitment to process, it absolutely must be processed - in
Newfoundland and Labrador under the legally binding agreements.
The question he raises about hydromet: What if there was a 2 per cent or 3
per cent chance that it does not work? That 2 per cent or 3 per cent means
nothing because there is an even stronger guarantee, a full 100 per cent
guarantee, that another plant will be built if it does not work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
The Witless Bay Line is the only direct access to the Southern Shore Highway
from the Trans-Canada Highway. This access is used daily by commuters to Bay
Bulls, to Witless Bay, and the surrounding area, as well as by businesses in the
transportation of goods and services. It takes four times as long to drive to
St. John's and up the Southern Shore Highway as it does in crossing the line.
Minister, that is equivalent to telling people in Topsail and Paradise, who come
to work in St. John's, drive up to Conception Bay Highway to Holyrood, and
then come back into St. John's.
I want to ask the minister: In light of last Friday's snow storm, no
equipment went on that Witless Bay Line until Monday morning. I have been
informed by the department that several pieces of snow clearing equipment have
been down, some for up to months, including loaders, backhoes and graders. I
have talked extensively with people in the department. Your department is not
bothering to get these into operation quickly because no overtime is permitted -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, will he confirm what I have just said,
and will he also tell this House if a no overtime order is responsible for not
plowing, not only the Witless Bay Line, but keeping the main highway in an
operable condition?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: To correct the hon. member, the last time I travelled to the
Southern Shore I think there was an access to the Southern Shore other than the
Witless Bay Line. We spent a considerable amount of money doing the Gould's
bypass road which gives people greater access to the Southern Shore. We have
invested a tremendous amount of money.
The hon. member is well aware of the history of the Witless Bay Line. As a
matter of fact, two years ago the department spent something like $380,000
hiring private equipment to keep the road open for about five minutes. We are
doing an analysis of the Witless Bay Line. When equipment is available we put it
on the Witless Bay Line and if the road is blocked we will put a sign saying:
detour, take the other great access to the Southern Shore.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Not one cent of provincial money was spent on the Gould's bypass. That is
100 per cent federal money in the Roads for Rail Agreement, the minister should
know that.
Now, your department has erected signs on hinges on the Trans-Canada Highway,
on each side of the Witless Bay Line and on the Southern Shore highway on each
side of the Witless Bay Line to indicate if the road is going to be closed. This
past weekend several motorists were stranded and the hinges were not swinging
last weekend, I say to the minister. Will the minister tell this House if any
other main thoroughfare in this Province have erected signs on hinges and have a
no overtime, no weekend snow clearing order into effect?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I am glad the hon. member mentioned that there was no
provincial monies spent on the Gould's bypass road. I want to remind the hon.
member that the Gould's bypass road was built under the Roads for Rail
Agreement. It was provincial money because do you know what we did? We gave up
our railway. We gave up our railway and that -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I am sick and tired of saying that is federal money. We gave
up the railway, which was part of our constitution that was negotiated by your
hero who came back from Vancouver in 1988. We gave up our railway so we could
get money to do our infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador. The money came
from the federal government but it was a bill that they paid us. It is money
that we deserve because we gave up our railway. That is why -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier about the Kyoto Protocol. The Premier is
against it because he says he does not know the economic implications and he is
concerned about a lack of consultation. How is it, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier
himself signed onto a mini Kyoto in West Brook, Connecticut in August 2001 with
the New England Governors which recognized the need for a 10 per cent reduction
below 1990 in greenhouse gases? In fact, this climate change action plan
acknowledges that there must be 75 per cent to 85 per cent below current level
reductions as a long-term plan.
How is it, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier can sign onto this? Does he know
what he is doing or is he just dancing to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's tune
on this issue?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know it to be a serious question from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi, and I will give it a very serious answer. I am glad he asked it.
There are two very, very important differences between what we in Eastern
Canada - including Quebec - the Eastern Canadian Premiers and the Quebec Premier
signed onto with the New England Governors, two very important differences with
respect to that and Kyoto. A clear plan, first and foremost, that was worked out
in advance by the officials from all of the governments, both provincially and
in the different states that had looked at the Departments of Environment, the
Departments of Energy and the Departments of Industry and looked at realistic
targets that we could achieve over, Mr. Speaker - and here is the important
point - a longer time frame, which is what Alberta has been talking about and
what all the provinces and territories agreed to as twelve principles, that we
did not think we could achieve it by 2012, but we were confident we could
achieve it by 2020, which is what we signed onto, the additional time.
Secondly, because in the Kyoto Protocol the United States of America is not a
signatory. The greatest trading partner with Canada, the greatest competitor in
North America is not a signatory. The States in the United States are
signatories with us, the provinces and the states. As a result, we have a
guarantee that clean energy exports from our provinces into the United States to
replace dirty energy -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - will be credited in Canada. There is no such agreement
between Canada and the United States, Mr. Speaker, because the United States of
America, as an entity, has not signed on -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - but with the credits guaranteed and with the longer
time frame, we have been assured by our officials, who already had a plan before
we signed on, that we can achieve the targets and do it quite readily.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is quoted as saying that the cost to this Province for Kyoto
could be $2 billion in GDP and could cut our economic growth in half. Can the
minister produce any reports that, in fact, support this allegation, or will he
instead table the internal report done by his government that shows there is no
economic consequence to this Province, very little economic, negative
consequence to this Province with the Kyoto Protocol?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if there is one good thing out of yesterday is that there will
now at least be a concerted effort for the next ten years to try to figure out
in Canada how to meet the targets that have been signed onto by Canada. We have
the information, with respect to the previous question, as to how it is going to
be done here. One of the big, glaring deficiencies with the Canadian plan, or
lack thereof, is that in the tentative plan they have put forward they are
assuming that seventy megatons of the 240 megatons that need to be achieved will
be achieved because of clean energy exports to the United States of America.
We have our portion of that already signed onto in Eastern Canada and the New
England States, and we know we can achieve it. There is no protocol, no
agreement, and none likely with the United States of America as an entity. The
reports that we have in the department, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The ask the hon. Premier now to conclude quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - because there are several and there will be more, I am
sure, that show a range of views, but for us it is a matter of striking the
balance. We want to clean up the emissions. We will sign on gladly to targets
because now they are gambling with a real plan that can reach the targets they
have laid out for all of Canada in the next ten years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 26.5 of Financial
Administration Act, I am tabling six Order in Councils relating to funding
pre-commitments for the year 2003-2004 to 2006-2007 fiscal year.
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: It being Private Members' Day, we go to the private member's
resolution for the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise in this hon. House to ask members to consider a motion intended
to support the formal learning of our K-12 students in the schools of this
Province. The motion is brought forth to draw attention to one particular aspect
of the delivery of education in this Province.
It does not seem so long ago that this House was - certainly not the same
House, but in a different session - dealing with passing
an act back in 1996-97
which changed the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador in very dramatic
ways which served as a blueprint for the education system of this Province to
this day and well into the next decade or so. I say, Mr. Speaker, it was
unanimous approval for that act. A great debate.
For some years now I would say that the students, our teachers, our school
board trustees, our parents, our guardians, indeed, all with interest in the
education of our youth have laboured long and hard to bring about much needed
change to our public system. There have been disappointments but there have also
been great strides evident by the number of our students who, certainly, move on
to post-secondary education, evident by the growing number of young
professionals so in demand in the labour markets, not only in this Province, but
throughout the world.
As always, change does have a price. A price that we have to pay, I guess, as
no one wants to stand in the way of progress. The price that we have paid here
in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is - certainly in many of the
small rural areas, the centre of their community, their schools may have been
closed down to give way for reconfiguration. We seen a great increase in the
busing of our students, dramatically. We continue to struggle, Mr. Speaker, with
a decline in our student population; the ever increasing operational costs of
running our system; difficulties in providing basic programming to all our
schools and all of our students. The challenge overall, Mr. Speaker, of keeping
abreast of the demands of the twenty-first Century that are brought to the
educational table.
The restructuring phase of the reform certainly pushed other concerns to the
back burners and really since the mid-1990s up until, I guess, this particular
time, most of the emphasis on school reform has been on restructuring. Now,
restructuring in the sense of the governance of cutting down from the
twenty-seven boards to the eleven that it is today. Restructuring in the sense
of reconfiguring a lot of the school districts and the configuration areas for
particular school systems, the closing. I do believe we have probably gone from
close to 500 schools down to a little over 300. There have been tremendous
changes with regard to the restructuring. During that restructuring stage
curriculum, for the most part and other concerns, were relatively pushed to the
back burner. Not that they were not addressed, Mr. Speaker, but certainly a
great emphasis was placed on the restructuring as opposed to the curriculum.
Of course, here in Newfoundland and Labrador we are part of the Atlantic
provinces curriculum in the sense of combining with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
P.E.I. and, of course, Newfoundland and Labrador in putting forth a common
curriculum with the idea of, of course, establishing some common standards,
common resources, cost saving in a lot of measures.
We certainly recognize that the school boards, the Department of Education, I
guess, the Association of School Boards, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teacher's
Association, our Federation of School Councils; these groups certainly play a
big
part in, I guess, not only taking care of the day to day business but
planning ahead for the future and developing our delivery of education to a
point where we are amongst the best in the world. Having said that, Mr. Speaker,
there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, and I am sure in the minds of many of
the members here, that when it comes to making the most difference with regard
to the education of our students, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that
it is those who are closest to the students, namely the parents or family in the
home, or the teachers in the classroom. I guess the teachers are given the
responsibility to deliver the curriculum but the parents and family members
certainly play a key
part in it.
If we are going to make a difference in regard to education, that should be a
starting point at any type of initiative, that we take into account what is
happening in the classroom, what is needed in the classroom. When you start from
that level, everything else should flow from there.
The motion today is intended to support what I call front line learning
situations. Whatever else is done with regard to education, we must ensure that
the conditions for learning have to be optimal, that they have to be ideal, that
the teachers have to be well trained, that the curriculum has to be properly
developed and properly implemented, properly resourced'. The students must
be comfortable, relaxed, willing to learn, in classrooms that are safe, that are
secure, that are healthy classrooms, Mr. Speaker.
The goal of the system, naturally, is to meet the needs of all children
regardless of their creed, their circumstances, their ability levels, their
place of residence and so on. As one considers the important factors which go
into the creation of what I call an ideal learning situation, an effective
learning environment for our students, curriculum certainly ranks high in
importance. What we teach is important. How we teach it is important as well. So
curriculum is the glue, I suppose, that holds everything together there, and
without it, obviously, learning does not take place.
Of late, as I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is the curriculum that has
dominated this second phase of educational reform in this Province. It is good
to see that not only are we now getting really into the classrooms in a big way
to try to bring about the necessary changes there to prepare our students for
what is beyond their formal education; it is good to see also that not only are
teachers involved in that, not only are department officials and school board
officials, but parents and other interested parties play a big
part in seeing
what is being taught and how it is being taught.
Again, in bringing forth this motion, I want to hopefully spark a debate that
will look at this challenge that we have before us today. It is a different
challenge than we had five or six years ago as we tackled - I say we, because
anyone who was involved in education tackled the daunting task of turning around
our education system, and literally turning it upside down. It is a public
system, it is an open system. The challenge now has gone from, like I said, the
restructuring to the curriculum. It is the curriculum that has come to the
foreground of late as we see the results of attempts to implement a modern
curriculum.
I am not here today to get up and talk about the curriculum, because the
curriculum just encompasses - when I say the curriculum, I do not want to get
into the philosophy of behind the curriculum, or basically the plus or minus of
any particular part of the curriculum in our schools, because the curriculum,
once it is presented, certainly is important, the content of the curriculum, but
it is how the teachers take that curriculum and impart it upon our students.
Sometimes, the best intentions of a curriculum can never be realized simply
because it cannot be implemented properly. It cannot be taught.
Recent developments have brought to light difficulties associated with the
development and implementation of the new curriculum, Mr. Speaker, especially in
the areas of language arts and mathematics. Now, the language arts curriculum
was ahead with regard to the math curriculum in that, that started, more or
less, in the 1980s and continued on into the 1990s. It was a complete
turnaround, that language arts curriculum, from the one that had been into
effect for many, many years. In the last number of years, it has been the
mathematics, and I do not think anyone can disagree with the fact that there are
some great difficulties with the mathematics curriculum: difficulties for the
students, difficulties for the teachers, difficulties for the parents as they
try to come to grips with helping their children get through it.
Now, we do know that it is not easy when you are on the outside looking in
and trying to determine where the problems are with the curriculum. You can
certainly just take some, I guess, in many cases, the exit point of the K-12
system to see how successful the curriculum in any subject area has been, and I
would just like to touch on some of the latest developments. In particular, in
the exiting with regard to the language arts, there have been some difficulties
with some of the subject areas like the thematic literature and some complaints
that the teaching of the language arts is not dealing with the basics, that it
is not dealing with the real needs of students as they exit the K-12 system into
post-secondary.
With regard to the math we know, Mr. Speaker, just as an example, the Math
3205 course last year was cancelled right on the eve of public exams, a decision
that I certainly did not agree with, realizing that the students were not
prepared, that they had not covered all the topics, that there were problems
there with textbooks, that there were problems there with getting the course
covered within the time limits that were allotted.
This year, we see another problem arise, this time with the Mathematics 3204.
This particular course is going the same route as last year. Certainly it is
problematic, and I think one of my colleagues will probably reference the math.
The point I am trying to bring out, Mr. Speaker, is that it is hard to
determine where a curriculum would go, so I would look forward to hearing from
the members a take on how they feel regarding this particular situation. Simply
look at the
WHEREAS, but as the resolution says,
BE IT RESOLVED. To some degree
it being done now, but I want to emphasize the need that elementary, secondary
and post-secondary educators be consulted to determine the need for changes,
that they be given an opportunity to review those curriculum changes, and that
the Department of Education provide adequate teacher in-service before
proceeding, and the key words there are: before proceeding. It is no good after
the fact - not that it is no good, but it is less effective after the fact.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: I just leave it on that note, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HEDDERSON: I will have some time to clue up, so I will come back. I
certainly invite all members to join in the debate with regard to this motion.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This particular private member's resolution is one certainly, when you look
at the, "THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Department of Education consult
with elementary, secondary and post-secondary educators to determine the need
for changes to the curriculum and to review curriculum changes before they are
implemented; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Education provide
adequate teacher inservice before proceeding with curriculum changes." It
is certainly something that can support because that is what is happening today.
This is not asking us to do anything but what we are doing, so it is not a
problem at all to support on this side of the House - THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED.
Where I do have some difficulty however, and I need to address this, and that
is the erroneous statement in the
WHEREAS's. I have some real difficulty with
some of the propositions that are put forward leading up to the resolution part
of this. I need to speak to these because it concerns me that these types of
statements can be put on the record and left there without being challenged,
given the information that I have and that I know what has transpired leading up
to the development of curriculum, and in this instance, certainly, the
development of the mathematics curriculum.
"WHEREAS faculty members of Memorial University of Newfoundland's
Department of Mathematics and Statistics have expressed concern that they have
been kept in the dark about recent changes to the province's high school
mathematics curriculum and that they had discovered major errors in the course
program..."
I need to again set the record straight on this because that is not true. In
fact, we have consulted far and wide in the development of our curriculum. It is
something that we do in the development of any and all curriculum that we are
looking at for our students. Particularly with the math curriculum, it is one
that we have a process in place that involves working with all of our
stakeholders whether it is curriculum for our primary, elementary or secondary
schools, and, of course, making sure that we provide in-service for the
implementation of this new curriculum.
To suggest that Memorial University has somehow been kept in the dark with
respect to the changes in the math curriculum is completely erroneous and
without any basis and fact. In fact, this government - and those of you here
would know that at one point I had responsibility for post-secondary education.
So I can tell you, in having worked at the university for ten years before even
coming to work with government, that I hold, in the highest regard, the opinions
of the faculty at Memorial University.
Memorial, in fact, was part of the consultation group when the mathematics
foundation document for the Atlantic curriculum was in draft form. Mr. Speaker,
we do not go into significant curriculum change in a casual or offhand manner.
In fact, we carry out significant consultation with all of our stakeholders. We
undertake the preparation of foundation documents which underpin all new
curriculum and set the broad directions for program changes in our schools. In
fact, a forum was organized back in the fall of 1995 - that will tell you how
far back we have been working with this. At that forum, we collected feedback on
this draft document that had been prepared on the new math curriculum. The forum
included representatives from various institutions delivering post-secondary
mathematics within this Province. That included people from the College of the
North Atlantic as well as Memorial.
Now, remember, other provinces in Atlantic Canada are involved with us in
this new curriculum. This is not a made in Newfoundland and Labrador curriculum.
They conducted similar consultations because, as the hon. members know, it is
very important if we are talking about a pan Atlantic curriculum, that
consultations take place in all of the Atlantic provinces that are involved. The
results of these consultations inform necessary changes to the foundation
document. So it was because of the consultation process that was carried out, as
far back as 1995, that we saw changes being made to today's curriculum, and I
refer specifically to the math curriculum.
A member of Memorial's math department also served on a review committee
spanning the development of several high school courses. Input from that
committee, on which there was someone from Memorial, was substantial and that,
too, resulted in significant changes throughout the development process.
Mr. Speaker, Memorial was indeed consulted and they continue to be consulted,
as are our other education stakeholders. Whenever we embark on initiatives to
improve and advance the education system in our Province we know that we can
only be successful if we involve all of our stakeholders, because we all have
responsibility for the education of the child, not just government and the
Department of Education, but all of us who have an interest in, and a
responsibility to our children.
I want to speak to another
Whereas. It says, "And
Whereas teachers in
the province have expressed concern that the curriculum changes were introduced
without adequate teacher in-servicing thereby creating a situation in which
teachers were not adequately prepared to instruct their students in the new
methodologies."
Now, that is a serious statement and one that I really have some difficulty
with, because I need to inform the members of the House that at no point in time
would we introduce curriculum changes without adequate teacher in-servicing. I
point out to the hon. members in the House that, in fact, before any new
curriculum is introduced into the classrooms, before teachers are asked to teach
any new courses, they are provided a full program of in-service.
To give you some idea of the level of in-service our teachers receive for the
math curriculum I am just going to list it for you. With respect to math, and
only to mathematics - so this has nothing to do with the in-servicing that had
been offered in other curriculum subject areas, but if you look at mathematics
alone, three days of in-service to district teams for each of Mathematics 1204
and 1206, Mathematics 2204 and 2205, Mathematics 3204 and 3205, Mathematics 3206
and 3207. For a total of twenty-one professional development days for
mathematics alone, twenty-one professional development days just on math.
Clearly, we take this seriously. We want to make sure that our teachers are well
prepared. We want to make sure they are in-serviced, and the way we do that is
we do the in-servicing from the department, working with teachers. We in-service
our boards and our boards then take responsibility for in-servicing their
teachers in the districts.
That is something that has been happening for a long time, Mr. Speaker,
because that is the method that has been utilized and found to be acceptable and
appropriate to ensure that our teachers receive the required in-servicing for
delivering curriculum. Don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that in fact our teachers
are one of the most highly educated teaching workforces in the country. We are
not talking about people here who have no understanding or appreciation of
curriculum or who have not had the experience of teaching any particular
curriculum. Especially when we are talking about our specialty teachers, in this
case our math teachers. I guess the area where you would find that they might
need a little more, in the way of in-servicing, would be in those parts of the
Province where we have difficulty attracting specialists and therefore end up
with maybe teachers who do not have that expertise in math who, of course, would
require some special attention; but, I can assure you, our school boards would
do everything they can to guarantee that in those instances, those teachers get
more in-servicing than teachers who have some experience in the particular
subject area. We are not talking about empty vessels here. We are talking about
teachers who have years and years and years of training. Teachers who know how
to teach. Teachers who are used to being in-serviced in subject areas whenever
there is a curriculum change.
Again, to repeat, there were twenty-one professional development days for
mathematics alone. Mr. Speaker, I think that speaks to the commitment of this
government and the commitment of the Department of Education to ensuring that
our teachers and their boards have the resources to deliver on any curriculum,
particularly when we revise our curriculum.
As well, Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2002, this past summer, the Department
of Education funded six summer mathematics institutes for 150 elementary,
intermediate and senior high mathematics teachers from all across this Province.
We funded that. The Department of Education funded that to ensure -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: We did that because it was the right thing to do. We did that
to ensure that we listen to teachers and that we provided these teachers with
the very best in teacher training. The most experience and well-trained
curriculum leaders were charged with delivering these institutes. These teachers
and their instructors, working together, developed solutions to the challenges
of the new curriculum.
So, we are working as a team to deliver the new curriculum to our students. I
think it is so important to realize that: that we are not doing this in
isolation. We listen to our teachers, we listen to our parents, we listen to the
school boards and our trustees, because we all want to do what is in the best
interest of the students we are there to serve.
Mr. Speaker, that is not all. In the summer of 2002, as well, the Department
of Education, taking the advice of our expert panel, identified core and
optional topics for intermediate and senior high mathematics teachers, and
provided sample plans to all teachers to assist teachers, to help them adjust to
the new program. We are continually doing things to help our teachers whenever
we introduce new curriculum. As well, in the summer of 2002, the Department of
Education developed companion documents for academic and advanced senior-high
math courses, and these included additional practice and provided alternative
approaches for some of the investigative and inquiry related activities, again
acting on the advice of Memorial's Mathematics and Statistics department who
form part of the expert panel. Again, Memorial was engaged. There are people at
Memorial who are very much a part of this process, but sometimes there are going
to be differences of opinion. I guess you will get that in any profession, Mr.
Speaker, and I think this is what we are getting here to a large degree.
In fact, when we talk about the errors in the math textbook, which had been
brought up, yes, there are errors, but do not forget, now, this is the first
year this textbook has been put into play. Whenever you have a new textbook,
when you have it published for the first time, yes, there are going to be
errors. It is not new, it is not different. In fact, it is interesting to note
that the errors that were picked up, were not picked up, or the report that was
done, was not done by professors at Memorial. It was, in fact, done by a couple
of professors in the other Atlantic Provinces. One of the professors, his
daughter was doing the math program and he noticed a couple of errors in the
text and asked the Department of Education in Nova Scotia if they would mind if
he went through the math to see what other errors might be there. They said: No,
by all means. We would appreciate it if you would do that.
In fact, a lot of the things that he had picked out, that he, along with a
couple of other professors had put in the report, were already errors that had
been identified by the program development specialist in each of the Departments
of Education in the three Atlantic Provinces, and, who, in fact, when they
signed off on the document, did so with the stipulation that there are errors
here that need to be corrected by the publisher. Unfortunately, not all of them
were addressed. Since then we have had a meeting with the publisher who has
guaranteed us that, in the next printing, the errors will all be corrected, but
they are also providing a supplementary resource to be used by the teachers when
teaching that part of the textbook where difficulties exist.
Mr. Speaker, you can see that the responsibility to in-service our teachers,
not only in the area of math, is not taken lightly. In fact last year we spent,
as a government, and this year again we will spend, nearly $4.5 million in
professional development. I recall the Member for Baie Verte suggesting that in
fact we should continue to do more in the way of PD for our teachers, and he is
absolutely right. That is why this government commits the amount of money that
we do, to ensure that we put in those kinds of dollars to in-service our
teachers. That is more money than governments have ever put in, in the past. We
have major initiatives in reading for every single primary teacher in this
Province. We have major initiatives on teaching diverse learners, for every
single intermediate teacher in the Province, and the work continues, Mr.
Speaker. In fact, we have developed a lot of resource material for all of our
teachers, bearing in the mind that the textbook is only one part of what is
required to deliver a program of studies for our students. There are so many
other resource materials that are utilized by our teachers. The textbook is but
one component of that.
I want to just again speak to the issue with respect to the errors in the
textbook, because it really does concern me that a document comes out and
somebody suggests there is something totally wrong; the textbook should be
thrown out. Well, there is a teacher whose name is Susanne Gaskin, in New
Brunswick, who in fact has said - and she lists all of her credentials - and she
has written a document in response to the document that was prepared by the
three university professors from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. She -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. minister's time is up.
MS FOOTE: By leave, just to conclude, if I may?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS FOOTE: Because I think it is really important to point out here that
teachers are saying that the errors that are in this textbook, in fact, are not
major errors, as is suggested in the
WHEREAS that we have here. In fact, they
are differences of opinion, they are typographical errors. Where there are
errors in the statistics chapter, that is the part where the publisher has
committed to provide a supplementary resource so that our teachers will not end
up teaching that part of the text where those errors are.
Again, Mr. Speaker, with respect to curriculum changes, we are concerned, as
anyone would be, if there was any suggestion that our teachers are not being
in-serviced. In fact, we make sure that all of our teachers are in-serviced. We
in-service through our boards prior to September because we know that our
teachers need to be in-serviced prior to teaching a course.
That is the bottom line for us as a department, to provide the necessary
in-service to our teachers to deliver on a curriculum that we know is the best
curriculum we can provide for our students in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to support the resolution brought forward by my
colleague, and say to the minister that we view this resolution as a very
friendly resolution. We want to put it on record because I think it is an
important topic that has been in the media for some time. We know that the math
program has been revised, and certainly we are not suggesting that these
revisions were not appropriate or necessary. However, you do get concerned when
you read an
article like, for example, the one that appeared in The Telegram
on November 21, written by Craig Jackson, in which concerns were expressed over
the problems that students were having in the academic Math 3204 course. The
concerns are brought forward by Denise Pike, the President of the Newfoundland
and Labrador Federation of School Councils. She was not calling for the
elimination of the program or the cancellation of the associated exams; however,
she was saying that the students thus far this year have had very poor results
and there was a need for the minister to be monitoring that situation more
diligently.
The minster, in her response, said that she had not had any feedback from the
Teachers' Special Interest Council and she was not aware of any problems with
3204. Certainly, if you look at the reports that have been written, and the
problems that she has just quoted in the House here, I am wondering how she
could be familiar with the report written by the university professors in New
Brunswick, from the universities there - I have that here; it is a
forty-something page document of criticisms of the course itself - without
having some familiarity that there might be potential for a problem.
Of course, last year we well remember the difficulties with Math 3205 and the
fact that coming up towards the spring the critic raised questions in May, and
questions in June, and questions raised by the Federation of School Councils at
that time, and by school boards and by teachers, saying that students had not
progressed as far in the course as they should have, and the end result - in my
opinion, very unwisely - the minister cancelled the public exams.
We want to say to the minister, for her to say on November 21 that she was
not familiar, she had not heard of any difficulties with 3204, and that opinion
was also shared by Graham Wood, who was the Chairperson of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Teachers' Special Interest Council, certainly there had been
difficulties with implementing the math course and we talked of them here last
year. We know that there were troubles with some of the programs. We know there
were difficulties with in-servicing. The minister saying she was not aware of
any problems, then she gets up in the House a few moments ago and says that they
spent some millions of dollars on in-service, providing twenty-one or
twenty-something - twenty-one, I think she said - in-service days. Certainly
that would indicate there might be a major difficulty.
The minister will recall the questions that were raised last year - I
mentioned that a few moments ago - that there is also some concern raised in
this
article by Craig Jackson that some of the students might be dropping 3204.
That is a real concern. When we have students who are dropping good academic
math programs because they are finding them too difficult, then that is a real
concern about the academic program, a real concern about what these students can
do at the university level and their post-secondary education.
I do not believe that Denise Pike and others are advocating that we drop the
exam this year, certainly not, but they are saying to the minister that
something needs to be done and done now. There has to be concern expressed if we
have a lot of students who find the course so challenging that they are dropping
out. We know last year there were great numbers of students who dropped out of
3205. Certainly the minister at that time, last year when we asked that
question, said that they were dropping out of 3205 because there was a problem
with strikes in several of our schools. She even related it to the problem of
September 11. In fact, the textbooks were not available at the beginning of the
school year.
Last year, the minister sloughed off the problems when questions were asked
on May 6 by the critic. She said that there wasn't a real problem, that these
things would be addressed in due course. Of course, we, on this side, were
getting commentaries from teachers and they were telling us that there was a
real problem. The minister did not see it as a problem then. Yet, just a little
while after that, suddenly the minister is cancelling the math exam in 3205.
Consequently, we know that the federation is concerned. The Special Interest
Council is concerned, or should be concerned. We know math teachers are
concerned. In my district, one of the schools is putting on extra courses, extra
programs, in the nighttime. Parents are paying a lot of money to enrol their
children in supplementary courses so they can be ready and they can be prepared.
They are paying extra to have that done at one of the schools. The people are
coming from all over the region to have their children get the best chance they
can. Every parent recognizes that having a good foundation in mathematics is
crucial to having a very successful post-secondary education.
Almost every program you do, if you cannot function in mathematics then you
might encounter difficulties if you are going into many of the career choices
that our students are choosing to enrol in.
Madam Speaker, I do want to - in the few moments I have here - note that when
we mentioned some of the concerns last year, these were also shared by many of
the people in other jurisdictions. For example: Tom Archibald, he is the
Professor of Mathematics and Statistics Department at Acadia University. This
was on Tuesday, November 26 - and I am reading from his
article - "Atlantic
universities have expressed deep and unanimous concern over the new curriculum
and the books produced to support it. This concern arises entirely because of
difficulties we see students face once they arrive in university classes. It is
not at all unusual to see students with high-school marks in the 80s and even
90s struggle and fail their required mathematics courses. The view of some in
the educational establishment appears to be that we are asking students to learn
things that are no longer relevant."
I say to the minister: Tom Archibald, as Head of the Mathematics and Stats
Department at Acadia, is expressing concern that students are not ready when
they come to university. That has to be a concern for the minister, a concern
for her and other ministers of education in Atlantic Canada.
We note that Robert Dawson, Mathematics and Computing Science Department Head
at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, he certainly wrote a whole
article
which is called, Errata and Suggestions for Improvement in the Mathematical
Modeling Textbook Series. This particular report is something like forty-three
pages long. This is a document which can be found, if anybody who is listening
wants to find it, on the Internet. It is @ www.math.mun.ca/~apics .
If anybody wants to find that, they can find this report. It is a commentary on
our math program. It is forty-three pages long.
Now I would admit, as the minister just said, that some of these errors are
minor in nature. Others of them are not so minor in nature. They are categorized
in the
article in several groupings. In fact, some of the criticisms fall into
three categories: misinformation, poorly constructed questions and problems, and
then there are the constructive criticisms, which they are making available to
be included in the revision when the texts are revised.
The fact that we have a textbook out in the schools, which reputable
university professors - you have Robert Dawson, who is Chair of the Mathematics
Department and Computing Science at Saint Mary's University. This gentleman
has a Ph.D in mathematics from Cambridge. We also have David Hamilton, Professor
of the Department of Mathematics and Stats at Dalhousie University. He has a
Ph.D in statistics. You have Maureen Tingley, a Professor of Mathematics and
Stats at the University of New Brunswick. These three reputable scholars have
found forty-three pages of errors in this particular textbook.
It is hard enough in the school system to be able to go and teach when you
have everything going for you. However, it is very, very difficult when that is
not true, when the textbooks do not measure up. For example, during the fall of
2001 semester, Memorial University tracked the progress of fifty-five first-year
calculus students, all of whom had followed the new mathematics curriculum which
is being introduced into the high schools of the four Atlantic Provinces. Nearly
60 per cent of these students either failed or withdrew during the semester.
When compared with students from the same schools, or students across
Newfoundland, this figure is roughly double the attrition rate of students from
the former curriculum.
What that is saying is that the former curriculum did better in preparing our
students for post-secondary than the new curriculum. Therefore, we have to ask
ourselves, what are we doing? The idea of a high school education is to prepare
our students for future life. It is to teach them to think. It is to teach them
to be able to engage in university programs that will advance their
post-secondary education and therefore their lives. Yet the report that I have
here, which was released on April 13, 2002, is showing that in Newfoundland and
Labrador many of our students are not doing as well on this particular
curriculum as they were on the old curriculum.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are several things that I would like to mention.
There are implications of this, not just for the House of Assembly Members -
certainly, there is for them as well - but we should say that there are
implications in this problem here for parents. Parents must get personally
involved in their children's education and hold their children and teachers
accountable. Mathematics is something that cannot be crammed. It cannot be
crammed. That has been proven over and over again. Mathematics is a continuum of
learning. If your child fails a math test, parents should be asking: What
happened? Go and find out. Make sure that you inquire. Participate in your
children's education. There are implications for teaching in this problem.
Teachers face huge challenges. Teachers, I know, are very dedicated. They want
to do the best they can.
I congratulate the minister for providing the in-service. If it is not
enough, we should be asking why? If it is not enough, what changes are needed?
We should be saying: If we haven't done enough now, then what is wrong? What
is needed here? We should be consulting more adequately with the universities.
Now, I would admit that the universities have always complained about the
standard of math teaching at the high school level. However, we have to work
with them. The university is the place where our post-secondary students will be
going, and we have to work with them. We have to work with the teachers at the
university who teach the teachers of mathematics. We have to make sure that, not
only are we talking about the math departments and the stats departments, they
work with the Faculties of Education to make sure that the teachers who are
teaching mathematics have the proper skills to be able to teach the course.
Teachers often face large numbers in class sizes. They have a wide range of
abilities in their classroom. Classes are often disrupted by behavioural
problems.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: Just a moment to finish up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: Classes are often disrupted by students with behavioural
problems, and some students face problems at home that dwarf their academic
concerns.
So, Mr. Speaker, teachers face huge challenges. They cannot do this alone.
They need the support of parents. They need the support of their school boards.
They need support of the Special Interest Council. They need support of the
university, not just the mathematics department, the stats department, but the
Faculty of Education. We also have to create the maintenance of a very positive
climate for teacher professional development. We have to make sure that, when we
do professional development, it is headed in the right direction. We also have
to produce textbooks that really address the curriculum needs of our students.
Finally, there is a message here today for students. We have to encourage
students, themselves, to assume more responsibility for their own education. We
have to encourage students, that they have to demand more of themselves; they
have to be involved in it. I know students want to learn. We just have to make
sure they have the best chances available.
Again, I say this is a friendly resolution. We want to bring to the attention
of the minister, and to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that there is a
concern and ask them, teachers, parents, students, school boards and the Faculty
of Education to participate in finding a solution.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am really pleased to join my colleagues this afternoon in speaking on the
resolution brought forward by the hon. member opposite, who I believe, after
just listening to the first couple of speakers from the opposite members, I
think there is some clear misinformation being put forward here with reference
to the consultation process with Memorial University and other stakeholders on
the curriculum change. I believe that in looking at - we have been very
concerned, both in the Department of Education and in Post-Secondary Education,
to make sure that we know what we are being told by educators in both systems in
our Province, whether it is in the high school system or at the university
level.
While the issue of textbook errors, I think, has been addressed by my
colleague, the Minister of Education, I have to say that there has been quite a
bit of study done on the errata document that was put forward by the three
professors; enough so that there has been much concern throughout Atlantic
Canada and here in our own Province about this document. I think this is a very
objective analysis that has been put forward here by Susanne Gaskin from New
Brunswick, who is a high school mathematics mentor for the New Brunswick school
district in the Moncton area. She had taught high school mathematics for
twenty-five years in New Brunswick, has a very long list of credentials that I
will not read out here today, but we have all of the background information,
enough to know and have done the checking on the opinions on all of these
reports. Her reaction to the text errors, as a long-time teacher, is that it is
highly offensive to high school teachers. She says the discussion of true errata
is so buried deeply beneath bitter angst that its helpfulness is lost, and she
will do everything to point out to her colleagues the absolute pettiness and
silliness of most of the document. Now, I am not going to this stage that she is
going to say that there is not useful information in it, but I think we have to
agree that there is a lot of difference of opinion, and that whenever there is
change we often have difference of opinion amongst professionals.
Mr. Speaker, Rita Janes, a highly respected educator in mathematics
consultant with reputation that is unparalleled in this Province, described the
old curriculum as mile wide and inch deep. She believes the new math program is
providing enriched and higher standards than we have had in our schools
previously. She says that students will learn a richer, more demanding, basic
mathematics curriculum that is needed for the twentieth-first Century. So, I
think we have to be careful when we look at all the varying opinions and to
realize that we are doing a lot of work to improve mathematics in this Province.
We know there has been problems but they are being addressed, and being
addressed correctly.
I think also, that we should speak somewhat about the resolution from the
perspective of Memorial University. We have been able to demonstrate many times
and time again that the faculty at Memorial have been called upon to give their
opinions on educational matters affecting the people of this Province, and it is
done routinely. It is something between the Department of Education and my
Department of Post-Secondary Education that we do on various matters, almost on
a daily basis but certainly on a weekly basis.
I would like to refer the hon. members of this House to the many curriculum
committees, evaluation committees and liaison groups on which Memorial has
membership and to which its faculty provides valuable guidance and advice to
this government and to all of our educational institutions in this Province. I
will not be able to discuss all of them here this afternoon, I only have twenty
minutes, but I would like to speak on several that I know of well. Of course,
one being the Council on Higher Education that is chaired by the deputy minister
from my Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.
Mr. Speaker, this is a long standing council that was established in 1992
with three members from Memorial University. The mandate of this council is to
provide advice on provincial policy and planning issues and to be a mechanism
for coordination across the sectors of the public education system. I think in
the future, after all of this discussion amongst professors, that they also need
to recognize that we do have expertise they can go to to express their concerns.
I hope that will be done better in the future.
Mr. Speaker, the council meets several times a year and it actually has a
separate subcommittee specifically on mathematics. The Department of Education
and Memorial have a mathematics liaison committee. This committee consists of
the Vice-President Academic, the Dean of Science and the Department Head of
Mathematics and Statistics Department, along with senior department officials.
Of course, then there is the Mathematics Advisory Committee which is chaired by
one of our school board directors, Mr. Randell Mercer, actually from my own
district in Gander. The Dean of the Faculty of Education is also a member on
this committee. I know there has been a lot of discussion on mathematics in our
Province in the last couple of years, and as many of the hon. members would know
in this House, we have put in place a Youth Advisory Committee in this Province.
The Youth Advisory Committee has been concerned enough also that they have
come forward and met with these various committees. They, themselves, are
putting forward advice to committees from a student's perspective. As many of
you would know, on our Youth Advisory Committee we have students who are both in
the high school system at present and in the post-secondary system. They have
made sure that the student's perspective is heard and their voice has been
heard very loudly by both Memorial and the committees that I have described.
Mr. Speaker, the department regularly consults with the Department of
Mathematics and Statistics and with other faculties and departments at Memorial.
Some of the education departments own seconded staff have, in fact, taught
mathematics education and other courses at Memorial. So, not only are we in
direct consultation with them, we share staff so we can learn from each others
experiences.
As recently as this past spring, the Department of Education called in two
faculty members from Memorial's Department of Mathematics to form part of an
expert panel that was put together on mathematics. For two full days these
faculty members met with department officials and provided advice which was
acted upon, and which will be, and has been, described by the hon. colleagues
here this afternoon who will speak from this side of the House on this motion.
Also, this past spring, the Director of Program Development was guest speaker
at the Mathematical Society's annual meeting, and a number of department
staff, in fact, attended the annual meeting just to learn more where they
thought the difficulties were. I, in fact, have been at several of the
Mathematical Society's functions and have heard various points of view, some
of them differing, which, I think, is a part of the problem here. When you are
getting different opinions on a new course, you have to decide which ones make
sense, which ones can be acted upon and how do we go about doing that, like you
would do with any new program.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on but I have clearly made the case, that the member
opposite is in the dark when he suggests that Memorial is somehow in the dark
about curriculum changes. If you look at just your motion, if you look at the
wording of your motion - I couldn't believe it - it actually makes that
statement about Memorial University. I think that you ought to, as a member
opposite, especially with your background in education, have a better
understanding of all the committees, the excellence of the faculty, not just in
this Province but also all through Atlantic Canada.
I want, next, to talk to this hon. House about some of our achievements in
education.
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
[A portion of the transcript was unrecorded due to technical difficulties]
(Inaudible) in the classroom, a principal of a school in Newfoundland and
Labrador knows exactly what she is talking about and is making some excellent
points. Maybe the minister, if she could, when she is finished, table the
document she is reading from and we will see who wrote her speech and what
exactly she is trying to communicate here this afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
MS KELLY: Of course, there is no point of order.
What I am speaking from, actually, is the motion, "WHEREAS faculty
members of Memorial University of Newfoundland's Department of Mathematics and
Statistics have expressed concern that they have been kept in the dark about
recent changes to the Province's high school mathematics curriculum and that
they had discovered major errors in the course program." That is exactly
what we are discussing here this afternoon, and I think we are having some very
good debate.
What I am saying is, while we may have some faculty members saying that, I am
saying and demonstrating to you, with all of these various committees that we
have put in place, the research that has been done, the documents that have been
presented on the errors that it is felt are in the curriculum, and the response
by other experts on these errors, I think we are having a very good debate that
is showing that these errors are being addressed, that in this Province we have
the achievement being shown by our students over the last few years, to show
that as we improve the curricula we will see what the hon. member opposite is
talking about, as we see the achievement records of our students will show
improvement.
I am agreeing with most of what the member opposite is saying. What I am
saying is, we have a lot of differing opinions from the experts, both in our
Province and in Atlantic Canada. All of these expert opinions, whether they are
for or against, are being listened to, they are being addressed. They are being
addressed by the Department of Education, by Memorial University and by our
school districts.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) prepared to do even foundation math at
university.
AN HON. MEMBER: Don't even listen, Sandra.
MS KELLY: Oh, no. No, no.
Mr. Speaker, in looking at national testing, for instance, we have to know
that a lot of what is being done in our Province is working. I have pages of
statistics here that I could read to you, that it is showing great improvement.
One of the examples that I will show you here on our own Criterion Reference
Test, Grade 6 students have shown improvement in mathematics since 1995, moving
from 67 per cent to 71 per cent, a gain of 6 per cent just in the last few
years. But on a national testing program, the School Achievement Indicators
Program, our students have also improved in mathematics. In problem solving, 58
per cent of our thirteen-year-olds met the national standard. This is up from 44
per cent in 1997. It is a gain of 32 per cent, but, Madam Speaker, we would like
to make sure that we have a much higher gain. That is why we are trying to
continuously improve our mathematics program. I know that the member opposite
feels the same. That is the whole reason for his resolution this afternoon. We
want to make sure that there are improvements.
Madam Speaker, I think we have to say we know how much success there is in
our system because of the fact that some 80 per cent of our students, within two
years of graduation from high school, are moving on to participate in university
and college education programs. We know improvements are needed in our school
system. That is why this government is working so hard to make sure our students
get all the help they need. Under our government, students have demonstrated
strong performance gains and we have created a vibrant culture of learning and
literacy in all of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I am very proud today to stand up to speak to this particular motion put
forward by my colleague from Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: We all should be proud that this motion was brought forward
today, Madam Speaker, and I would say to the Minister of Post-Secondary
Education in the Province, I would much rather listen to the advice of somebody
who was in the system for twenty-two years as a teacher, five years as a
principal. I do not think we can say that he is in the dark when it comes to
this motion. The fact is, the concerns raised in this motion have been concerns
expressed throughout the Province for a number of years.
I want to start with the first part of the motion, Madam Speaker,
"WHEREAS faculty members of Memorial University of Newfoundland's
Department of Mathematics and Statistics have expressed concern...". Now we
will stop there because first when the minister got up to say that this was not
true, in fact, there were not concerns expressed, then, as the minister began to
speak further, and the minister prior to her, the Minister of Education, she
changed it to a difference of opinion. It wasn't that concerns were not
expressed anymore, it is a difference of opinion. Well, it was a difference of
opinion between the minister and a teacher who has been in the classroom for
twenty-two years. In fact, this has been a very constructive, forthright,
progressive, proactive motion put forward today so that we can raise these
concerns, Madam Speaker, on the floor of this Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: These concerns have been expressed by parents, students and
teachers, especially, all front line. Yes, I agree with the minister when she
talks about professional development and consultation process and committees. I
know all about it. I haven't taught for a long time but I was in the teaching
profession for a short time, I say to the minister, and I agree. Lots of
committees, lots of advice going on, consultation going on. At the same time,
the definition of consultation, yes, is to listen, but it is to act upon what
you heard, what you are hearing from the front lines. That is how you improve
the education system. So, the entire process needs to be looked at as
consultation, and then taking that consultation and implementing the
consultation.
Madam Speaker, I just want to follow on with the motion first and then make a
few comments on the implementation of the curriculum. To take about the second
whereas, "WHEREAS teachers in the Province have expressed concern that the
curriculum changes were introduced without..." - and this is key -
"...adequate teacher inservicing thereby creating a situation in which
teachers were not adequately prepared to instruct their students in the new
methodologies."
Madam Speaker, for people who have been in an in-service - and I have been,
and I have seen them prepared - the fact is, the timing of the in-service is
what is critical. As technologies change, whether it is in computers, in
mathematics, if the teachers are not in-serviced at the proper time then it is
lost on them, it is too late. They are already into the course, you are sitting
in a classroom. This is where it all comes down to, Madam Speaker. We are
talking about a teacher in front of thirty students, 9 o'clock on a Monday
morning, trying to implement a new program. That is where we are all heading.
We are not saying that the curriculum is perfect - nobody says that - but the
curriculum is not too bad. The biggest problem we are talking about is the
adequate in-service so that we can implement those programs so that at the end
of the day the students are the ones who benefit; so that we do not hear on a
regular basis, as the Member for Waterford Valley talked about, when students
are calling - actually, it was even on the Open Line shows where parents had
called expressing concern about their children who have gone through high school
- and we have heard it all here before and seen experiences - gone through high
school with an eighty-five average, a ninety average, and they end up in
university and find out they are doing foundation math or having problems with
the math or science course. We are trying to find out where the problems are
here, where the problems are.
Madam Speaker, THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Department of Education
consult with elementary, secondary and post-secondary educators to determine the
need for changes to the curriculum and to review curriculum changes before they
are implemented." Again, it is saying the same thing. The whole issue here
today is to bring to the forefront the concerns that are expressed, whether the
minister likes it or not, whether it is with the people in the department at
Memorial University, which the member when he stands will talk about that a bit
further, and some reports that he has, but also the concerns that were expressed
by people within the system, from Memorial University to the teaching profession
to the parents, right on down to the students who have expressed concerns about
this.
The whole thing here, Madam Speaker, today, in bringing forward this motion,
is taking the time in this Legislature to talk about that. We were glad when
this debate started off. The Minister of Education was up to speak on it, made
some points. I think she was in the dark about a few things also, but the member
who brought it forward, twenty-two years of teaching experience, knows it on the
front lines. Then, for the Minister of Post-Secondary Education to get up and to
almost take it off the rails as far as it being a constructive proactive debate.
The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, that the timing is important.
Some side issues, Madam Speaker, some realities out there when you are in the
profession dealing with it on a daily basis. I met last year, Madam Speaker, as
a matter of fact, with - the Premier's assistant was there at the meeting. It
was a regular meeting we had with School District 5 in my district.
AN HON. MEMBER: Another one coming up in June.
MR. SHELLEY: There is another coming up again in June and I will
certainly be there again. I am looking forward to that one, Madam Speaker, to
get an update from last year.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs was there at that same meeting, so it was a
combination of all of us there with school board members discussing concerns.
Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, there were many concerns expressed by School
District 5 in my area, and they are similar to the concerns raised by the boards
right across this Province. I can tell you, at that particular meeting there
were concerns raised of the fact - as a matter of fact, they used the word
moratorium on new programs coming in - that the board is given new programs and
they are passed on over to the teachers, and it is a rush job to try to get it
implemented, to speed it up so that they can get it in front of the students,
which is the wrong way. That is the entire point behind this motion today, that
it is not good enough that we have to have a decent curriculum, certainly we can
always making improvements. As the minister said, a textbook is a textbook, it
can have flaws in it. There were concerns raised about the actual text and the
actual curriculum. There will always be improvements to the curriculum as it is.
What we are discussing mostly today is the implementation of the curriculum and,
most importantly - and we have to keep this in mind if the Minister gets a
chance to speak again today, or someone on that side - the timing of the
curriculum.
It is no good if a teacher gets an in-service for a new program and the time
is not there, adequate time before, as it says in this resolution, so that they
can learn it properly, because the learning cycle is full, Madam Speaker. The
learning cycle, from the students in the classroom until they enter the
profession of a four-year degree of teaching, until they come back to teach the
students again, it is a full cycle, and it is dynamic, it continues. That is
what education is all about. It never stops. If we stop, we are going to lose
out on it. The biggest and most important resource, as we all say in this
Legislature, is the education of our young people in this Province. Because if
we fall back on that, the Province falls back and we all lose. So that is what
we are talking about here today.
In fact, the full cycle, so that the teachers in this Province have the
resources - and I will speak to that for a second. We will have that for an
item, Madam Speaker. We will talk about the teachers having the resources, but
also doing it in a timely fashion so that, at the end of the day, the students
are the big winners. They are keeping up on the changes in the math courses.
They are the ones keeping up on the changes to computer technology and so on.
Any part of the curriculum, right from religion in schools to physical education
to whatever the curriculum is, it has to be updated and has to be ongoing and
continuous. That way, at the end of the day, we can say to our students, you
have the best possible education. When they graduate from high school and move
on into the university or post-secondary, wherever they are going, it is
continuum and it is consistent and it is solid, so they can go from one step to
the next.
The problem in this Province lately, more recently in the last couple of
years - and it is going to continue unless we really address the problem - is
that there are gaps. One of the reasons for these gaps in learning is that
proper implementation of the curriculum, because of inadequate in-servicing - I
say to the minister, she did talk about $4.5 million spent on professional
development. That is true. Now, I do not know how relative that is to what we
need, that amount of money. I really do not know what it is. The minister can
tell us maybe. Is that a lot? I do not know. Is $6 million a lot? Is $10 million
a lot? But the fact is, if that in-service and education moves on, and math
courses change and science changes, the teachers have to change with it, because
if they do not change we all lose out.
Just a little aside to that, Madam Speaker, just on the front line again: I
have heard of situations, and I know many members in this Chamber have heard of
situations, of teachers who wanted to go to in-service. There was a new program
coming for whatever course, and at the end of the day, because of a shortage of
teachers, especially - and I raise this question every time I have spoken about
the teaching profession in this Province, because it is soon going to hit us
harder than ever, that there is a teacher shortage and there is going to be a
problem in the not-too-distant future. I do not mean ten-years from now. I mean
in three and four and five years from now. From the statistics that I have seen,
over the next short number of years, anywhere from two to five years, we will
see a teacher shortage in this Province.
Getting back to the in-service, to connect that, Madam Speaker, there have
been situations in rural parts of Newfoundland especially, when teachers have
signed up to go to in-service on a particular course and could not go because
substitutes were not available, or a teacher could not take over because she
already had a class of thirty and you cannot put two classes of thirty together.
Sometimes, it just does not work. That is just logistics. That is just not
happening, Madam Speaker. That is a side issue, but all at the same time still
connected to the fact of resources.
If the school board and the Department of Education can pass over and say, we
have an in-service for you because there is a great course coming up and we want
to make sure the students have it, that is all fair and well, but, Madam
Speaker, to be able to execute that so that the teacher can get up-to-date, get
to that in-service in a timely fashion, so that they can get back to the
classroom, stand up in their classroom and teach the course properly, that is
what it has all come down to and that is what is important. That is why to take
the time, on a Private Member's Motion here today, before this House adjourns
for Christmas, to raise the concerns, that is what this was all about. That is
why the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, who has twenty-two years in the
profession, knows it very well, knows teachers on the front line, has heard the
concerns that I have heard at school board meetings with teachers, with parents
especially, who have been irate when they find out that their child has gone
through a course and not really grasped it all and when he goes to move onto the
next step he finds that he is lost - that is where the concerns are coming from.
For the minister to stand and say, there were no concerns or we are in the
dark - then, she changed her tune to say after, that it was a difference of
opinion. Madam Speaker, there should be no difference of opinion on this
particular issue.
The fact of the matter is, that students in this Province, if they are going
to keep up with the ever ongoing changes in the courses in our high school
curriculum, so that they can move on to the next step, whatever it may be in
post-secondary, then they cannot miss out because there will be a gap and the
learning stops. If they miss a part of it, it is almost like a full chain-link,
if there is a weak link there and they miss part of that, when they move on they
lose out because they cannot continue on. Many teachers in this Province, and
parents, have expressed that. Recently, it is math 3205 and math 3204 and some
articles that were in The Telegram not so long ago about the concerns
with the math program.
This particular resolution, Madam Speaker, does not just deal with the
mathematics, but it deals with any course in Newfoundland and Labrador high
schools and elementary. It is a continuation so that we can keep up the changing
paces of curriculum in our schools.
Madam Speaker, yes, the curriculum is important. Absolutely! That is the
foundation, but there can be improvements to the curriculum. There is no doubt
about that. The minister has said a textbook is a textbook. That is right. There
will always be flaws in the textbook and the actual curriculum. We will always
make improvements to that. That again - using a teaching term - is the learning
process. It is continual. It is dynamic. It moves on and if we do not move on
with it we lose out. Then, at the end of the day the best resource in this
Province - as we keep repeating in this House - is the young people and
education.
If this Province is ever going to really rebound, Madam Speaker, as we have
seen in Ireland and other parts of Europe, the focus is on education. When the
minister spoke and said it was $4.5 million last year - I think that is correct,
minister - and I agreed with her, money well spent. There is no doubt about it
because it is not a cost. When you are talking about education and $4.5 million
for professional development we do not look at it as a cost. It is an
investment. It is an investment to education which carries us over into
rebounding this economy, because, if the young people in this Province do not
have that continuance in their education, do not keep up with the changes in
technologies, sciences, maths and all the other courses, then we are going to
lose out at the end of the day and we will not prosper as a Province unless the
education continues.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important resolution. It is something to take
seriously. It is certainly not something we brought here today to make political
cracks about. I am certainly not going to do it. The member didn't when he
stood. I must say the Minister of Education made some good points, but the
Minister for Post-Secondary Education today had to use, in the dark. Well, maybe
we are all in the dark and we should all look up a little bit and see the real
story here, that we are all for the same purpose, which is, when the students in
this Province leave high school and move into post-secondary education that
there is a strong continuance and a strong basis so that they can graduate in
this Province, not move to Alberta and Ontario, that they can stay in
Newfoundland and Labrador to make a living here. I honestly believe that is the
key to rebounding the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, when Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians, our young people, can have a good education and keep that
education in the Province so that the cycle will continue.
Madam Speaker, this motion - I commend my colleague from Harbour
Main-Whitbourne for bringing this forward. He knows it well. His experience -
and I think we have to respect that. Anybody who has been in any profession for
twenty-two years knows it well. We are not in this profession that long, and we
think we know it well, but teachers who are on the front line know it better
than anybody.
I will conclude with this, and say to the minister, that besides the
students, which is the most important, the teachers on the front line and the
parents, who are very involved in education today. I do not know if it is more
so or not, but I find it. The parents are very involved with the teacher. They
work hand in hand, and it is the best way for it to work. They know what is
going on in the schools. They are there to help. When they raise these concerns,
they are not just differences of opinions, they are concerns for their children.
We are all most concerned about our children, and rightly so. Consultation is
great, I say to the minister, but consultation does not mean just listening, it
means acting on what you hear from people on the front lines like the teachers
and like the parents in this Province.
So with that said, I support this motion. Yes, it is work that is already
ongoing. We are just saying, Minister, improve upon it, increase it, so that at
the end of the day we have a well-educated group of young people in this
Province.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I think I should probably begin by laying our my credentials that I did spend
twenty-seven years in a teaching profession. So, hopefully, while I may not be
an expert, it will allow me to have an opinion on this subject that we are
debating here today.
Indeed, it is an important resolution. I think it is something that all of
the hon. members of this House have an interest in, and certainly it is
something that everyone in this Province, not only has an interest in, but I am
sure has an opinion on. If you follow the reports in the media, and if you
follow what been happening in our Province in the last number of years there is
no question that next to politics, if you want an issue to really generate
public interest and get a debate going, it is surely education because people
are quite concerned. They do recognize that with regards to education they
understand and appreciate its importance. They understand that for all of us,
and as hon. members have referenced, in terms of the future of any people, there
is no question that education is key. I think it is kind of interesting, if you
look around this House of Assembly I suppose, that the teaching profession
probably represents the widest group in terms of professionals within this
House. So there are certainly a lot of people here who have spent a good part of
their lives in working directly in that profession.
One of the things I should reference, it seems that some of the hon. members
opposite got a bit upset. The hon. the Member for Baie Verte was talking about
the Minister for Post-Secondary Education talking about, in the dark. All she
was doing, quite frankly, was referencing the resolution. I certainly didn't
hear, in any way, that she was being disparaging towards the hon. member.
AN HON. MEMBER: She said he was in the dark.
MR. SMITH: No, no. She was referencing the resolution that is here and
quoting from the resolution. There is no doubt that, with regards to the
WHEREASES within the resolution, there are parts there that, as a government, we
have some difficulty with. Quite frankly, we have undertaken some progressive
measures in the last number of years to advance the cause of education in this
Province.
Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher and administrator, I understand a number of
things. I understand the importance of change, I understand the importance of
developing curriculum, and I understand, as well, the necessity to work with and
help people to deal with change. Among the challenges that we see in terms of
new curriculum that comes in, surrounds the idea of preparing people for change,
preparing parents, preparing students and preparing teachers. Because if you are
changing mindsets, then it is not always as easy as it might seem at first
blush.
In the final analysis, Madam Speaker, the one thing that I am absolutely
convinced of, and anybody who has worked within the profession or even parents
who have looked at it, is that the key to success in education, in the final
analysis, regardless of the curriculum, regardless of the resources that you
have available, is the teacher who delivers the program in the classroom. I have
worked with these people over the years, and I have worked with some tremendous
teachers, people who were a joy to work with, gifted people who brought their
gifts and talents and shared them with their students every day of the week.
That is where it exists, Madam Speaker, that a good teacher with nothing other
than what he or she has within their head and what they are able to pickup
around the classroom, can teach and can share many, many important learnings. No
doubt, their job is made a lot easier if we can provide them with the tools that
enable them to expose their students to new experiences, help them to broaden
their horizons and give them the opportunity to have access to a comprehensive
first-class education.
Madam Speaker, the reality is that within this Province, in recent years -
and certainly I have seen it during the course of my lifetime and certainly
during my working lifetime as an educator, to have seen the tremendous gains
which our students have made. I worked, primarily, for most of my teaching
career, in the primary-elementary level and spent a good deal of time in
developing early childhood programs, approaching it from the perspective of the
importance of that early intervention. I have seen curricula come and go and I
have seen new programs come and go. All of them, when they come forward, when
they are introduced, come in, they have some merits, they have some strengths,
and all of them, Madam Speaker, have some weaknesses. I have never seen a
program anywhere that has been developed and adopted that hasn't brought with
it some weaknesses. It is really in the hands of capable, competent
professionals that these programs come to life, that the learnings that are
contained within are transmitted to the students for whom they are intended.
Madam Speaker, the thing that this government and this minister and her
department have endeavoured to do is in fact to first of all help develop tools
that are first rate, that are forward thinking, that are visionary, to make
these available to the teachers in the classroom, but, beyond that, to also
provide, despite what the resolution suggests, to in fact make the necessary
time available so that these teachers can be in-serviced in the programs, the
principles of the program, the objectives and goals, so that they can understand
the intent, what the program intends to do, and they are then able to
incorporate that into their teaching. Quite the contrary to what the resolution
suggests, in fact, a great deal of time has been made available.
The report references the fact, The Royal Commission Report of 1992, and
suggests that maybe we have not followed up very closely on that report. Again,
Madam Speaker, I think it is quite the contrary. In fact, this government has
followed quite closely, and the Department of Education, the decisions it has
made in the intervening years since 1992 reflect quite clearly the primary
recommendations that were contained within that report.
The real measure, Madam Speaker, of any report, the real measure of any
curriculum, the real measure of any undertaking, is in the end result. I think
that is where we need to look. If you are going to measure the success of any
particular program, you have to look at the net output, you have to look at the
results. Quite frankly, I, as a person living in this Province, have had reason
to be encouraged in recent years when I see how well our students are doing on
the national standards of measurement.
I worked in the system when we first brought in the CTBS, and the people who
worked in the system - they are the Canadian Tests of Basic Skills, for those
who are not educators. It was intended at the time, by the government of the day
that brought it in, to try to fi