October

26, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 43

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, with the leave of

all members, may I ask permission to proceed on an unusual but I would hope,

evidently acceptable course of action that I believe has the support of the

members who sit with the Progressive Conservatives and the member who represents

the New Democratic Party in this House and that is to ask leave to introduce a

resolution which will then be put without debate and if accepted will be passed,

that we believe and hope it will be. May I proceed, sir?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the resolution I think will

speak for itself and may I add it will be avail in French very shortly. I will

not attempt to read it in French.

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are proud Canadians

who have a special relationship with our Quebec neighbours and share their wish

to change Canada in ways necessary to make the country better serve our

respective provinces;

AND

WHEREAS Quebec and its people have been major

contributors to building the greatness of Canada;

AND

WHEREAS Quebec is acknowledged to be a distinct society

by reason of its culture, language and legal system and the Constitution should

be amended to accommodate that distinctness;

AND

WHEREAS a united Canada is essential to future prosperity

for all of the provinces, including Quebec, and the territories of Canada;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Newfoundland

and Labrador, on behalf of the citizens of our Province, appeals to the people

of Quebec to vote NO in their upcoming referendum and join with other Canadian

in renewing our commitment to working together and taking prompt action to find

new ways, including constitutional change, of accommodating the legitimate

concerns of Quebec and modernizing our federation to ensure that it provides the

most promising and democratic opportunities for promoting the security,

prosperity and cultural integrity of all Canadians.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution,

'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

I declare the resolution unanimously carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving to Statements by Ministers I

would like to welcome to the House of Assembly three Boy Scouts from the First

St. Mary's Boy Scout Troop along with their leader, Mr. Todd Noseworthy. The Boy

Scouts are doing their citizenship badge and are visiting the House of Assembly

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to inform members that the government has

appointed Dr. Linda Inkpen, to conduct a review of the overall custody

functioning of the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre and the Pleasantville

Youth Centre.

Secure Custody services provide for the secure containment of

young offenders who have received dispositions of secure custody under the Young

Offenders Act.

Although the primary function of secure custody is to provide

protection for society from further criminal behaviour by secure containment, my

officials must also address the needs of young persons serving a secure custody

disposition. Accordingly, every young person in secure custody or remand

placement is provided with an individual plan of care designed to respond to his

or her behaviour, strengths and needs. Remand services provide for the temporary

holding of young persons by court order while they are awaiting trial,

disposition, or psychiatric assessment for trial purposes.

Two facilities exist in the Province, either of which may

retain youths sentenced to secure custody or being held on remand status. The

Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre at Whitbourne is an eighty-bed facility

which includes sixty regular beds and a twenty-bed overflow capacity. The

Pleasantville Youth Centre at St. John's is a ten-bed facility.

Dr. Inkpen will be placing particular emphasis on several

areas in her review. They include: the appropriateness of the staffing model and

its functional effectiveness in providing a safe and secure environment for

residents and staff; the management-union interface and the degree to which this

results in an effective partnership; the examination of the relationship between

the custody requirements and the professional, educational rehabilitative and

recreational programs; the appropriateness, application and adherence to

policies and procedures within both facilities, particularly those pertaining to

custody and confinement; the review of general suitability of staff training and

qualifications.

Dr. Inkpen is very well respected in the community and I'm

very pleased that we could retain the services of somebody with her ability. In

the past Dr. Inkpen has been a private medical practitioner in St. John's and

has been a staff physician at hospitals in Newfoundland and Ontario. She was a

member of the provincial royal commission on employment and unemployment. She is

a former president of Cabot College of Applied Arts, Technology and Continuing

Education, and was chairperson of the health industry sector strategy for the

Economic Recovery Commission. In addition, Dr. Inkpen has received numerous

academic awards and has served on many provincial and national boards and

committees, including the Atlantic Province's economic council and the

It is expected that the review will be completed on or about

the end of April 1996. I eagerly await her findings and will report the same to

members of this House when Dr. Inkpen's review is completed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the absence of my colleague from St. Mary's - The

Capes. We, on this side of the House certainly welcome the minister's Statement

here today and the appointment of Dr. Inkpen, a very capable and respected lady

whom I think will lend a spirit of independence to this review.

Mr. Speaker, the shame of it is, that it has taken eighteen

months to two years to bring about this call for an independent enquiry, that is

the shame of it, and the shame lies with the minister for procrastinating and

not bringing this review about earlier, causing hardship to many of the parents

and many of the residents at the Whitbourne Youth Centre, and at the remand

centre here in St. John's.

I might also add that she lists five areas of emphasis which

she puts forward in her Statement, and I would like to add one more, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to ask the minister, if she would ask Dr. Inkpen to

examine the possibility of having this facility come under the control of the

Department of Justice rather than the Department of Social Services.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you.

I am pleased to inform the House today that the White Paper

on Proposed Reforms to the Environmental Assessment Process, including a Draft

Bill is now ready for public review.

The environmental assessment process is the instrument

through which government measures the environmental impacts of development in

this Province. Through this instrument, Mr. Speaker, my department upholds and

promotes the principles of sustainable development. The environmental assessment

process also has a significant impact on the economic development of the

Province.

My department has undertaken to review the environmental

assessment process as a result of a commitment made by government in the

Province's Strategic Economic Plan. Our intention is to streamline the process

and make it more efficient, while promoting and protecting the principles of

sustainable development.

I am pleased to inform the House today that a review has now

been conducted among key stakeholders. The proposed reforms to the existing

legislation are contained in this White Paper. These stakeholders, Mr. Speaker,

include individuals and groups who have experience with the environment

assessment process, including industry, environmental groups and organizations,

and other government departments.

I am also pleased to inform the House today of some of the

findings of this review. First, that the protection of the environment is

essential and secondly, Mr. Speaker, that the environmental legislation that was

enacted in 1980 is fundamentally sound. There are in some cases, however,

unnecessary impediments to development and so we need to streamline but not

weaken the environmental process.

The new mission statements for the proposed environmental

assessment process sums up for us the purpose and philosophy of the

Environmental Assessment Act: "To ensure that when development proceeds, it does

so in an environmentally acceptable manner.

My department is committed to the involvement of the public

in the environmental assessment process. Since we are genuinely interested in

the public's comments with regard to this process, we are making it as

convenient as possible for the public to review this document. Not only are we

using all the usual methods to make the White Paper available through the

department, we are also taking advantage of new technologies to reach even the

broader range of the public. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House that

the White Paper on Proposed Reforms to the Environmental Process can now be

accessed and retrieved on the INTERNET.

I am also pleased to say, and thank the officials, some of

them who are here today from our Environmental Assessment Division, who have

done a great deal of work on this process, and we look forward to a public

review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to thank the hon. minister for providing me with a

copy of the White Paper on proposed reforms to the environmental assessment

process. I did not have a great deal of time to examine it but I do have a few

comments. When the minister says that his department upholds and promotes the

principles of sustainable development we should not become so consumed or

overwhelmed with development that we forget the impact that it could have on the

environment.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that industry is interested in

development and I am not opposed to development or industry making a profit. In

this Province I realize we need that, however, the Department of the Environment

has to be a watchdog so as developers and industry do all in their power to

protect the environment. I am encouraged by the minister's statement that

protection of the environment is essential; however, I would like to suggest to

the minister that he become more cautious when the industry says that we need to

streamline the environmental process.

Mr. Speaker, what is acceptable to industry may not always be

acceptable to the environment. I trust he and his department will stand by its

mission and its philosophy to ensure that when development proceeds it does so

in an environmentally acceptable manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of the Premier I will ask the Minister of

Natural Resources questions about Terra Nova, the next expected large offshore

oil development.

The government has been rather secretive and closed in its

approach to the Terra Nova development, and in the absence of meaningful public

consultation, rumours have abounded about what is going on. There has been much

recent public speculation that an announcement of Terra Nova development will

come soon. There has been speculation about the mode of development. There has

been speculation about the kinds and amounts of benefits Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians may receive. Would the minister update the House and the people of

the Province about the Terra Nova opportunity? Would the minister take a more

open approach to sharing information about opportunities? And will the minister

say whether an announcement will be coming soon about Terra Nova development?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have not been at all secretive of the fact that we are

negotiating for the next development. We have been having ongoing discussions

with the Terra Nova consortium for some time now, dating back many years. This

particular year we have been having more regular and continual discussions about

the Terra Nova project, and we are all hoping that in due course we will reach

agreement and we will be able to make it all public. But we can't lay out in

front of the public all of the detailed negotiations - that is not a very good

negotiating strategy - but we have made it quite clear to the people of the

Province and to the industries that have an interest in this, what we are doing.

Not only that, but regularly we meet with representatives of

the industry. NOIA, the Newfoundland Offshore Industry Association has met with

me fairly regularly and with my staff, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology and his staff, and others fairly regularly, and I expect we will be

having other meetings in the near future as a continuation of that process,

because we receive information from them as to how they feel about this, their

views on this, and we continue to carry on the discussions with the consortium.

We hope that it is soon. It may not be; I don't know.

If I make a correlation with the Hibernia time, we went on

for a considerable period when somebody in the media would speculate about a

particular date and that date would be missed, and then they would speculate

about another date and that date would be missed, and so on, so we do not

speculate about dates. We are negotiating, and we are making good progress, but

we are not there yet. When we get there we will be glad to let the people know,

and we will be glad to share the information, but we are trying to negotiate the

best deal possible for this Province.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources to tell the House of

Assembly and the people of the Province what principles are guiding the

government's talks with the Terra Nova consortium. What goals does the

government have for the Terra Nova development?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Our principle is quite clear, Mr. Speaker.

Our principle is, if this is to go forward as a development to get what is the

maximum possible for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a benefit from

its development. That is the guiding principle for us here. We aren't lying down

and saying: Develop at all costs. Not at all. But am I going to stand up today

and say: Here is the list of everything that we are discussing. No, I'm not

going to do that. We are negotiating and we are trying to get the best deal

possible, and we are going to get the best deal possible.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementaries for the

Minister of Natural Resources.

People know that if the government focuses in the Terra Nova

deal on gaining royalties instead of jobs and technology transfer, most of the

benefits could be subtracted from our equalization transfers from the Federal

Government, and where would that leave us. I ask the minister, what benefits

does Newfoundland and Labrador have the opportunity of accruing from Terra Nova

development, and which benefits does the government consider to be the priority?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing benefits, we

are discussing royalties, we are discussing regulatory matters, we are

discussing all matters relative to Terra Nova, and when the deal is done we will

tell the people how good a deal we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

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

for the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister assure us that the

government is doing nothing to unreasonably delay the start of Terra Nova

development? Does the minister understand that there is a momentum associated

with Hibernia that is in danger of being lost if there is a significant delay

between the Hibernia and Terra Nova developments? Does the minister understand

that many local businesses, for financial reasons, will be unable to weather an

extended gap between developments, and with their demise would go opportunities

for growth and employment that our Province can ill afford to lose?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot have it

both ways. She cannot have us lie down as a Province and say: Come at all costs

and do what you wish at any time, versus have the best deal possible for this

Province, and we are negotiating to get the best deal possible for this

Province. We understand the situation with the companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

A review of the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research

Foundation was completed back in 1992. This report has 101 recommendations to

address growing concerns within the operation of the foundation. I ask the

minister: Will he inform this House how many of those 101 recommendations now

have been implemented.

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

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

Yes, there was a review done in 1992 and a number of the

recommendations have been acted upon and implemented. Some are ongoing and in

the process of being implemented. If you want the exact number as of 2:22 today,

I can check on that with the Chairman of the Board and I would be happy to so

inform the House.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to

finding out how many are implemented, and I will appreciate the result tomorrow.

Now Mr. Wayne Thistle of Memorial University submitted a

report to the minister in August regarding a dispute between Dr. Ganguly and the

Cancer Foundation. Now will the minister confirm that Mr. Thistle recommended

that the Cancer Clinic come under the control of the Health Care Corporation of

St. John's?

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

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

The report to which the member refers was to review a

specific staff incident that occurred with administration on May 24 at the

Cancer Clinic. The report, or the work done by Mr. Thistle at my request, was

not to deal with anything beyond that. As a result of his work there were a

number of recommendations, or options more correctly stated, put forward as to a

possible resolution to the incident that he reviewed, and I am happy to inform

the member and the House that as a result of that work substantially we were

able to achieve the resolution to the staff matter such that Dr. Ganguly has

returned to work doing his clinical practice at the Cancer Clinic under the

auspices of the Health Care Corporation.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I inform the minister yes, it was one of the five options

that it come under the Health Care Corporation by Mr. Thistle, even though the

minister will not confirm it.

I will ask the minister: Will he do what I called for back in

July, and announce now that the Cancer Clinic will come under the Health Care

Corporation of St. John's?

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

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

No, I will not make that announcement at this point; nor will

I commit to making the announcement at any time in the future. What I will

commit to the hon. member is that if and when that becomes an appropriate course

of action to take, after having appropriate consultations with the board of the

Cancer Foundation - preliminary discussions I have already had on some aspects

of the work over there - if and when it becomes an appropriate recommendation

and a decision to put to government to move in that direction, I will be glad to

inform him thereafter, but I can assure the House and I can assure the hon.

member that no decision at the moment is being formulated or contemplated that

would give effect to that type of proposition.

It has been put to me long prior to the incident at the

Cancer Clinic that in view of the restructuring of the health care in St.

John's, back last fall when I went into health first, that the suggestion was

made to me by many that maybe it is an appropriate time to look at other

agencies in health care in the St. John's area that might more appropriately and

conveniently fit under the umbrella of the Health Care Corporation. Well, we

will do that if it is appropriate.

The Health Care Corporation is up-and-running. It has a large

mandate and a large operation to look after, and we will add to that mandate

only when it is appropriate in the best interest of providing better quality

health care for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our primary

objective, and that is the thing that we will always bear in mind first and

foremost, what is best for health care, what is best for cancer treatment care,

what is best for the people of this Province in that regard, and other matters

that might be of an administrative nature or second (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board some questions dealing with the

proposed sale of Holiday Inns.

Members will know that the buildings known as Holiday Inn are

owned by Hotel Holdings Limited, which is a wholly owned Crown corporation put

in place for the purpose of building and owning and leasing to Atlific Holiday

Inns. Would the minister tell us, what debt is outstanding now from Hotel

Holdings to government, in principle and interest? There was a debenture in

place. Has the debenture been paid up as it was supposed to have been paid I

think in 1993? What debt is outstanding is owed on those buildings, at this

point in time?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would take the question

under advisement and give a detailed accounting. The reason for it is several. I

have seen a figure recently that there is a receivable on our books of

approximately $29 million, which may be the figure that the hon. member is

referring to. But as he knows, it was a matter of some dispute between the

government and Atlific Inns as to what if any amount might be owing under some

documents back in the 1960s that were signed when the hotels were originally

built. So probably not to confuse the issue, he is probably familiar with it, I

will get a detailed breakdown of what amounts are currently owing and to what

they are attributable.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate

the minister getting the information. I'm surprised he doesn't have it at hand.

Perhaps not with him, but I'm sure we are in this stage of the divesture that he

must know that.

Could he also tell us, has a recent market appraisal been

done? The minister has quoted an approximate figure which is probably reasonably

accurate of what the debt is. Do we have a market appraisal done on those

buildings so we know what the actual market value is, as compared to the debt at

this point in time? Has that been done recently? Would he tell us what if - he

probably doesn't know -, but would he also tell us when he reports back what

profit has government been making on an annual basis in recent years? Because

obviously Atlific is paying a fee for the rental of those buildings, the lease

of those buildings, from Hotel Holdings. How much return has government been

getting on an annual basis in the last couple of years? Could he tell us that

information, Mr. Speaker?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will provide the hon.

member with the information. The hotels have not been that profitable in recent

years because the hotel industry, as the hon. member is aware, has not had high

occupancy rates for the most part, and the Holiday Inns are as much subject to

that as anyone else. I will provide that detailed information to the member.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us this

- surely he must know this. There are some bids that have been received. Would

he tell us how many bids have been received? I think they closed last Friday.

Would he tell us what bids have been received?

More importantly, will he tell us how government proposes to

assess those bids? Will the main criteria simply be the amount of money? Is

government simply trying to get as much money as possible? Or will he be

considering the firms that are local Newfoundland companies that wish to own and

operate these facilities? Is he proposing to take only a bid that bid on all

five of the facilities? I understand there may have been bids on one or more but

not all five. Are those acceptable? More importantly, will he be looking at what

the long-term proposal is for those facilities, which companies are proposing to

invest into expansion on the facilities, upgrading, expansion and actually

diversifying those facilities to make them more rounded tourist attractions?

Would he tell us what the criteria for selection is?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. The criteria includes

some of the matters that the hon. member mentioned. First of all, of course,

government is concerned about maximizing return to the taxpayers who've really

spent a lot of money over the years. Secondly, we are concerned about the

long-term viability of the Holiday Inns and we are looking at the total number

of bids that have been received.

In terms of assessment, we have approximately ten bids. One

was for all five hotels, one was for four hotels, several were for a combination

of hotels in St. John's and Clarenville, we had three for Port aux Basques. So

it has taken the departmental officials some time to do a departmental

assessment on it. We will then present it to Cabinet with concerns, some of

which the hon. member has expressed, and Cabinet will in turn give direction as

to which of any bids it should accept in what shares, and secondly whether or

not we need a second or an outside evaluation of that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I would like to give the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations an opportunity to break his astonishing

silence about a matter that has many Newfoundlanders nervous, and that is the

changes to the UI system that the federal minister has been discussing now for

months. Changes like decreased benefits, increasing the minimum qualifying

period, and the elimination of regional advantages. Can Newfoundlanders take the

silence of this minister as unspoken approval by this government of the actions

of the federal government?

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

Labour Relations.

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

Let me say to the hon. member, I think probably late last May

or early June officials of my department and myself started negotiations and/or

discussions with Minister Axworthy re UI and other social issues that certainly

are of extreme importance to all our people both in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we moved on other ministers who deal with social problems became involved. I

think we did an exceptional job and I think our staff did an exceptional job in

putting forward the position on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I would suggest also to the member that we have initially

dealt with the minister when we heard the phrase `two-tier' which on behalf of

the people of this Province was obviously something that was not very acceptable

because of the long term employment that is afforded some Newfoundlanders and of

course what is extremely important is the seasonal employment. We managed and I

think that other ministers and myself managed to take away, not only the phrase

`two-tier' but some of the components associated with it. I would suggest to the

member that Minister Axworthy is very, very much aware of the position of the

Province, where we are, the representation we've made on behalf of our people

and we continue to make. There was no secret agenda; I think we are just waiting

now for Mr. Axworthy to put in place his statement.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to doing nothing

the minister is a real go getter.

In 1992, approximately $1.1 billion came to the Province in

total from the UI system. This past year $645 million came, from $1.1 billion to

$645 million, at the same time the unemployment statistics in this Province have

grown. This all happened without one sound from the minister or any ministers

over there. How much more will be chopped from this $650 million if the latest

crusade by Axworthy and Ax Murphy is imposed upon us?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the

hon. member that there are an array of conditions that contribute to the numbers

that he has read out over there. Number one, it was only a week ago that the

Premier talked about the 4 per cent decrease in unemployment of the Province,

that has played a role. The number of people who would have seasonally been

involved in the ground fishery, those people are now in the TAGS program, some

30,000. So I think for the member to quote figures -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: So for the member to quote figures - look,

we've dealt with this as rationally and as positively as we can on behalf of the

people. We understand the season component associated with not only fishery but

our forest products and all our resource industries, the mining, the forest

products and even beyond that, I say to the member. We have talked to Mr.

Axworthy about the people who have indirectly been involved in the fishery for

years -the truck drivers and those who supply equipment - who are not in a

position to obtain TAGS funding, who worked for twenty-four, twenty-five or

twenty-seven weeks and were able to get their UI. It has had a dramatic impact

on the whole Province. So I say to the member we are dealing constantly and

continually - and just about every week I talk to Minister Axworthy as do

several other colleagues associated with other social programs. Believe me, the

federal government is very aware of the position that this Province is in right

now with regards to UI, to TAGS and all other social programs that we derive

money from the federal government. I say that sincerely to the member.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware of very

little, I say to him, including TAGS we are still in excess of $300 million less

than what we were in 1992 with a higher unemployment rate in this Province. Mr.

Speaker, let me ask the minister this to see if he can answer the questions.

Has the minister researched what it would mean for

Newfoundlanders to increase the UI entrance requirements to thirty-five hours a

week, and a minimum of twenty weeks of work, and what percentage of current

applications would fail to qualify? Now that he has everything researched so

well and he has all the answers, and you have told everything to Mr. Axworthy,

tell the people of Newfoundland how many of them would fail to qualify?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: I am sure the member doesn't expect me to

have those kinds of statistics at my fingertips right now. Let me say to the

member that I will have the figures for him this afternoon if I can get them

this afternoon if not, I will have them tomorrow morning; as soon as I can

obtain the figures, I will obtain the figures. I mean, I don't have a crystal

ball, I say to the member, I can't draw on all these figures constantly and

continually. You know, we are facing a very serious situation, I say to the

member, in trying to address the problems associated with UI. Now every time you

approach the feds, from officials and what have you, you hear the phrase: `a

dollar in, seven out' and those kinds of things so it isn't easy. It isn't easy,

I say to the member but the figures that he asks for I will have for him

tomorrow.

MR. TOBIN: Tomorrow?

MR. MURPHY: Well, if I can get them this afternoon, I

will get them this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

I would like to ask the minister if his department plans to

play an active role in providing financial help for the Cabot 500 national

celebrations in this Province?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question itself I don't understand the detail of it.

Maybe I should just sit down and wait for the supplementary because I know he is

really going to ask something in a minute. That wasn't really a question,

because the celebrations for the 500th Year have been well in hand for some time

and I believe everybody in the Province understands that the bulk of the money

that has been spent to date in terms of planning and organizing for a major

celebration in 1997, has been contributed from provincial government sources.

There have been some federal government contributions but

there are plans well in hand now for a significant celebration in 1997 that I am

sure the hon. member opposite and everybody in this Legislature and everybody in

the Province hopes is a tremendous success, and a stepping stone for us to a

higher level of tourism activity in the Province into the foreseeable future and

the bulk of what has been spent in terms of planning and organizing to date has

been from provincial government sources.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister's activity is

certainly not evident.

Would the minister inform the House if his department will be

taking

part in financing a legacy project? Now that the federal government has

stated that they will not be participating in such a venture, and if so, where

will the 500th anniversary legacy project take place?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question much more to the point

this time and a wonderful opportunity I think, to make sure that everybody

understands the distinction between the celebration of a 500th year anniversary

in 1997, which is planned to be a year-long series of events through all regions

of the Province, the Island and in Labrador versus - and that particular thing

right now being planned and co-ordinated by a separate corporation, a Crown

Corporation, the Cabot 500th Anniversary Corporation, so we are looking at a

series of events. The hon. member now, Mr. Speaker, asks about a legacy

structure. We had talked previously but this is a completely separate issue and

I appreciate the opportunity to spell out the distinction and the difference.

The planning of the events for a year of celebration is

completely separate and apart from any plans to try and leave a legacy structure

in the Province. Our initial efforts were to try to encourage other financial

participation with our own so that we could probably take care of a need in the

Province with respect to the archives, the museum and an art gallery. That,

unfortunately didn't materialize, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime, the hon. member opposite was leading a bit

of a charge at that time, suggesting that if we did succeed in such a structure

it should be built in Bonavista rather than in the capital city region of St.

John's. It seems that at this point in time it won't happen, we have in the

meantime stated on several public occasions, Mr. Speaker, that because of the

significance of the John Cabot landfall in Bonavista, and that is one of the

major events that is going to be celebrated in 1997, that if there is to be a

legacy structure it most appropriately should be build in Bonavista if we can

manage to build one at all.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I call on the minister, Mr. Speaker, to

end the procrastination. Volunteers have put forward countless hours of

dedication and deserve to be informed. Will the minister announce today that his

department will commit financial help and have an already identified legacy

project approved and have it constructed in the historic town of Bonavista, the

place where the event happened 500 years ago?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot accede to

the request of the hon. member to announce any such thing today. It is true,

though, and I am glad he did acknowledge the great amount of work that has gone

on by volunteers, many of them in the Bonavista area, and everybody involved

with the Discovery Trail, Tourism Association and so on. There have been several

representations made over the last number of months with respect to an

appropriate and significant legacy project for Bonavista.

We have had a series of meetings, dating now through some

several months, trying, mainly, to make sure that the people directly in the

Bonavista area come to some consensus themselves as to what it is they would

like for the provincial government to participate in, because over the period of

time there have been five, if not six, different groups each approaching the

government, each approaching myself as the minister responsible, suggesting that

their particular project should be the legacy project. We have done an analysis

and assessment of that. We have conducted an extensive number of meetings most

recently in the last couple of months and we are in a position now where our

department and myself as minister will be bringing the issue to Cabinet for full

consideration and discussion.

Once that particular discussion has been held, Mr. Speaker, I

will then be in a position to announce publicly whether the Province can get

involved with the town of Bonavista with a legacy project, and if we are going

to get involved, what that project will be.

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

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

I realize we are running out of time but I will try to

condense a series of questions into one for my good friend the Minister of

Education and Training. I want to ask the minister if he could tell the House,

in short measure, what is the policy pertaining to usage of regional college

vehicles for personal use? Is there a set of guidelines laid on? Is it the same

as government policy, number one? Could he tell the House that, personal use of

college vehicles I say to the Premier who looks across the House curiously? Is

there a policy set by each board or does it mirror the provincial policy for

personal usage? Has it been brought to the minister's attention, or the

Premier's attention, that two top ranking officials of the Central Newfoundland

Regional College - it is alleged that two top officials personally used college

vehicles to transport two of their children to universities on the Mainland in

the month of September.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the same policy applies to

colleges as applies to government owned vehicles. These vehicles are not meant

to be used for the private use of any employee. The incident that the hon.

member is talking about - we did receive an unsigned letter from Central

Newfoundland alleging that two people had done that and we are in the process of

carrying out an investigation to see if there is any basis for it. To date we

are not able to say. Normally, we would ignore an unsigned letter but the

accusations that were made in the letter were of such a nature that we thought

we should investigate them and it is being looked at. The hon. member can well

imagine that we would be just as outraged as he if this letter is indeed true. I

wish people would sign their letters because it would make it a lot easier for

us to carry out an investigation.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give a report from the Government Services Committee. The

committee has reviewed and approved for passage without amendment through the

remaining stages of the House of Assembly, Bill 25, "An Act To Amend The Public

Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991", and

Bill 29, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The

Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teacher's Pension Act, The Uniformed

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

Chapter 18 Of

The Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1993 And The Pensions Contributions Reduction

Act", and have reviewed and approved Bill 26, "An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic Act" with the recommendation that subclause 1.(2) be amended by the

substitution of the word `designated' for the word `design'.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In order to ensure that we have ample time to deal with the

Term 17 amendment at whatever length the House should deem necessary today, may

I first of all move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., Sir.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker I remind members that, of

course, today being Thursday we will have the Late Show, where I assume there

will be some questions. There is some badinage going on here with my friend from

Burin - Placentia West and my friend from Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough, please, to call the

motion with respect to the amendment of Term 17; it is Motion 4. My recollection

is no member adjourned the debate. I am subject to correction by the Chair

should I be incorrect. That being so, I assume some member will seek to catch

Your Honour's eye.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, the hon. the Minister of Education

and Training.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take

part in

this debate and offer my support, and to ensure all people in the Province that

I will be supporting this resolution.

The earliest schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, as we all

know, were founded by clergymen and church societies. The Royal Commission gives

a few examples. The first recorded example of a school in Newfoundland and

Labrador was an arrangement between the French at Placentia and the French at

St. Pierre in the summer of 1686. Inhabitants agreed to support a Roman Catholic

priest whose duties included teaching children for four months of that year,

1686. In the 1720s the Church of England clergyman, Rev. Henry Jones,

established a school in the mid-1720s in Bonavista with a school mistress from

England. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel first opened a school in

the year 1744 in St. John's, under the direction of Reverend William Peasley.

This society soon established schools in all the major Newfoundland communities.

The Methodist church began a school in Harbour Grace in the 1760s under the

direction of Reverend Lawrence Coughlan. The Methodists also opened a school in

Old Perlican in 1774. So the very first schools to be operated in this Province

were indeed denominational schools; however, the first government supported

system - government supported - came in place with the Schools Act of 1836, and

the Schools Act of 1836 was explicitly non-denominational.

MR. ROBERTS: My first term in the House.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the 1836

Schools Act. There are some interesting sums of money there. Honourable members

will recall that this year in education we are spending about $800 million to

deliver education to our people. In the year 1836 the sum of 2,100 was set

aside for education in the Province, and that was guaranteed to be provided for

five years. The next five years there were to be that amount, and it is laid out

in the act who should receive that money. The Newfoundland School Society was to

get 300. The Orphan Asylum was to get 100. The Presentation Convent was to get

100. St. Patrick's Free School was to get 100. I've looked through the act and

I don't see the non-discriminatory funding. The Sisters of Mercy would get so

much, but there was no non-discriminatory rule in there.

The act also clearly states that it would be the government

of the day which would appoint the membership to the school boards. However,

when these school boards were appointed the act also stated that the lead

clergyman in each area that the board represented would be guaranteed to be

appointed to the boards.

That was the first schools act when we were a self-governing

colony in 1836. I believe it is 1832 we became a self-governing colony.

PREMIER WELLS: No, we got representative government.

MR. DECKER: Representative government.

PREMIER WELLS: Responsible was 1855.

MR. DECKER: Yes, responsible, but representative

government was 1832. I believe with representative government we had a premier,

if I'm not mistaken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: The Minister of Justice tells me we did have

a premier, but the prime minister came with responsible government, that is

correct, yes.

Now, when this education act of 1836 was introduced it was

clearly not a denominational system. However, you can be assured that not

everybody in the colony was satisfied that there would be a non-denominational

system. Some church leaders were dissatisfied, and the debate went on, Mr.

Speaker, for forty years. For forty years there were political battles over

whether or not the education system should be a denominational one or a public

one.

The framework of our present denominational system took shape

under the education act of 1874 and 1876. These laws in 1874 and 1876 allocated

all public funds for schools to Catholic, Anglican and Methodist boards and

replaced the government inspectors with denominational superintendents of

education, and they were moved into the Department of Education. That is the

system that was in place for over seventy years. This system was challenged from

time to time, but nevertheless it became well entrenched into subsequent

education laws and policies for the country of Newfoundland.

In 1949 when Newfoundland became a part of Canada Mr.

Smallwood and others who were negotiating the Terms of Union, in consultation

with the church leaders in this Province, proposed that the existing legal

rights and privileges of the denominations would be protected against

legislative change. This was written in the Terms of Union. Now this was not

unique. As hon. members know,

section 93 of the British North America Act made

the same provision for Ontario, for some of the other provinces, Alberta and so

on.

Mr. Smallwood and our people who were negotiating the Terms

of Union felt that

section 93 did not give the full protection to our

denominational system, it did not reflect the kind of system that we had.

Section 93 primarily refers to Catholic and Protestant education so our people

who were negotiating felt that there should be a separate section. Therefore,

Term 17 was put in place to deal primarily with the situation of Newfoundland.

Also in Alberta, when it became a province, it was felt that

section 93 did not

adequately reflect its needs, and it has also a separate term in place of

section 93, as Term 17 is in place of

section 93. Term 17 of our Terms of Union

transformed what previously had been ordinary laws governing education into

constitutional parameters. It became a part of the Constitution.

In the 1960s in this Province there was widespread pressure

to modernize and rationalize the school system, which by then consisted of 270

tiny school boards and 1,200 schools throughout the Province. Mr. Speaker, I am

quite familiar with these 270 tiny school boards, I was chairman of two at the

same time. In 1962, I was representing the United Church as a student minister

up in Red Bay, Labrador. That year, the pastoral charge, the equivalent of a

parish in other churches, was amalgamated and included Flowers Cove and Red Bay;

however, the church did not amalgamate the school boards. So there was a Flowers

Cove School Board and there was a Red Bay School Board. As the clergyman in Red

Bay, I was ex officio chairman of both school boards.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there was very little authority in these

school boards so it is unfair to suggest that all the big changes, where we see

200 school boards disappearing - we cannot associate that in any way with

streamlining the system. I had a lot of help. I had a secretary-treasurer in Red

Bay who wrote the cheque to pay the teachers, and we had a treasurer over in

Flowers Cove who used to write the cheques to pay the teachers.

Now, my boards were exceptionally well-staffed but just down

the coast in Port Saunders, my good friend, Father Nixon of the Catholic Church,

didn't have anybody to serve on his board. He had to do it all himself, write

the cheques and pay the teachers. But the work was not all that onerous because

there was very little to do. The Superintendent of Education at that time for

the United Church was Charlie Roberts, who was stationed here in the Department

of Education. In the latter part of August, a telegram would arrive from Mr.

Roberts, saying: You have Miss Jones who will be the Kindergarten teacher in

Flowers Cove, you have Mr. Bound who will be the elementary teacher in Red Bay,

and what have you. So the role of the school boards was simply to rubber stamp

what was directed by the superintendent in the Department of Education.

As a result of the Warren Commission, two major changes took

place in Newfoundland and Labrador, first, a restructuring in the numbers of

school boards. These 200 boards were consolidated to put in place the twenty-odd

- twenty-seven school boards that we have today. Secondly, the denominational

superintendents who used to work in the Department of Education were removed and

they were replaced by the DECs, the Denominational Education Committees. On the

whole, the reforms of the Warren Commission did not change the framework of

denominational education.

The Williams' Royal Commission in 1992 concluded that some

elements of denominationalism, tracing back to pre-Confederation and protected

by Term 17, should be changed. About twenty-five of these recommendations

pertain directly to the governance of education in the Province. The governance

which these recommendations refer to is protected by Term 17, and government

cannot implement these recommendations unless we have consensus or unless we

change the Constitution.

The education system in this Province, as hon. members know,

at this time is totally paid for by government. Government pays the full shot.

Now, I think it would be fair to say that throughout the Province a lot of

volunteers who are involved with education would not be involved if it were not

for the church. I don't think there is any point in trying to cover that up. I

want to pay tribute to the Pentecostals. The Pentecostals, by-and-large, tend to

put more capital dollars into their schools than do the Catholic or do the

integrated at this time. If you go to a school in this Province and the parking

lot is paved, nine chances out of ten it will be a Pentecostal school. The

Province does not pave the parking spaces or the playgrounds but the

Pentecostals, in several examples, have done that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: They did it themselves?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Yes, is it paved?

AN HON. MEMBER: They did in the past.

MR. DECKER: Oh, yes, in the past. Thank you very much.

In the community where I live, in Roddickton, for years the

Pentecostals could not get a gymnasium and it came to the point where they had

to raise $50,000 themselves to do it. That was in recent years. They were not

required by law to do it but they quite willingly went out and raised their

money. So we cannot underestimate that even though the system is totally funded

by government, that the churches, through their people, do put a fair amount of

money and volunteer effort into the system. The educational system, as I said,

is totally paid for by government, but it is governed and administered by the

churches. If we look at the system at the denominational aspects, we will find

that there are two broad categories into which we can divide the system. The

first category is the one to which I just referred, structure and governance and

the structure and governance translate itself into the four distinct systems

that we have in the Province.

Now, the Seventh Day Adventist is a very small system, so I

suppose it is hardly fair - they don't have a superintendent, they don't have a

DEC so it is hardly fair to put them into the same class as you would the

Pentecostal or the Roman Catholic or the Integrated. However, according to the

Constitution, they have exactly the same rights with their 1,000 people as the

Roman Catholics would have with the 36 per cent of the population of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The second category of our education system reflects the

religious content of the school experience. In the very first meeting which took

place between government and the churches, it became perfectly clear that all

the churches wanted to keep the religious component of education into the

system. Keep religious education was the message. Keep the Lord's Prayer was the

message. Keep religious observances; keep the Easter programs, the Christmas

programs; keep the crucifixes on the walls; keep the picture of Christ on the

wall. These were the things that came forward in the very first meeting - let's

keep religion in the schools, and, Mr. Speaker, at no time, did government

disagree with the wish to keep religion in the school. We shared that same

position.

The resolution that we are talking about today, the revised

Term 17 clearly states, schools established, maintained and operated with public

funds shall be denominational schools, and any class of persons having a right

under this Term as it read January 1, 1995, shall continue to have the right to

provide for religious education, activities and observances for the children of

that class, so I, Mr. Speaker, am convinced, I am confident, I am sure that what

we are putting in place if we change the Constitution, implement this amendment

to Term 17, is a school system where the right to the Lord's Prayer, the right

to religious observances is just as entrenched and probably more entrenched than

it was in Term 17.

So I believe that the wish of church and state at our first

and subsequent meetings was to ensure the religious component of the Education

system of Newfoundland has been met. I stand on that, Mr. Speaker, I am

confident.

However, we could not agree on governance. Government has

made it perfectly clear, right from the very beginning that in our opinion there

is no need for the churches to have control over governance in order to exercise

the denominational rights. What does governance mean? Governance means that the

churches through the DECs, will decide where schools are located. We don't

believe it is necessary for churches to decide where schools are located in

order for them to have the religious rights. Control of the school construction

budget: We don't believe it is necessary for churches to have control over the

school construction budget in order to protect their right to the Lord's Prayer.

Set the school district boundaries: That is a right of governance which belongs

to the churches; we don't believe it is essential that the churches decide what

the boundaries of a board will be in order to protect the right to religious

observances.

The right to hire and fire teachers except in the specific

uni-denominational school: We don't believe it is essential that the churches

should have the right to hire and fire teachers except in the uni-denominational

school and except for their religious education teacher in all schools. Apart

from that, we don't see where it is necessary for the church to decide to have

had that right in order to protect the religious component of the school.

Teacher certification: At this moment, in this Province, in order to be a

teacher, a person must have a certain amount of education, a certain standard,

and so on and so forth, but some church representative, a priest or a minister,

must certify that Chris Decker is qualified to be a teacher. We don't think that

is necessary. For the hiring and firing of the teacher, the uni-denominational

school or the religious education, we believe yes, there is a place for that,

but under the present system some great Jewish scholars would not qualify to be

a teacher unless he could get some United Church minister of Roman Catholic

priest to recommend him. Albert Einstein could not teach in our system unless he

were certified and unless some priest or some Anglican minister were prepared to

recommend him. We do not think that is necessary. We believe we can protect the

right to have the Lord's Prayer, the right to religious observances, the right

for a religious ambience in the school, without having all of these governance

issues in the hands of the churches.

Church involvement in governance has resulted, as I said, in

four systems, and allowing for the Seventh Day Adventist, let us call it

three-and-one-quarter systems, or whatever. As a result of these

three-and-one-quarter systems, we have extensive administration in this

Province, the most heavily administered system in all of Canada. When we speak

of student-teacher ratio we have one of the best in the country, there is no

doubt about that - I believe, the best. Now, when student-teacher ratios are put

in place you take into consideration the classroom teacher and the teachers in

administration, the supervisors, all the co-ordinators, and those people who are

in board offices who are teachers. Every single province in the country does the

same thing. When we talk about our rich, our good teacher-student ratio, it does

not translate into the classroom because too many of our professional teachers

are involved in administration. The administrative overburden which is there

need not be there.

On the provincial level, with this administrative overburden,

we have denominational education councils. As I said earlier, the

superintendents used to be in the Department of Education. In the 1960s they

were moved out and we had the DECs, which are, for all intents and purposes, the

repositories of the denominational rights. We have three of them in the Province

today and they cost about $1 million to operate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Each of them?

MR. DECKER: No, in total. The Royal Commission

recommended that DECs be abolished and that the function which they now hold in

religious education would be put into another body, the provincial

denominational policy commission, the role in religious education. I am

convinced that if we were to abolish the DECs today, carry out this

recommendation and have this denominational policy committee take responsibility

for religious education, developing the programs, certifying the teacher to

teach the religion, and all that, if the were done and the DECs were abolished,

I can tell you that there would be no negative impact on any student anywhere in

this Province today. Year, after year, after year, we are spending $1 million,

$2 million, $3 million, every year on an organization which does nothing for the

education of our children except for their religious education, and as I pointed

out, this would be dealt with under another program.

During the referendum, we were criticized for spending $1.8

million on the referendum. If we could address this one issue alone, in two

years we can save the cost of our referendum, plus $200,000 to the good, Mr.

Speaker. We cannot abolish the DECs without the permission from the churches

because their very existence is part of governance and Term 17 says that without

the consent of the churches, or a change of constitution, we cannot abolish the

DECs.

There are twenty-seven school boards in the Province today

with twenty-six superintendents, with fifty-two assistant superintendents, with

twenty-seven business managers, dozens of secretaries, 129 co-ordinators. The

average cost per school board is $1,015,300.

The Williams report recommends that we would bring the number

of school boards down to nine. The government, in consultation with the churches

back and forth, suggested that we would go with ten, for a savings of $17

million per year. We are criticized for spending $1.8 million on the referendum.

If we could go to our nine boards or ten boards and save $17 million per year,

in every year we can save the cost of more than eight referendums on just that

one issue alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many new schools?

MR. DECKER: We cannot - a new school board costs about $3

million to $4 million, so make it up for yourself, my hon. colleague. Seventeen

million dollars a year.

Now, in fairness, there is an agreement in place between

government and churches that we can abolish all boards that have less than 2,000

children. if we were to carry out that agreement we could have, over the past

couple of years, allowed two or three or four boards to disappear. I have to

acknowledge that. However, the government and the Department of Education and

Training decided not to do that because we did not want to inflict a

double-whammy on the system. We honestly believed that we would have reached

consensus a year-and-a-half ago and we would have had to make major changes

throughout the Province, closing down seventeen boards, so we didn't want to

have a double-whammy. In retrospect maybe we should have closed up two or three

boards. That is probably an error that we made, but we didn't do it.

There are 479 schools in the Province with 114,000 children.

Projections five years ago, Mr. Speaker, led us to believe that we would have in

this Province today 116,500 students. In actual fact, we only have 114,000. In

1972, a few years ago, we had 163,000 children in our school system. In ten

years, if the projections hold, and I'm confident that they will - they will

probably be worse than we are anticipating. In ten years, there will be less

than 90,000 children in our schools. Both the churches and the government in

this Province agree today that there are about 100 schools out there that should

be closed, about 100 schools that could be consolidated, but they are not

necessarily the same schools.

You see, there exists church policy. Clearly, the Pentecostal

policy and the Roman Catholic policy is that before any attempts are made to

consolidate across denominational lines you must use up all options within the

denomination. That explains why, in the Pentecostal, for example, instead of a

consolidation taking place between Holyrood Pentecostals and Holyrood Roman

Catholics - and I know the numbers are very small in Pentecostals - instead of

the Pentecostals entering into consolidation with one of the integrated schools

between Seal Cove and Vaters, they consolidate within that broad region. So they

have one school in the area, but they bus pass seven or eight or nine perfectly

viable schools. The Roman Catholics are doing exactly the same thing, and the

Integrated to a certain extent have done the same thing. The policy is to

integrate within your denomination. We are suggesting that we consolidate across

denominational lines.

I have been advised that I have only three minutes left, so

I'm going to have to try to clue it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. DECKER: A bit of leave? Okay. I have a lot of other

points there I was going to do, Mr. Speaker.

We are suggesting that when a school becomes non-viable, the

first attempt to make it viable would be to consolidate all the schools within a

certain radius of that area. Rather than busing past other schools, you would do

it. That leads us to viability. At the moment, government cannot set viability

guidelines. That is part of governance. Now, we maintain that viability should

be based solely and totally on educational grounds. The churches have insisted

that, some way or other, there would be a denominational component in viability.

We have stood firm; no. We believe, education first, so we are suggesting that

under our system, 100 schools will be consolidated, or more, but they will be

done in most cases across denominational lines, unless the two schools are side

by side and of the same faith.

I have a lot of notes here which I am going to have to try to

pick out. I wanted to talk about what the system would look like, and I believe

that if I can get a couple of minutes leave I might deal with that. Government

has made no effort to hide the fact that we want governance removed from the

churches. We have made no effort to hide the fact that we want religion to stay

in the schools. We believe that the governance of the educational system should

be removed from the churches and given to the elected members of this House of

Assembly and the elected members of the school boards. Now, I don't apologize

for suggesting to you today that elected people should govern the education

system. Presidents and Prime Ministers, MPs and MHAs, are elected to govern

nations. Therefore, it should not be radical to suggest that those who control

education should be the elected representatives of the people.

With a revised Term 17, we will immediately reorganize the

governance and the administration. The structure will change. We will put in

place a multi-denominational system, a unified church system, with provision for

uni-denominational schools, single denominational schools where numbers warrant,

where they are viable, where the people of the area want them, where they will

not make other schools non-viable. We will not bus past viable schools to take

children to an interdenominational or a uni-denominational. I think that clearly

shows what we are looking at.

We will put in place ten interdenominational boards. Each

board would have one supervisor, one superintendent, with the appropriate

support staff. Two-thirds of the members who would serve on that board would

have to be members of one of the churches who hold rights in order to offer

themselves as candidates to serve on that board. So I go to be elected to the

school board; I am Chris Decker, and I belong to the United Church. If I want to

run, I will list my name as being United Church, or I think integrated, or

whichever way that will be dealt with, or Roman Catholic.

We have further said that in areas where the church so

wishes, when the board for St. John's, for example, is put in place, assuming

that 60 per cent of the people in this area are Roman Catholic, the church will

have the right, if they so wish to exercise it, to say that of the two-thirds of

the board which will be elected by referring to denomination, the churches will

have the right to say, `We want 60 per cent of them to be Roman Catholic.' The

Pentecostal can insist, `We want 10 per cent of them to be Pentecostal', and so

on and so forth. The other one-third of the board will not have to declare their

religious denomination in order to be a candidate. Some of them may well be

Jews; some of them may well be Moslems, or they might all be Roman Catholics, or

they might all be Anglicans.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) run for a Catholic seat on

the board?

MR. DECKER: No. Well, the churches can do that. That is

up to the church. If the Roman Catholics can say, `Our candidate is Jack

Harris', or whatever the case might be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Catholic.

MR. DECKER: Okay, Pastor Batstone. If the Catholics say,

`Our candidate...', I suppose that can be done, but that is a detail we haven't

really looked into. I don't know if it would be necessary or not. The fact of

the matter is that two-thirds of them will have to say they belong to a certain

church.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: I can explain. I do not know how much time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Was the hon. member notified his time was up?

MR. DECKER: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: I can talk to you privately. I will conclude

then, if you will give me a few seconds.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will put what we are trying to

do into very simple terms for my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

Put in simple terms, here is what the changes in the constitution will allow.

The change will allow this: The control of governance will be removed from the

churches and entrusted to the elected school boards and the elected House of

Assembly.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, religious education, religious

observances and activities will remain - will continue to be as we put into the

Constitution - will remain under control of the churches, guaranteed under a

revised Term 17 just as strongly as it is guaranteed today. You will see the

elected government governing and you will see the churches doing, Mr. Speaker,

what only they can do best, take responsibility for all aspects of religion in

the schools just as they take responsibility for religion in society today.

Thank you for giving me leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MACKEY: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues have

chided me as to when I would make my maiden speech -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MACKEY: - well this is it and the issue is of such

importance and significance, now is the moment.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last, the Premier presented in this

House a resolution seeking to amend Term 17 of the Canadian Constitution

effectively to abolish, regardless of what the Premier says, the fundamental

rights in education currently held by Roman Catholics, Pentecostals and

adherence of other denominations in this Province. This action was taken by

government on the basis of a 'yes' vote by only 28 per cent of eligible voters

in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is now history and yes, the yes side did get a

small majority vote. However, Mr. Speaker, we must not overlook the fact that

over 90,000 people or 46 per cent of those who voted, voted 'no.' Mr. Speaker, I

would like to use a quote made by a German official involved in the Second World

War. He was quoted afterwards as saying, `They came for the Jews and I said

nothing, they came for the Catholics and I said nothing, they came for me and

there was no one there to speak for me.' Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for the

90,000 who did say something.

The Premier seemed somewhat disturbed and surprised that so

many people expressed their desire to retain rights protected in Term 17. Mr.

Speaker, in a ministerial statement made in the House on March 12, 1993 - and

this was referenced by the hon. Member for St. John's Centre and the hon. Member

for Twillingate and other hon. members who have spoken in this debate - the

Premier gave an undertaking that his government would not seek a change to the

Constitution that would remove constitutionally protected rights of the various

classes of persons unless there was a consensus of the party's concerned. Mr.

Speaker, this position was presented to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

on the eve of the last election. One wonders what the result would have been if

this was the issue. Again, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier arose in the House last

Tuesday to introduce the resolution to amend Term 17, one of his first remarks

was, `rights are not affected' and again he said, `We don't want to abolish the

denominational system.' Mr. Speaker, this is double talk, a double standard and

somewhat hypocritical.

Mr. Speaker, when the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with

Canada were being negotiated in 1949, great care was taken by those negotiating

on behalf of Newfoundland to ensure that denominational rights in education

would be fully recognized, protected and strongly entrenched in the Constitution

of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I might venture to say that the importance of

denominational education was so important at the time of Confederation that

without it Newfoundlanders would not have voted to enter union with Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the Terms of Union constitute a contract, a

covenant between sovereign peoples. These terms should not be altered or amended

by other legislation unless it is by mutual consent. Term 17 strongly entrenches

denominational rights in education in Newfoundland by providing that the

Legislature of Newfoundland would not have the authority to make laws affecting

any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools that any class or

classes of person have by law in Newfoundland as of the date of union.

Government's resolution to strip churches of their

educational rights held on behalf of their respective classes of people is an

extreme measure that should cause every Newfoundlander, regardless of which side

of the denominational schooling they stand, to be on guard. When a right that is

entrenched in our country's Constitution stands in the way of what this

government wants to do it apparently will not hesitate to remove that right. Of

what value then are entrenched rights?

Unfortunately, the people of Newfoundland have been fed with

two myths with the intent of destroying support for our denominational school

system. These two myths are: firstly, the denominational system is wasteful and

costly; secondly, our quality of education is adversely affected by our

denominational school system.

They are myths because our denominational school system has

consistently worked to provide maximum cost efficiency with the scarce dollars

made available, and to the extent of substantially subsidizing those dollars

with generous contributions from church members. With those scant dollars our

denominational school system has done amazingly well. Can the system proposed by

government do equally as well? Most likely not, for it is doubtful if the same

commitment will prevail, and it certainly will not have the subsidies from

church members.

Regarding the second myth, quality of education is affected

by many factors such as curriculum, dedication of teachers, parental interest,

home environment, and other socio-economic factors. While those factors are not

denominational our denominational school system does make positive contributions

to offset the negativism of those actions.

The proposed wording in the resolution to revise Term 17

attempts to give the impression that schools will remain denominational, and

that churches will continue to have as much freedom, and perhaps even more than

the old. In reality the educational partnership between government and churches

is effectively removed and only remains at the whim of government or the

challenges of the courts. The latter point is probably one of the most critical

for Term 17, and if implemented will be open to court challenges. We should be

reminded that across Canada and the United States it was court challenges that

effectively removed prayer and Bible readings from schools. Let it be clear:

Government's proposed Term 17 will not ensure the retention of religious

practices and prayer, and it certainly will not ensure that our schools remain

Christian.

I think we need to be very cautious with the slippery

dealings of this government in this whole educational debate affecting any right

or privilege with respect to denominational schools. The government might argue

that it was given a mandate, and a weak mandate I might add, by the people of

this Province to proceed with a resolution to amend Term 17. That is true, and I

don't want to argue that, but there was very little effort by government to

explain the proposed new Term 17. Trying to read and understand the text that

the government put out was so perplexing and complicated that it had people

confused and bewildered. Half the people were not quite sure on what they were

voting. They were afraid to vote no because they thought there would be no

reform in education.

The referendum question was worded in a manner that was

favourable to the yes vote. The question was unfair since it clearly suggested

that the only way to substantially reform our educational system was to amend

Term 17.

Mr. Speaker, there were many people in my district who

advised me they were voting `yes', not because they supported constitutional

amendment but because they felt it was the only way in which they could express

support for substantial reform in education. But is it right, that the majority

should rule the minority in this way? Is this fair play? I don't think that the

people of this Province should have been put in a situation to vote in a

referendum which supports taking away any fundamental rights.

Mr. Speaker, constitutional rights are not unique to this

Province; they exist for other provinces as well. While the systems of education

may vary from province to province, where such rights apply the basic right to

operate schools with an appropriate denominational character is the same. If

this resolution passes, and should it pass at the House of Commons in the Senate

and eventually become law, then Newfoundland and Labrador will be the only

Province to lose these rights since Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, what this resolution is about, is changing the

Canadian Constitution to tamper with the rights now held by certain classes of

people in this Province. The government acknowledges that the proposed new Term

17 is intended to limit the rights held since Confederation. It says that

religious rights and practices will continue in the schools. However, the new

schools which the Province intends to legislate will in fact be secular or

public schools which members of religious denominations will be permitted to

exercise very little, limited activities. It will be virtually impossible to

integrate these activities in the school curriculum, or to preserve any kind of

denominational atmosphere in the school itself. These new schools, Mr. Speaker,

will bear no resemblance of shared-service schools as we know them.

Mr. Speaker, what the government is proposing suggests that

so-called uni-denominational schools may be re-established by denominations, but

their very existence would be subject to the whim of the provincial Legislature

from day to day, not on the rights or wishes of religious classes of people.

There could be no truly denominational schools because the fundamental rights of

the representatives of certain classes of people to govern them, would have been

taken away. For the same reason, there would be no more shared-service schools

because the rights of denominations to share them would be no more.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I fear that the proposed changes

will be a real threat to the spirituality in our schools. It perhaps may not

occur during the time any of us are now sitting in this House, but history will

bear it out. Can this government give a guarantee that subsequent governments

twelve, fifteen, twenty years down the road won't take advantage of the amended

Constitution and eliminate religious practices and rights that denominations now

enjoy? Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government's action is inappropriate

because it violates the protection of minority rights under the Constitution. It

would be unprecedented in Canada that minority rights would be extinguished

without the consent of the minorities affected. This is unacceptable in a nation

like Canada, which is founded under democratic ideals of justice and equality.

Mr. Speaker, government does have the responsibility to

secure the best education for our children, however, having said that,

government must also ensure that children are educated to their fullest

potential and this includes the rights of parents and churches to choose the

kind of education their children should receive. The right of parents to choose

the kind of education they want for their children is a fundamental one,

recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Article 26, therefore,

the amending of the Constitution to remove the rights of the classes of persons

without their consent, would be a flagrant violation of this fundamental

principle.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn attention to another facet

in this debate. Some of the points I wish to address have already been alluded

to by other speakers.

The Minister of Education and the Premier insist that our

students perform academically far below students in the rest of Canada. I wonder

what this does to the self image of our students. They quote batteries of test

results which supposedly support their claim; however, the official publication,

Profile '93, Educational Indicators , and Profile '94 present a

much different picture. I would like to quote a couple of highlights:

As measured by the CTBS, Grade IV students made significant

gains in performance in the areas of mathematic concepts, computation and

problem solving. Secondly, additional Grade IV performance gains on the CTBS

were recorded this year in reading comprehension, punctuation and work studies.

Thirdly, compared to 1991 twelve out of twenty-seven school districts showed an

increase in performance in basic skill areas. Fourthly, overall performance on

Grade III provincial mathematics assessment indicates Grade III students, as a

group, are meeting and in most cases exceeding the objectives of the primary

mathematics program. Overall graduation rates have increased substantially from

59.5 per cent in 1988-'89 to 70.8 per cent in 1992-'93.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said on Tuesday that we are only

marginally ahead of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. In fact, our

ranking in reading among sixteen-year-olds is double that of the Northwest

Territories and the Yukon. Examining the reading results for sixteen-year-olds

shows Newfoundland ahead of the Canadian average, ahead of Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, P.E.I., Ontario, Manitoba, B.C., Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

The writing results showed the performance of

sixteen-year-olds in this Province to be ahead of New Brunswick, P.E.I.,

Ontario, Manitoba, Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

Our graduation rates - and this is from Statistics Canada,

August 4, 1995 - shows Newfoundland ahead of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta and

B.C.

Mr. Speaker, who is correct? What information is valid and

what is manipulative? In any event, what does it have to do with the call for a

constitutional amendment? If our children are performing poorly, certainly it is

not our children who are at fault. Is it the system, the Department of

Education, or the Minister of Education? Do not blame it on denominational

schools. It appears that denominational schools are being blamed for the woes of

the department.

Mr. Speaker, reform that is necessary to provide the savings

and the efficiencies that are required to provide our children with the best

educational system possible can be realized with a co-operative effort with the

churches. I find it rather disturbing when I see distorted facts and figures

used by government to discredit our school system, and I can assure you that it

will not be perfect with the change either.

There is much about our system with which we can take great

pride. Realizing the shortfall in funding of approximately $1,500 per pupil in

comparison with the Canadian average, and realizing the demography of our

Province and the adversity of our socio-economic factors, we have done amazingly

well. We do have great success stories. The hon. Member for Twillingate made

reference to many of these.

The abusive manner in which the CTBS and other standardized

scores have been selectively used to discredit our system does not tell the full

story. I think that when this government and the Department of Education finds

fault with our school system, it is their own reflection that frightens them.

The truth of the matter is, the problem of school performance must be borne by

the minister and his department. They have full control over the factors which

determine the system's academic performance, and apparently have failed to

provide the necessary education and academic leadership to achieve it.

When the minister points the finger at the churches as the

culprits, three fingers are pointing back. The facts are clear. Let us not

confuse the issue with a call for a constitutional amendment.

Mr. Speaker, curriculum plays a major role in academic

achievement. If there is a problem with the curriculum, whose fault is it? The

Department of Education and Training designs, develops and in-services all

curriculum taught in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador, with the

exception of religious education. Have they known there was a problem and yet

have done nothing about it? The minister authorizes all curriculum, even the

textbooks to be used. What has the minister done about it? He has full authority

over the curriculum.

The quality of teaching impacts student performance. The

Department of Education and Training sets the standard for teacher education.

The Faculty of Education at Memorial University trains the teachers for the

Department of Education and Training and the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers

Association provides the bulk of in-service training. If the quality of our

teachers is the problem the minister must be held responsible. His department

certifies them and confirms their professional qualifications. He doesn't need a

constitutional amendment to give him the authority or the power to do it; he

exercises that power now.

The amount of time spent learning, or time on task as it is

referred to in Adjusting the Course , is an important element in student

performance. Who determines the amount of time spent in school? The minister, of

course. He prescribes the length of the school year, the length of the school

day, and the amount of time to be spent on each subject.

Evaluation is a very important factor in academic

achievement. Who sets the criteria for evaluation or testing? You guessed it, it

is the Department of Education and Training. The minister is responsible. The

evaluation standard for these courses was determined by the Department of

Education and Training. If these successful students are below the national

standard, whose fault is it? It certainly isn't the churches' fault. They have

no say, no authority, no responsibility, no control in these matters.

The need for a constitutional amendment to bring about the

necessary reforms and an improvement in our education system is a cover for the

inept leadership of the Department of Education and Training, and an excuse for

the lack of positive action on the minister's part. We need reform, but do we

need a constitutional amendment to achieve it? The government has the power to

act on this matter now. The Premier said in this House last Tuesday: The law

could not reform. I guess his way is to beat the people in the churches into

submission. It came down to a power struggle as to who really is in control. I

guess government wanted total power and control.

This constitutional wrangle is unnecessary, non-productive

and a waste of millions of dollars. What this government is trying to do is

divide and conquer. It is not content to see harmony among peoples. It seems to

be a philosophy that permeates all its actions. It has divided Christian peoples

in this Province; it has pitted people of one denomination against another,

friend against friend, neighbour against neighbour, and family against family.

Furthermore, it leaves some members on both sides of this House in an awkward

situation in this debate. It is indeed regrettable that it has come down to

this.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I might say, although a slight

majority of those who voted in my district voted yes, I will be standing on

principle and conviction to vote no on this resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MACKEY: I (inaudible) denominational system. If I

must be judged by my constituents on my beliefs, values and practices, sobeit. I

trust they will understand. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take the

opportunity to rise in the Chamber and speak in this important debate to a

resolution that has some significance to all of us.

The resolution that is before the House is an important one.

I believe it is incumbent upon all who so choose to stand in the Chamber and

indicate whether they support or not support the resolution, and the basis on

which they have come to that conclusion, and I want to be on the record as

indicating why I support the resolution that is before the House.

In 1993 I came into the House of Assembly for the first time.

I believe it was on December 1 there was a private member's resolution that had

to do with the reorganization of education. I asked for the opportunity to speak

in that private member's resolution because I wanted to lay out as clearly as I

could the parameters within which I could support adjustments to the role of the

churches in education as the government was embarking upon at that time. I had a

concern at that time that the approach and the concept, that at least was in the

public's mind, was one of removing entirely churches from any role in education

in the Province, and I wanted to be very clear, and be on the record then, that

I could not support the total removal of churches from education or the

tampering of the arbitrary removal of their rights, or setting out a situation

where their rights would be rendered inoperative.

I said that in the debate. I laid it out in Hansard, and it

is there for anyone to read. I wrote hundreds of letters to constituents

essentially saying the same thing. A couple of constituents have written me

since and quoted me. I am glad that they did, and kept my letter for the record.

So today, realizing two years ago that I would have to take a position in the

Legislature on some form of adjustment to the education system I wanted to have

my perimeters laid out in 1993 so that at whatever time in the future I had to

reference that, and my position to it, I would do so.

I ask that the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia wait until I

am finished. If he wants to judge my intent or my motives then let him judge it

based on what I say and not on standards that he would set for himself and that

he would use to impugn motives to others.

MR. TOBIN: I do not know (inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I have laid out a position in my own

mind and I have laid out a position to everybody I have talked to in terms of

educational restructuring, and my bottom line is this, however we go about it

and whatever was achieved at the end of the day, for me and for the people I

associate with, I believe the abiding principle and bottom line had to be this,

that we would continue to enjoy the benefits of an educational system in which

everybody could participate on a basis of having a right to be a participant and

that the basis of that educational system be on the principles of the

Judeo-Christian model.

I have looked at the wording of the revised Term 17 and I am

sufficiently comfortable that what is provided there is a basis for a

denominational system as stated to be operated on the principles of

Judeo-Christian standards and ethics, and allowing for the classes of the people

to have rights in education, to participate individually or collectively, in the

school in the areas that are articulated there.

Now, let me, Mr. Speaker, do a little bit of anecdotal

reminiscing for the members of the House. I belong to the Pentecostal faith. I

believe that is pretty clear. Nobody in the Pentecostal faith that I know of has

greater respect for the leadership of that church, or the leadership of any

church for that matter, than I have myself. I have had the good fortune of

supporting them and working with them, but let me tell you and let me tell the

members of the House a little bit about what rights mean to me. You may not be

able to relate to it as I relate to it.

I grew up in St. John's, the city we are in now. I had six

brothers and sisters. There were seven of us and we had at that particular time

no rights to attend any school in St. John's because we did not have a

Pentecostal school in St. John's, so one did not exist. However, I had the good

future of being able to attend an Anglican school. I went through the system and

I obtained a good education. I have to confess in all honesty that I cannot

relate to some of the suggestions that have been made in this Chamber, and

outside, about prejudice and that sort of thing.

Forty years ago when I went through school in an Anglican

system mixing with, in sports, other schools I cannot relate to the level of

prejudice that some people apparently have experienced or allege existed. I did

not find that. I found acceptance and I found graciousness from the teachers and

from the people in the school, however, I went through the system because those

who had rights in education accommodated me in that school. I graduated from it

and there was never any suggestion, as I know of, in St. John's that a

Pentecostal school would be established. It was not in our thinking or in our

sights. We had no cause to want that. The systems that were in place were

accommodating us quite adequately and giving us a good education, and all the

Pentecostal children.

However, in 1967 or 1968 I remember, as though it were a bolt

out of the blue, as a young Pentecostal parent with two children about to be

enrolled in school - as I thought, in a school that I had gone through - got

notification from the other people who had rights and who had schools operating

in St. John's, that as of the following September, they could no longer

accommodate my children in a school in this city due to the fact - not that they

didn't want my child in the school, not that they didn't want Pentecostal

children in the school - they had no room. Enrolments were increasing and

budgets were just as tight then, to some degree, as they are now. So I received

notification that I didn't have a school to send my children to in two years

time. What was the response to be of Pentecostal parents? We only had one

choice. It was to start scrabbling to put together some sort of a building to

start a school in this city for the education of our children. We were caught

off guard; we were caught totally with our pants down and with no resources only

that which we could collect through school fees and grants from our own school

board which operated provincially. We had to start getting a school together,

and so we did.

So, at the age of twenty-one, twenty-two or twenty-three,

whatever I was, they elected me as treasurer of the school board. And I know

what it is to go out and raise mortgages to build schools, mortgage after

mortgage as we put extension and extension on. I know what it is to sit for

hours on end in a school committee room and decide on a level of school

assessment, decide on who could pay and decide on who couldn't pay, decide on

who would be collected from and those who couldn't be collected from. I know

what it is to strike budgets and try to meet budgets to bring in place an

educational system or a place for my children to go to school. We didn't have a

building on the September 1, that we were given notice of which we couldn't be

accommodated, so my child and those of others were sent to the basement of a

church on Aldershot Street, the church that I attended. We started Kindergarten

classes. We sent so many more children to the basement of a church on Ropewalk

Lane and we started Kindergarten classes, not because we wanted to be in the

school business, not because we wanted to have a small inferior school but

because we had no rights. The only rights we had was to make provision for

ourselves.

So that is my genesis in education. I have spent a lot of

time in school committees. I have had the good fortunate of being elected twice

publicly to serve on our school board. I have worked with the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers Association or NLSD of the School Trustees Association, they

did me the honour of electing me as their treasurer, their secretary, their

vice-president and president-elect. Had I not come in here, I would have had

that honour. I was looking forward to it, quite frankly, to serve in that

capacity, not because we had a lot of boards from which we drew support. We were

one of twenty-seven boards but it was an organization that I think gave

recognition to the fact that we all had equitable reason to be able to be

participating in education and that sort of thing.

So, that is the circumstance that I lay out to you about

having a right in education. So where does that take me today? When I went on

the school board - and there was only one school board for my class of people -

when I went on that school board ten years ago, we had about forty-seven schools

in the Province. The last school board meeting for which I was a member of the

board, I happened to receive a report on where our system was going, as a school

system. The latest information I have is that by the Year 2000 we will probably

have twenty-one Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland. We will probably have

eleven schools of that twenty-one that are not viable. So, for the class of

people that I associate with, if nothing happens at all, we are going to be down

to a very few schools because of declining enrolments and because of our

inability to provide a lot of schools that have a high level of education.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that there is probably today 50

per cent or 60 per cent of the children of my faith today attending a school,

not by virtue of right but by virtue of accommodation, be it through a

joint-service arrangement or something like that, the question I have to ask

myself is, do I want to see that grow so that there is again a circumstance

where 60 or 70 or 80 per cent of people of my faith do not have a right to go

into a school and must be accommodated because somebody else says yes, we will

make provision for you? No, Mr. Speaker, I will not put the people in St. John's

in that position, who belong to the Pentecostal class.

The people in St. John's who belong to the Pentecostal faith

deserve to have rights equal to the rights of everybody else who lives in this

community to send their kid to whatever school is most appropriate for them, be

it by faith or by area or by board jurisdiction. So I will not take

responsibility for allowing the classes of people I associate with to be put in

a situation where, again they will be attending a school only by virtue of

somebody else's good graces; and the amendment, if it does nothing else, it

gives me comfort that my grandchildren will not be beholden to anyone in terms

of admission to a school, but will have an absolute right to go to the school

that is closest and most appropriate for that person. That is one reason.

Lest the people of this House think that I have not

represented a position that is reasonable, let me inform the House as to what

the position was of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador. In

1954 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I may interrupt the member for a moment, I don't wish to

distract from his train of thought in the middle of his presentation, but I

would like to alert the hon. House to the questions that will be debated in what

we have come to refer as the Late Show. Question No. 1, from the Member for St.

John's East Extern: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided me by the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation concerning my question on

transportation cutbacks.

Question No. 2, from the Member for Green Bay: I am not

satisfied with the answer to my question to the Minister of Mines and Energy

concerning Voisey's Bay. I presume that is the Minister of Natural Resources to

whom he is referring.

Question No. 3, from the Member for Ferryland: Mr. Speaker, I

am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health concerning my

question on restructuring of hospitals in St. John's.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

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

I want to say at this point in the debate that I have the

greatest of respect for the leaders of the churches in this Province and for the

position that they, I believe, have honestly taken in this whole education

debate. I don't believe that the leaders of the churches in this Province are

doing things because they want to hurt the quality of education for children. I

don't believe they are taking a position that wants to hold back the advancement

of education. I think they are taking a position out of the honesty that I

believe they have analyzed it with, in their own minds. But I also want to tell

the House what the position was, of the classes of people with whom I associate

and communicate most, when they asked for recognition for education purposes,

Mr. Speaker, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let me refer and

quote to you, if I may, from the application that was put forward on April 1,

1954 by the then pastor, Rev. Dr. Eugene Vaters on behalf of the Pentecostal

people in this Province.

He was a man of great insight, a man of great knowledge, a

man of great perception and he wanted to ensure that the classes of people he

represented had equal rights with everybody else in the Province of Newfoundland

for education. He wasn't, in the first instance, interested in building or

running schools for the sake of wanting to do that. And if you look at point 7,

in the amendment in the application that he put forward, he says this, Mr.

Speaker, and I can live with and relate to and support what he wanted at that

particular time for the classes of people that I had fellowship with. He says

this: We don't think we shall find it too difficult to work with others for the

common or amalgamated school where it is deemed advisable, as we have never

desired the little Pentecostal school for its own sake or to help bolster our

religious point of view. We believe that we can handle the religious question

otherwise.'

In point eight he expands on that and he says this: `We

believe it should not be too difficult to agree to a common platform with regard

to religious instruction in our common or amalgamated school, or even the

denominational school. We could try. The general accepted and historic

Protestant viewpoint should be capable of providing a proper platform among

Protestants for the religious approaches in school. We shall be happy to

co-operate to provide same within that platform.'

So lest there be any misconception that people in the faith

universally, that I represent, or that I associated with, are interested, in the

first instance, in being builders of school empires: That was never the concept,

and it is not the concept today. Our interest, as best I understand it from the

leaders of the church that I go to, is to, in the first instance, provide the

best level of education quality-wise for the children that is available in this

Province.

If that takes being a participant in an amalgamated system as

it was talked about then, or if it takes being a co-operative player in some

other type of system, then we are prepared, I believe, to do that, to ensure

that we have equitable rights and that we have access to the highest level of

education.

Enough about rights, maybe. I believe you have heard enough

from me about that. The other aspects of the amended Term 17 are these. There

are three that I want to just refer to briefly. The second one is the one that I

outlined when I spoke in the House, really, when I said I would not support

anything that would arbitrarily remove or otherwise render inoperable the rights

of individuals who hold rights as classes in education.

There is a provision in the new Term 17 that where viability

criteria is met, where numbers are warranted, and where parents are interested,

uni-denominational or church schools can continue to exist and can continue to

have, not only a role, but continue to have, in effect, the final say in the

staffing and the administration of these schools. I believe that is a position

we have no difficulty with on this side of the House. Certainly, as a member of

one of the classes which will have probably less schools than others, I can live

with and I can support that. There will be provision for uni-schools. There will

be the ability to operate them on a basis that is acceptable to the classes

which want them.

One of the other things that was referred to by the hon. the

Minister of Education and Training today was the fact that, in effect,

two-thirds of the trustees of any school board in this Province can be nominated

by and elected in the name of the classes of the people who hold rights in

education. That tells me that the school boards that will be put in place in the

future, Mr. Speaker, assuming this amendment goes through, will be by a

two-thirds majority effectively controlled at the board level for governance

purposes by representatives of churches. As far as I'm concerned, that is

certainly a recognition of an appropriate role for the classes of people in

terms of governance at the education level.

So, we have the pronouncement, the categorical statement,

that schools will be denominational in character; we have the pronouncement that

churches will continue to be able to do all of these things that we want to do,

either individually or collectively, in terms of RE and family life in schools;

we have the provision for uni-denominational schools where parents so choose and

where numbers warrant and where viability criteria is met; and fourthly, the

churches have the ability to control the governance of schools by a two-thirds

representation at the school board level.

These are things that I didn't recognize as being on the

table to that extent two years ago when I spoke in this Chamber. Today, I view

what is in a revised Term 17 as having been a reasonable accommodation to

represent the concerns and the interests of people who have rights in education

as represented by the classes; also, causing a situation where we can move

forward jointly as partners with them from government in developing an

educational system that will provide a better level of education for the

children in this Province.

I have no difficulty in supporting what I have said I am

doing as a result of this amendment, and I do it on five bases. First of all, I

call them the five c's, the principles of the five c's in my own mind. I can

support the resolution because I do it in good conscience. I support the

resolution because I believe I do it with good common sense. I support the

resolution in concert with the majority of the caucus that I sit in. I support

the resolution with the support of the Cabinet that I sit in and, last but by no

means least, I support the resolution in the context of the mandate and of the

voice of the constituents of St. John's North who voted and spoke to this thing.

On all five accounts I find consistency in my own mind, and I have no difficulty

with supporting the resolution.

The rights that will be forever available to me without

having to ask for permission to attend a school for my grandchildren will be

provided for in this. The reality is this: that an expanded integrated system is

upon us whether we like it or not. Now we may not want to call it integrated

because we all may not like that term, or all of the classes may not, but the

bottom line is that in Newfoundland today, having gone from 164,000 students

fifteen years ago down to about 115,000 or 120,000 today, and going down by the

year I believe it is 2005, if I remember the statistics that I read previously,

we are going to be down to 90-odd thousand, there is no option but to involve

ourselves in a co-operative level, and where I find myself having to co-operate,

I want to be able to co-operate as an equal partner. I want to be able to

co-operate as one having equal rights. I want to be able to co-operate as one

having the ability to make a contribution based on my desire to make that

contribution, and based on whatever the value of the contribution I have is to

the educational system of the children, or my grandchildren, and the children of

the Province generally.

I do not take lightly making weighted decisions that would be

adverse for the long term for those that I love most and trust most, but I do

believe that I have a responsibility to take a reasonable position, a position

that may not give everybody everything that they would like to have in terms of

a revision, but a revision that makes a reasonable accommodation for the

legitimate concerns that I have as a parent or a grandparent, the legitimate

concerns that the churches have as representing the classes of people that elect

them to be their representatives, and also representing a reasonable

accommodation for the legitimate concerns and responsibilities that government

has as elected representatives from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have had the

opportunity to make these comments, contribute to the debate, and to clarify for

anybody who might otherwise think that there are motives other than pure and

real motives for my position. I am prepared to stand with my position. I am

prepared to support the resolution, and I am prepared to say that it is, given

the context of where we are in education, where we are in student enrolment,

where we are in the shifting of population bases around our Province, I believe

a reasonable one for us.

If I felt for one minute, or thought for one minute, that the

Judeo-Christian principles that I believe in and adhere to, and the ability to

practice religious rights and expressions of faith would be removed for my

grandchildren or for my grandchildren's children, if I felt for one minute that

would happen under the revision of Term 17 I would not be able to support it,

but I believe this Term 17, as revised, gives the appropriate level of

accommodation for that, and I believe it enshrines it in the Constitution of

Canada just as strongly as it is there today.

The new amended Term 17, five minutes after it goes in the

constitution, will be just as strong as, and just as viable and just as

credible, as if it were there 127 years. I compare it almost to like being

married, I was as much married five minutes after the minister said, `I

pronounce you man and wife,' as I will be on my 50th Wedding Anniversary. The

new amendment, when it goes in, is just as good the minute it goes in as if it

were there for a lifetime. So the weight of the amendment, the weight of the

value of the amendment in the Constitution is unquestioned in my mind. What it

enshrines and what it permits will for all time continue to protect, as far as I

am concerned, the Judeo-Christian values that I want to see in an educational

system. Anything beyond that I believe is a plus for the classes and a plus for

people who want uni-schools. They have been accommodated reasonably, as we have

read and as I have articulated in this amendment. I take pleasure in having the

opportunity to make the remarks and to show my support thusly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say very

briefly, after listening to the hon. minister, that he must know something that

we don't to be as sure and to have the convictions that that gentleman has

because we don't have in front of us the necessary information to make a clear

and decisive decision. The government is intentionally, Mr. Speaker,

intentionally hiding from this Legislature, the Schools Act. The Minister of

Education and the Premier have been asked questions over the past few days, by

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes and others, questions that they cannot

answer or refuse to answer. Yet, people can stand up over there, such as the

Minister of Health, with strong convictions as to what is going to happen. Tell

me what is going to determine a viable school? Neither minister nor the Premier

has been able to tell us that yet, Mr. Speaker. The minister also said, about in

1954 he read what Mr. Vaters or Pastor Vaters, whatever the case may be, had

read in 1954. Mr. Speaker, I don't question but that was said in 1954. I

sincerely believe what the gentleman said but I would think and I would submit

that there have been major changes in the philosophy of what was articulated in

that

article during the period since 1954.

Mr. Speaker, was the minister part of the Pentecostal group

that came to the Government of Newfoundland and asked them to amend the

Constitution to include and give the rights to the Pentecostal denomination? Was

the minister ever part of a group that discussed that with the Government of

Newfoundland? Did he ever support that, Mr. Speaker? They are the questions that

have to be answered here. That is where we have to stand up and make our

decision and that's what is not happening by minister's opposite.

The Minister of Education stood up today and said everything

he had said in the past, everything that was necessary to drive in wedges in

this Province. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Member for Eagle River to stand up

in this Legislature and speak. I will ask him to speak the way he would have

spoken before he was bought off with the parliamentary assistant job in this

House, whether he would have stood with his constituents or whether he will

stand now with the Premier like the Minister of Health just did.

I stand today to participate in this debate, Mr. Speaker, my

fourth debate regarding constitutional change in this Province, all of which, in

my judgement, were of significance. My first debate on constitutional issues was

in 1987 when the government, of which I was a part, gave the rights to the

Pentecostal church in this Province. The rights, Mr. Speaker, to amend the

constitution and let the Pentecostal set up their own boards. That was the first

time that I was involved in constitutional debate and not only, I say to all

members in this House, not only was it the Peckford Government, the ones that

sat to the left of the Speaker that approved the amendment to provide the

Pentecostals of this Province with constitutional rights, Mr. Speaker, it was

the Minister of Education today who sat and supported it. It was the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, it was the Minister of Environment, it was

the Member for Windsor - Buchans, it was the Member for Bonavista North, it was

the Member for Twillingate and others, who were part of the group that

unanimously supported in this House legislation to amend the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, why is there such a change of heart all of a

sudden? Why are they flip-flopping on the issue? That is what upsets me greatly,

how they could come to this Legislature back a few years ago and vote

unanimously on an issue that today the Minister of Education, the man who is

acting on behalf of the government and the Premier to put this through the

Province, came to this Legislature and voted, stood and was counted, to provide

it to the Pentecostals of the Province. Now, a few short years later he is

withdrawing his support.

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch your blood pressure.

MR. TOBIN: You worry about your blood pressure and not

mine.

The Premier was not in the House when that piece of

legislation was approved. I know what the Premier said since he came in the

House. I know what he said in March 1993. I know what he said then. Although the

Premier was not here to support that amendment I will tell you what he said in

March 1993: `In response to the church leaders concerns that implementing

certain recommendations of the Royal Commissions Report would jeopardize their

traditional rights government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking

change to the Constitution that would remove the constitutionally protected

rights of the classes of peoples specifically provided for.'

That is what the Premier said. The second debate in the

Constitution that I was involved in was when we approved, in this Legislature,

the Meech Lake Accord. That was not only approved by the Peckford government.

The Minister of Education and Training and the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, and the Members for Twillingate, Bonavista North, and others

supported that as well. A few years later the Premier came on the scene and we

all know what happened, and I will not say anything else about that today, but I

will point out clearly that the Minister of Education and Training for the

second time changed his mind on