September

4, 1997

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 29

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

I would like at this time, to introduce to all hon. members

three new Pages who are beginning their service with the House of Assembly

today, and they are: Roxanne Sinyard, Eric Kelly and Lynn Hammond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just before I come to an important piece of

Parliamentary business, may I first of all, I know on behalf of all members of

the House, welcome the new Member for St. John's West to the Legislature -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: - and, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the

member on behalf of all of my colleagues on this side of the House, of our full

co-operation and full enthusiasm in working to ensure that with the member the

people of St. John's West are effectively and fully represented in this

Legislature and in the deliberations of government. My sincere congratulations

and I wish you every success for a career that I hope is quite momentous but not

necessarily, terribly long. Good luck!

Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Melvin Penney, the Member for

the District of Lewisporte be elected Deputy Speaker of the House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I second that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, that Mr. Melvin Penney, the Member

for the district of Lewisporte be elected Deputy Speaker of the House. All those

in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Motion, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Douglas

Oldford, the Member for the District of Trinity North, be elected Deputy

Chairman of Committees.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I second the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Member for

the District of Trinity North be elected Deputy Chairman of Committees. All

those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Motion, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we go to the routine proceedings for

the day, the Chair would like to introduce a number of visitors to the gallery.

We have here first of all, the Ministers of Municipal Affairs from their

respective provinces and they are in the Speaker's Gallery today: The hon. Al

Leach, Ontario; The hon. Guy Brown, Nova Scotia; The hon. Jack Reimer, Manitoba;

The hon. Len Derkach, Manitoba; The hon. Iris Evans, Alberta; the hon. Mike

Farnworth, British Columbia; the hon. Carol Teichrob, Saskatchewan and hon.

Manitok Thompson, North West Territories.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well we have in the gallery today a

former member of the House of Assembly, Dr. Phil Warren and I would like to

welcome him as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join most exuberantly and enthusiastically with the Premier

in welcoming the Member for St. John's West and I am sure, Premier, we are just

waiting for more by-elections. I am confident that the Member for St. John's

West will make life as miserable as possible for government during this and

future sessions of the House of Assembly. We welcome her again and we are

delighted to have her in our Caucus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition in welcoming the new Member for St. John's West to the House of

Assembly. I am sure it will prove most interesting and a great opportunity for

her to participate fully in the House of Assembly and maybe perhaps keep an eye

on the other member, nearby her, from St. John's South who perhaps needs a

little guidance from time to time. I am sure we will all look forward to

entertaining debates and engage in debates with the new Member for St. John's

West.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome today

to the Speaker's gallery a former speaker of the House, Mr. Jim Russell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and concern

the Auditor General's review of the financial affairs of the Health Care

Corporation of St. John's. Now the Auditor General took a good look at the

provincial health department and she concludes, `on site financial reviews of

the health care facilities have been minimal to non-existent over the last three

years. Audit coverage is not sufficient and a multi-year plan has not been

developed based on risk.' I ask the minister, in light of the fact that the

Premier just turned the sod yesterday on a new children's health centre to be

attached to the Health Sciences Centre, can the minister tell us what is going

on in her department?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I received the report from the Auditor General, just the 3rd.

of September, just two days ago, and my department officials are looking into

the recommendations that have been made. One of the areas that we are very

concerned about and have been for some time is on the issue of monitoring and

particularly with respect to auditing. As you know, we have had an Auditor

General's report done in Western, we have had one done on the St. John's Health

Care Corporation and we are certainly taking under consideration asking the

Auditor General to even do more of the Health Care Boards.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Health Care Corporation has been in operation for some

time. Now will the minister acknowledge that the findings on page six of that

report show that the cost of the restructuring is now projected to be thirty per

cent or $30 million more than the figure that the government has been telling

the people of this Province and that this means there will be approximately $3

million less each year to redirect into health care programs?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As my honourable colleague would know, we made an

announcement just a couple of weeks ago, identifying the breakdown of the extra

$30 million. Part of that was to enhance the cardiac surgery for the Health

Sciences; part of it was to enhance the parking lot for the children, part of

that was to enhance the boiler operations, all very clear. Part of it was to

identify new structures, particularly the refurbishing of existing hospitals

within the city. That has been a new initiative. We were very clearly outlining

what that was for, that is over and above the previously stated $100 million. We

are very proud and pleased that we did turn the sod yesterday and we look

forward to the continued quality care provided by the staff. It is very clear.

It is on the record. We have made is quite public, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are different figures then the Executive Director gave

in answer to my questions at a public meeting some time ago then the minister

just answered in this House.

Now, will the minister acknowledge that the most significant

reason for the increase in the estimated cost of restructuring is the $10.3

million that is increased in taxes due to the harmonized sales tax on

construction cost? Will the minister confirm that?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, part of the public announcement that we have made

concerning the extra $30 million that included the refurbishing, the extra

cardiac surgery, the boiler room, also included the cost of the GST. It is no

big secret, Mr. Speaker. We have made it quite clear what the costs are. The

Health Care Corporation have made the presentation; we have talked about it

publicly. It is there for all to see. There is no big, dark secret here. Yes,

part of it is for the GST; part of it is for cardiac surgery; part of it is for

providing parking services for families that require it for their children. It

is all there out in the open. I don't know what the accusation is, but it is

certainly very clear and honest. We have not prevented or prohibited any

information from going forward. If you speak with the Chief Executive Officers

of the Health Care Corporation, they will concur that the extra $30 million is

for what we have outlined.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A $30 million miscalculation in a matter of a couple of

months; yes, it is a dark secret I say to the minister. That is the price we pay

for the Premier bowing down to the Prime Minister on HST. That is part of the

price we pay, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now the corporation has run a $5 million

operating deficit in 1996. It is projected to be $6.8 million this year, and $10

million in 1998-'99. And your department, Minister, has informed the corporation

that they cannot be in an overall deficit position by the year 2000, and by that

time they will have accumulated a deficit of $21.8 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to

his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will you, Minister, now admit that the money that you have

been telling the people you were going to redirect back into health care is the

same money that you will be needing in three years' time to pay off this

operating deficit? And are you prepared to sacrifice medical services to pay

that operating deficit?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of weeks ago we announced $20 million that we

were putting back into health care stabilization for the Province. We have

allocated to all of the boards a certain percentage of that money. The Health

Care Corporation is, by far, getting the largest amount.

As my hon. colleague would know, all of the boards have had

letters sent out to them as recently as the end of August outlining what their

amounts will be, and before that money will be released to them they have to

give to us a plan on how they will spend that money, whether it be for

programming or whether it be for addressing the debt. That is all part of the

plan to monitor and to evaluate how we can deliver those health services.

The Health Care Corporation, as I said, will be getting the

largest percentage. It provides the bulk of the health care services across the

Province. It has the single largest health care budget.

So we are monitoring it closely. Each of the various boards

will identify the programs and services they want. We made a commitment. Not

only before the House closed did we enhance cardiac surgery for people leaving

the Province, but we also provided extra money in this $30 million to enhance

the cardiac surgery capabilities in an infrastructure way through the Health

Sciences.

So we are monitoring. The money has been put into it. They

will identify the programs and services they see most fit, based on the health

care needs, not on the political needs and accusations of my hon. colleague.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has been dragging its feet on cardiac care

for the past four years. People have died on the waiting list, I say to the

minister, and that is what precipitated it, and I'm glad it is happening. It is

unfortunate that is the price we pay for it.

Will the minister in fact confirm the Auditor General's

findings that the capital costs may even exceed this new inflated estimate of

$130 million, even beyond the $30 million that you have missed in the last two

months, because government's estimates do not even include in that $30 million

overrun the cost of the capital equipment for the new facility, moving expenses,

or the closing of the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital? I ask the minister,

when is she going to listen to the Auditor General to ensure that all costs are

identified, to ensure that all estimates are current, and tell the people of

this Province the true price of this monumental project?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my hon. colleague's statement I would like to address a

few points. First I would like to ask my colleague, are we spending too much

money on health care? Is that what you are asking me? Because that is certainly

what I'm getting from part of the question.

The second

part is I would also like to say while people are

waiting on the list for cardiac surgery, we are moving very progressively to

identifying and addressing the fifty patients who wanted to go outside the

Province to have the cardiac surgery. While the first ten we approached were not

interested, because they were either on vacation or wanted to wait till they

returned to work the fall, we have been successful in reaching over 100 to

identify those who would want to travel outside the Province.

With respect to the capital, you know as well as we do that

is a separate budget. With respect to the construction, we have a plan in place;

we have been meeting with the Health Care Corporation. We have a separate amount

of money - $100 million for construction.

We have another separate amount of $30 million which I have

clearly outlined in the media in the last couple of weeks. If you want, Mr.

Speaker, I could go through it again but I think it is quite clear, it is a

separate issue and we are monitoring it closely. We are quite confident that we

will have a superb facility for the people of this Province.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is no longer, I say to the minister, a separate capital

budget because this government now has given the Health Care Corporation

authority to borrow for capital expenditure and to pay for it out of operating

costs. It is the same specific budget that is supplied to the corporation. The

minister should get her facts straight. What I have concern with minister is not

the money spent on health care but the lack of controls over knowing where and

how the money is spent by your department, that is my concern. Now the Auditor

General's findings are even more disturbing than this.

Will the minister confirm that the reason for the apparently

significant reduction in the estimated capital cost of this new extension from

$300 million in one of the options in 1989 to $100 million a few months ago and

to $130 million today, is because the government is proposing to reduce the

length of time a patient spends in hospital? Furthermore, what is even more

disturbing is that they are planning on reducing the hospital beds in the new

structure by over 30 per cent from the 1,100 acute care beds we had in 1989 to

768 beds under final restructuring. Will the minister admit that?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the plans for building a new hospital health centre was

put in place the people that were identifying the needs went and looked at the

demographics of this Province. Because we are providing a tertiary care centre

for the Province we had to identify the needs, not only for within the St.

John's area but within the whole Province altogether because almost 50 per cent

of the beds of a tertiary care hospital come from outside of the urban areas in

St. John's and catchment areas. We identified the needs. We are moving towards a

system following right across this country of early intervention, of prevention

and one of higher incidence and usage of ambulatory care. At one time a person

would come in and spend ten days in hospital to have a hernia repair, now they

are done as an out-patient.

If you look at children specifically, we do more and more

services on an out-patient basis. That is a good move, Mr. Speaker, because

people are staying healthier and they are being provided the services with less

incidence by staying in hospital longer. That is a progressive move right across

this country, right across North America and we are moving exactly with that

particular trend and meeting the needs based on those trends.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is nonsense. Even the Fraser forum that was quoted by

the minister before tells us our lists are getting longer in health care, and

there are more people crying out for assistance in health care. You are the

minister. You tell us how many beds are going to be needed. If the information

is not accurate, tell us how many beds are needed under this new revamped

structure. Can you give us the number that your department has determined is

necessary?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the number of beds that

were identified was based on the needs that were determined by a group set down

by the Health Care Corporation and various officials from the various sectors of

community long-term care and acute care that came together and identified the

needs for the Province. Those beds are based on demographic needs, a growing

elderly population, and based on the types of procedures that we need. We have

increased long-term care beds for our geriatric population.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You have to consider all the needs when

you look at preparing this type of a facility. I commend the Health Care

Corporation for its very good work. If you are quoting from the Fraser report, I

think you should also look at the needs of our own Province. Because when we are

taking on a facility of this magnitude, $130 million, we have to know what our

own provincial needs are, not what they need in Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister should be aware of the changing demographics in

an aging population here in our Province. The Auditor General has indicated from

1,100 acute care beds down to 768. The minister has refused to confirm that

figure here today. That is the reason why the change in estimates.

I ask the minister, will she confirm that the Corporation has

not had a policy on cataloguing and keeping track of its capital equipment? That

there is no documented policy with regard to physical security over capital

assets? That is the Auditor General's quote. That, secondly, the Corporation

could not provide any explanation as to the whereabouts of seventy

microcomputers, and that there were no adequate records to tell when essential

medical equipment had been serviced? I ask the minister, is she satisfied that

this has been going on in an agency that is under her direct control?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Health Care Corporation has been in operation a little

over twenty-one months. They have merged six organizations under its board. It

has moved from eight sites to five sites. It has moved from functional based

management to program management. It has the single largest health care budget

in the Province. I think if you are talking about the numbers of times you empty

the garbage or cleaned the beds or did any checks, that is an operational issue.

I think that the Health Care Corporation over the last twenty-one months, with

the huge magnitude of responsibility and challenges it has, has done an

excellent job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is the first to admit, Mr. Speaker,

that this Auditor General's report is a very good baseline, a very welcome

report. It is very interested in continuing to make ongoing improvements. If you

care to speak with Sister Elizabeth, who knows the issues, she would tell you

the same thing.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. The Auditor General's report on the administrative and financial

operations of the town of Pouch Cove has been released. It should come as no

surprise to the minister that the Auditor General found many examples of poor

controls over cash and taxes receivable. Cash shortages of $4,786 were

identified, computer receipts totalling $12,153 could not be located, and that

over $5,000 was received by the town but not credited to the appropriate

taxpayers' accounts.

I ask the minister: since you have known about the

irregularities in Pouch Cove for some time, and in view of the Auditor General's

report, what steps are you going to take today to address the failure of the

municipality of Pouch Cove to be in compliance in its operations and financial

management with the municipalities act of this Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to

thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for providing me with the only copy that

me or my department had when I walked into the House this afternoon. When I have

a chance to read this report, I will be only too pleased to answer any questions

as they relate to this particular document.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister will know that there are members of the

government side who sit on the Public Accounts Committee and he will know that

he has his public relations people, he will know, or should know that the report

was sent to his office two days ago. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the fact

that he should have the information, he does not have it, he assumes

responsibility for that.

I ask the minister that, since the people of Pouch Cove have

lost confidence in their council and also confidence in the minister and his

department, why did your department fail in its mandated responsibility

according to law, to ensure that the accounting procedures in Pouch Cove were

complied with and that they were consistent with the requirements of the

Municipalities Act? It is not a new question, it is a question now which has

been confirmed by the Auditor General; the minister's department did not do

their jobs in making sure that the operations of Pouch Cove were properly

monitored and that is a requirement under law, of your department.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I state categorically again: my

department or I, as the minister of a department received a copy of this report

today, at two o'clock when I walked into the House. The Auditor General has not

submitted a copy of this report to my department and as far as I know, to any

department of government. The Auditor General reports to the Speaker and to the

Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The Chairman of The Public Accounts

Committee today had a press conference on this earlier this morning, I did not

know anything about it and I still do not know anything about it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: Give me the opportunity to review

this and I will be only too pleased to come back to this House or publicly, and

re-act to this report. I am not going to - and I say this quite categorically -

I am not going to condemn a council or staff of a council on what the hon.

member proposes I should do or what I should not do. I will wait to have a

chance to read the report; if there is anything in the report that needs action

from me, that action will be forthcoming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will refer to a submission made by the Federation of

Municipalities to the minister some time ago. In that submission, the Federation

advocated that there would be minimum qualifications and programs in place for

municipal clerks so that all municipal clerks in this Province would meet

minimum qualifications and minimum standards.

I ask the minister: What are you doing in your department to

address the issues raised by the Federation of Municipalities whose report you

have had for months and have not acted on it; when will you assure that the

municipal clerks of this Province have basic, minimal training and that you

establish regulations to make sure that it happens?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, what a privilege and an honour

it is going to be and what entertainment I am going to have in the House in the

next little while knowing, that finally, I have a critic who can get up and ask

a question and know what he is talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is a shot; Jack, that is a shot.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, coming from the hon. Member for

Waterford Valley, representing the illustrious and grand city - I had like to do

it that time - City of Mount Pearl, I can honestly say that, you know, we have

little communities in rural Newfoundland, just about every one of us who

represent rural Newfoundland districts, we have communities that do not have the

cash in the till to pay doctors and lawyers and dentists and all the other

professional people that are around.

Maybe where the hon. member was an ex-mayor of a large city

or a small city in the Province then maybe some of those places could help

little places like Pouch Cove that collect very little dollars in revenue and

can afford to hire people with degrees to be managers or clerks; but I quite

honestly say to the hon. member, he knows as well as I do, with the years that

he spent on the federation of municipalities as well as I, that there are a

large number of communities out there that cannot afford to pay for qualified

clerks and managers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say quite honestly, that problem will be

addressed, that he knows as well as I do - in fact, he was on my board of

directors when we certified the MUN program back fifteen years ago and he was

one of those who promoted that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: I cannot - longer than that, is it not?

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that

he give the job back to `Jack', because `Jack' is not going to stop talking

anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that when addressing members of the

House, they should address them as hon. members or members of their district.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for

the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

Is the minister aware of government's policy that actually

encourages social service recipients who are on probation to stay on probation

by giving them higher benefits than other recipients of social services?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: That is indeed a very good question, Mr.

Speaker. It is one of which I am not terribly familiar with the policies in this

area and I will say that up front.

I would have to say to you that in dealing with issues of

income assistance, there is a major process under way in my department at the

current time to develop a new model for income support in this Province. It is

an intensive planning process that is looking at all aspects of income support

with the intention of moving towards income support that leads directly to

employment and in bridging and developing the human resources of our Province.

So, I would have to say at this time, that many of the

policies that deal with income support and assistance within the department are

under intensive review. It is a period of transition within the department since

the movement to create human resources and employment and to move the

development aspect into the department. The planning team is working away on

schedule with developing those plans, and over the next few months, all aspects

of income support and development will be developed fully, models will be

proposed and tested and final decisions will be made about the new forms of

policies that will address these issues in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West, a

supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the

minister, I became aware of this policy when a young couple came into my office.

They had been receiving $482 a month and their assistance was reduced to $181 a

month. I investigated through the Department of Human Resources and Employment

and I was told that the higher rate was paid because one of the couple was on

probation and when her probationary period was over, then she was reduced to the

lower rate.

Do you agree, Minister, that the message your department is

sending should be that probation is actually a more lucrative lifestyle?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the probationary period is an

aspect of rehabilitation that is really determined by the judicial system. It is

the court which dictates and decides in the best interests of society what the

period of probation is going to be required in an individual circumstance, and

whether or not income assistance is provided in what manner really has no impact

or no influence on the period of probation.

I recognize that there is an issue with respect to how much

income support people receive in any circumstance and, as I indicated before,

all of those different aspects and all of the complexities of income support are

being studied; but if the implication here is that this in some way influences

how probation is determined, I would have to say that I simply do not see the

connection and I do not agree with the conclusion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West, a

supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: This happened in more than one instance.

When I did call Social Services, I was given a couple of other examples.

Actually, one of the people asked, `Should I go out and commit another small

misdemeanour to have my income assistance raised?'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Well, that is what they said; that is not

from me, it is from one of the clients of Social Services.

Minister, will you assure the House today that you will

examine this policy and look at alternative solutions that will actually help

people move forward rather than encourage them toward a life of probation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I really am somewhat taken aback

that there would even be a suggestion that a government policy would be

encouraging this kind of behaviour in society. I really do take exception to

that.

As I indicated in my earlier response, the department is

examining all aspects of its income support program. It is a very large, complex

issue. You have identified simply one category - the member has identified one

category - where we supply and provide assistance to people who require it in

this Province. So will we examine this issue? We absolutely are examining this

issue. We have been since last April, as well as perhaps another hundred issues

associated with income support and employment in this Province. We will continue

to do so, but I would suggest that it does not help in this review, nor does it

help overall, to make the kinds of suggestions that this is, in some way, trying

to encourage people to break the law.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the

Minister of Education:

Whereas

Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides

that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation

issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so

authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the

legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Now therefore the House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to

issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of

Canada in accordance with the

Schedule set forth below.

1. Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada

set out in the

Schedule to the Newfoundland Act is repealed and the following

substituted therefore:

"17.

(1) In lieu of

section ninety-three of the Constitution

Act, 1867, this term shall apply in respect of the Province of Newfoundland.

(2) In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature

shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but shall

provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious

denomination.

(3) Religious observances shall be permitted in a school

where requested by parents."

2. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment,

year of proclamation (Newfoundland Act) to apply.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from some 850 residents of

the Districts of Bonavista South, Trinity North, Terra Nova. Looking through

them there are many names on there from other places in this Province as well.

The petition reads: To the hon. the House of Assembly of

Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland:

whereas the government gave public notice in late

July or early August 1997 that it would accept public submissions only until

August 30 1997 regarding the government's proposal to remove bridges on the

railway bed on the Bonavista Peninsula and in other areas; and

whereas these

bridges are used by local residents and tourists for numerous recreational

activities, including snowmobiling, ATV use, berry picking, the hauling of

firewood, and hiking; and

whereas these bridges on railway bed in this area may

have untapped recreational and tourism potential, generating new economic

activity, as is happening on the main railway bed with the construction of the

T'Railway; and

whereas local groups such as development associations,

municipalities, service groups and tourism groups, as well as businesses and

individuals, could take over the responsibility of maintaining these structures

if given adequate time to put together proposals; and

whereas these historic

structures once they are gone are gone for good; wherefore your petitioners urge

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to delay all actions to remove the

bridges from the railway beds along this route and extend the deadline for

receiving submissions regarding the future of these bridges and the railway bed.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was circulated some four or five

weeks ago, and since that time the Minister of Government Services and Lands has

seen fit to extend the deadline another month until October 30, I think, or

October 31, in order to receive submissions. The problem goes much deeper than

just extending the deadline.

The problem goes much deeper than that because what they see

happening, they see this government removing bridges and taking away probably

the only recreational area that people can now go and use recreational vehicles,

use for berry picking, use the railway bed for hauling firewood. Not only is the

government looking at removing those bridges because it says they are unsafe,

but it doesn't know what the cost is to remove the bridges. They don't know what

the cost is to repair the bridges. There has been no study done.

Those people in those rural areas have been denied the

opportunity to use their ATVs to go on wetlands in this Province. Naturally,

they are not allowed to use them on the road bed, but here was one area where

people could go and use a railway bed for recreational purposes and for other

purposes, in safety, and to carry out a very important function.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister and his department are going

out and instead of asking for proposals to enter into a partnership with

government to repair those bridges - and probably if the cost that is going to

be incurred for removing them was spent in repairing them, then maybe those

bridges might be allowed to continue to exist and the old railway bed would

continue to be used for probably another twenty or thirty years.

There are lots of people out there who want to use this

railway bed. There are lots of people out there for whom this is their only

access to their cabin, this is their only access to their wood cutting area,

this has been their only access to an area where they go and pick berries or to

do other recreational activities; and the government is coming out without any

warning, put the advertisement in the paper at a time when most people are

preoccupied doing other things, being on vacation, doing things that you

normally do outdoors, and almost escaped many of the people out there who are

concerned and have expressed interest in this proposal - almost escaped their

knowledge of it altogether.

What those people are saying to the government, what those

people are saying to the minister, is: Slow it down. Slow it down by more than a

month. Slow it down and let's see if we together can come forward with a

proposal that is acceptable to government.

The minister talked, in conversations with some of my

constituents - or his department talked - about the fear of safety. Safety

entered into the picture, where they had engineers go out and look at those

railway bridges, and they were concerned about safety. But removing those

bridges, I suggest to the minister, is probably going to cause more unsafe

actions by some of those people, because what is going to happen is when you

come to a bridge that is removed then those people will exit onto the highway,

or exit onto a fast-moving river, and go on and continue along that particular

railway bed in order to get to the place they want to reach.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: So I call upon the minister to put

forward a proposal to ask residents in the area - it is not only Bonavista; they

are talking about other railway beds there as well -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - to ask interested groups to enter into

some proposal whereby they can work together to bring a suitable solution to

this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If I may just have a moment, Mr. Speaker,

to revert, at the pleasure of the House, to Presenting Reports by Standing and

Special Committees - I was speaking with my colleague and you moved on fairly

quickly - just to table two reports. It will only take a second.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to revert to

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

With respect to the Auditor General's Report on the Review of

the Financial Affairs of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, and the

Administrative and Financial Operations of the Town of Pouch Cove, the Public

Accounts Committee requested some nine or ten months ago that these reports be

commissioned.

I apologize to the minister for not getting it, but there was

a copy sent to you. Upon receiving them, certainly the Vice-Chair of the

Committee was contacted. I spoke with Sister Elizabeth Davis, as a professional

courtesy, and outlined what the report was. I know the minister had received two

copies because I contacted her office. Her staff informed me that Sister

Elizabeth had provided, through the deputy minister, Dr. Williams' two copies

and there was a copy sent, but contact was made with your office to ensure you

did receive a copy.

Mr. Speaker, I table it right now for the House and for all

members of the House who are interested.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call the Resolution put on the

Constitutional Amendment by the Premier just a few minutes ago, and I understand

that we have unanimous agreement that this Resolution will be debated today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to begin this debate, certainly with - as

I am sure all members feel - a great sense of responsibility for the course that

we are about to embark upon. I hope that it will be the decision of the

Legislature of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to give life, over the

course of the next twenty-four hours, to the decision that has been taken by the

people of this Province in the referendum result which we saw on Tuesday night.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Leader of the

Opposition and by thanking the Leader of the New Democratic Party, both of whom

I spoke to referendum evening - and I want to thank you as well, Mr. Speaker -

for agreeing to a resumption or a special sitting of the House of Assembly to

deal specifically with the question of education reform, constitutional reform

that is necessary to accomplish it in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks - and I don't intend

they should be long, today is not a day for long speeches - by first of all

acknowledging the work of every member of the Legislature over the period of the

referendum campaign and the conduct of every member of the Legislature during

the course of the referendum campaign. I think it is fair to say that this is an

issue that all of us feel strongly about. It is an issue that all of us care

deeply about. It is an issue that all of us, in our own way, contributed to in

the context of the debate over these last thirty-or-so days but, Mr. Speaker, I

think I can say that if this referendum campaign has been conducted with a

degree of civility, a degree of tolerance and a degree of sensitivity over this

last month it has been conducted in that way, in large part, because of the

conduct of the elected members of the Legislature who engaged in this campaign,

I think, almost without exception, in fact to my knowledge without exception, in

a responsible fashion.

Mr. Speaker, Tuesday night we saw a very decisive, very clear

and very unmistakable response to a very clear, very concise and unmistakable

question. In short, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been asked

whether it is now time to move beyond a denominational structure of education

and to move to a single new system. The question was clear and the answer, Mr.

Speaker, has been equally clear.

Mr. Speaker, before I go further, I know that all members of

the House will appreciate my taking this opportunity to, in particular - in

addition to acknowledging the contribution of all members - to single out and in

particular pay tribute to the Minister of Education who has led this campaign

over the last while.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, indeed it can be said that if

there is a template for civility and a template for sensitivity during this

debate, if there is one who singularly, in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, knows how to present a case passionately, with conviction and with all

of the strength that one can bring to bear to the debate and at the same time,

Mr. Speaker, remain open to those who have a different point of view so that at

the end of the day reconciliation can occur, nobody better embodies that

capacity than the Minister of Education and may I say, his family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: So, Mr. Speaker, what are the essential

questions that have been answered by the people of Newfoundland in this debate?

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province have been asked whether or not it is

time to end a practice where our children get up in the morning, even though

they are neighbours on occasion and nevertheless move off in separate directions

to separate schools, separated purely because of their religious distinction.

Mr. Speaker, to that question, the people of the Province have said, yes the

time has come to end that practice.

The people of the Province were asked very clearly whether

the moment had arrived in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we

could no longer continue nor justify continuing a practice where a teacher,

somebody who is fundamentally committed to the welfare of our children, to the

education of our children could be hired or fired for any other reason other

than their capacity, their competence and their commitment, whether or not they

could be hired or fired any more on the basis of religion, and the people of the

Province have said clearly, the time has come to end that practice as well.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been asked

whether it is appropriate that our school boards, when they are elected should

be elected so that two-thirds, as is the practice today of the school-board

positions, are reserved for individuals on the basis of their religion, to carry

on a practice where those who are elected may speak for some of us but not for

all of us and, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province have said clearly that,

that practice should end. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are being

asked and were asked and have answered clearly whether or not it is appropriate

in 1997 yes, Mr. Speaker, a few years away from the next millennium, that we

should continue a practice where any group of individuals, no matter how

well-intentioned, who are unelected and who are unaccountable should, on behalf

of an institution, make decisions for us as parents and as citizens that we are

capable of making for ourselves, and the people of the Province have said in a

clear and strong and unmistakable voice that, that practice too should end.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we had on referendum night on September

2nd, was not an election; it was not about winning or losing, it was not some

kind of competition but what we had instead, were the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador authorizing a new direction for this Province, mandating a new

direction; to use a naval term, charting a new course, setting a new destination

for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I think it is

important to note, in reflecting upon the expression of the will of the people

of the Province, the mandate was a strong one. Mr. Speaker, if one looks back to

the exercise of the referenda in this country, a result of some 73 per cent is

almost without precedent. Indeed, this Province joined the federation, joined

the greatest country on the planet earth, Canada, by a vote of 52 per cent. This

of course was a decision of major consequence for the people at that time but at

52 per cent we moved forward.

Mr. Speaker, questions of conscription have been answered

with majorities smaller than that seen on Tuesday night. Questions of

prohibition have been answered with majorities far smaller than that seen on

Tuesday night; questions of the future of some provinces within the federation

have been answered with majorities far smaller than that seen on Tuesday night.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is singular in its expression of purpose and of

consensus and a public will to reflect upon the size and clarity of the response

we have seen on Tuesday and, Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleagues that if

we have a further job, those of us who engage in the debate, inside the

Legislature or outside of the Legislature, if we have a further responsibility

beyond casting a vote in the next day or two to the question before us, our

further job is to be agents, all of us without exception, of reconciliation. Mr.

Speaker, that is the job of members of this House at this time.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I have been hopeful over the last

twenty-four hours that reconciliation is possible. I have heard the voices of

citizens of this province who participated in the referendum campaign, some of

whom said no and said no with all of their hearts. I have seen their faces, I

have heard their voices over the last twenty-four hours and they have said

`enough'. They have been inspired by the strongest character that represents

Newfoundland and Labrador, the one that our guests today from all across Canada

would reflect upon when they leave this place. It is the one that our visitors

to the Cabot 500 years celebrations reflect upon when they leave this place.

They talk about a sense of civility in Newfoundland and Labrador. They talk

about a sense of welcome, of warmth, of compassion, of caring, of decency.

People leave this place and remark upon the fact that this is one of the few

places in the modern world where the back door, the front door is still left

unlocked. One of the few places where neighbours will respond to the need of a

fellow citizen, when and where and how that need can best be fulfilled. That is

the character of Newfoundland and Mr. Speaker, government today is not

interested merely in seeing the referendum result manifested in a yes vote in

the Legislature. That is important, that is important to be faithful to what

occurred, but we are also interested in seeing our community pull back together

and there are members in this place who can play a large role on both sides in

seeing that that occurs.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard today for example, the Leader of

the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the hon. Jean Charst, indicating

that he will vote yes in the House of Commons -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: - to the resolution as proposed.

I heard yesterday that Senator Michael Kirby, a Liberal in

the Senate who voted no last time around, has indicated he too believes that it

is time to recognize the weight and the certainty of the opinion of the people

of Newfoundland with a seventy-three per cent vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with the Prime Minister of Canada,

the hon. Jean Chrtien, who has said to me that he recognizes and he hears the

clear voice of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when it is spoken with

such conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs, the hon. Stphane Dion who has undertaken to see that

this matter is considered by parliament without delay.

Mr. Speaker, I say to those who led the No Campaign that all

of us here respect contrary points of view. All of us here respect the

conviction, the deeply personally held beliefs behind that contrary point of

view. There are some in this chamber who hold those beliefs dear and those

beliefs are respected in this place as well, but Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me,

absolutely clear, that the constitutional amendment that we seek is going to be

achieved in the Parliament of Canada and will be achieved in a timely fashion.

Nothing more could be accomplished by carrying on the campaign against the

amendment other then to seek, perhaps inadvertently, the division of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and nobody would consciously seek

that kind of circumstance.

You know Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago there was a debate

and I do not refer to the substance of the debate during Question Period in this

place about the hospitals here in the City of St. John's and perhaps it is well

for us to reflect, there was a time not long ago when the hospitals here in the

City of St. John's were denominationally run. Many people perhaps have forgotten

that already. Our hospital system in the City of St. John's was based on a

denominationally inspired system of administration.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it was only a few years ago, there was a

great debate and a great dialogue and a great discussion about what would happen

to health care if we moved away from a denominationally based hospital system,

and some people genuinely had concerns about that.

Mr. Speaker, we put in place the St. John's Health Care

Corporation. As the minister said a moment ago, we went from eight different

hats to one in terms of establishing an authority, an administrative body, to

operate our health care system. Some people said: But if we move from a

denominationally-based system with all of its experience and tradition and

history and ambience, will there still be room in that health care system for

people who feel deeply about the ambience they have created? The government of

the day - I wasn't here, other members who were here were in this place at that

time - said yes. When it was time to find a chief executive officer of the new

St. John's Health Care Corporation, who was found for the job? Sister Elizabeth

Davis.

I give that example for this reason. During this campaign, in

some of the meetings I've attended, there have been those who have said: I've

gone to a Catholic school, and the principal and the staff were excellent. They

have created an environment that is unique; they have engendered a desire for

the pursuit of excellence amongst the students. Will that be lost? I say today:

Not at all. Those who care deeply about the education of our children, those who

bring a unique set of skills to the job, will still be there tomorrow.

I've heard from Pentecostal parents about the kind of

environment in which the children of that community have gone to school, and the

kind of commitment brought to the classroom by teachers from the Pentecostal

assemblies. Those teachers will all be there tomorrow and there again next year

in a single new system.

I've heard from parents from the Integrated community who

have acknowledged that all of us can only be stronger, all of us can only

achieve far more effectively when we pull together, when each of us brings our

own special set of skills to the same education environment.

My purpose in speaking today, as I said at the beginning, is

not to review the debate of the last - actually, it has been seven years, not

even the last five years. Since 1990. Or to review the debate of the last thirty

days. My purpose in standing today is to once again make a call within this

House, a call to all the members, from all of the districts, but beyond this

House and through this House a call to the people of the Province to recognize,

to acknowledge, and to respect the expression of the will of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador on September 2, and to work to implement the decision

that has been made, and to work for reconciliation amongst our people.

Government is proud and government is pleased to have

proposed this resolution today, but government knows that this resolution will

truly not be successful until it enjoys the confidence of all of our people. We

are pledged to that task in the weeks and months ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This education issue has been one certainly that has been in

the forefront since I was elected to the House of Assembly in 1992. In fact,

prior to that, just a couple of months prior to that, the Royal Commission

Report on Education was publicly released before I became a member. Since then

it has been at the forefront during most of those five years while sitting here

in the House.

I personally have a deep concern about education in this

Province. I spent over twenty years as a classroom teacher in the Province. I

have a concern about the future of our children and where we are heading in

education. Back in 1992, and my first posting in the critic area was education

critic, in 1992-1993 as education critic I disagreed with a government decision

when two schools in a part of this Province, in one neighbourhood - one closed -

two different religions and the parents were not permitted to send their child

to that neighbourhood school. I said at the time and carried in the public

media, that I felt parents should have a choice to make the decision to send

their child to that school. It should not be dictated to them. I am a strong

believer in the choice of parents to decide the opportunities for their children

in education.

I voted no on September 2, not because I want the churches to

stay in education in the Province. I stated unequivocally in a statement to the

Province, following the Premier back on July 31, and my Caucus agrees

wholeheartedly, every single one believes in a single school system in this

Province. I believe in that and I don't feel that churches should be involved in

the governance of education in the Province. That statement I made during the

campaign. I was not involved in any campaign. The last campaign or this

campaign, I did not intend in any way to try to influence how my constituents

would vote in a referendum. It is their democratic right. I felt an obligation

to state publicly how I was going to vote. I considered it my responsibility to

do that and I did that.

I always believed that teachers should be hired on the basis

of qualifications and merit, not on what particular religion they happened to

practice. I taught in the system for over twenty years in which teachers in the

system I taught in, an RC system, had been separated, divorced and remarried and

retained their positions in the system. Some are very close to me, some of these

people. I taught alongside people who were of a different religion within that

system - that are 90-some per cent RC - and religion was never an issue or

discussed at all in the environment, it was never a part of it. For people who

grew up with that religious issue, maybe they have different feelings but we

grew up and went to school as individuals and religion was never a discussion

and that is the way I think it should be.

Furthermore, we also believe and I believe that religious

observances and events should be retained within a Province-run system. I voted

no because I believe parents should have the choice to retain that option for

parents -, where numbers could warrant that - to have the choice to have a

specific religion instruction offered in the system. I voted no because of that

and that was the only reason that I voted no. I felt, as an individual on

September 2, I should vote that way because a referendum represents each

person's personal choice. My Caucus, I assume, represented their individual

choice on September 2. I would not want to influence my constituents in how they

vote, nor would I want anyone in my constituency to influence me in how I voted

and not one person, in the five years that I am here in this House, has called

me to suggest that. I don't recall one telephone conversation, in my five years,

that I have been called on this issue. There could have been a couple of

discussions here and there by constituents of mine on this issue but it has not

been to the forefront. I live in an area that is 98 per cent RC and the district

itself is over 90 per cent RC. It has never been a particular issue.

What parents wanted and what I feel that parents needed, what

could have been provided in this referendum - and I thought there should have

been a further accommodation in this referendum and I think the percentage in

the Province would have been higher to allow parents that choice to be able to

have that religious instruction in the system than I think we would have had a

90 per cent vote in the Province or more. I felt strongly enough that I did not

want to see a specific religion thrown out of the system completely. I think

there should have been a retention. Having said my piece, I knew and figured it

was going to be in the minority - my view. In fact, I think a poll on that

specific point may have been in the majority but coupled in with the general

referendum I did not think anybody had to be a rocket scientist to realize that

it was going to be yes. Sometimes it is popular to jump on a 'yes' and ride with

it but to me that was not exhibiting leadership. If I felt I should vote no on

those grounds, I should vote no on those specific grounds.

I am a democratic individual, and I respect the wishes of the

people in my district. I did not, in any way, have an influence on people in my

district. I hope I did not have an influence on anyone's vote. I felt an

obligation to indicate how I was voting. That would be, I think, vacating my

responsibility in not doing so.

The people in my district voted 59 per cent yes, and I said I

would respect the wishes of my district if it was carried out in a democratic

manner; and I, and all of my caucus in the same category, are going to vote yes

because the constituents of their districts have told them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - that is the choice they want to make.

We were elected, and I was elected by the people in Ferryland

district, to represent them. On other issues where there is no referenda carried

out, it may be debatable as to what constituents want. Polling can go up and

down depending on the wording, on how you word it. A referendum is a direct

indication of people's wishes. It is irrefutable. It is plain, it is direct, and

it is a message. We respect the rights of individuals, and I hope people

respected my decision to make the decision I did, and I respect the wishes of

constituents and any other member to make their particular choice.

I can assure you, it was not a political choice. It was

probably far from a political choice. It was probably an unpopular, a poor,

political choice. Sometimes it is a lot easier to be, I think, popular than it

is to be unpopular, although it is easy to get that too, but overall we have

addressed that we will co-operate when the people have spoken, as we have done

in the past. We co-operated in getting this dealt with here today by waiving the

normal notice, and we will certainly expedite to have this concluded by

tomorrow. There will not be any delays on the part of our caucus.

Many of the members want an opportunity to be able to have

their say in the House, and they will moderate the length of their say on the

time restraint so it can be dealt with by tomorrow. Certainly that is their

right and their privilege, and they want to say some things about it, but I am

confident that it will move quickly through the remaining parliamentary

channels. I do not have any reason to think otherwise. I will be attending

meetings in the upcoming week with various caucuses, and the federal leader and

other people in Atlantic Canada. Also, I will be speaking with members of the

Senate over the next while, and I will certainly be conveying where we are, as a

caucus, and what we feel. Then it is up to them to make their parliamentary

choices, based on their elected constituencies, on what they want to do.

I do not intend to press or arm twist or dictate to anybody

their democratic rights, but I can certainly indicate in strong terms our rights

and how we want to exercise our rights.

We are looking at a whole new era in education in this

Province. We had 211 recommendations in the Royal Commission Report, and while

much of the focus has been on ones tied up with governance of our school system,

there are approximately 180 of these that are not related to the governance of

our school system. I think it is important to move on and start dealing with the

most important people in education, the children.

The Premier made a comment - I am not sure if it is in the

right context or not, but I heard him make it again later - and it does concern

me a little bit when he indicated it is not about savings in the system, because

I firmly believe that this decision today, the decision by parents in our

Province to move into a single system, would enable extra money in the system to

be utilized to enhance the educational opportunities and to turn out a better

and more competitive product in our society today. If it does not do that, what

is it all about? What is it all about? Where are we going to go in the future?

I want to see funding, and we will be holding government

accountable, as our education critic has done, and I, and members of my caucus,

to ensure that government will be accountable and deliver to the people of this

Province various commitments that they have made to ensure that the child comes

first and foremost in the education reform of this Province, and that it is not

a power struggle. It is a struggle, yes, to empower kids with the best possible

chance of getting an education and we did have, and the Premier made reference

to, and I just want to correct it for the record, within the hospital system

here, there was no long, drawn-out debate on hospitals because I was health

critic for a number of years, for three-and-a-half years, and in fact I think

there is quite a contrast to the hospital situation.

When government purchased those hospitals, they purchased

them under the following condition I might add; on the condition that the

agreement provided between government and those people who owned those

hospitals, the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital and the Sisters of Mercy at

St. Clare's, these agreements provided those two private owners, the Sisters of

Mercy and the Salvation Army Grace General with the right to retain at their

site, the mission, values, philosophy and ethical principles consistent with the

spirit and tradition of the founding groups. These agreements provide the rights

to these groups to an advisory council, the selection of the on-site

administrator, the acceptance of a mission statement and an undertaking by

government to ensure compliance of staff members, physicians and volunteers with

that mission statement.

That was an agreement that this government entered into with

private, religious owners of a hospital to provide health care in this Province

so that people would continue to have a certain amount of compassion, feelings

and values when in the health care system of their Province. I, certainly in my

vote, attempted to retain some of that. I hope the current system, to be honest

with you, can provide that. I am hopeful it can. I felt it could be entrenched

by going that extra little step further, could have ensured that in the system

if parents so choose it. Today we will have to move forward. I am never one to

look back at the past. To be honest with you, we have to deal with the future

now and we have to move forward, and I, on behalf of our caucus, indicated, we

are publicly in here again today, that we will facilitate this process as much

as we possibly can and certainly wish the Premier well in expediting and moving

this through the federal channels, because now, the people of the Province have

spoken in a very clear, very definitive way and we have an obligation here to

respect the wishes that have been carried out in a democratic manner. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to speak today on this historic occasion

which I have had the privilege for the second time of speaking in this House of

Assembly on a matter involving a proposed amendment to the Constitution of

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know and our guests from the

governments of other provinces know full-well as well, the changing of a

Constitution is a difficult thing. A Constitution provides the law which governs

the powers of a state and when changes are sought, people have strong feelings

because they are concerned that some right or privilege that they have will be

lost at the expense of their future, of their right to fully participate in that

society.

This debate about education in the Province of Newfoundland

and in particular the governance of education has been going on for quite some

time. In the past five years of course, it has intensified and has been at times

a difficult and a tense debate and has been so because people have felt that

their way of life, that their beliefs, that their ability to pass on those

beliefs and traditions to their children are at risk, so it was not an easy

thing to get from where we were five years ago to where I think we are today,

and that is to recognize that as a people we wish to see a change in our system

that served well in the past, that the majority of people of this Province feel

need no longer govern our system of education.

In my remarks today I want to pay some tribute as well to

members of this House. Because it is the members of this House who together, and

individually, took up the challenge of leadership during this summer to put

before the people of this Province a question that was clear, that was direct,

that was complete in its offer of an option to the people of this Province that

had been argued for, for many years.

Perhaps for the only time in my life in this House, I want to

commend all members opposite in their unanimity behind the decision to put forth

the referendum question and to support the Yes side. They provided leadership in

their districts and their communities that I think was necessary to achieve the

result that we have achieved in the results of this referendum. I say that in

all sincerity, because I know it has been particularly difficult for some

members opposite to take a firm position for the Yes side from the very

beginning. But as I say, I think that that position of leadership and taking the

strong position has helped the people of their districts come to the conclusion

that the time was right for the people of this Province and for the Province

itself to move forward to a new system of governance of education.

A constitution is an important document. I remember twenty

years ago when I was studying constitutional law being told by the professor

about what he called the sources of constitutional law. This is an academic

exercise, of course, the various sources of constitutional law being, at that

time, the British North America Act, the imperial statutes amending that act,

Orders in Council by which at least two of the provinces of Canada were admitted

to the federation, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. By an Order in

Council, not by any statute at all, not by any parliament or legislature. We

reviewed the conventions and other aspects which were the sources of

constitutional law.

The professor then said: But there is one other. Can any one

of you tell me what it is? Here we were, probably 150 of us sitting in this

constitutional law class from all over Canada, bright, we thought, young men and

women, being asked a question about another source of constitutional law. No one

had the answer. The answer that he finally had to give forth himself was that

the other source of constitutional law, and the most important source of

constitutional law, was the will of the people. Without the will of the people,

any other sources of constitutional law could not have the legitimacy that they

should have in a state that was to claim itself a democracy.

What we have seen in the past thirty days is the coming

together of a consensus about this issue that has been a long time coming. We

have a very clear expression of the will of the people. We see that the time is

now right to ask this Legislature and the Parliament of Canada to change Term 17

to provide for a system of education which is governed and operates without

regard to adherence to a particular religious denomination.

I want to join today with the Premier in speaking not to

those who voted yes in support of this change in the referendum on Tuesday, but

to also speak to those who voted no, and the leaders of the No campaign, and the

leaders of the churches, who supported the No campaign and supported the

retention of the rights to administer the school system that they have, that

they have exercised in the past and I want to speak to them in a way that asks

them to recognize that what has been changed here are the constitutional rights

and obligations of government, but that remaining aside from the rights, are the

decisions of this Legislature, the decisions of school boards, the decisions of

school councils and the democratic process not only in this Legislature, but

also in the school system, that will determine the actual content of observances

that may take place in school and the types of instruction that may or may not

be permitted. I want to plead with them to recognize the will of the people, as

expressed in this referendum and I think, regardless of the opposition, the

lobbying, court threats, or challenges, will become the Constitution of this

Province and the Constitution of Canada. I ask them not to engage in that

lobbying effort, not to engage in what I think will be a loosing battle which

can only serve to embitter those-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - who feel that they have lost something

precious and I understand that strong emotional feeling. I know it well. I ask

and urge them to have a good look at the new system, to have a good look at the

communities and friends and people who are going to be running that school

system and to find new ways to provide the moral leadership, the instruction of

children in religious ideas, the inculcation of values and traditions that are

unique to a particular denomination. There are ways to do that in the new

system, just as there are ways to do that in the present system and in the

system of every other province of Canada.

There is a need for moral leadership in our community, in our

Province today, there is a need for religious leaders to provide the kind of

leadership that is needed to take on the challenges that we have of child

poverty, of hunger, of want, of lack of opportunity, of people living in

desperate circumstances and feeling no hope for their future. We need to share

the values of Christian life and not just Christian life, of Christianity, of

the other religions that have a moral and ethical tradition and value to present

to all of our citizens.

So, there will be ways and there are ways in our society to

seek and to achieve the ends of religion and spiritual values. Look to our

school boards, look to our school councils, look to the school teachers to

provide that kind of leadership.

It has been an opportunity in the last thirty days or a

little more, for us as legislators to find the appropriate time to present this

question to the people of this Province. We have done that inevitably under the

leadership of the government whose responsibility it was to react to the public

mood and the public desire and as I said on July 31st, I have to commend and

support the government in taking up the challenge, of providing the leadership,

and putting that question to the people of the Province.

The results have been very positive, decisive. I think all

democrats in the houses of Parliament, whether elected in the House of Commons

or appointed in the Senate, should have no option but to speedily recognize the

will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I will do my

part in presenting the story of

this referendum and this decision to the New Democratic Party caucus, national

caucus, which meets in Halifax next week. I assure you that I will do everything

to convince them that they should join with us, and I hope -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - that (inaudible) will be a unanimous

resolution of this House to approve the constitutional amendment being sought in

this resolution. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just appreciate the opportunity today to make some comments

in the context of this debate which has been properly described as historic in

the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the continuing development of our

education system. Because just as individuals are lifelong learners, so is the

education system, of course, continually evolving and changing to meet the needs

of the society at any one particular time.

I think that I really must say, on behalf of our caucus here,

that we appreciate both the personal expression of opinion by the Leader of the

Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party when they were asked to

take a position during the debate, and we equally appreciate their expression of

opinion here today, as legislators, in indicating quite clearly that they will

work for the swift and proper and appropriate passage of this resolution from

here on, because the people of the Province have spoken so clearly.

On behalf of all of us, we certainly do appreciate the stance

taken both individually before and during the actual debate itself, and now as

responsible elected legislators in this House, working on behalf of the people

of the Province to make sure that the indication and desire that was registered

by the people of the Province on September 2 is brought into reality and

fruition at the earliest possible date.

A couple of things, though. I think I would be remiss if I

didn't make some commentary for purposes of the record of this debate as to

where we have come from, and where we are going to be, without belabouring

matters. I think it is important for the Hansard of our House and for the

history of this in the Province to make these few comments.

Basically, I think we have all acknowledged that the

denominationally-based system which we have always had in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and has been unique to this Province, no doubt about it, absolutely

unique in this Province, in Canada, in North America, and in the world, and has

served the people of the Province tremendously well for years. The fact of the

matter though is that it has been debated for some time as to whether we needed

to maintain the system as it was pre-Confederation, and as it was enshrined in

the Constitution of Canada as part of the Terms of Union in 1949.

One of our former Ministers of Education who was recognized

in the gallery today, and still here, Dr. Warren, a noted educator, a young

university professor at the time in the mid-sixties, some thirty years ago,

spearheaded a - still a young man, of course, but a bit younger back then -

royal commission at that time that led to the most dramatic change in the

education system since Confederation, which in the outcome and the

implementation of the major recommendations saw major changes in the way the

Department of Education was structured, and major changes that led to the system

of integration that has been a fundamental feature of the Province since 1969,

moving on now almost some thirty years. Again, the whole issue in that system

again, marking us and leaving it a very strong mark in terms of the features

that we looked at in 1995, and again today in trying to look at these last

revisions.

We also, of course, need to remember I think that in terms of

the debate, in the historic points in the debate, in 1985, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers Association presented a brief to government in which they

highlighted certain points and I think some phrases I recall from that with

respect to isolation by denomination whether that should be continued, that we

were actually funding less than the optimal system for the students of the

Province, words that were repeated just recently by Justice Barry, and that in

fact, I guess the proposition was put at that time as part of that brief that,

the government may be having an expenditure within the range of $70 million a

year that may not be going into the best interests of the students, but was

necessary to service three or four separate systems because that is the system

that we had at the time.

Then of course, the Williams' Commission of 1990-91 which was

the largest, public consultation ever held on education in this Province. The

largest number of meetings, the largest number of presentations, the largest

number of briefs and so on, and at the end of the day, that group called for and

recommended a shared, joint-denominational system but even in making that

recommendation, they indicated in their writings that to accomplish it, it would

need considerable compromise and co-operation from the denominational

stakeholder in the system. They thought it could work but they knew it could not

be ordered, it had to come about as a result of considerable compromise and

co-operation, were the words used in the Williams Commission Report, and

unfortunately it did not materialize before the referendum two years ago, it did

not materialize significantly in the last year and then we come to the

circumstance where the Premier of the day, our Premier today, the leader of this

party was in a position, with the support of his caucus and his Cabinet to have

to call another referendum, and I am a person who is on the public record as

saying I did not think I would ever see the day.

Only a few months ago, as a matter of fact when they

addressed the annual meeting of the Teachers Association, the annual meeting of

the Home and School Association and the annual meeting of the School Boards

Association, I repeated the statement that because of what we had gone through

in 1995, I did not think we would find ourselves in a circumstance where anybody

again would find it necessary or have the political will or courage to actually

have another referendum with respect to education. But again, like others in our

caucus we applaud the Premier for coming forward, based on the circumstances

that were there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - and indicating quite clearly and going to

the people of the Province has been acknowledged by everybody with a clear,

straightforward proposition and I think it was clear, it was acknowledged to be

clear, it was straightforward, it was not complicated or complex and the answer

as everybody has now understood and acknowledged from a couple of days ago was

equally as decisive, clear, uncomplicated and uncompromising. So I am pleased to

see members of the House today, Mr. Speaker, indicating that we all acknowledge

that the people of the Province have spoken loudly and clearly and that we

should move on because it is in the best interest of all of us and all of the

students who are in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I certainly again, join the chorus of voices today that

ask all of us to work on the reconciliation of differences, the acceptance of

different views which are strongly held by individuals in the Province because

there are still some areas where we as the government need to be challenged and

should be challenged with respect to our commitment to the education system and

we look forward to the continuing challenge by members opposite in taking us to

task and making sure that we do answer the questions about the education system

that parents and students still have, as to whether or not there is enough of a

level of commitment to excellence in education being demonstrated by this

particular government.

We do not shirk from that, we understand that it is our role

to answer and it is everybody else's role to ask the questions that need to be

asked. Our representatives, the same groups to whom I spoke, many of whom, just

about all of them in fact, on side and supporters in this particular campaign

will very quickly and properly turn their attention now in asking the hard

questions of government as to whether or not we are committing the proper and

appropriate level of resources to education in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

that is exactly the way that it should be. We do not expect blind support on

everything that we do but on this issue it was gratifying to find a real ground

swell of support for the proposition put forward and it was reflected of course

in the vote of the people themselves.

So there is no doubt that again, those who were on the No

side, my plea would be not to continue to try to slow down the progress of this

resolution either here in the Province, which has not materialized, or in Ottawa

where we would need approvals, but to continue to focus their energies on

challenging us, as the government, to deliver a couple of new things that are in

this resolution.

There are challenges. We need to be kept at task and called

to task to make sure that the government indeed is diligent in providing for

religious education courses in every single classroom, in every single school in

Newfoundland and Labrador, because it is provided for in this new term. We need

to be challenged and brought to task repeatedly to make sure that when parents

ask for religious observances in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador that

the government and the school boards and the school-based administrators and the

school councils see that they are appropriately and properly provided for.

On the other issues I think, then, no doubt we will want to

make sure that everybody encourages government to continue to live up to its

stated commitment of education as a priority in the Province. I think in the

short term we would hope that everybody could join together and help us, on

behalf of the people of the Province, to pass this resolution through Ottawa so

that we can all get onto the rest of the critically important education agenda.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned some issues with

respect to the Williams Commission Report, and I expect fully that we will have

more questions in Question Period and other debate as we come back to the

Legislature later in the fall, and in other public opportunities, to challenge

the government as to what is happening with the recommendations of the Williams

Commission Report.

Again, just to address the issue briefly today, because it is

not the purpose of this debate, there is a report that I circulated previously,

and would gladly circulate again, that indicates that 97 per cent - 97 per cent

- of the recommendations of the Williams Commission Report have either been

actioned or are in the process of final actioning, or in the hands of other

agencies and institutions other than the government for their actioning, because

there was a wide-sweeping, wide-ranging report that gave direction to the

government, to the school boards, that asked all of the partners and the agents

in education to deal with certain issues. Now they are not all done, admittedly,

and I acknowledge that, but there is certainly definite progress being made.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope then that we could all focus on

dealing with the more proper educational planning for the future, because

basically we should acknowledge that school boards have been relieved of their

debt of some $24 million, that government has made some significant investments

in education. We have placed $2.5 million back into the system for purchasing

computer equipment. We have provided half-a-million dollars which is starting to

be expended this fall as schools open, for tutoring by peers for students who

need help in the school. We have reinstated over $2 million into the teachers'

salary budget to give proper levels of professional development and in-service

to teachers, because we admit that it was a bit shortchanged in the last year or

so, for budgetary reasons, and the ten boards have been granted permission to

use savings from consolidations and closures to do much needed physical

improvements in their plants, in the schools, for the students, replacing

portables with real classrooms, adding lunchrooms in schools where new

arrangements and configurations of students have occurred, adding gymnasia in

buildings that never, ever had them before, building new schools in places like

Rigolet, Nain, Hopedale, that had the worst facilities in Newfoundland and

Labrador for years. Then, along with that, all of us should be tasked to get on

with the other items that remain.

We need and we will shortly be dealing with matters such as

the Canning Report on Special Matters, and the government will lay out how we

plan to deal with those special needs issues.

We are continuing to deal with curriculum improvements at all

levels, particularly at the high school level, through Atlantic Provinces

initiatives, through the Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation, where we will

do common curriculum for students in all of the schools in Atlantic Canada.

We have to be challenged to maintain the pupil/teacher ratios

in Newfoundland and Labrador at or below the national average in the face of

continuing declining enrolments, and we expect to be challenged on that by

members opposite, by representatives of the school board, by representatives of

the Teachers' Association, by representatives of the Home and School Federation.

We expect that challenge and want to get on with dealing with that, because we

should not have to deal with these governance issues continually and forever and

a day.

We want to look, Mr. Speaker, at issues like proper special

recognition of schools in our Province that are isolated and necessarily

existent by virtue of where they are physically situated, where there are no

choice for students and families other than to be there and are we resourcing

them to the levels that we can and should. We want to deal with those kinds of

educational planning matters because hopefully we can move away from this battle

now that has been five, six or seven years in the making, about who is really

going to control or run the system, put that issue squarely and clearly to rest

with the passage of this resolution here and in the Parliament of Canada and get

on to the educational agenda that all of us in this Legislature want to pursue

on behalf of the parents and the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am pleased to speak in favour

of this particular resolution and would urge swift, decisive passage here in

this House so that we can all turn our attention to the improved learning

opportunities for all of our students who live together and now, Mr. Speaker,

will have an opportunity to learn together.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have

leave just to bring a brief message to the House which I think is relevant to

the debate and I think reflects the spirit that we have heard from members, in

all three parties, who have spoken today, which is a request that there be an

acceptance of the will of the people and to move forward in a way that helps to

reconcile all of us after the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I have just had a letter transmitted to me in

the House, from the representatives of the Integrated churches of the

Denominational Education Commission and the letter has advised me formally, and

I advise the House now, that the Rt. Reverend Donald F. Harvey of the Anglican

Church of Canada, Lt. Colonel Shirley Rowsell of the Salvation Army, Rev.

Clarence Sellers of the United Church of Canada, Rev. Ted Thompson of the

Presbyterian Church in Canada and of course represented by Harry G. Elliott, the

executive officer, have written to advise government that they are prepared to

comply with the request by government, put on September 2, that the next school

board election be held on a non-denominational basis. The churches and

integration have indicated their agreement of such an election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate of course

that that agreement is conditional upon all of the denominations coming to a

similar arrangement. Mr. Speaker, I would only hope that our friends, our fellow

citizens in the Roman Catholic Church leadership and Pentecostal leadership will

reflect now upon this position and come to a similar position on this important

question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity this

afternoon for a few moments to participate in this important debate as we

discuss the future of education and the whole educational process and system as

we have in our Province for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I have, from the beginning of this debate,

expressed some difficulties with the whole process which we were experiencing in

this Province. I made my position known quite clearly and publicly, shortly

after the decision was made by the hon. Premier to engage in the referendum

process, that I was one member of this House that had difficulty with this

process from the outset. There were a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I

shared with the public of this Province and indeed my own constituents, why I

had reservations and why I felt that this process was not in the best interest

of all of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I attempted to be clear in my

expression and in doing so I listed a number of concerns which I had and I

expressed them in a letter which I had sent to The Evening Telegram a

number of days ago. They included concerns with respect to, where I had felt as

critic in education over the past number of months, they referred to areas which

I had observed and the hon. minister perhaps just related some concerns which of

course we will have to address in the future, issues such as classroom focus

issues, dealing with children with learning disabilities, dealing with children

with learning difficulties and behavioural disorders and so on. There were areas

which I had witnessed as critic in education over the past eighteen months that

had not been in my view adequately addressed and recognized and concluded to the

satisfaction of those who raised those concerns.

Therefore one concern that I had with respect to the whole

debate was the issue of trust and I was clear in making that point to the media

and to the public of this Province. I felt that there were times when this

government had demonstrated to the people of this Province negligence in not

dealing with the concerns as they were raised by many parents in various

communities, in trying to resolve very difficult issues with their school boards

and last spring there was not one day when there was at least a petition or a

question in question in Question Period which dealt with for example, the

parents of Port au Port or the parents of Brigus or the parents of Jacques

Fontaine for example and other communities in our Province, and I felt that this

government had not done its utmost in responding to the concerns of many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as issues arose in trying to deal with the very

difficult road to reform.

I had difficulty with the idea that funding which was to have

been saved as a result of education reform, was not being redirected and

reverted to the schools and the school system of our Province. We have heard

this being expressed repeatedly by parents and by those individuals engaged in

the education system, that continues to be a concern that I have today, Mr.

Speaker, and I can assure the hon. minister that that particular point will be

repeated by members on this side of the House as we get into the fall session of

this Legislature.

I was concerned by the fact that upon the decision being

rendered by His Lordship, Mr. Justice Leo Barry, that the government opposite

and members opposite had not taken into account the very decision that was in

fact made by Judge Barry. What was the contingency plan is the question that I

ask myself Mr. Speaker, and I had concerns as to this whole idea of a second

referendum being a way out as apposed to dealing with the real issues and the

questions and concerns that were raised by Mr. Justice Barry in his decision.

I was concerned about what I would term the needless division

of our Newfoundland people. It is true that the vote is overwhelming and I

support the decision obviously of the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, but it is also true Mr. Speaker, that some 55,000 Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians forty-eight hours ago voted No. This is a significant number, a

significant statistic and proves the point that the whole referendum process, as

overwhelming as the outcome indeed was, was nevertheless a divisive and as I

termed throughout the referendum debate, perhaps a needless exercise.

The timing, Mr. Speaker. It has been heard by those

individuals who indicated concern with the process, the timing, in the middle of

summer when many individuals are thinking of anything but routine, anything but

school, that is when Newfoundlanders were plunged into this debate, a time when

the last thing on most peoples minds was how do we deal with what is in the best

interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from an educational point of view.

It was suggested by many individuals, and I would suggest even many proponents

of the Yes campaign, that perhaps one alternative that could have been adopted

by government was this whole notion of a reference to a Supreme Court, so that a

judicial opinion could be rendered with respect to how this term will indeed

stand up, if in fact it is challenged down the road. Which, of course, always

remains a possibility.

The government was armed and surrounded by legal advisors,

well-known legal advisors, but it must be remembered that this is only a legal

opinion. On any point, as I'm sure the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board or

my colleague here the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi will know, we can all,

upon request, render a legal opinion. The ultimate decision maker is the court,

which will take into account a variety of legal opinions in the formation and

conclusion of its answer.

A question that has to be asked as well, Mr. Speaker, and it

is a question which I sincerely hope will be answered soon by the Premier and by

his Minister of Education, is: What changes for the better in the classroom will

result as a result of the process which we have just undergone and experienced

in our Province? What assurances do we have, as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, that our system will improve, that the children within our

classrooms will in fact receive a better education?

It is fine to say that in the final analysis the churches are

no longer responsible for the administration and governance of our schools.

However, the real question is: How will our children in our larger schools in

our urban centres to our smallest schools in our most rural communities, how

will the children in those classrooms in those schools in fact be better

educated and be graduates who can go out into the real world much better

prepared and much more equipped? That is the real question.

A final question that I asked throughout my deliberations as

to how I would vote on referendum day was: Will September 2, referendum day, be

in fact the end of the debate, or just the beginning? There is nobody in this

Legislature who can answer that question. We have some signs, I believe, that

there are groups and individuals who will pursue this matter, but in the long

term we have no way of knowing right now, as individual legislators, whether or

not we have concluded this process, or will in fact there be more. Will there be

challenges? Will there be difficulty in Ottawa?

The people of St. John's East, the district that I represent,

chose the Yes side at some 69 per cent. That is decisive. I will, just for the

benefit of members opposite, and perhaps even my own colleagues, list some of

the schools of long history and tradition that are in my district

geographically. St. Bonaventure, St. Patrick's, Holy Heart of Mary, Brother

Rice, Gonzaga High School, St. Pius X Junior High and Elementary, Mary Queen of

Peace, not to mention the churches, as someone just alluded to, that are in my

district. It is a district, it is a part of this city, which has a very rich

history and tradition. That is just one denomination, and of course there are

others, many others.

Despite that history or tradition, or existence of such

institutions which have had such prominence, I guess, in our community, my

district voted 69 per cent. Obviously I must respect that. There is no way I can

deny that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I have to concur with the

points that were made by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition when he says

that we are obviously unanimous in the fact that the people of this Province

have spoken.

They have spoken loudly, have spoken decisively and, as

individual members, and as one individual member, I must respect the people who,

in fact, chose and elected me to be their representative in this hon. House. It

is as simple as that.

A question was asked of me yesterday by a member of the

media, "Was it a difficult choice?" In all honesty I had to say: Not when a vote

is as decisive, when over 4,000 of my constituents chose yes and less than 2,000

chose no.

My vote, as everyone knows, was a no on referendum day, but I

simply state that I have to support the wishes of the majority of the very

people who elected me to represent them in this hon. House.

I have some concerns, and it is perhaps my legal training and

background that gives me some concerns. I am aware of cases, for example, in the

Provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, British Columbia, where in a public school

milieu there have been court challenges, and successful court challenges.

Whether or not that transpires again, we do not know. We will just have to wait

and see and hope that whatever transpires is for the betterment of our children

and their education.

However, in conclusion, there is a point I would like to

make. In fact, it only came to me just shortly, and it was as I looked around

this House and as I took into account the wording of the resolution. It states

that the Legislature of this Province shall have exclusive authority, and that

religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents.

And it dawned on me, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps - despite the fact that I have

some concerns and reservations - perhaps we can take some consolation in the

very inscription which salutes this hon. House and which sits just above the

hon. Speaker, and it is Latin, "Quaerite Prime Regnum Dei", which means, when

translated, "Seek Ye First The Kingdom Of God". And it is this very House which

has now been entrusted to deal with educational matters, to deal with issues

giving us exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, to

presumably come up with a definition of observances, and we are being guided by

the very inscription that I referred to earlier. So I think that we can all -

and perhaps even those who perhaps have much more concern that I have - we can

all take some consolation in the fact that, as legislators, we are guided by

this very inscription, and that may go a long way to help all of us in realizing

that we do have control, and under this sort of guidance we may make, in fact,

the proper and most appropriate choices and decisions for our children and our

grandchildren for time to come.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: If I could - and I don't intend to speak, this

is not an attempt to speak in the debate - I think we have agreement that we

will not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., that we would go to 6:00 p.m., and I would like

to move that we not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. but rather adjourn at 6:00 p.m. I just

ask leave to do that, without interrupting the speaker.

Motion that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., carried.

MR. TULK: And that we adjourn at 6:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: And that the House do adjourn at 6:00 p.m.

Motion that the House adjourn at 6:00 p.m., carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia and St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak

in this House this afternoon. I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition. I

have listened to Mr. Harris, the Leader of the NDP. I have listened to Mr.

Ottenheimer.

Our government put forth a question: Do you support a single

school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation,

attend the same schools, where opportunities for religious education and

observances are provided?

This is a straightforward question, and the people of our

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador gave a straightforward "yes" to that

referendum question. I believe that our government took the high ground. We

stated our case plainly and simply, there was no overpowering campaign to

persuade our population. The government wanted the people to consider, to

evaluate their options and give considered, rational resolution to this dilemma

in our educational system. I think that the people have spoken and that the

people now have the answer they want. The vast majority of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians want closure on this issue.

Personally, as a citizen, I voted yes on the referendum. I

want a school system that prepares our children for the 21st Century; I think

that the denominational system served us well in the past but I think it is now

time to consolidate our efforts and give our children in every town the most

resources we can so that in the future they can maximize their accomplishments.

The district I represent, Placentia and St. Mary's has voted ~No' in this

referendum, 8,101 people were eligible to vote on September 2nd and 3,746 people

voted. There were more no's than yes's and was the only district in the Province

where the `No' side outvoted the `Yes' side. I am proud to represent a district

that looks at an issue and expresses its opinion. I am proud to be part of a

government that has stated its case solidly in the common man's language.

In the first referendum, the people of my district voted

approximately 80 per cent for the `No' side and 20 per cent for the `Yes' side.

This time they voted in about the same numbers, roughly the same percentage of

the eligible vote, but the trend was clearly gaining on the `Yes' side which

went up from 20 per cent to 44 per cent, a little better than double. The `No'

support went from a high of 80 per cent approximately, down to 56 per cent so I

think that my constituents, as well as the residents of the Province want

closure on this issue.

A gentleman whose opinion I value quite a lot said to me:

Anthony, there is a time to lead and there is a time to follow. As an elected

representative of the people, I believe that now is the time to lead. This is a

time for my district to lead the Province in a spirit of reconciliation; it is a

time to realize that we have fought the democratic fight and we have made our

views known and that they have been counted and recognized and measured against

the rest of the Province. I have given this situation very considerable thought

and I have consulted with friends and colleagues and people from different

political stripes in my district. I have not had a lot of time, I have had the

past forty-eight hours to consult with them; should I vote `No' in the House of

Assembly to reflect the vote of my district? Will I perpetuate the dissention on

the education issue? What will my constituents gain? Can this one, dissenting

vote retain the denominational system in Newfoundland and Labrador? The answer

is no.

The system will change because the majority has voted for

change. If I cannot keep the denominational system in the Province as a whole,

is there someone who suggests that it can be retained in my District of

Placentia - St. Mary's? The answer to that as we all know in this House is no.

The system of education covers the entire length and breadth of the Province, we

cannot have isolated segments anywhere, not on the Island, not in Labrador;

there is nothing for my district to gain by continuing to support the `No'

position. There is nothing for our Province to gain by the people in my district

continuing to support their position. I believe that the reasonable, fair-minded

constituents I represent, having looked at the resounding decision of the people

of this Province and our position in the context of that vote, would want their

representative in the House of Assembly to consider not just our riding but the

greater good of Newfoundland and Labrador itself.

As that representative, I think it is in the best interests

of my constituents, and the best interests of the Province, to stop the debate

over denominational education right now and in my district. We should, in the

spirit of reconciliation, join the rest of the Province in a yes vote here on

the House floor. Let us go forward to the Parliament of Canada with a united

voice to change the terms and give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the

education system they voted for Tuesday past. Let us work together for our

children's benefit to make education reform work. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is indeed an honour and a pleasure to rise and speak to

this issue yet again. If there has been one single issue in the last four years

that has dominated this Legislature more than any other, it has been the issue

of educational reform. I came into the hon. House of Assembly in May 1993.

Shortly thereafter negotiations began and became very heated over educational

reform. Subsequently people voted in the 1995 referendum to express their

concern or express their will about what reform they wished to see. In fact,

what they ended up getting at the end of the day was not what they voted for,

and thus the need arose, government made a decision, in terms of another

referendum that would clearly put this issue to rest.

I applaud government today, because the people have spoken.

An opportunity has been provided for the people of the Province to express their

will on this issue. Express their will they did, in clear numbers, in

overwhelming numbers, and they have said clearly this issue must be resolved and

must be resolved today, for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is

because of the education system that people want for their children, the type of

system they wish to have to produce a better, a more qualified, and a more

well-rounded person from our system.

They spoke also in loud numbers because they also recognize

that this issue has wasted too much time, that there has been too much debate,

that there has been too many infractions and too many people interfering with

the reform process. Because there are other issues just as important for this

Province to deal with. There are other issues that face us that are equally

challenging, and other issues that people said: We must move on from this and

deal with it.

I read the paper today and was interested to read the

comments of Minister Dion who, not categorically, but indicated that he was

pleased with the results and that they would analyze them more to see if

minority rights - the whole notion and question of minority rights, was there a

significant movement with respect to the vote that came within the Province.

I will only speak with respect to what has taken place in the

District of Kilbride. Post-referendum 1995, 52 per cent of the people in

Kilbride voted yes, 48 per cent voted no. While there are people of many faiths

who live in my district, there is a predominant Catholic population in the

District of Kilbride. Fifty-nine per cent of the people voted in 1995, and it

was very close.

Almost to the number, the same amount of people voted this

time, and the results were remarkably and starkly different. Sixty-nine per cent

of the people in the district said yes to this type of educational reform as

proposed by government. Not 52 per cent, 69 per cent. Almost the same numbers of

people voting. That leaves me to conclude one thing and one thing only, that

there has been a significant change amongst a certain portion of the population

whose leadership believes their rights may be infringed upon. That portion of

the population has said clearly: Let's deal with the issue. They have supported

what government has brought forward.

There are times in any elected official's life, and this

being one of them, where a choice is made on how you vote in the Legislature. I

have voted on many bills in this House and made representation, some we have

supported government on, some we have not, but that is what I was elected to do,

but there are times when government provides an opportunity for the people of

the Province to directly speak themselves, to circumvent the process of the

House of Assembly and it's House of representatives, to speak directly to an

issue and they have done so on this occasion. They have said clearly, let's move

on and I support that today and I stand strong, as strong as possibly I can,

with the people of my district in supporting government to move forward.

I want to say to the Minister of Education, because one of

the points that he made is very, very important and it is the point where he

said, that the system that we had was unique to the federation of Canada and it

is. I would like to add this point to it, that under the terms of union with

Canada, education is exclusively and primarily a provincial responsible. The

people of this Province have spoken loudly and clearly and whatever it takes to

move passage of the amendment of the resolution put forward by government today

through the hollowed halls of Ottawa, through Parliament and through the Senate,

then it should be done expeditiously.

I want to say to government that as one member, elected

member in this House, that if there is any way, shape or form that I may assist

in that regard to ensure that happens expeditiously, then I offer myself to that

cause today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: It must be said clearly and unequivocally

that when it comes to Parliament; the elected representatives and the Senate;

the unelected representatives, that we must all stand together and say clearly

that education is a provincial responsibility. The people of the Province have

spoken overwhelming about what their opinion is and what type of system they

wish to have for their children and that unto itself should be enough and that

should be respected. In any thinking fair mined individual, in any thinking

politician who does not see that and look at the overwhelming will as expressed

through the referendum on this particular issue, certainly should take some time

to reflect on what he or she is thinking about, that would be my advice to any

individual in that regard.

Besides the entire issue of reform, we have an opportunity to

put this issue to bed because all of us in this House know full well that we

must at least and we have an obligation to turn our attention to other issues

that are equally or of more importance to the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, namely what about the chronic unemployment situation that faces our

rural communities? What time and energy has the debate on education reform taken

away from that very issue? Namely on what type of health care services we wish

to provide to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are in need of those

services day after day, week after week, month after month and what type of

energy, resources both financial and human, on this debate has taken away from

our ability to focus clearly on that type of issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues other than education

reform that are as equally or more important to the people of this Province and

must be addressed right now. What will the fishery of the future be? How many

rural communities will be able to survive and sustain themselves based upon that

fishery? Those are the issues that we must turn our attention to now, and the

sooner that we deal with the issue, move it through the House of Parliament,

move it through the Senate and begin the reform process, the sooner all of us in

this Legislature will be able to turn our attention to the other issues that are

as equally or more important to the people of the Province. I believe that they,

and they meaning the people of the Province, have expressed that themselves when

they have voted overwhelming seventy-three per cent to say to the elected

members of this House and government on this issue, enough is enough, let's deal

with it, let's move on, there are other things that we wish to talk about.

With that Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that I

certainly vote yes to the resolution. I support what the people of Kilbride have

expressed in their majority will through the referendum. I urge each and every

member to do whatever is necessary within their ability to ensure speedy passage

of this resolution to ensure that this Legislature now can move on, not only

with this issue of educational reform but with other issues that equally are

challenging to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am certainly going to take the opportunity here today in

this Legislature, as an elected member, to have a few words but not a lot, Mr.

Speaker.

I guess this whole debate, historical debate as it was

alluded to earlier - from the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to say foremost that I

don't think there is a member from the first debate some four years ago, when I

got involved in this Legislature, who did not want a reform of education. I

think that was unanimous throughout the Province. It was unanimous throughout

this Legislature. I never had it mistaken that everybody wanted reform and, Mr.

Speaker, reform for the better. Now we can all talk about the process and we can