October

17, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 37

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Premier.

Yesterday I reminded people of how the Premier came to power

on a promise of stemming the tide of out-migration, of bringing home every

mother's son. Today I remind people that his other major campaign promise that

persuaded people to elect him was to keep hospital beds open as long as the

demand exists, and to provide adequate staff. How, then, does the Premier

explain his government's actions in downgrading hospitals, closing beds, and

reducing front line patient care staff? How does the Premier square his definite

campaign promise with his government's decision to close the Children's Rehab

Centre this Fall, and to close the Grace Hospital and the Janeway Children's

Hospital in two years time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if anybody took a fair and

rational and objective assessment of the medical circumstances in this Province

they would find that right at this moment, as a result of this government

spending more money, in fact, on hospitals, and better managing hospitals, we

have the lowest overall waiting list of any province in the country. That is the

result. Those are not my opinions; that is the objective result of the

assessment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: How can the Leader of the Opposition even

put forward such an unfounded question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I ask the Premier: How can he explain to the people needing

heart surgery why they have to wait for months on end? How can he explain to

people who need acute hospital beds why they have to be lined up in emergency

departments in makeshift quarters for one and two days at a time?

Mr. Speaker, I have more questions on the government's

reckless, irresponsible approach to health care on their default of the

Premier's campaign promises. I will put the question to either the Premier or

the Minister of Health.

The decisions to close the Children's Rehab Centre, the

Janeway and the Grace, were made by the Premier and his government and I would

like to ask one of them to tell us: where will the programs and services now

provided by those three facilities, the Children's Rehab Centre, the Janeway and

the Grace be moved; will they be loaded on to the Health Sciences Centre and St.

Clare's, as has been indicated publicly? What is the estimated capital cost, the

cost of renovations, enlargements and extensions, to replace the three buildings

the government is closing? Is it more or less than the $309 million government

officials projected two years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue ought to be

put in proper context. The Janeway isn't being closed. The Janeway will continue

to exist; the Janeway Children's Health Centre will continue to exist and

continue to provide the services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It will be at a different address; it will

be better accommodation, it will be better able to provide the services. It is

very simple. Mr. Speaker, the assessment of the objective experts who have

looked at this have made it very clear to government. They have made an

overwhelming case to government and we have accepted their recommendations that

in the interest of health care in this Province, this is the way to go.

Now, I don't have the details and I doubt if the Minister of

Health does in the actual figures as to what the precise capital cost would be

and what the savings, but as I remember the presentation to the government, it

was very clear that not only was it in the best interest of health care in this

Province, it was overwhelmingly in the best interest of the taxpayers of the

Province.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier, will he show us, table in this House, the

studies that prove closing the Janeway, relocating the Janeway will be in the

best interest of children, their families and the taxpayers of the Province?

Where will we be able to find the Janeway in 1998, what will

be the new address, and how much will it cost in terms of construction,

renovations, alterations and extensions to fit up the Janeway at this new

address? Is the current, capital-cost estimate of the St. John's hospital

consolidation more or less than the $309 million government officials projected

two years ago?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member

either does not hear well or does not listen well. We have repeatedly indicated

that the new address of the Janeway will be adjacent to the Health Sciences

Complex on Prince Philip Drive. That will be the new address of the Janeway,

that will be where the new facilities will be located and that is where we will

provide a better continuum of care for children in paediatric services in this

Province.

As to the question of tabling studies, the hon. member

probably would know better than me, that this whole discussion commenced back in

1985-86 when at that time she was member, I believe, of the government of that

day. The whole concept of reorganizing health care in St. John's has proceeded

and has been announced generally along the lines that these studies recommended

consistently from the time that the contemplation was started to reorganize

health care in the city. So if she cannot find them in her files, we will find

them for her and table them in the House.

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

Opposition.

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

Minister of Health.

Will the Minister of Health show us the current cost

estimates of constructing the new Janeway facilities at the Health Sciences

Centre? Will the minister indicate whether his current estimates of the capital

cost of the hospital site consolidation, as it is euphemistically called, in St.

John's is more or less than the $309 million public works officials projected

two years ago?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the estimates to which she

refers grew out of work done by individual hospital boards that existed at that

time, there were six or seven in the city. It became very clear to government

that before we could proceed with a rationalization of services in the city, we

would have to consolidate all of the facilities under one administration. That

has been done and the indication that I have been given is that the capital

construction will not cost anywhere near the $300 million that she alludes to.

What I can tell her though, is that by virtue of experience in other

jurisdictions, what happens is that about 30-35 per cent of the budget of

facilities that are taken out of service is usually what is saved. If we apply

that to the Janeway, Rehab and the Grace Hospital, they have a total budget

between them of about $90 million. So we could reasonably expect to achieve

savings of about $30-$35 million. Government has indicated that we would be

prepared to look at putting that toward amortization of capital that would be

needed to make the appropriate moves happen. We believe that we can amortize it

over a period of ten years or less and still achieve savings; and on top of

that, forgetting the savings, provide a better health care for the people of the

Province and the people of the area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary to the

Minister of Health. The Minister of Health just indicated that the current

capital cost estimate of the consolidation of hospitals in St. John's is less

than the $309 million projected a couple of years ago. What is the current cost

estimate?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, when the reorganization of

health care in the city was announced on June 29 it was also announced at that

time by myself and Sister Elizabeth Davis that during the ensuing six months we

would engage in a number of activities, first of which will be a consultative

process amongst the people who work within the facilities, a consultative

process at the community level, and in other jurisdictions where it is

appropriate, to discuss and explore fully what people's expectations are in

terms of reorganization.

That process has begun. We indicated at that time that by the

end of 1995, this year, we would probably be in a position to bring forward a

plan that would encompass and envisage the capital buildings, the capital

construction that is needed, and also to lay against that some sort of a budget.

We will keep that schedule. We will maintain that commitment, and by the end of

this year we hope to be in a position to lay out more clearly and more

definitively the full scope and extent of the plans to reorganize the system in

the city.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is shocking. This

Liberal government is making major hospital decisions first and exploring later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: This Liberal government is making

life-and-death hospital decisions first and planning later. I ask the Premier,

will you fire your Minister of Health for reckless and irresponsible handling of

vital health care and hospital issues affecting patients throughout the whole

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will report to the people of the

Province and let the people decide whether it is the Minister of Health or the

Leader of the Opposition that ought to be fired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Here is what I will tell -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Here is what I will tell -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Here is what I will tell them, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: You know the Opposition are being exposed

for what they are when they start to shout. I will quote, Mr. Speaker, the

Fraser Forum which just completed in 1995 a full assessment of the waiting lists

throughout Canada. Here is what they say.

MR. TOBIN: (inaudible) Newfoundland.

PREMIER WELLS: The only area where Newfoundland has a

waiting list of any significance is in plastic surgery. The weighted medians

depicted in Chart 1 suggests that Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have the

shortest waits in the country for appointments with specialists, while New

Brunswick has the longest. Our study shows an overall increase in the waiting

times for all provinces except Alberta, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland.

Newfoundland shows the greatest improvement in waiting while the median wait in

Nova Scotia increased by 26 per cent, and that of PEI increased by 21 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, we have been showing consistent improvement to the point we are the

best in the country. Now, I will leave it to the people of this Province to

decide whether it is the Minister of Health or the Leader of the Opposition who

ought to be fired.

MR. TOBIN: He would not have been the Minister of Health

if Gerald Smith had to say, yes. If Gerald Smith had to have been for sale he

would have been the minister.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question to the Premier: After the Premier just listened to

an admission by his Minister of Health that there is no plan for replacing the

Janeway and the Grace, and that is why the minister cannot give us a capital

cost estimate, will the Premier put an immediate halt on the government decision

to close those provincial institutions in two years time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health

and the St. John's Hospital Board have everything under control and I have

complete confidence in both.

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

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

Premier as well. Today we are beginning debate on government's amendment to Term

17 of the Constitution of Canada, pertaining to educational reform for the

Province. The standard practice in amending constitutions is that there would be

a bilateral drafting of a proposed amendment to the constitution. I want to ask

the Premier: Has the federal government indeed been involved in the actual

drafting and wording of the amendment that we will start debate on here today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Federal government in the sense of federal

officials. I discussed, before the referendum took place, what we were doing

with the Prime Minister and so on, and I advised him of the results afterward,

and that has been the only direct interaction between the political provincial

government and federal government.

I do know that officials in the Department of Justice have

consulted extensively with officials in the federal Department of Justice, with

a view to making sure that the precise wording of the proposed resolution would

be acceptable in legal terms. Whether it is acceptable in political terms will

be for the political side to decide, but at the very least the prudent course to

follow was to have officials co-ordinate, and we did, and it was as a result of

that co-ordination that a couple of the minor wording changes that you see are

being proposed.

I can think of one, for example, where we had proposed in the

provision that the churches collectively would have the right to elect

two-thirds of the school board members. They suggested that it should be changed

to read: Would have the right to elect - instead of collectively - in total,

because collectively could have other connotations; that kind of thing to make

things more accurate, and there were one or two other minor things.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, those kinds of changes; no change in

principle, but this was discussed with the officials.

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

supplementary.

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

I would like to ask the Premier: When did the federal

officials become involved in consultation on the actual wording? Was it after

the referendum vote was taken, or was it before? And does the Premier have any

concern at all that - because indeed in this amendment we will see the taking

away of minority rights - that there will be pressure come from all areas of

this country, from groups that hold minority rights on the Federal Parliament,

and that indeed we may see an amendment by the Parliament of Canada, and we may

have this amended amendment back here in this House of Assembly to be dealt with

at a later date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The first question was as to the timing

when the consultation with the federal officials started. It was after the

referendum, after it had been drafted and approved generally in the Province, so

there was no change of principle involved. It was only details, legalese if you

would.

The second question was: Am I concerned that because it

involves the taking away of minority rights, we would see the amendment back

here?

First, the assumption is incorrect. It doesn't involve a

taking away of minority rights at all. It treats -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is your

interpretation, not ours.

PREMIER WELLS: That is alright. The hon. member has his.

But he has asked me the question. He had the right to design the content of the

question, I have the right to design the content of the answer.

My answer is, it does not involve minority rights at all. It

involves all of the people of the Province in precisely the same way except the

4 per cent or 5 per cent who are not amongst the eight denominational groups

that are represented. It is only the rights of the 95 per cent that are being

affected, not the rights of the 5 per cent. If you were to say anything about

it, I suppose, it would put the people in the 5 per cent in a more comparable

standing, or in a less diminished standing than they have now vis--vis the 95

per cent. It isn't in any manner affecting minority rights, so, no, I don't

anticipate any change.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary to the Premier,

Mr. Speaker. The Premier has indicated publicly that he expects this matter to

be dealt with federally by the end of the calendar year, I believe the press has

reported. Let me ask the Premier: Do you have an undertaking from the Prime

Minister that indeed this will be dealt with through the federal system by the

end of this calendar year, or may we be looking at next Spring or next Fall?

Because I think a lot of the expectations of thousands and thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will certainly be let down if indeed it doesn't

pass the federal Parliament until some time in 1996 or 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would say to the hon. member that

thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders would feel let down if it doesn't

pass through the federal Parliament by 1995. I don't see any reason why delay

it. So I disagree with his proposition that they would be let down if it doesn't

pass until 1996 or 1997. If it isn't passed by the end of this year, I think

they will feel somewhat let down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, and I didn't ask him for an

undertaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

PREMIER WELLS: No, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If hon. members are interested, I will

tell them what I did say to him, if not, I will sit down.

What I did say to the Prime Minister is that it was important

for the people of the Province to have this amendment through without delay and

I would hope that they would see fit to cause it to be introduced in the House

of Commons as soon as convenient after it is approved in the Assembly. That is

as far as I went. I had to wait until the Assembly approved it. Although I

expect that this Assembly will approve it. I couldn't presume that it would. I

have every confidence that it will be treated with great expedition and I would

expect that it will be passed before this Fall.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is

to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I was wondering if the

minister would update this House on his department's latest objectives

concerning the Newfoundland and Labrador high school athletics program.

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

reference to the question because, for some members on this side and I think on

the opposite side of the House, there has been a letter-writing campaign from

concerned physical education teachers in the schools of the Province in

particular, and also representatives of the High School Athletic Federation. Of

course, all of those, from our experience, know that they are working on behalf

of the students in the junior high schools and the high schools of the Province

with respect to their extra-curricular sporting activities and competitions.

There was a meeting convened - it might take a minute, if I

may, Mr. Speaker, and if the hon. member doesn't mind. There was a meeting

convened about a month ago, where the senior officials of our Recreation

Division of the department indicated to representatives of the High School

Athletic Federation that what we would like to do is to act on a recommendation

and suggestion from the sports symposium of last Spring to try to get more money

into the hands of athletes themselves for athlete development, and to the

sport-governing bodies that govern the different sports themselves in the

Province, rather than the overall collective administrative groups.

The view that was put to them is that we could find a way,

instead of giving $60,000 or $70,000 - I forget the exact number - of cash to

the High School Athletic Federation, from which they hire an administrator and

some other support, that we could have existing staff do that organizational

work for them. We could use the money for sport development or for more

increases in the program that gives the $500 athlete assistance program directly

to the athletes themselves.

The information somehow got confused in going from that

meeting back to the teachers who are members of the High School Athletic

Federation, and they have been writing, suggesting that we are forcing the

teachers themselves, on a volunteer basis, to organize all of the tournaments

and to arrange for all of these things to happen in the schools; that is not the

case. That was never suggested to them in a meeting. I have been meeting with

the officials to find out how what was discussed in the meeting could have

gotten changed so drastically between that meeting and the letters that we have

all received. So we are writing a letter back to all of those who have written

us, explaining again that we are trying again to facilitate the running of the

events with existing staff rather than have to give an administrative allocation

to the governing body for high school sports which is the Newfoundland and

Labrador High School Athletic Federation and let them hire staff. Rather than

hire staff, we will do the work with existing staff and put the money into a

program for the benefit of students.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This twenty-six year old program, Mr. Speaker, has been

working well for over two-and-a-half decades. The people who work there are into

fund-raising around this Province, in addition to the money they get from this

government. Fourteen thousand or so high school students are caught up in this,

in every district of this Province. The volunteers, the minister is talking

about taking some existing personnel or probably some redundant personnel from

his department to take the place of these two hired employees. -

MR. EFFORD: Do you have a question?

MR. CAREEN: I have a question. You wait now, I will get

to you afterwards.

The question is, will the minister make a promise to this

House today that he will not dismantle this athletic program as it now exists?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could give the

answer again but I thought I explained it pretty fully the first time around.

The intent, quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, again, is to do away

with the necessity of passing over a block of money to the High School Athletic

Federation so they can hire staff. The two staff that are there co-ordinate the

program and organize the activities on behalf of the volunteer teachers and the

student participants. We are saying that we have the capability, with existing

staff, to do exactly that function. Everything else in the program would stay

exactly the same. The money that we pass over to hire these people could be used

for other program uses, probably for a student athlete development and other

such initiatives, rather than be used in administration and hiring two people to

do something that we feel we already have the capability of doing with existing

staff.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can see the

students of this Province now being exploited by the Member for Exploits. There

are a lot of parallels in all of this.

The fund-raising that is done by that group now, the teachers

and the students in this Province, I wonder will they be as anxious to do

fund-raising for government? No one, Mr. Speaker, can serve two masters and that

is what you are talking about if they get rid of the two existing personnel in

the high school athletic program now. I will ask you again as I asked you on the

second question, Sir, will you promise this House here today that there will be

no changes? Stop the dismantling of the high school athletic program, keep it as

it exists.

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again I

appreciate the continuation of the questioning. I will try it for a third time -

I thought I made it quite clear. There will be no change, Mr. Speaker, in the

program whatsoever. The only difference that will occur is that the two

individuals who are currently working because we give money to the federation to

hire them, two different people will do the exact, same job. Those people are

currently employees of the department, who have the capability in our assessment

to do that work, totally on behalf of and dedicated to the Newfoundland and

Labrador High School Athletic Federation. We see absolutely no change in terms

of the dedication of the volunteers, the fund-raising efforts of those

volunteers, the teachers and the students, the running of the program.

There will be a difference envisaged in that, the two

individuals who are currently employed will be replaced by two other people, and

that is the same as if we had an election and sixteen on that side were replaced

by sixteen others or probably by six or seven others, but in any event, Mr.

Speaker, they will do the same job; nothing else will change in terms of the

high school athletic federation, the program will run, the students will be

well-served, the teachers will be well-served in terms of running and organizing

the events and the work will be done by two existing staff instead of giving a

grant to hire two additional staff.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for S. John's Centre.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is addressed to the minister responsible for

housing, my colleague.

Last spring, every member of this House voted, it was an

unanimous vote in favour of my Private Member's motion, that the provincial

government devote more financial resources to refurbishing existing housing

units both private and publicly owned in the downtown core of St. John's, and

other communities with similar fire-safety problems with row housing.

Since then, public meetings have been held in the area,

petitions are being circulated and letters written to the federal-provincial

ministers responsible for housing. My question to the hon. minister: In

preparation for the upcoming Budget, has the minister requested that a

substantial sum be put in the Budget this year to help make downtown St. John's

safer from fire and to provide desperately needed accommodation?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - St. John's is the only part of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador this summer, to receive an urban RRAP Program. We

concentrated our sole efforts in the downtown area of St. John's, we didn't have

very much money to spend, a little over I think, $300,000, but every cent of

that went into downtown St. John's.

I have to reiterate the fact that the federal government,

some years ago announced that they were getting out of RRAP and any future

housing programs in the country, and they are sticking to that principle or

premise. By the 1st of January next year, the federal government will be out of

all housing programs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I am shouting and hollering about it, my hon.

friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that

each and every member of this House understand and realize the implication of

the federal government's moving out of the area of housing, especially in this

Province, and the problem with that of course, is that there will absolutely be

no housing, no seniors housing, no native housing, no RRAP programs, no programs

offered in this Province next year unless, as the hon. member alluded to, the

provincial government comes up with a substantial amount of money themselves to

put into a housing program.

I am not in a position today to say what this government can

afford to put into a housing program for next year. I will be, I would imagine,

in the next month or so when we get into the budgetary process but I do

appreciate the question and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of

getting up and advising every member of this House, that there will be no

housing programs beginning January 1, 1996.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move on to the next order of

business, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome to the House of

Assembly, the Ambassador of Russia to Canada, His Excellency, Alexander M.

Beonogov. Accompanying the Ambassador is Mr. Andrei Kondakov, Counsellor with

the Embassy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I rise to present to this House the financial statements for

two areas, the Livestock Owner's Compensation Board, the Livestock Owner's

Compensation Fund, for the year ending March 31, 1995, and also the

Twenty-Second Annual Report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995 for the

Newfoundland Crop Insurance Agency.

Notices of Motion

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on

tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic Act".

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Workers Compensation Act".

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on

tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public

Service Pensions Act, 1991, And The Uniform Services Pensions Act, 1991".

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I undertook, in

response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, to table certain figures

relating to net out-migration, and I am quite relieved to say that the total net

migration in the last six years has been somewhat - a small amount albeit - less

than in the prior six years under the former administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, in

response to questions today by the Leader of the Opposition as to the

government's handling of the hospital services, and how we were dealing with the

urgent needs for health care, I am happy to table the Fraser Forum Report.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

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

point of order.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the

Premier has failed to provide answers I requested yesterday, for which he

indicated he would need a little time, namely the latest out-migration figure

for this year, for 1995 to date, and also the government's projections of

depopulation over the next three to five years, and the Department of Finance's

projections of the cuts in federal equalization payments for the next three to

five years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is obviously no point of order. The hon. member is

making use of the point of order, I guess, to ask additional questions, but

there is really no point of order.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition

to present today, and the prayer of the petition reads:

We, the undersigned parents and citizens of Anthony Paddon

Elementary School in Musgrave Town, Bonavista Bay, hereby petition the House of

Assembly to make funding available through the Department of Education budget to

the Bonavista-Trinity-Placentia Integrated School Board so that suitable access

to the school parking lot can be provided by the school buses, thus eliminating

the danger of kindergarten to Grade 1X students having to board their buses by

the side of the main road and having to stand outdoors in inclement weather

waiting for bus transportation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition sighed by 488 concerned

citizens of the area which encompasses the fourteen communities of students

attending Anthony Paddon Elementary. This is a school that was built twelve

years ago. The school was built on a hill and the school buses today have to

drive up by the side of the main road and all the students -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your buddies built the school.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it does not matter who build the

school, the school is there. At least they built schools I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the students today have to

exit those buses and navigate a set of steps leading up to the school, a

distance I would guess of about 700 feet. It is not bad in the morning because

they get off the bus and they can go right to the school, a place where they can

sit down in the warm and if their clothes are wet they can dry, but the problem

arises in the afternoon. The bus goes to the high school first and then it comes

back and stops at the elementary school.

The students have to leave the school, come down over the

steps, and usually wait for the bus. Now, sometimes they may be waiting there

three minutes, or it could be five minutes before they can get aboard their

particular bus to take them home. Once they get on the bus the journey homes

takes them fifty minutes, so I can certainly understand the concern of the

parents when they put forward a petition such as this, when all they are looking

for is an opportunity for children to exit the school and get on a bus in the

normal way.

Mr. Speaker, there is a parking lot up by the school but the

teachers park in the parking lot, and I guess the reason for that is because

there is not enough room there right now for the buses to go by the school and

collect the students without having to turn around, without having to back up if

you would, which is not allowed today when the children are out of school. What

the parents are asking for is money to be allotted, money which does not exist

in that particular school board right now, to put a road around the school. That

way the buses can come from the main road, go up around the school, pick up the

students in the normal fashion that we see at most of our other schools, get

aboard the bus and be dry on the journey home, and do it in a safe manner.

Back in 1994 this problem was also brought forward, Mr.

Speaker. It was brought forward by Mr. Tom Pope, Executive Director of the

Integrated Education Council. He went out to Musgravetown to look at this

particular problem with the District Superintendent, Mr. Sheppard. At that time

Mr. Sheppard responded and wrote a letter about their visit and what they had

found there so that it could go on record. He went on to say at that particular

time, I wish to stress once again the urgency of this matter, and unless

corrective action is taken there is an undue risk of injury or even a fatality.

I ask the minister if he would keep this concern in mind and

if he would be kind enough to allot funding either to the IEC or to this

particular school board to allow this road which has been estimated at about

$70,000 to be constructed, to allow those students to go to school and go back

to their homes in as safe a manner as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague

for Bonavista South on behalf of the parents and citizens of Anthony Paddon

Elementary School in Musgravetown. I understand there are about 342 students

from fourteen or fifteen communities that have a legitimate concern and a

legitimate desire to have a way done to pick up their students so as they are

not left out in inclement weather conditions.

I was waiting, I say to the Member for Bonavista South,

because I thought at least the Minister of Education would have responded. Of

course he has an opportunity to do so after I sit down, but I hope someone from

the government side at least responds, because this is another case where out

and about rural Newfoundland in particular we do have important concerns that

need to be addressed. You have students standing out in bad weather and getting

wet, cold and so on, and then, of course, it is not only unpleasant at that

particular time, but the implications for flus and colds and whatever that might

follow after which could cause students to miss school and interfere with their

learning situation. So I want to be very brief and say that I support the

petition as presented by my colleague on behalf of the citizens and parents,

students, that are serviced by Anthony Paddon Elementary School in Musgravetown.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I received a

letter from the parents in Musgravetown bringing this matter to my attention. I

was totally shocked to realize that such a situation did exist in this Province.

The letter explained to me, just as the hon. member pointed out, that the school

is up on the top of a hill, it is impossible for the bus to get up there, the

children have to walk down steps in all kinds of weather. The letter pointed out

to me the danger to the children and the inconvenience. It is uncomfortable when

they get wet on a rainy day having to sit in a bus. I sympathized with the

children, and I immediately asked someone in the Department of Education and

Training to dig out the facts for me to see is this the truth.

The thing which stands out in my mind which really upsets me

about this: There is one cardinal law that this government maintains, and that

is the location of schools. Twelve years ago someone in government, some

Minister of Education, allowed a school to be built on the top of a hill without

having any consideration about getting children from that hill down to the

bottom of the road. This is the kind of a mess which is evident in every single

aspect that this Administration has had to clean up. This is one of the ones

which - it isn't the only one. We found it in the debt burden, the interest rate

that is left with us. We found it in the mess that they had in Health that my

colleague is trying to clean up. We found it in the mess that they allowed in

Education that we are left to clean up. It is absolutely disgraceful. This

should never have happened.

Now, here is the situation I'm in today. If I were to find

the $50,000 or $60,000 to put that road up around, the first thing I would have

to do is to give that $50,000 to the Integrated education council. Then I would

have to turn around and give 36 per cent to the Roman Catholic education

council. Then I would have to give 7 per cent to the Pentecostals to deal with

that one road. Even by doing that I don't have any assurance, if I could find

the money, that the DECs would spend the money appropriately on that particular

road. Or have the authority. I just can't do it. But the one chance in the

history of this Province when that problem could have been dealt with was twelve

years ago when the Minister of Education of the day allowed a school to be built

on the top of a hill. Tops of hills are for lighthouses, not for schools, Mr.

Speaker.

I will tell the hon. member, I will try my level best to find

a solution to this within the present rules. Hopefully we will be able to deal

with it.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the risk of

incurring the ire of the Minister of Education and Training I too have to stand

and present a petition on an education matter related to a community that is

near and dear to the minister's heart and that is Little Bay Islands in the

District of Green Bay, where of course the population had the honour to have the

minister's presence this summer.

The petition is signed by some 198 adults and there is an

addendum to it with thirty-one students from H.L. Strong Academy signing as

well. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to

reconsider the impact of the reduction of the numbers of teachers on the

education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. Programs such as physical

education, special needs, and French are being dropped. Recognize that the lost

of teachers at H.L. Strong Academy will impact greatly on the students. Students

will have to do without a phys. ed. program and a qualified science teacher.

Realize that we are in an all-grade school and that more teachers are needed

than the 4.5 we are allocated to provide an adequate program. The staff has been

reduced from 6.5 teaching units to 4.5 in two years. We understand that students

cannot commute to another community because of the isolation of living on an

island. A reduction in staff which reduces the number of programs will lead to

an increase in the drop-out rate if students have to leave the island to attend

school.

The prayer further goes on to state that they appreciate the

fact that our community is prosperous and offers 100 per cent seasonal

employment to residents and people in surrounding communities. The loss of

teachers and programs at the school could have a domino affect and lead to the

exodus of students and parents and ultimately the death of the community.

Consider implementing the schools viability criteria immediately to ensure

adequate number of teaching units for H.L. Strong Academy a viable school

according to the government's definition. Understand we feel our students are

being discriminated against and that your policies will lead to them receiving a

second rate education. Further understand that we feel government's actions

contradict their philosophy on school improvement. How can a school hope to

improve when teachers are given greater workloads and students are forced to

take downgraded programs?

Finally the prayer states, consider that it appears

government is more concerned with saving dollars than improving education for

our youth in the future. This is a rather lengthy prayer, Mr. Speaker, and there

is a small addition as well from the students who are pleading their case as

well.

Little Bay Islands, Mr. Speaker, does have a fish plant that

does work, it does contribute to the economy of the Province. It is isolated, it

is a forty-five - fifty minute steam to get there. It is not the kind of place

where students or teachers can commute.

The Green Bay Integrated School Board - by some twist of fate

and chance, I bumped into him at lunch today in the cafeteria and he indicates

to me that given the extra teachers that the entire board has been allocated, he

has given more than the per capita share that he has available to this

particular school. What we have here is a situation where we have a school

isolated on an island, there are no options, there is no busing alternative or

anything of that nature. I think the provincial government should have a set of

standards for schools in such isolated cases that allow a reasonable school

program, especially seeing that the community, as long as it has an operating

fish plant, will not and certainly refuses to die. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on

behalf of the residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula, Baie Verte - White Bay

District. I would like to read the prayer of the petition first;

We the residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula are very

concerned with the recent cutbacks by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. We believe that these cutbacks will seriously affect the safety

as well as the overall quality of transportation on the Baie Verte Peninsula;

We urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

reconsider these reductions in order to ensure the safety and quality of road

transportation is retained and acceptable and at a safe level.

Mr. Speaker, although I rise today to present this petition

on behalf of my residents in the Baie Verte - White Bay District, I think I

speak for a lot of districts in this Province who are going to feel the effects

very soon of the recent cutbacks to the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. Before we leave this season and head into the winter, Mr.

Speaker, I would like for the minister, hopefully to respond to these. I think

he will be hearing more about this from around the Province, is that first of

all deal with - this summer in the cutbacks, as far as calcium for dirt roads,

Mr. Speaker. This particular reduction I think cost in the area - I think the

minister will confirm - somewhere in the area of $500,000-$600,000. Now, Mr.

Speaker, these roads around the Province that still have gravel roads, at least

expect and I think they should expect at least liquid calcium to be put on those

roads for the summer months in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, in my district alone there are sixteen gravel

roads still - sixteen communities with gravel roads in my district. A lot of

these communities don't insist that they have pavement, they don't insist even

that the roads be graded every day, although they would like that. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I think that at least they could expect that once a summer, once during

the summer months when it is the dry season, that a bit of liquid calcium at a

cost of $500,000 to this government, should at least be given to these

particular areas. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is just the summer months. For example

this summer we had Come Home Years and tourists visited the areas on the Baie

Verte Peninsula and the dust was unbelievable. Many of the residents have

complained about this for years. They cannot believe this service which cost

this Province $500,000 would be eliminated from the budget. So of course the

minister should answer to that one.

Next, Mr. Speaker, as we head into the winter months, as we

come into the winter months and what this petition I think is really aiming at,

is the problem we may have with safety on our highways with regards to

snow-clearing, wing men on the trucks have been eliminated. Now, on top of all

that, the staff at the depots on the Baie Verte Peninsula will be reduced. I

visited the depots on the Baie Verte Peninsula, both of them, on La Scie Highway

and Baie Verte Highway, several times last year in the most busy part of the

year for the department during the storm season. Those mechanics work flat out

every day and of course they are called back in with overtime to try to keep up

with equipment that keeps breaking down so they can keep the roads clear,

especially in the storm season.

This year there will be a reduction in the staff that takes

care of these mechanical deficiencies that happen throughout the year. I can't

see for the life of me how a reduction like that isn't going to affect the

safety of people on the highways. When we talk about graders and fliers and

those types of things on the highway, if this reduction isn't reconsidered we

could be talking about a danger to the people who travel these highways. I've

also talked to the people in the depots who relate very well to what we say, the

wingmen on the trucks. They can tell us very clearly that there is definitely a

danger left there if that wingman isn't in the truck with the driver.

These are reductions that when we talk about the department

are very minimal when it comes to that, but it means so much. The bottom line is

safety on the highways. Are we going to wait too long, to the last minute, when

it is too late, when something in this Province happens which the minister will

have to speak to, with the reduction in the staff at the depots, with the

wingmen on the trucks, and of course come back to the summer months when we

almost had a very fatal accident in my district with dust on the roads around

the communities.

These are realities of the cutbacks. This is what is

happening out there. This is talk from people who work in the industry, work at

these depots, and they are very concerned about the safety and the overall road

conditions in these areas. I say too to the minister that these aren't just

concerns of people on the Baie Verte Peninsula. I think these are concerns of

people throughout the Province, that they have a fear that these reductions by

this department will affect the safety and the overall transportation to people

in this Province.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise

today in my place and support the petition from the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay. This government is basically being run by the `CBC.' I don't mean the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I mean the `Cutback Clyde' syndrome.

The Department of Works, Services and Transportation this

past year cut $10 million from their budget. The government cut $10 million from

the budget of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. With respect

to the reorganization of the various depots, since 1989 there have been hundreds

of employees laid off from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

This winter there will be as many as 200 more employees leave the employ of the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation. This past summer in Deer Lake,

in I think it was the month of June or July, there was a meeting of the

employees of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation with the

administration out there. Thirty people in that area alone, labourers, were told

that they wouldn't be called back to work this winter. These were people who

worked on the salt and sand trucks in the wintertime as a second person on the

trucks and as wingmen. The wingmen serve a very definite purpose on these

trucks, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The purpose of these wingmen, Mr. Speaker -

if the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation doesn't know I would

suggest that he shouldn't be Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

When these trucks and ploughs are out in the middle of a snow

storm and they get stuck or they have to put chains on, it often requires two

people to put these chains on, for safety reasons alone. Not only that, but at

this very meeting representatives of the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation told these people, these thirty employees, told the operators:

You do the work or we will find someone else to do the work for you. Point

blank. People who had been working with the department for years.

This attitude is a very poor attitude with respect to the

employment of people in this Province, the taxpayers in this Province. What is

it doing to the morale of the people working in the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation? When they come in today they don't know if they

have a job or not. That is right out throughout the government departments with

this government, all departments, with respect to the Departments of Health and

Works, Services and Transportation, what have you. People are being laid off

right, left and centre, and it is a definite concern with respect to the safety

of the people in this Province.

The minister last year was highly insulted when there was a

comment made in this House with respect to safety on the highways of this

Province. But if this attitude continues I can only see it getting worse. The

cutbacks are, from my perspective, and I believe to many others in this

Province, the cutbacks in this Province have now gone beyond the point of

diminishing returns. I don't only mean diminishing returns with respect to

dollars saved or what have you, but with respect to the services that people in

this Province have enjoyed in the past and expect to have in the future, but

since this government was elected, Mr. Speaker, they see nothing but cutbacks

and it is time for this government to take the bull by the horns and start

spending a few dollars and helping the people of this Province.

With respect to the roads: the roads in this Province are

deteriorating at a reckless rate and no money has been spent on maintenance;

there have been cutbacks drastically. For example, in my district, the road

leading to Bauline, a sign was recently put up referring to it as the longest,

speed bump in the Province. That road is in pathetic shape and it is getting to

the point now, where it is a danger to travel over that road.

I was in Bauline just the other night, and there is a bridge

just before you enter Bauline with the rails completely gone off that bridge,

just gone, and if the road gets slippery this winter, there could be cars

driving right off that bridge and into the river there and now, we have a

situation where the Department of Works, Services and Transportation are talking

about putting new equipment on the trucks and the plows and what have you.

This new equipment, Mr. Speaker, is mirrors, mirrors! Can you

imagine now the use of a mirror in the middle of a snow storm in this Province,

when you have drifts of ten, fifteen and twenty feet high? I see the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation over there smiling but, Mr. Speaker, this is

no laughing matter, let me tell you. When someone in this Province gets hurt

because of the recklessness of this minister, I won't be afraid to stand in this

House and point the finger at the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

and I am sure that will come in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough

please, to call motion No. 11, that's the Amendment to Term 17?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 11, the hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure nobody in this House would be surprised to hear me

say that this is a matter that is of great importance in the government's view.

Not only is it of great importance to government, I believe it is of great

importance to individuals, particularly young individuals and students in this

Province but to all individuals, and I believe it is of great importance to the

churches in the Province as well.

Now while I don't propose to spend a great deal of time in

going into substantial detail on the basis for this proposal, I do want to take

a few minutes to set forth for the House, government's motivation and what

caused government to move in this direction at this particular time.

Our motivation is fairly simple and it is easy to state. We

are convinced that it is in the best interest of the education of the students

of this Province that this step be taken at this time, and we say that with

complete conviction. The people sitting on this side of the House are not

against the churches. We don't want to abolish the denominational education

system for the sake of abolishing the denominational education system, that's

not our objective. I didn't check but I expect most of the people on this side,

like most of the people on the opposite side of the House are members of one or

other of the denominational groups that constitute 95 per cent of the majority

of the population of this Province, so I don't think anybody in this House will

be voting in a particular way because of any denominational feelings or

anti-denominational feelings. That's why I confess to being quite disturbed

yesterday when I was confronted by a newsman after I left the House, and

presented with a quote by a visitor who was in the gallery. It happened to be

Mr. Fallon to whom he referred, and I believe most people probably saw him on

television last night, to suggest that this was an attack on the Roman Catholic

Church. Nothing in this world could be further from the truth.

When he asked me to comment on it, I was about to have an

immediate re-action then I thought better of it and I think that kind of comment

is best left uncommented on, it is so unfair, so unfounded and so irrational

that it doesn't deserve to be recognized with credibility in responding to, but

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that nobody sitting on this side of

the House is attacking any church in the Province. Our interest and our

motivation is the best interest of the students of this Province. Our interest

is in securing for them the best future we can, training them to be solid

producers in society wherever they happen to live, whether they choose to leave

this Province and go somewhere else in the country, or somewhere else in the

world, like people from this Province who are in Russia today doing business.

I had lunch today with the Russian Ambassador, and I invited

a number of people from Newfoundland who have connections with business and

commercial activities in Russia. One person present is carrying on a commercial

business of a restaurant and a pub in the outskirts of Moscow, and it is so

successful that he is building a second one. Now that person was educated in

this Province. We had just as much responsibility to educate that person as

fully as was done, whether we knew he was going to Russia or he was going to

stay and live in Burin, or St. John's, or Bonavista, or somewhere else; our

responsibility is nonetheless. Our responsibility is to the young people of this

Province, to give them the best possible education and training we can so that

they are prepared to cope as individuals anywhere in the world where they may

find themselves.

We do have a responsibility as well to the Province as a

whole, to ensure that we respond correctly to the educational component of

economic development, and education is critical - is key - to any successful

program of economic development, so we must provide for the most efficient and

cost effective and productive education system that we possibly can. Our

motivation is the future of this Province and all of its people.

The present situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable

that we would allow it to continue, and I think here it is important for me to

highlight a number of areas that cause us concern. I have tabled the information

in the House before, so I will not spend a great deal of time on it, but our

concern with what we were achieving in terms of meeting our objective to educate

our youth, and our failure to reach the standards that we ought to reach,

despite the fact that successive governments in this Province have invested

increasing portions of its overall budget in education - it has been increasing

steadily - despite that effort, we have not been able to meet the challenge of

overcoming the deficiencies in our education system, and the extent to which

students who go through schools in this Province do not have a fair chance -

most schools. There are many schools in this city, there are many schools in

larger places like Marystown, or Carbonear, or Grand Falls, or Corner Brook, or

Stephenville, the larger centres, where the students do have a fair chance. Our

concern is for the students in all of the other small communities of this

Province who do not have a fair chance at quality education, and that is what we

must correct.

We recognize that the people who sat around the Cabinet table

did not have all the answers. As a matter of fact, we might not even have had

very many of the answers, so we took the normal course. We put in place a Royal

Commission to do a complete assessment of all aspects of our education system,

to give us recommendations as to how we might solve this bedeviling problem that

has vexed this Province not only since it has been a Province, since 1949, but

has vexed us from the beginning.

We got back the report in 1992, and they had some 211

recommendations. Of that 211, about 185 of the recommendations were matters that

could be dealt with by government without any level of approbation by the

churches. Prudence would dictate that we consult; good sense would dictate that

we consult with the denominational education authorities and the churches

generally, but the law did not require that we conform to their request or their

directions, or the demands on the issue. But in respect of the other twenty-six

recommendations, the government could not make those changes without either the

approval of the churches or a change in the Constitution which would give us the

legislative power to do it, because at this moment we don't have the legislative

power and the churches told us, very clearly, that if we took action without

their approval they would go to the courts. As a matter of fact, they filed a

formal notice, as they are required to do, giving us formal notice that they

were challenging any legislative action. Even before we had introduced any

legislation, they filed a formal notice indicating they were going to do it.

So we really were not left with very much alternative but to

take some kinds of steps in order to enable us to deal with those twenty-six

recommendations, most of which, incidentally, were crucial to getting cost under

control, and to increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of our education

system. Most of those recommendation were crucial to any chance at solving that.

We could implement the entire remaining 185 recommendations and still not

achieve the educational improvement we wanted to achieve without being able to

implement most of those twenty-six recommendations.

We didn't want to proceed in a roughshod manner. We made

every endeavour we possibly could to get the approval of the churches for the

proposals that we had put forward. We gave the churches first the alternative.

They said, give us a chance. We know what you want to try to achieve and we will

bring you a proposal that we think government will approve of, so the churches

sat down to develop their proposal. The government made officials available to

them for purposes of giving them information and so on but they weren't part of

the development as such.

The churches developed a proposal that, with great respect to

the churches, as far as getting cost under control, getting a more efficient and

cost effective system, was essentially maintenance of the status quo. I think,

as a general comment, and without going into it in detail, that is the only

general description I can apply. It was maintenance of the status quo.

Then, government took the position that we would develop the

proposal and put it to the churches and we did, and we made it public quite

quickly. It is called Adjusting the Course . After the first series of

public reactions and discussions to it, and after some persuasive arguments, the

government made some minor modifications and presented another version of it

about two months or so later, I think.

As a result of that revision and adjustment, and meetings and

discussions with the church leaders collectively - and we had a very large

number over the two-and-a-half-year period - as a result of that we received a

letter from the integrated group of churches that said they saw in government's

proposal a basis now for going forward, and were prepared to start discussions

with us on the development of the legislation necessary to implement that

approach.

We were quite pleased, needless to say, because we saw this

as an opportunity to achieve the reform without any constitutional reform, but

unfortunately, two of the churches would not agree. With the full approbation of

the other five churches, we carried on negotiations separately with each of

those two churches to try to find a compromise. We worked several months to try

to achieve it and developed alternative proposals. I don't know whether or not

all of those have been made public. I guess they will be in the public record

sometime in the future, but most of them were as a result of private exchanges

of correspondence with the churches. I have no hesitation to make the entire

file public. With the approval of the churches I would do that tomorrow.

We had gotten to the point where we were making further

concessions and further concessions, and further concessions, until we got to

the point where we were warned by the churches and integration that we had gone

too far. Now, we were in a dilemma. The integrated group of churches were

saying, `You are going too far in that direction,' and the other churches were

saying, `You are not going far enough yet to satisfy us,' and we realized then

we had to do something quite different.

Fortunately, a couple of individuals who were personally

dedicated to trying to see reform effected with the least possible disruption.

Their names are well known, Mr. Dennis Browne and Dr. Philip Warren. They said:

Maybe we can do something to help sort of broker an arrangement, or help resolve

this apparent impasse, so they spent some time with the churches and tried to

come to a conclusion.

Their first effort, I guess, did not really solve the

problem. Then they made another effort at trying to resolve it. They even came

and met with the entire government - met with the entire caucus, for that matter

- to explain to them what the churches' positions were, and they said to us: We

are confident, if you address this question on busing, and you alter

government's position that uni-denominational schools could only be set up - in

areas where only one school was viable, in order for it to be

uni-denominational, government had suggested it would require the approval of 95

per cent of the population. The reason for that is fairly simple. We did not

want to be using the law to force people to go to a school that was designated

as the school of a particular faith, and force everybody to go there, without a

high level of approbation that would obviously occur, we thought, in an area

where there was a predominance of that one denomination, but on reflection - and

this is the point that Dr. Warren and Mr. Browne made to us - 95 per cent is an

impossible number. It doesn't matter what, it is almost impossible to get 95 per

cent of anything. We were persuaded that they were right. They said: If you put

that on a straightforward, normal majority, 50 per cent plus one, and dealt with

the busing, we think the churches would approve of the course. We did that. It

still wasn't acceptable to the churches.

We had some further discussions, and it still did not work

out. We then wrote the churches on May 31 of this year, and for the House I

would like to read one paragraph from that letter. On May 31 of this year, this

is what I wrote to all of the churches. I talked about their correspondence

indicating they did not want any change whatsoever; they wanted complete

conformity with the existing Term 17. They wanted a system that would conform

totally to it. I said: If that is your position, then clearly, there is no

purpose in any further discussion.

I went on to say: If, on the other hand, the churches are not

insisting that any proposal for change conform fully to the requirements of Term

17, but are prepared to exercise their Term 17 rights in a new manner, as the

churches did in 1968, then government is prepared to proceed with the proposal

as it was on May 11, 1994. Now, that is the point at which the integrated group

came to us and said: Okay, we can live with this. We are prepared now to talk

about legislation to implement this approach.

So we said to them: We are prepared to proceed with the

proposal as it was on May 11, 1994, when it had the general approval of the five

churches in integration, or any one of the proposals offered by government

between May 11, 1994 and April 18, 1995 - and there had been four or five

different ones - to address the additional concerns of the Roman Catholic Church

and the Pentecostal Church, if all of the churches are agreed. If the churches

cannot agree amongst themselves to proceed with reform of our education system

on that basis, then government will have no alternative but to seek the approval

of the people of the Province for a constitutional amendment that would allow

the Legislature to implement essential education reform. I assure you; however,

that we would propose that any such amendment would be limited to the extent

necessary to achieve the reform proposal in Adjusting the Course - that

was government's initial proposal - and would preserve the constitutional right

for the presence of the churches, and the religious activities in schools, and

involvement of the churches in the administration of education in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it still did not meet with approval. We then met

with the churches again, and the final breakdown came when we realized we could

not achieve anything. We asked the churches, one day at the meeting: Will the

churches agree simply to come together - all of the churches just come together

- and run an integrated system, a totally integrated system, essentially as we

have it now, but all churches running a single system? If you will agree to do

that, we don't need a constitutional change. This will achieve the objectives.

We were told no, they wouldn't do it. It really didn't leave

us with much choice. Members may recall, I tabled in the House...I don't know if

I tabled in the House or maybe the House wasn't sitting and I may - I guess I

did and they were dated in August. I made them public but I will mention them

now. This is dated in August of 1995. If you look at these statistics - and I

will make copies available for all members - the employment in education and

related service industries in this Province is higher than it is in any other

province of Canada. That is the kind of effort we are making in education. The

earned income for education as a percentage of the total wages and salaries for

our total earned income is higher in this Province than it is in any other

province of Canada. A greater effort is being made in education than in any

other province of Canada in terms of the percentage of people involved in

education and the level of earned income from it.

If you look at our GDP -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, that's not just new. The hon. member

is quite right. We have been making that effort for many years. If you look at

GDP in educational services on a per capita basis, Newfoundland is higher than

every province except Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. Only those three powerful and

economically more competent provinces than Newfoundland have a greater GDP in

educational services on a per capita basis than does Newfoundland. Our total

education expenditure per capita, which is another significant figure to look

at, the total amount we spend per person, is higher than New Brunswick, Nova

Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Only the `have'

provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, and the infinitely larger

and economically more powerful Province of Quebec, have a total expenditure per

capita greater than Newfoundland.

Now, that is pretty good achievement. But when you take into

account then, Newfoundland's lesser ability - because our earned income is so

much less than any other province - when you take into account our lesser

ability, that is a performance that far exceeds anything else in the nation. So

when you look at our school expenditures - and this is confined to primary,

elementary, and secondary education, these later figures are; some of the first

ones included all education - but when you confine it to primary, elementary and

secondary education, our school expenditures per student, as a per cent of our

GDP per capita, is the highest in the country. We spend more of the resources

available to us than does any other province in the country. The average number

of students per teacher is less than it is anywhere in the country.

Lest anybody think that our situation exists because we are

falling behind, even though we still have those figures, Statistics Canada did

an assessment of the changes between the year 1985-1986 and the year 1992-1993

in the increases in expenditures in education. You can't take any one year,

because if there was a sudden, say, increase in teachers' salaries in any one

year, that would throw it out. You have to look at it over a reasonable period

of time, and they took that approximately seven-year period.

Our expenditures per student increased by more than 64 per

cent in Newfoundland. I want members to pay attention to that figure. Our

expenditures per student in that six- or seven-year period increased by more

than 64 per cent, the highest in Canada, with the exception of B.C. So not only

have we been making the highest effort all along, the increase in that effort

has been higher than in any other province, other than British Columbia. So

nobody can say: `Money is your problem. You have not been putting enough money

into it or enough of your resources into it. We have been, and we are still not

producing acceptable results. I don't need to go into the detail of the results

but everybody knows what they are. We have been - for the most part, on most,

not all but on the overwhelming majority of the Canada Test of Basic Skills, we

have been marginally ahead of the Northwest Territories. That is where we are,

behind every other jurisdiction, including the Yukon, the little Yukon.

Now, Mr. Speaker, clearly, government had to do something to

deal with that. The results were not acceptable. Finances were not the answer.

Growth in expenditures in recent years make that clear, finances are not the

answer. The circumstance cries out for correction. We must, if we are concerned

at all, do something about it. Now, at the same time that we take steps to do

something about it, I think we would be foolhardy if we threw out the baby with

the bath water. I think we would be irresponsible not to recognize the

tremendous contribution that churches have made to education over the years, and

I think we would be even more irresponsible not to acknowledge that they can

still make a tremendous contribution to overall education in this Province and

provide for that opportunity for them to do so. However, maintenance of the

status quo is not the means to achieve that. So government could only come to

the conclusion that those who would wish to maintain the status quo were not

providing the right solution, but we also felt that those who were suggesting we

should eliminate totally any denominational involvement in education were also

not providing the right solution.

Our challenge, Mr. Speaker, is to find the acceptable

compromise that gave us the means of going forward and producing the best

quality of education we could within the limited financial resources available

to us, bearing in mind the other financial difficulties of dealing with public

services generally in a circumstance where we have only the population of a

small-size city spread out among some 800 separate communities around 10,000

miles of coastline. When you have to deliver the service in that geographic and

demographic reality, then obviously, many of your resources are not going to end

up in programs, you have to provide for that reality. Well, we obviously cannot

sub-divide it still further. So we have to design a system that recognizes that

reality but also recognizes the contribution the churches have made in the past

and that they are capable of making in the future and find that solution.

Unfortunately, our efforts at negotiations could not identify that compromise.

I acknowledge and give full credit to all who participated in

those discussions. I express the government's appreciation to each of them for

the effort that they put into trying to find a solution and I apply that to all

of the churches that were involved. My experience with every one of the church

leaders, with whom I met, was a positive experience. We may not have agreed. We

may not have been able to come to agreement on it but I appreciated very much

the sincere and dedicated effort that each of the church leaders made and I

express government's full appreciation to them for that.

That left us in a situation where we had to resort to the

other alternative of changing Term 17 of the Constitution so as to allow the

Legislature sufficient power to make the changes, the minimal changes that were

necessary. Hence, we went to a referendum because it was of such significance,

because it was changing the constitutional law of this Province but also because

we, the government, did not have from the people a mandate to introduce and

bring forward that kind of a change. Now, you can get that mandate in either one

of two ways - calling an election, or holding a referendum. Calling an election

was very tempting. It was indeed very, very tempting, because I had no doubt

whatsoever about how the people of this Province felt on that issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, the members opposite have been

reasonably quiet so far. I would ask them to just give me a few more minutes.

I just said that there was one of two alternatives. The other

alternative was a referendum, and we felt that the referendum was the more

straightforward way to go, because clearly, that was a vote on that issue alone

and not other aspects of government's performance. It was the clear way to go

even though the other course was tempting.

Mr. Speaker, everybody now knows the results of that. It was

55-45. Unfortunately, only 52 per cent came out to vote and I regret that, and

our concern was to make sure that those who did vote were expressing the clear

and unquestionable wishes of the majority of the people of the Province. When

anybody examines the conduct of the referendum, that's very clear that they did,

because those who opposed the change carried on a substantial campaign and, Mr.

Speaker, I am satisfied that all those who wanted to oppose the constitutional

change did so and government therefore feels very confident in going forward

with the results of the referendum.

We must now move to implement the clear wishes of the

majority of the people, but we must also keep faith with the general indication,

with the undertaking that we gave the churches that we would move to make the

changes that were necessary to ensure that this Legislature - not the

government, but this Legislature, maintain the ultimate control of governance of

education, and that's where it will rest. It won't rest with government, it will

rest with this Legislature, and that's what we have proposed, Mr. Speaker, and I

don't hide anything; government's objective was to remove to this Legislature

unfettered jurisdiction in aspects of governance, governance of education, but

to reserve to the churches the rights that they have had in the past with

respect to religious education, with respect to their ability to provide for and

carry on religious activities and observances. There is no question about

government's view of that.

We also, Mr. Speaker, had no problem with denominational

schools, where such schools could themselves be viable schools and they would

not adversely affect the viability of any other school. So, Mr. Speaker, we have

provided for that, as well. And I believe I owe to the House the responsibility

just to take a few minutes to highlight what we are proposing.

We are proposing, Mr. Speaker, that all schools established

and maintained and operated with public funds will continue to be denominational

schools, that they are denominational schools and we use that term, that all

schools maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational

schools, and any class of persons having rights under this Term as it read on

January 1, 1995, shall continue to have the right to provide for religious

education, activities and observances for the children of that class in those

schools, and the group of classes that are the integrated group could, if they

chose to do so, do it together. They can all do it together. I don't know of any

court in the land that said, churches cannot act ecumenically or would attempt

to stop them. Some have attempted to argue that because it is a right to provide

for the education and activities and observances for children of that class, if

they tried to do it collectively as a whole school, it somehow could be

challenged under the Constitution.

With great respect, there is no basis in law that I know of,

or anybody else that I know of, who would support that proposition. I know of no

circumstance where the courts have ever said to a group of churches, you can't

act in concert; we will prohibit you from doing collectively what you can each

do individually. It is not, with great respect, a rational proposition. So

clearly, Mr. Speaker, we have provided for the right to maintain religious

education activities and observances in the school.

We went further and provided that this Legislature would have

the power to pass laws that were uniformly applicable to all schools so that we

couldn't discriminate between uni-denominational schools on the one hand and

multi- or all-denominational schools on the other hand. Subject to regulations

that were universally applicable to all schools of whatever their character,

then, in 1(b)(i): "any class of persons referred to in paragraph (

a) shall have

the right to have a publicly funded denominational school established,

maintained and operated especially for that class", as long as it can be a

viable school, and it doesn't affect the viability of another school. As long as

that is so, government has no quarrel with operating denominational schools and

we specifically provided for a right to have it in those circumstances.

We also provided that government could establish, maintain,

operate and publicly fund other schools, denominational or non-denominational.

The reason for that is - for example, the Francophone schools on the Port au

Port Peninsula.

MR. ROBERTS: The School for the Deaf.

PREMIER WELLS: The School for the Deaf, as my hon. friend

points out; perhaps aboriginal schools in the coastal communities of Labrador -

we would want to be able to provide for those. They wouldn't have to be

denominational or uni-denominational schools.

We also provided that where a school is established and

maintained in that way then, in addition to the right to provide for religious

education, activities and observances, the denomination concerned would have the

right to direct the teaching aspects of curriculum affecting religious beliefs.

Not to establish the curriculum - that is the general responsibility that

government would exercise -but the teaching aspects of the curriculum in that

individual school. Because there would be a single curriculum for all schools in

the Province, but if a particular denomination were running a denominational

school and they disagreed with something in the curriculum or wanted to teach it

differently for religious reasons, they would have the right to do so. They

would have the right to direct the teaching aspects of curriculum.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the admission of students in

denominational schools -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes they do. The admission of students in

denominational schools and the dismissal or hiring of teachers, the assignment

of teachers, in those schools.

You can hardly - if we were being honest with the churches

and saying to them: We are going to provide for you to have the right to have

denominational schools, it would be dishonest to say to them: But you can't

require teachers of your denomination to be the teachers in that school. I mean,

we would be perpetrating a fraud on them. Either we would say: No

uni-denominational schools at all, or: You must have the right, if you want to,

to choose teachers of that denomination. We had to.

I know, most people in the Province don't like to see anybody

hired or dismissed on the basis of their religious beliefs, or the expression of

those religious beliefs, but it would be, if we are being honest with the

churches, a fraud on them to say: Yes, we agree, you can have a denominational

school, but you can't require that there be teachers of your denomination. That

would be dishonest. As reluctantly as we came to that conclusion, we felt that

if we were being honest with the churches, we had no alternative but to agree

that that would have to be the case. So, the constitutional proposal that we put

forward will provide for that.

The next paragraph requires government to expend its

expenditures on a totally non-discriminatory basis. That is fair, too.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have provided for the involvement of

churches in the administration of education, as we indicated we would. What we

provided is that if the churches so desire - they may or may not desire it - but

if the churches so desire, they shall have the right to elect in total not less

than two-thirds of the members of a school board. The churches, if they want to,

can require that two-thirds of the members of every school board be specifically

representatives of those churches. That is an appropriate role, but they have to

be elected. That, we believe, is an appropriate basis for input into the

administration of the education system of the Province.

We went further and required that if any church wished it,

they could require a portion of the members elected to be proportionate with

their portion of the population in the area served by the school board. So if,

for example, the Pentecostal church had 50 per cent of the school population in

the school board area, they could, if they wanted to, elect 50 per cent of that

two-thirds. Even the other two-thirds, that are elected at large, in all

probability are going to be members of one or other of those denominations. It

may not always be the case, but certainly if the voters wanted it to be the case

they could certainly cause it to be the case, because the numbers would require

it.

Mr. Speaker, we think that what we have done by this means is

found an acceptable compromise, that is a fair compromise between the desire of

the overwhelming majority of this Province to see substantial reform in our

education system, and the desire of the churches, and many of the church

adherents, to see a continuing involvement for churches in education. We think

that is a fair compromise. The key is viability. We have to provide for viable

schools, and in any community where there can only be one school we will have to

spend extra money to make it viable. Now that means we are going to be spending

more money on that school on a per student basis than we are on many others, but

that is not unfair because if you are in a small community in White Bay, where

there is no ability to be bussed to a larger school, you have as much right to

quality education as does the person living on Merrymeeting Road in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I cannot give you the figures on that

right off the top of my head. Maybe the Minister of Education and Training, when

he speaks, but I do not think this, in itself, will cause any alteration in it.

Here or there there may be ups and downs in the numbers in any one school, but

changing in the 2 per cent rule and that kind of thing, that is what is going to

change the teachers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Declining enrolment will have more

effect.

PREMIER WELLS: Declining enrolment - these numbers - just

let me give you a figure that I saw this morning, if you want proof positive of

the need for this kind of action. In the four years between 1989 and 1993 - in

that four years - the number of schools reduced by 12 per cent; the number of

students reduced by 12 per cent. The administrative cost went up by 4 per cent,

in the same four years when administrative costs were frozen and were supposed

to go down, when there were reductions in salaries, at the same time that the

population in the schools dropped by 12 per cent. It is an administrative

nightmare. It is the fault of the system that we have to correct. We have to get

it out of the system. That is one of the reasons why we are taking this kind of

action. The system breeds that kind of inefficiency, and almost requires or

prevents - if it doesn't require that kind of inefficiency, it certainly

prevents any effort to correct it from being successful.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the case has been clearly laid out. We

propose to ask the House to support this resolution, and when that is done we

assume, based on other expressions that I have heard that it will be done - we

House of Commons of Canada and the Senate to have the corresponding resolution

to pass so that the constitution can be changed, the proclamation can be issued.

We then propose to proceed immediately - we hope this fall - with legislation. I

can advise the House that the legislation is in the process of being drafted

now, on the assumption that this will be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, it is not completed. There are still

some policy decisions that need to be made, but there is a great deal of work

done on it, and I do not think we would need a whole lot more time.

MR. DECKER: If we had to, Premier, we could do it in two

days, but there are some policy decisions we have to decide on.

PREMIER WELLS: There are some policy decisions that need

to be made before it can be finalized. I am hoping we will be introducing it

into this fall sitting of the House. I hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read what he said today?

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know what he said today. Maybe he

is right. Maybe it will not be until the spring. I certainly hope we have it by

the spring so that we can implement it in this coming school year in September.

That is our objective, to see it done, so that the changes can be implemented.

Now, I have to advise people as well that changes of this magnitude cannot be

done overnight. It does not change on August 31 and September 1. It is unwise to

make the changes that abrupt anyway. I would expect that the changes will occur

over a period of a few years and within very few years we will have most of

those changes implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I say again I believe we have achieved a

reasonable compromise in the circumstance between those separate directions that

different segments of our society would pull us on education issues. We think it

gives priority to the interests of the students of this Province, and secondly,

it gives a high priority to the interest of the taxpayers of this Province, and

we are convinced that it is in the best interest of all of the people of this

Province to pass this resolution with full debate but without undue delay so

that we can then proceed to have the necessary approval achieved in Ottawa and

move very quickly with the legislation that follows.

I thank all hon. members for their attention this afternoon,

and I particularly appreciate their allowing me to make this presentation

without serious interruption. I express my appreciation to them for it.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Health confessed to

the House of Assembly that the government does not have a plan for consolidating

hospitals in St. John's, that government announced the decision to close the

Grace Hospital and the Janeway Children's Hospital within two years, without

having studied the cost or the feasibility of providing alternate facilities for

the programs and services now given at the Grace and the Janeway.

Just then the Premier admitted that the government does not

have a plan for implementing the long promised education reform. After being in

office for six and a half years, after having had in it's possession the final

report of the Williams Royal Commission on Education for three and a half years,

the government still does not have a draft of the legislation required to give

effect to the expected improvements in the school system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have taken the view that the reforms and

changes, and improvements that are needed, and are awaited and expected do not

require a constitutional amendment. When the final vote on this resolution to

amend the Constitution takes place in a few days time, Newfoundland and Labrador

will have the same teachers with the same qualifications as the Province had

last year, the year before, and the year before that. Newfoundland and Labrador

will have the same school buildings as we had last year and the year before. The

Province will have the same school curriculum prescribed by the Department of

Education as the Province had last year and the year before.

How will our students be any better off following our

handling of this resolution? I submit to hon. members that if we are to better

serve the interest of students we must get on with reforms to education, based,

not on power struggles, but on excellence in curriculum and teaching. If we are

to better serve the interests of our students we have to get on with better

accountability to parents and taxpayers, not with one-upmanship on the part of

the Premier. If we are to better serve the interests of our students we must

proceed with education reform based, not on getting the Premier a footnote in

some constitutional law book but on delivering better services and providing

greater opportunities to students. We have to put the interest of students

first. Mr. Speaker, long before now common sense changes and improvements to our

school system were recommended, were identified, were laid out for the people of

this Province. Citizens have indicated support for those changes.

The government appointed Williams Royal Commission on

education published a comprehensive assessment of our school system and laid out

many specific recommendations for improvements. I am holding the final report.

Now that document was published three-and-a-half years ago. The government has

had in its possession the final report for three-and-a-half years yet the

government has done next to nothing about implementing the recommendations,

virtually nothing of the Williams Royal Commission recommendations have actually

been put in place. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Williams Royal Commission

and using the powers the government has had all along, the government long

before now could have reduced the number of school boards. The government could

have done that with the cooperation of the churches and the school boards.

School board administrators have been in doubt about their jobs and the future

operation of their boards for two or three years now. School board members who

serve voluntarily without any remuneration were elected six years ago for a four

year term. Mr. Speaker, long before now if the government was serious about

bringing in cost efficiencies the government could have ended duplication in

administration. The government could have streamlined busing.

The Department of Education always has had complete control

over the payroll for administration. The Department of Education all along has

had total power over school busing. In 1949 when the terms of union were

formalized there were no school board offices, there was no school busing in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Using the constitutional powers the government was

granted in the Terms of Union, during the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s even the

'90s - under this administration - administrations have been developed.

Administrations have grown out of proportion. Regional school boards were

created, school board bureaucracies were put in place, positions of

superintendent, assistant superintendent and program coordinator were created by

the Department of Education and funded by the Department of Education. Just as

the Department of Education built up these education empires the Department of

Education can shrink them.

Starting around the late '50s the Department of Education

began providing school busing. The Department of Education set regulations or

the Cabinet set regulations governing the operation of school buses. If the

Premier was serious about streamlining school busing his government could have

changed the regulations. An indication of the government's total control over

busing was shown by the arrogant behaviour of the Minister of Education this

summer when in a dictatorial fashion he ignored the tenders submitted by bus

contractors on the Avalon. He made a second call for tenders. He was not

satisfied with the bids contained in the second tenders. He then threatened

these business people with taking busing out of private hands altogether, going

to Ontario and buying condemned buses for $1,500 each and having the Department

of Education directly operate busing on the Avalon. If the department, as the

minister claims, has documented, flagrant duplication in busing, and there is

reason to believe there is duplication in some areas of the Province, why didn't

the minister use the power he obviously has to clear up that duplication?

Mr. Speaker, the government has had opportunities to bring

about greater sharing of school facilities. Under the existing Constitution

through the initiative of clergy, school boards and mostly parents in local

areas, co-operative arrangements have been worked out, joint-service

arrangements have been put in place. Now these arrangements have come about not

because of the government but in spite of the government. For many years now, we

have had interdenominational shared schools, working very successfully in many

areas particularly in Western and Central Newfoundland, mostly rural areas.

In the district I represent, the Town of Pasadena developed a

co-operative, shared school for the senior Grades in the early 80s. Pasadena

with a population of 3,500, with thriving churches of the major denominations,

Roman Catholic, Anglican, United Church, Salvation Army, Pentecostal as well as

some others, for thirteen years have had all students going together for the

senior Grades to Pasadena Academy. Under the one roof, the students go together

they are subdivided by denomination for religious education. That's a

co-operative arrangement that has worked very successfully and in my opinion, it

represents an ideal balancing of interests. The interest of students, the

interest of parents, the interest of churches and the interest of taxpayers.

This year, this school year, Gander consolidated its schools.

As of this September, all children in Gander of every denomination are going

together to the same schools. This Administration provided no assistance for

that consolidation; the sharing came about in Gander in spite of this

government. The government did not even provide any additional funding so that

Gander Collegiate could be expanded, instead, old, portable buildings have had

to be tacked on to Gander Collegiate. If the government had been serious about

consolidating schools, the government could have used the power of the purse to

provide incentives for consolidation. Instead, school administrators tell me

there have actually been financial disincentives because after consolidation,

operating funds are cut.

Most importantly of all, Mr. Speaker, if the government had

been serious about improving education, the government could have improved the

curriculum. Since Confederation, the Department of Education has had complete

control over all aspects of curriculum, over curriculum for every subject area

except for religious education. If there is any deficiency, which I believe

there is, in the mathematics curriculum, then the Premier has nobody to blame

but himself and his Administration. He has been in office for six-and-a-half

suggest to the Premier that he look in the mirror, because he and his

Administration have had total control over all subject areas except religious

education.

Mr. Speaker, again, any improvements related to teaching, any

improvements related to evaluation of students, and basically any changes that

would boost student achievement are now in the hands of the government.

Instead of acting on the common sense recommendations that

enjoyed obvious public support the government has procrastinated. According to a

professor of education at Memorial University the government has acted on only

10 per cent of the recommendations of the Williams royal commission report. If

the government had been interested in bringing about improvements for students

by now the government could have implemented 90 per cent of the recommendations

of the Williams royal commission. Instead, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his

Administration single-mindedly pursued a quest for amending the Constitution,

for winning a power struggle. The Premier and his Administration didn't have the

good sense to use the power they had and to draw on pledges of cooperation from

churches and school boards to make changes and to make progress.

Instead, the Premier put the Province through an expensive

and a divisive referendum. The referendum cost the taxpayers directly over $2

million. The referendum is now being used by the government to further delay

reform. The referendum was divisive. Whether we like to admit it or not, the

referendum process revived some of the old religious divisions and bigotry. Most

of us have felt a tremendous sense of satisfaction over the progress that we've

made as a people in coming together, but the referendum did revive some of the

old sectarianism. It is incumbent on all of us now to try to put that behind us

and to reach out and secure renewed cooperation.

Not only did the Premier embark upon a needless, costly,

potentially destructive referendum, the Premier's approach to the referendum was

seriously flawed. First, the Premier withheld his decision to have the

referendum until the House of Assembly had recessed for the summer and until the

last day of the school year at the start of summer. Second, the Premier

unilaterally decreed the referendum question and the text of the proposed

constitutional amendment on which the question was based. The Premier didn't

bring his proposed question to the House of Assembly for examination and debate.

The Premier didn't put to any public forum, not a constituent assembly that he

talked about so piously during the Meech Lake process, his proposed amendment to

the Constitution, his proposed change to the Term 17. Instead the Premier

dictated, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the

referendum question and the constitutional amendment on which the referendum

question was based.

After the referendum vote, the Premier and his government

changed the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment, and now the

Premier tells us that he doesn't even have the agreement of the Federal

Government to the proposed text of the new Term 17. The process was badly

flawed, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest political scientists will have some

criticism to level at the process the Premier followed in years to come when

more thoughtful analysis is made than has been given to date.

Apart from the process, what of the substance of the proposed

constitutional amendment? What of the substance of the resolution that is now

before us? Well, Mr. Speaker, I carefully studied the fine print. When the

government finally published the text in mid-summer, some weeks after they

announced the referendum, I carefully examined it. What I concluded is that it

didn't lay out a framework for the kind of reform, for the kind of progress,

that I and many others in the Province had been led to expect.

I concluded that the proposed new Term 17 doesn't give the

government powers over human rights or powers to consolidate schools that the

government lacks now. I concluded that the proposed new Term 17 has certain

provisions which are actually regressive. I've determined - I realize others may

disagree, and I acknowledge that none of us can say with certainty how the

courts would interpret a constitutional provision - but I concluded that the new

Term 17 would actually prolong denominational schools in urban centres and make

denominational schools more separate, more rigid, and more denominational than

they are now. I concluded that the new Term 17 would be inhibiting, rather than

encouraging or fostering, the inter-denominational joint service arrangement

that is working so well in Gander, Pasadena, Plum Point, in the Bay St. George

area, on Fogo Island, in Bay de Verde, and many other places in the Province.

For me, unlike many voters, making my personal vote in the

referendum on September 5, the choice was not black and white, it was gray and

gray. I voted no. I voted no because I sincerely concluded that we could make

more progress in reforming education and achieve gains faster under the old Term

17 than the new Term 17. Additionally, I concluded that the new Term 17 has

certain regressive passages.

The Premier just walked us through his new Term 17. The

Premier clearly indicated that it is calculated to give denominational schools a

higher status than they have now by making denominational schools the rule, and

then in spelling out that denominations operating denominational schools will

have explicit control over a greater area of curriculum than the churches

control now. Currently, churches only control religious education curriculum.

The new wording opens the possibility that denominations will have control or

influence over aspects of science curriculum, over aspects of literature

curriculum, over aspects of social studies curriculum.

The new Term 17, in describing denominational schools, says

that the denominations operating denominational schools will have control over

student admissions. This raises the question that denominations will be able to

exclude all students who do not adhere to that denomination. Currently, under

the law, denominational schools are not allowed to refuse students for whom no

school operated by the student's denomination is reasonably available, and if

there is a dispute, the minister has the final say. Under the new constitutional

provision, a denominational authority will be able to exclude, without question,

any student who does not adhere to that denomination. It is written right into

the Constitution.

Third, Mr. Speaker, the new Term 17 spells out that

denominations operating denominational schools will be able to assign and

dismiss teachers on non-work related discriminatory grounds; but that is not

spelled out in the current constitution, although courts have held that is the

effect of the current constitution. But we are now writing into the text of the

Constitution, we are now codifying in the Constitution, churches' explicit power

to hire and fire on discriminatory religious grounds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: That is regressive, I say to the Minister of

Health.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the new Term 17 enshrines a ridiculous

quota arrangement for electing school board members. Now, the Constitution is

silent on the composition and the manner of selecting school board members.

Under legislation we could provide for election of 100 per cent of school board

members. In fact, over the years, the House of Assembly has legislated that a

minimum of one-third of school board members be elected, and more recently that

a minimum of two-thirds members be elected, but there is no quota system written

into the law.

Mr. Speaker, the substance of the constitutional amendment,

in my view, is regressive. The media incorrectly reported that I decided to vote

no because the new Term 17 did not go far enough. I never made such a comment,

quite simply because I maintain that the new Term 17 will not take us any

distance the old Term 17 would not have taken us. As I have said before, I

actually regard the new Term 17 as regressive.

It is extremely discouraging and disappointing to see the

Province put through expense, trouble and turmoil for a constitutional amendment

that does not represent progress. It is extremely discouraging to see the waste

of opportunity that we have witnessed over the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the fact that I personally voted

no in the referendum for the reasons I have explained, a majority of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians voted yes, and I accept the result of that

exercise in democracy. Over all a majority - 55 per cent -voted yes. In the

district I represent, a larger majority voted yes; 67 per cent voted yes. I

respect the choice of the citizens of the Province, and as Leader of the

Opposition, and as the people's representative, I will vote yes to this

resolution.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I pledge to the people of the

Province that I will continue to press for results for students and their

families. I have a predication to make. This Liberal Administration has been in

office for six-and-a-half years now, they have had the Williams Royal Commission

Report for three-and-a-half years, yet, they have done virtually nothing to

improve the education system. I don't expect reforms to be implemented before

the next election.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure people that

within 100 days of a PC government taking office, there will be action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: After the next election, our PC government

will use the powers the government has and we will accept offers of co-operation

by the churches, school boards, and parents, and we will produce results for

students and their families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I was hesitant to rise, because I really thought someone from

the government benches would rise to participate in the debate. I was sort of

anticipating that the Minister of Tourism, Culture - what is he now? title but

no recreation - would get up. I thought that perhaps the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation might rise. I thought for sure that the Minister of

Health, the Member for St. John's North would rise with strong views on this. I

thought for sure they would rise in their place. Your Honour, with all respect

to you, I realize you can't rise because you are in the Chair, but I thought for

sure that if you were in your seat, you would have risen in the Assembly today

to take

part in the debate.

I see some interaction going on between the Government House

Leader and my colleague, the Member for Burin Placentia West here. The real

House Leader is now going up to the minister's office. The only place now that

the Minister of Justice hasn't had an office in the last six months is behind

the Speaker's Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on and take

part in the debate, and

I am honoured, really, to participate. I guess, if you look at my participation

in this House, now in my fourth term, it certainly is one of the most important

debates that I have participated in, in my life in politics, no doubt about

that. It is the second time in my political career that I have been involved in

a debate involving an amendment to the Constitution of Canada - the second time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't it the third?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It may be the third. Yes, you are right,

it is the third. In 1987 the Government of the day, led by Brian Peckford, gave

rights to the Pentecostal Assemblies of the Province. You are correct, and then,

just a few short years ago, of course, we had the Meech Lake fiasco, and now we

are talking about the new amended Term 17.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it has been a fairly long

drawn out process, a process that goes back before the last general election. I

remember full well sitting here on March 12, 1993 when the Premier was on the

verge of calling an election. We knew he was about to call an election. I

thought it was a Friday morning. I may not be correct on the day but it was

March 12, 1993.

The church leaders were sitting here in the Speaker's gallery

and the Premier undertook at the time to assure them that they should not have

any concerns about a government, led by him, seeking a change to the

Constitution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is right, I say to the Premier, and

I have Hansard here for him. On March 12, 1993, page 174, he said: "Mr. Speaker,

in response to the church leaders' concerns that implementing certain

recommendations of the Royal Commission Report would jeopardize their

traditional rights, government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking

change to the Constitution that would remove the constitutionally protected

rights of classes of people specifically provided for.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Premier Wells: It was recognized by all at the meeting" he

referred to a meeting, "however, that if after the conclusion of these

discussions there is consensus amongst the leaders" the church leaders, "and the

government that some adjustment or changes to the Constitution are necessary or

desirable then they could be pursued." Consensus between the church leaders and

the government.

Now, we know there has not been a consensus reached or

developed between the church leaders and the government. March 12, 1993. It is

there for everyone to read. It is there recorded in the records of this House,

Mr. Speaker, the words of the Premier with the church leaders sitting in the

gallery. I was one member who was in my seat that morning and I remember it

well.

Then, of course, we saw what happened after the Premier

received a new mandate. There were on-and-off-again talks between the church

leaders and the government. It was not for the full duration of time that on

occasions the Premier has alluded to, I say to the Premier. There were

disruptions and interruptions. There were months when no discussions indeed took

place. It was not a continuous process. There were disruptions. Really, I guess,

for such a complex issue, where people had traditional claims to rights and so

on, I am not surprised that it would have taken as long as it did if there were

continuous dialogue, but there wasn't continuous dialogue, I say to the Premier,

he knows it full well.

I was really concerned when I knew the Premier was

considering a referendum - so were many other people in this Province, many

members of this House. I remember Dr. Phil Warren saying publicly that he

preferred there would not be a referendum because it would be so divisive. Other

people in the Province expressed that, many people in this House expressed that,

but the Premier wouldn't heed that. There was no need for the Premier to have a

referendum to conclude that the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

supported reform. There was no need to spend in excess of $1 million to see if

the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians supported reform in our system.

We knew that in spades. I would suggest that the government had already spent $1

million getting polling data that already verified that. They did not need a

referendum to tell them that, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, the referendum was a big disappointment to the

Premier, there is no doubt about that. He wanted a bigger majority than he got.

He can talk about why he didn't, and why people didn't vote and why the no side

did so well, but, of course, it has been very divisive. Look at the situation in

this very House of Assembly where there are only fifty-two of us, and this

debate is going to cross party lines. We have had people in the referendum vote,

the private vote on September 5, that voted one way and other members voted

another. We will see over the next few days members debating one way and members

debating the other and voting, consequently, different ways from both sides of

the House. I think that should illustrate very clearly just how divisive an

issue this has been and continues to be in this Province.

As I said to someone before, it is going to be a little

different for me because I've never participated in this kind of a situation

here before, where members of my own party will talk and vote different ways.

The government side find themselves the same way. It is a very different

situation. I think that illustrates just how divided we have become on this

issue as a people and as a province, and that alarms me - I don't like that,

because it wasn't necessary. The reform that we need and want so badly could

have been accomplished by negotiation, in my view. There was still a chance for

that.

There are a few things the Premier said that I have to - I

sat in my seat and I really didn't want to react, but I feel compelled to. He

talks about: The government didn't lead a campaign, and he talks about the great

campaign of the `No' side. The Premier can get on all he wants. The government

had an advertising campaign, the Premier met with editorial boards. They sent

literature to every corner of this Province. The Premier can pooh-pooh all he

wants. This government had as aggressive and costly a campaign, if not more,

than the `No' side, I say to the Premier.

What a - I don't know how to explain it, to say that all

those who stayed home were yes votes.

MS. VERGE: He said all the ones who stayed home in Gander

were Liberals, too.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the voters in Gander who stayed

home were all Liberals. Anytime they don't get out and vote, they're with the

Premier. It's the first time I've heard that analysis of anything in my

knowledge of democracy, I say to him - rather a change.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, there is one other thing I

want to say to the Premier while he is in his seat because I would rather say it

with him here than with him gone. The Premier has an unusual way - and I have

seen it in the years that I have been here since he has been Premier - he makes

believe that he really does not want to make derogatory comments or to belittle