December

1, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 26

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

public galleries a former colleague, Dr. Phil Warren, former Minister of

Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, seventeen students from the Central

Newfoundland WISE Program at Gander together with their instructor and program

coordinator Audrey Miller.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, a very appropriate time

for me to present to hon. members the strategy newly adopted by the Department

of Health to combat the spread of HIV and to treat and care for individuals

infected with HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Speaker, in early fall of last year one of my first

decisions as the newly appointed Minister of Health was to commission the

development of a comprehensive HIV/AIDS strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to thank the more than 90 groups and individuals who were involved - the

community and advocacy groups, the health care organizations and professional

associations, the educational authorities and institutions, the aboriginal

groups, businesses, regional health units, the various levels of government, and

especially the persons living with AIDS who shared their experiences. The task

of providing a framework for exploring and resolving some of the complex issues

surrounding HIV infection and AIDS was enormous. But this process of extensive

representation and consultation was successful in producing a strategy to

co-ordinate efforts in providing province-wide quality services. Their report

was presented to me last spring, and action has been taken on a number of their

recommendations.

The committee consisted of working groups set up to examine

issues related to three key areas: Education and Prevention, Testing and

Treatment, and Care and Home Support.

Education and Prevention: Education continues to be the best

strategy available to prevent the spread of HIV infection. Education is also the

best strategy to develop an understanding of and compassion for persons living

with AIDS. The committee identified five key groups affected by HIV/AIDS each of

whose educational needs about prevention have to be assessed and met: sexually

active adults, youth in schools, youth outside schools, HIV infected persons,

and adults, both as parents and professionals.

Mr. Speaker, educational programs targeting these specific

groups are being enhanced through television and in a variety of other ways. The

Department of Education together with the educational authorities in the

Province have developed a plan whereby AIDS prevention will be part of the core

curriculum in each of the junior high school grades. Regional and provincial

staff of Community Health are collaborating extensively in this effort. The

Department of Health is addressing also AIDS education in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, an expert working committee is presently being

constituted to develop protocols for therapies proven useful for the treatment

of HIV/AIDS and other associated diseases.

Testing and Treatment: Persons who feel they may be at risk

or who are concerned about contracting HIV must have reasonable access to

testing. Testing will continue to be done on a voluntary basis, with the results

confidential and anonymity protected. Counselling services and testing will be

made more available.

In May 1991 the Department of Health announced an anonymous

seroprevalence survey to determine the rate of HIV infection in pregnant women

in Newfoundland and Labrador. Unidentified leftover blood samples were tested

from a total of 14,000 pregnant women during the twenty-four month period ended

October 31, 1993. Thirteen cases were found to be positive for HIV infection. Of

these seven were from the Eastern Health Region, three from St. John's, two from

the central region and one from the Western Health region.

Mr. Speaker, in response to these results the Department of

Health's Advisory Committee on Infectious Diseases has recommended that the

department issue an advisory to all physicians in the Province that women in the

prenatal period be counselled and have HIV testing. The department will

follow-up on this recommendation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association through the Joint Management Committee. Also, the department

continues to encourage individuals at risk to seek counselling and testing.

As well, a Community HIV Prevention Project will be

implemented by the Eastern Health Unit early in the new year. The project,

funded by Health Canada and by the provincial Department of Health will be

located in Conception Bay North and will focus on recognizing risk, providing

accessible testing, and enhancing a support network for those who are HIV

positive.

Care and Home Support. Mr. Speaker, the committee recognized

that persons living with HIV/AIDS wish to live in their communities and have

access there to necessary services. Government's decision to implement a

single-entry system to access continuing care services throughout the Province

through the medium of regional community health boards will assist in achieving

this objective.

The Department of Health recognizes that some of the needs

identified are more urgent than others, and will have a greater impact on our

ability to prevent the spread of infection and improve the quality of life for

people living with HIV. Therefore, the department, over the coming months, will

concentrate on initiatives with greatest potential to achieve these objectives.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I table and make

public the committee's report entitled Towards the Development of a

Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador . Mr. Speaker,

again, this Province and this government are among the leaders in health care in

this country.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is very positive that emphasis is going to be

placed on education and prevention, and certainly a compliment to ninety

different groups of people who participated in preparing this strategy for

Newfoundland and Labrador with reference to HIV and AIDS.

I think it is very important that the government continue to

broaden the public awareness because in a disease such as AIDS where no cure has

been found to date, where experts and scientists are still moving in that

direction and haven't achieved any success at this point, the broadening of

public awareness over and above what is happening today here in this Province is

all the more important.

Now, recently, too, an international study showed that the

spread of AIDS and HIV infection is not decreasing, in spite of the recent and,

for a number of years, increasing public awareness and education. In fact, over

50 per cent of new cases today are in the fifteen to twenty-four age group and

that is very alarming and sends a very bad signal regarding the future spread of

the disease, and puts a damper on efforts to be able to educate this age group.

So we have to target that age group, especially in high risk areas, and put

forth increased effort and impetus to address it where it is in a most critical

stage.

We must move forward in trying to educate people about

carrying on lifestyles that are going to be more conducive to eliminating the

spread of AIDS and HIV infection.

It is an interesting point here that pregnant women, I think,

thirteen people, in a seroprevalence study indicated, were infected with HIV. It

is important that the medical profession and doctors will take this seriously -

I am sure they will - and counsel pregnant women as to the high risk and dangers

associated with HIV and full-blown AIDS.

In giving assistance to people, it is important that

government and the department accept a great responsibility, because an ounce of

prevention is worth a pound of cure. And, in providing assistance to families

that were victims of blood transfusions, this government, through no fault of

its own, dragged its feet for months and months, when Nova Scotia took a lead

and gave a more comprehensive plan to assist people who were infected. People

here in this Province had to go through a lot of anguish, affecting their

families, and over half the people in the Province who were infected in this

way, died in the process.

I hope the government will be very aggressive in their

prevention education and will eliminate, in the future, at some point, HIV

infection altogether, and eliminate that specific dreaded disease from the face

of this earth.

We can do our part, and it is important that we take it

seriously and show a little more compassion and a little more aggressiveness

than we have shown in dealing with families who were affected by it through no

fault of their own. I call upon the minister to do that, and to start today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: I would like to have it recorded, Mr.

Speaker, that it is the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition Deputy House

Leader, who has been denying leave on this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers. The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to address an important issue which affects many

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador; military training activities at Canadian

Forces Base at Goose Bay, and in Labrador generally.

I am advised that the Environmental Impact Statement

regarding military flight training in Labrador is likely to be released soon,

and we can expect the low-level flying issue once again to emerge as a subject

of public debate. I am speaking today in this statement to underscore the

universal need for a debate which is both informed and balanced.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supports military

flight training in Labrador. Military activities are an integral part of the

life of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and are critical to the present and future

livelihood of Central Labrador. Goose Bay's industry is the military base; its

product is flight training. The base pays out more than $120 million a year on

salaries and recurring operating costs, much of which stays in Newfoundland and

Labrador. The government recognizes that military flight training is an

important part of the foundation for Labrador's sound economic development, and

that CFB Goose Bay is an integral part of the economic, social and cultural

fabric of that area.

Mr. Speaker, it is the firm belief of the government that all

reasonable efforts are being made to ensure that these activities are being

carried out with due regard for public and environmental concerns, including the

legitimate concerns of aboriginal peoples. We believe, too, that military

training in Labrador represents an example of how one can balance economic

development and environmental protection. While military training represents the

economic basis of the Central Labrador region, as I have said, some people have

raised concerns, legitimately, about the potential impacts of this activity, and

a comprehensive environmental review is presently under way to address these

concerns. This review is being carried out under the aegis of the Government of

Canada and in accord with federal legislation. The review is being undertaken

despite the fact that to date scientific analysis has identified no negative

impacts associated with these activities that could not be addressed and

alleviated.

Mr. Speaker, it is our hope, and our expectation, that the

environmental impact statement will be comprehensive and balanced, and it is our

hope and expectation that this statement will represent an adequate basis for

the environmental review hearings that are expected to take place next year.

We encourage all interested individuals to review the

environmental impact statement and to participate in the public review process.

The government will be directly involved in the hearings, and we are committed

to working closely, too, with the Town of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and the

other interested Labrador communities and organizations which want to become

involved in the process. We shall assist them in whatever way we can in

presenting their views during the review process. As well, the government is

prepared to work with all interested individuals and groups to minimize the

chances of negative environmental or socio-economic impacts, and to ensure the

activity does not impact unduly upon any group or area.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there are many

misconceptions about the activity, and the scope and form of military activities

in Labrador are often misrepresented by those who would like to see this

activity end.

I hope, while any qualified expert opinion is always welcome

in the discussion, that the groups and individuals from outside our Province who

believe they have something meaningful to contribute will do so, and I hope they

do so in recognition of the needs and goals of the people of Goose Bay, of

Labrador, and of all the Province, and not to further causes or agendas that

serve another purpose.

We are committed, Mr. Speaker, to ensuring that the public is

provided with accurate, factual information to assist in their review of this

matter. In this regard, we are committed to meeting with interested groups and

individuals, throughout the Province and throughout the country, and the

Province will be circulating information to interested parties to assist them in

this process, in their own review and assessment. We have prepared an

information kit on this issue which I tabled today. The Clerk will have copies

for all members, Mr. Speaker.

The Innu of Labrador and peace groups have stated their

opposition to military training. This is a reality that we much acknowledge, and

government bears a responsibility to understand and respect their objections.

Nevertheless, it must be recognized that military training represents the

lifeblood of the community of Happy Valley - Goose Bay and Labrador as a whole,

and it is an important source of environmentally sound economic opportunity in

an area where few alterative opportunities exist. Mr. Speaker, finally let me

say that in the absence of the military, the community of Happy Valley - Goose

Bay would likely not have been established. Were it not for the base and the

military, the future of this vibrant community would be cast in serious doubt.

Government is committed to ensuring that the legitimate

concerns of all concerned and specifically the Innu Nation who have taken a very

active stand in this, that the concerns of all are addressed in the

environmental review process. We do want to say though, Sir, that in our

judgement it is a falsehood to suggest that military training will challenge the

right of the Innu people to self determination, or their future. Let us be

clear, this issue is not about land claims or other aboriginal issues. It is an

environmental issue, it is about the future of Happy Valley - Goose Bay and

Labrador as a whole. I have no doubt that the members of the House agree that

the prosperity and future of one community cannot be undermined by another.

I nevertheless wish to assure all members that the government

is committed fully to working with the Innu and other aboriginal groups to

address the concerns and challenges which face their communities, and we must be

firm in our resolve to work harder then ever to find solutions which are

acceptable and which recognize the needs of all interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, the activity of military training and the

concept of environmental responsibility can go hand in hand.

Today, I ask, on behalf of the government, that all of those

who recognize the overall importance, value and benefit of military training in

Labrador to join with us, and help us to ensure that this activity continues in

a responsible manner. I also ask those who are compelled to oppose low level

flying to please do so with fact and evidence, not fiction and emotion. Thank

you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister

for sending over a statement a few minutes before the House opened. There is not

much in the way of an announcement here or anything really specific to respond

to other than that the government is making its position known on how it intends

to deal with the issue over the next little while and giving members an

information kit to have a look at the issue, that is fine and fair enough.

I can say on behalf of our party that we recognize the

economic potential that lies in flight training for the area of Happy Valley -

Goose Bay and the 8,000 or 9,000 people who live there. It has been ongoing for

quite some time. When we were the government we supported it at that time. I

guess the only thing that can be said at this date - I guess the minister wants

to send a message out to people up in that area in particular. I presume that is

the purpose of the statement because there is nothing else in the statement. I

can only say to him that we all hope that the environmental review process which

is underway will be comprehensive and any areas that are identified as areas of

concern, as it might affect the cultural and social activity of the area, will

be recognized by the government and any corrections that are required will be

undertaken. Overall, in a general way, I think it would be kind of unreasonable

to expect to close down or withdraw somehow that entire activity which has been

so important to the economic foundation of Happy Valley - Goose Bay. We will see

what happens and we hope that the environmental process works.

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be recorded

that the Deputy House Leader for the Opposition is denying me, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member cannot make comments without

being recognized.

Further statements by ministers?

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the rules

of this House permit the opposition critic to respond to any ministerial

statement. I do not outright oppose the hon. Member for St. John's East speaking

on ministerial statements. In fact, if they wish to change the rules of the

House to give that right, I feel every single member of our party has the right

to speak on a ministerial statement. He is the same as any other member here in

the House and the voters of this Province elected us as the official Opposition

here and gave us that right. If the House wishes to change that to give any

member who wishes to speak that right, I will certainly support that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is

that the rules of the House are silent on this matter. Ministerial statements

are provided for in the regular daily routine of business and the custom has

grown up that a spokesman or spokeswoman, as may be the case, for the members

who sit to Your Honours right may respond. The difficulty I think is that the

hon. gentleman for St. John's East represents a party that is not a party in the

parliamentary sense and that is the problem. We on this side have no difficulty

in allowing him to speak where he wishes.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Within the bounds which Your Honour has laid

down, and I believe Your Honour keeps a count on time and there is a ratio of

time that is observed. The difficulty, as I say, is that he does not represent a

party in the parliamentary sense but the fact remains that the party of which

the hon. gentleman is the leader, and in whose name he was elected, or on whose

behalf he was elected, is a legitimate political party in this Province. Now, if

we want to change the rules we are prepared to look at it but other than that we

simply have to carry on as we are and hon. members will have to be guided by

their conscience and their believe as to what is best for the public. We believe

in debate.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The rules provide that for Ministerial Statements and a reply

by the official opposition critic for half the amount of time that the minister

uses and then for half that amount of time for other members who wish to speak

to a Ministerial Statement. Now, the custom has grown up in this House during

the previous Speaker to allow this hon. member, as leader of a recognized

political party, and I use that term because that is the term that is used in

the Elections Act, if a recognized political party, the leader of that party to

respond to Ministerial Statements. Now, there was a brief period of time when

certain members of the then backbenchers of the Liberal Party were for their own

reasons denying leave. I think that difficulty has been sorted out but it now

appears that the official Opposition is taking the position as an opposition

that they are going to refuse leave to a registered political party to respond

in this House to Ministerial Statements, perhaps out of fear that this party

will have more of a voice than they would like the public to hear from.

Nevertheless the rules seem to permit them to deny leave. I would like it put on

the record though that it was the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition Deputy

House Leader, acting presumably on behalf of his caucus who is doing that. I

would like the people of Newfoundland to know that it is them and that party

that is trying to deny an opportunity for the New Democratic Party and its

leader to be heard in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

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

I have just a short comment. There are any number of

occasions in the Legislature where leave of all members is required in order to

pursue certain matters and any one member has a right to not grant that leave.

That has happened on any number of occasions, not only with response to

Ministerial Statements. What I really want to say is what a turnabout by the

Government House Leader. The Member for St. John's South, the Member for Eagle

River and the Member for Port de Grave continuously denied leave to the Member

for St. John's East, but I want to say to the Member for St. John's East as well

that he did not get up and want to put on public record then what members were

denying him leave, so why the change from him?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

I point out that on the point of order it is 2:30 and we have

to go into Private Members' Day at 3:00 so unless it is absolutely critical I

would just as soon go with Oral Questions.

PREMIER WELLS: I have just one comment on the point of

order.

The problem may be the making of the Member for St. John's

East himself. I think most of us in the House recognize that while he is a lone

member he does represent a political party in this Province but it is a

political party that has a pretty low level of public debate in the Province.

Perhaps it is really unreasonable for him to insist on responding to every

statement in those circumstances. If he would recognize that there is an

official Opposition, and times when matters are of particular concern and he

wanted to address the thing, I am sure that members on both sides of the House

would willingly give him leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: He has really been the author of his own

misfortune, as members opposite have pointed out. Last year he got the ire up of

members opposite because he abused the privilege, and this year he appears to

have invoked the ire of the members on the opposition side of the House. Perhaps

I could ask all hon. members to let us give him a fresh start and when it is

reasonable and it is a matter of significance but not when it is responding to

every Ministerial Statement, which is the role of the official Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: When there is a reasonable necessity for

him to do it, if he requested it only in those circumstances, perhaps he will

find the members more responsive on both sides of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will just deal briefly with this. There is no point of

order here. The practice has been to allow the Opposition half the time the

minister takes to make the oral statement and by leave to the hon member, since

he is not an official opposition party, but no point of order here that I can

see and I direct that we start Oral Question Period at this point.

o o o

MR. ROBERTS: May I make a -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have a question?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I want to make a very brief statement

out of respect -

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me, is there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. ROBERTS: I am not asking for leave. It is not -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) on Wednesday.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I -

MR. SIMMS: I stand on a point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, members on

this side of the House have several questions they want to ask of the

government, so if the minister wants to make a statement, and is prepared to add

the extra time on so that Question Period runs for thirty minutes still, then

that is no problem with us and if you don't have any problem with that, that is

fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: It was simply the death of a prominent

Newfoundlander which I think we should note.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead, go ahead.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to bring to the notice of the House officially, that

a very prominent Newfoundlander died earlier this week. I was not aware of it

until I read today's paper, a man that many of us might not have heard of but we

should remember him, a man named George Bernard Summers.

Mr. Summers was the Assistant Secretary for Justice in 1934

and became the Secretary for Justice in 1939, that is the equivalent of being

the Deputy Minister under the Commission set up, and then joined the British

Army and became a colonel during the war, served in Germany and in 1949 at the

time of Confederation, entered the External Affairs Department and subsequently

became the Canadian Ambassador to Iran and to Chile; and I would simply note

that Mr. Summers was a distinguished Newfoundlander, a distinguished lawyer, a

distinguished public servant and would ask that the appropriate letter be sent

by Your Honour to his family, he was a brother of Dr. William Summers, the

well-known geographer at Memorial University here in St. John's.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, of course we would like to be

associated with those remarks; while I did not know Mr. Summers and can't

honestly admit to knowing much of him other than what the minister has just told

us, whatever he has told us in that very brief moment has been very impressive

and certainly, he obviously had a distinguished career and we would like to be

associated with any sentiments of sympathy that might be expressed to the

family.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, in watching the news, I noted

with some interest, statements at least attributed to the Premier, I am not

quite sure if he made them or not so I want to give him an opportunity perhaps

to tell us, but he has hinted on several occasions in the past that the merger

talks with Fortis were not proceeding very well, and as I said yesterday, there

were indications that he had told the press that in fact there hadn't been any

talks for several days. I heard him say that myself and there is some indication

that they may be at a stalemate. I do not know if those were his words or the

press' words or what, but if so it would be highly unusual, at least in my

opinion, for one negotiating party to make such a statement on speculation, so

although the word on the street, I say to the Premier, clearly is that Fortis

has been expressing dissatisfaction with the talks, I would like to ask: Will

the Premier tell us the basis for his statement, and secondly, may I ask him if

Fortis has indeed asked for any changes in government's position before they

will agree to continue with the talks?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, and this didn't sort of

just happen in the last few days.

A circumstance of the same general nature had arisen, I think

if I recall correctly it was early October, I am just sort of forgetting the

date, or early November I think it was, I forget when it first arose. Anyway, I

know that it was the situation before I addressed the Board of Trade on the

issue and that is why there is a comment on it in my statement to the Board of

Trade.

I didn't make a statement on the issue; I was asked to speak

to the news media in a scrum yesterday and they asked some specific questions

and I answered them as fully as I could and I had to frankly say: well, there is

no agreement yet with Fortis as to whether or not we should even proceed with

discussions of a merger. The fundamentals, the basic principles that the

government had insisted on be followed have not yet been accepted by Fortis, so

as far as I know there has been no change in that in the last few days, but I do

not know, with certainty, what the situation is right at this moment.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary.

We have been hearing for some time now and, as I say to the

Premier, it is on the street, so I do not know what he has been hearing, but we

have been hearing for some time now that Fortis negotiators really have

expressed astonishment at government's lack of preparedness for these talks. The

impression is that they are suggesting that the government does not seem to know

what it wants or how they are going to get there.

Can I ask the Premier: Is he aware, or can he confirm, or is

it a fact, that Fortis negotiators have, in fact, told the government

negotiators - Hydro negotiators; that team, whoever it is - in effect, that

continuation of these talks is really pointless until government itself

understands what it wants and can put that forth in a rational proposal so that

Fortis can deal with it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, all of that is utterly

false. It is `word on the street', as he says, and word on the street seldom

bears any relationship to reality. That is utterly false. In fact, I think just

the opposite is true.

One of the problems was that the government was well ahead of

Fortis in terms of consideration of this issue, and to be fair to Fortis, that

is not, in any manner, intended as a criticism of Fortis. They had not even

though about it. This proposition originated with the government negotiating

team, and they put the proposal to Fortis in the first instance and asked Fortis

if they were prepared to consider it. So as far as I know, Fortis had no work

done on considering it and needed some time to sort of get up to speed on the

issues that would be involved. So far from the government not being prepared,

just the opposite is true.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker - rather interesting.

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, he has confirmed once again

that there is not even a proposal at this stage. He has confirmed that for us,

that there is not even a proposal. Now what we understand is going on is that

Fortis have been asked to try to develop a proposal. Now that is what is on the

street, I say to him again, which would be a little bit like saying to public

service unions, `Before we start negotiations we would like you to prepare our

government's opening position', which would be rather strange.

Now he says, `as far as he knows'. I think those were his

words. `As far as he knows', nothing has been going on in that respect. Now the

Premier himself has friends at Fortis, or he knows people associated with

Fortis, and we know of his association. I would like to ask him: Have any of

them privately expressed to him their concern about the manner in which

government has conducted the negotiations; because, as I say, I would be very

surprised if the Premier has not heard it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, no, government has not asked

Fortis to develop a proposal. I do not know why the hon. Leader of the

Opposition keeps insisting on putting these unfounded proposals forward merely

because he hears them on the street. It is totally incorrect to say that the

government or Hydro asked Fortis to develop a proposal. We did not.

The government asked Fortis if they were interested in

discussing with Hydro the possibility of a merger. The two would sit down and

discuss it. In fact, the Hydro people were far, far advanced of what the Fortis

people could ever have been. That is not a criticism of Fortis. They had no idea

it was coming, so they would not have known; they would not have been prepared.

The Fortis advisors did, so they were well ahead of the Fortis people in that

circumstance.

Since the initial meeting which was, I believe, some time

either August 31 or September 1, when the initial request was made of Fortis to

ask whether or not they were prepared to discuss the possibility of a merger, I

have spoken once to Dr. Bruneau, as the head of Fortis. I received a call from

him one night at my house and, in effect, it was because he had received a

letter from the Hydro negotiating team which said to him: Hydro is not prepared

to continue discussions on the basis that you want to do it. So I assume that he

concluded discussions would break off, and he called to see if there was some

possibility of getting it back on track - could I meet with him and the head of

Hydro.

I agreed to meet with him and the head of Hydro within a day

or two. I met with them. We sat in my office for, I don't know, maybe a half an

hour, and we talked. I re-affirmed for him that the proposition being put to him

by Hydro represented the principles that the government had agreed upon and I

would be very pleased if he and the Hydro people could work out a satisfactory

basis for going forward. I haven't talked to Dr. Bruneau since. I don't know

precisely when that was. My recollection of it is that it would probably be some

time, maybe around November 10 or November 12.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) October.

PREMIER WELLS: I lose track of time. It was October 15.

It was that long ago. In effect, they had come to an impasse as between

themselves at that time and Dr. Bruneau called me at my home. Within a day or

two I met with him and Mr. Mercer, as the head of Hydro, and we re-affirmed the

principles that government would insist upon. I expressed the hope that Dr.

Bruneau and Mr. Mercer and the negotiating teams would be able to work out a

satisfactory basis for going forward with possible merger discussions. I haven't

spoken to anybody at Hydro or at Fortis since that time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I must say I

find this very intriguing. I think the Premier's words were that Fortis had no

idea this was coming. So why would they have developed a proposal. Fortis had no

idea this was coming.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: That's what you said! Fortis had no idea this

was coming.

PREMIER WELLS: But I didn't say Fortis was developing a

proposal.

MR. SIMMS: No, but you said Fortis had no idea this thing

was coming.

PREMIER WELLS: So far as I know.

MR. SIMMS: Yet, Mr. Speaker - so far as you know. So far

as he knows. He expects us to believe that, Mr. Speaker. When you look at what's

happened, right back since May of 1989, in questions in the House of Assembly,

the appointment by the government and the Premier of his five wise men, a couple

of people who were involved with Light and Power, which is owned by Fortis, back

on June 4, had no idea that this was coming? Why would they be prepared? That is

just hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, and we will pursue it a bit further on

another day.

I want to ask him one final question. It's related to

something he is purported to have said yesterday, and I believe he said it in

his speech to the Board of Trade, but I do want to get it on the public record

here. If indeed Fortis pulls out of these talks, or the merger talks don't

proceed or are not successful, is it the Premier's absolute intention to proceed

with the privatization by other means, even over the massive outcry and

objection of the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me try and correct some of this

confusion the Opposition here keeps wanting to create. They talk about the

intrigue. The only intrigue is in his mind, that which he is fabricating and

trying to put forward. I never suggested that Fortis was developing a proposal.

Never at any time. That came from the Leader of the Opposition. To the best of

my knowledge Fortis couldn't possibly have known any of this was likely to come.

To the best of my knowledge that caught Fortis totally by surprise.

What I find offensive - and I expect the people involved

would find insulting, and is unfair to them - the five individual citizens that

I asked to exercise judgement, one of them had a connection with Fortis seven or

eight years ago, another one had a connection with Fortis twenty-five years or

so ago, and his suggestion that somehow now because they were asked to give me

their personal advice, that that caused knowledge to go to Fortis, is insulting

to those, is insulting -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) sworn to secrecy?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, they -

MR. SIMMS: They had terms of reference?

PREMIER WELLS: No, there were no terms of reference. But

it is insulting and offensive to those five men and I must come to their rescue

against this unwarranted personal attack by the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: No wonder there is confusion out there, he

has been spending a month at trying to fabricate confusion. He has done a good

deal of it, a great deal of disservice to the people of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will address the specific question that

he then went on to ask. In the event that the merger talks do not continue, is

it the government's intention to pursue on privatization against the wishes of

the overwhelming majority of the people of Newfoundland.

First, there are a lot of wrong premises in that statement.

The government intends to pursue consideration of privatization, yes. If it

turns out on assessment to be the right thing to do, yes, government will come

to this House and ask the House to do it. The problem with the position the

Opposition has been taking for the last month is no proposal has even been

developed that you can compare against the status quo to determine what is in

the best interest. They just want to head off any consideration of any

improvement. That is why their proposition is totally unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes has the floor.

MR. MANNING: My questions, Mr. Speaker, also, are for the

Premier.

Almost five years ago, the federal and provincial governments

signed a $29.5 million rural development agreement that revitalized and

strengthened the Newfoundland rural sector. That agreement, as I am sure the

Premier is quite aware, is due to expire in approximately four months. I would

like to ask the Premier if his government, as of today, has requested funding

from the federal government for a new agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The minister responsible, Mr. Furey, is

not here today. He and the Minister of Finance were in Halifax attending

national meetings of the Ministers of Finance and Development. I don't have the

kind the detail, but I do know, from other meetings and discussions I have had

with the minister, that steps are being taken to find ways to continue funding

for rural development councils during the coming year that will start on April

We are aware that the agreement runs out on March 31 and, in

the meantime, while discussions are under way, the minister is endeavouring to

find means of providing continuation funding to help the rural development

councils in the meantime.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Premier, at present, one of the

proposals being entertained is to have dollars that are now located in the

project funding component of the agreement put into the administration component

so that development associations and the rural development councils can continue

their efforts for another year while they work on another agreement.

First of all, is the Premier aware that it would take $2.4

million to operate the Rural Development Association and councils for one year,

and that if they take the money out of project funding, which is left - $1.2

million now - they will be able to operate only for six months? I ask the

Premier: Will the government look at providing funding for the other six months

so that the rural development movement in this Province will have the time to

work out a new agreement and not have the door closed when they are halfway

there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has the

individual knowledge of this, I do not. I can only repeat for the member what I

said to him just now. I know the minister is endeavouring to find a means of

funding the continuation of the development councils and the rural development

council for the coming year, when the agreement expires on March 31. As to the

details, I will ask the minister, when he arrives, to answer the member's

question. It is not an urgent matter that must be dealt with in the next twenty

minutes, so we will leave time for the minister to answer it. I will take his

question as notice and ask the minister to provide the answer.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it can't be

dealt with in twenty minutes but, as I stated earlier, we have only four months

left before the expiration of the present agreement. Surely by now, Mr. Premier,

you and your colleagues have talked about this, and you should have decided

whether you will seek federal assistance either to fund the rural development

movement under its existing structure or under a new plan.

I touch on the Strategic Economic Plan put forward by your

government, which outlines seventeen economic zones. Many people in the movement

throughout the Province believe that fifty-nine development associations that

are now in place will be reduced to seventeen to coincide with the proposed

economic zones.

I would like to ask the Premier if he would table in the

House of Assembly the proposal that the Province will be putting forward to the

federal government to fund the new rural development agreement; and is it his

plan, and his government's plan, to reduce from fifty-nine to seventeen the

development associations in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Four months will be more than adequate

time for the minister to be back and answer the question on the funding, so I am

going to leave it to the minister. He will probably be back tomorrow, or if not

tomorrow, the next day, and he can answer the question at that time.

With respect to the seventeen economic zones, and the

structure of rural development councils, we have to reorganize our efforts. The

minister will demonstrate to the House that there are some 167 different

organizations, federal and provincial, focused on development in the Province.

They spend, all told, on administration alone, some $41 million - just on

administration alone. Now, we have to come to grips with that problem, and it

isn't really solving the economic problems, or providing adequately for economic

development. We have to re-focus our efforts so as to get the maximum out of it.

It may not be the best thing to do to have seventeen rural

development councils or associations coinciding with the seventeen economic

zones. It may be that you may need two or three in some zones, you may need five

or six in some other zone - that depends on the circumstances. You may only need

one in some other zones. We have to spend the limited resources that we have

more effectively, and we have to help the development associations, which,

incidentally, Mr. Speaker, have served this Province well. I want to acknowledge

the contribution that they have made over the years and are continuing to make,

and the contribution that I think they can continue to make in the future.

What I want to do is work with them, work with the rural

development council, work with the Federation of Municipalities, in order to

make sure we put in place a structure that will give us the maximum benefit for

the money that we spend and will be able to make the greatest possible

contribution toward economic development.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Yesterday in the

House, I asked the minister if he was contemplating any changes to the MOG -

that is, the operating grants for municipalities in the Province - for the

upcoming year, next year. The minister's response - he said a number of things -

one of them was that within the next week or so, there is a possibility he may

know what the new grant system is going to be. He also said that he would hope

to at least maintain the $41.5 million cap that was on the MOG for last year.

Would the minister now confirm to the House that because of

the fact that the road component is pretty well gone - very doubtful if they

will touch the household components - that the only two components they can

touch now are the equalization component and the local revenue component? Would

the minister now confirm to the House that even if they keep the cap at $41.5

million, this is going to result in very severe cuts to municipalities in the

Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all it is a

pleasure for me as the minister to get up and have the opportunity to answer

questions from a long-time friend and a person whom, I know, knows a lot about

municipal government in the Province.

Let me say this to my hon. friend. Yes, definitely there has

to be, because as my friend knows, as communities grow, more houses, as

communities increase taxation, as assessment and values of properties go up and

down, there is movement. The monies that we have to allocate to a particular

town changes from year to year. The fact that last year there was a cap on it

then we had to eliminate part of our road component grant, if you remember, and

brought it down to something like $30, $33.

This year in our evaluations, we find that we have to go

further than that. He is absolutely right. The road component grant now has

disappeared. So we have to go into one of the other components.

I have recommended to my colleagues - and my staff at Housing

have come up with a number of scenarios. And it is my idea and my intention,

hopefully, that if we have to cut into, let's say, the local revenue incentive

grant, that maybe we could cut into it enough so that we could give back some

money to the roads component grant, which would ultimately mean then, the

possibility that towns could gain a few dollars. Especially towns in the

Province that are finding it very difficult to survive, as the hon. member

knows, because of the reduction in the fishery, the closure of fish plants and

the revenues being down.

I have to apologize I suppose, first of all, to the House,

and to the hon. member: I said I hoped within a week or so - my staff told me

this morning that they should be ready in the next couple of days, to let the

councils know. I am very pleased, by the way, and I hope you are all listening

to me, that I got word this morning that it will remain at $41.5 million, so the

cap will be there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: So, as the hon. member understands, for us to

be able to maintain at a time of restraint, and in view of the financial

situation of this Province and country, for me to be able to stand here as a

minister and say, `At least I held on to $41.5 million' -I feel darn good about

it and I think everyone -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the minister may be able to stand in his place and feel

good about it but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and assure the minister and the

rest of the ministers here, that the municipalities in this Province will not

feel good about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: So the minister has confirmed that there

will be more cuts to the equalization component and the local revenue component.

He just confirmed that. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister:

Because of the new formula for the repayment on capital debt, that was

instituted by this administration a few years ago, can the minister now confirm

to the House - and I have heard the number 100, but let him confirm to the

House, that there are over 100 municipalities in the Province now, because of

this new formula on the repayment of capital debt, that cannot meet the

requirements for the repayment on capital debt? And could the minister tell the

House - and take it upon himself and his department, go to his colleagues and

ask them to change the formula for the repayment of capital debt in this

Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of changing

the formula of the capital debt, because $41.5 million is $41.5 million. What we

can do - maybe the hon. member is asking me to take money away from one

community and give it to another or whatever. I don't know how else I could do

it. $41.5 million - the only thing that you -

MR. TOBIN: Put it back where it was when the PCs were in

office.

MR. REID: I think we have done very well in relationship

to what the PCs did and what the PCs had. Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the PCs had

$38,950,000 into the component grant under a different system. We are up to

$41.5 million, so don't stand and talk to me about what the previous government

did. The bottom line, I say to my friend for Humber Valley, is this, that we, as

a government, in this Province, have a choice of what we are going to do with

the limited amount of money that we have. We have a choice, and I have a choice

as an MHA and a person living in the Province. When it comes to health care,

when it comes to education and when it comes to social services, we have no

other choice but to look at those things, and especially health care, as being

more important than providing money to municipalities. I think this government

has done an excellent job since 1989. Let me quote, Mr. Speaker, the water and

sewage that this government has put in place in this Province since 1989.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I don't think there is an answer to it. I think you are gone

beyond the answer to the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for Humber Valley. I point out that it is almost 3:00 p.m., so you can make your

question and - has leave been agreed to extend Question Period on Private

Members' Day?

MR. ROBERTS: I understand we are to go to four minutes

after 3:00 p.m. - that would be thirty minutes -

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, fine. I will allow Question Period to

continue.

MR. WOODFORD: The minister didn't answer my question at

all, Mr. Speaker, not at all, but because of the time restraint and so on, I

will go on to my third supplementary. I will have other opportunities to ask the

minister a question.

In relationship to the second supplementary that I asked the

minister, I will go on to a third and ask him a question on another matter

pertaining to capital funding. Could the minister now confirm to the House if he

has written, if his department has written, to the some 100 municipalities in

the Province who can't meet their requirements on capital debt - if that figure

is true, I stand to be corrected on that, that could be a little less - if he

has written to them telling them that if they don't pay up, there will be no

capital funding for them in the next year's capital funding budget? Secondly,

would the minister be able to tell the House if his department is taking from

the municipal operating grant the monies that are afforded to municipalities

under that grant and putting it towards their capital funding when the

municipalities are supposed to be receiving their cheques? Could the minister

confirm that?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Department of

Finance in intercepting MOGs or local revenue grants and cheques from government

departments going towards communities because of debt charges has been going on

- I don't know when it started, the member knows that for years and years this

has been going on.

The answer to his question, basically, is I can't see where

we would be able to find more money for municipalities. Hon. members yesterday

stood and talked about the fire-fighting package and every single one of you

said, the minister must look at putting more money into the fire-fighting

package, and now we are saying put more money into the MOGs. Next, I suppose, in

March or April when we come out with our capital works someone else will be

saying, you are not putting enough money into that. All I am saying to you is

this, we have reached a point, I suppose, in our history where our revenues are

no longer matching what we actually spend; therefore, we have no choice but to,

I suppose, create debt, and the way this particular government has been handling

the debt, the long-term debt, and I suppose the current account deficit as well,

is the right way as far as I am concerned.

Now, in relation to your question about the 100 communities,

you are absolutely right. I wrote a letter to over 100 communities, in fact, and

I told them that they were behind on their payments to Newfoundland Municipal

Financial Corporation, and I told them that in order for them to quality for

capital works next year, they will have to try to catch up those payments. Now,

listen, my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker, let me say this to you: most of those

communities early in 1994 when the taxes start to roll in, will start paying off

that debt, and that debt, most likely, in March or April, or whenever we are

ready to announce the capital works budget, in most of those communities that

debt will disappear. It may show up again next year but it will disappear, and

most of the communities, and I can assure you without any doubt, most of the

communities, my hon. friend, will quality for capital works next year and they

will not have anything to prevent them in regard to the capital debt.

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for one more question.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well

that those municipalities are not going to be able to take any capital funding

next year. And, in view of the fact that it is because of the formula that only

lets them go for two or three months, would the minister now tell the House he

is going to go back to his colleagues and try to get that formula for the

repayment of capital debt changed so that municipalities will be able to take

part in these capital funding projects next year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this hon. minister - and I am hon.

- does not need someone from the other side of this House to tell him that he

needs to do something with the capital debt of this Province. I am familiar with

the capital debt that municipalities have in this Province, and if, and when I

do that, I will certainly let this House know I am going to do it. I am looking

at everything in my department right now because of the economic condition the

Province is in, and because the municipalities are in such a financial state as

some of them are in, I am at present, currently, ongoing, on a daily basis,

looking at new ways to help municipalities in this Province. I thank you very

much for your suggestion and if, and when, I get around to coming up with a

solution, I will certainly bring it to you, my friend for Humber Valley, and you

will probably be the first person to know.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 5 - which stands in the name of my

friend for Fortune - Hermitage, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I call Motion 5 and recognize the hon. the

Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we begin the debate, I would like to recognize again

the former Minister of Education, who is in the gallery today, a great

Newfoundlander, a great educator, and a person with tremendous insight into

education within this Province, who has played a leading role, no doubt, in

educational reform in this Province over the years. With that, I salute the

former minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I stand today in the

Legislature and put forth this Private Member's resolution, knowing it is one of

the most important resolutions that we have debated or probably will debate. The

resolution says:

WHEREAS it is essential to our future that we transform the

education system of Newfoundland and Labrador from one of persistent

underachievement to one whose achievement levels rank with the best in the

nation;

AND

WHEREAS it is entirely within our capacity to make

changes to achieve this goal;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House approves in

principle the reform of the Elementary and Secondary education system of

Newfoundland and Labrador set out in Adjusting the Course - Restructuring the

School System for Educational Excellence.

What the government is proposing in Adjusting the Course -

Restructuring the School System for Educational Excellence , is a simplified

system for the governance or delivering of education in this Province. It is not

an end, in itself, it is the beginning of a means whereby we can initiate a

change that will lead to excellence in educational standards in the Province.

Therefore, I must repeat, it must be a fundamental change to the way that we

deliver education in this Province - a fundamental change in the governance of

education, if we are to begin the change toward a system of excellence.

There is, Mr. Speaker, overwhelming support for substantive

and substantial change to our education system, even though there is

disagreement on what is to be done. I agree with the Royal Commission Report and

the government's position that the fundamental changes that we will make must be

done with the welfare of the child taking precedence over all others. Nothing

can, or should blur our vision to the reality that the fundamental, pivotal

person in the education process is the student, and with this goal in mind, we

must and can work together to build a superb educational system which our

children need and rightly deserve, if they are to compete globally.

I wish to say at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that after the

restructuring in the governance or delivery of education has taken place, the

church will still play a major role in the Province's education system, and this

is set out quite clearly in the government's document. However, there will be a

major shift from deliverance of education to control and participating in, areas

fundamental to the churches; and that is set out in the Adjusting the Course

- Restructuring the School System for Educational Excellence" , already here,

and it must be stated unequivocally, that it is not the government's intention

to create a secular, public system of schooling.

In our system, there is a strong emphasis on morals and

values underlining the system; this should be retained, and it will be. It must

also be understood, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed new structure is for the

future and will affect only the new buildings to be constructed. The new

buildings will be the property of the new school boards, just as they were under

integration, but all present schools owned by the churches will be owned by the

particular church after the restructuring just as it was when the United, the

Anglican and the Salvation Army formed a partnership, integrated, some twenty

years ago.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, government has

recognized that there has to be a more streamlined approach and less governance,

and to continue to pursue the present course will not work. Sharing and joint

services among the churches will not see the desired result for our children.

There will continue to be squabbling about jurisdiction to the detriment of the

children in the system. The money needed to maintain the status quo in education

is not there. We heard the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, only a

few moments ago, reiterate that. Today as we speak, the federal government and

the provincial governments are in Halifax discussing the same thing, where the

federal debt has ballooned from $36 billion projected to over $48 billion. We

recognize that it is a Canadian problem, it is a provincial problem, and to some

extent, a global problem.

So to continue on the status quo, the millions of dollars -

whether it's ten, whether it's twenty, whether it is twenty-seven - in

duplication of services can be better spent if it can be shown to improve the

system in the classroom, to improve the delivery of education in the classroom.

The classroom is where the real learning takes place and this is what this new

restructuring is all about. It is a beginning to simplify the structure, the

governance of education, so that we can begin to tackle the other problems to

work toward creating a system of excellence.

The proposal that we have here, Adjusting the Course ,

in itself, is not the end, it is the beginning, the beginning to take the

system, to improve the system, to improve the standards, to improve the quality

of education that the student receives. Mr. Speaker, when this first initial

step has been done, then I believe that we can work toward the goal of creating

a system of excellence, and I believe this is where we have to start.

Let me reiterate that the change in the delivery of education

in this Province will not automatically mean a higher quality of education

overnight. We must remember that. It will, however, simplify the system,

restructure the education system, and in so doing, as I said, will be the first

step on the road to streamlining and refocusing the system to make it easier to

attain the goal and that is, the setting of new standards. The accountability of

the system will follow. To me that is what the essence is about.

After setting out the parameters for the debate, the question

is asked then, Why is there a need for the major restructuring of the elementary

and the secondary school system in the Province? There are - and let us not

forget that - major forces for change in education in the Province, and the

government is in tune with the forces for change and is acting to improve the

system with this in mind. The government has recognized, I believe, Mr. Speaker,

that education is the engine that runs the economy. Education is the key. We

look at the social structure, we look at the economic structure, and if we are

to make major improvements in our social programs, if we are to improve the

level of standing that our people have, if we're going to restructure that, then

obviously, the education system that we give our children is the key. It is, as

far as I am concerned, the engine to propel it.

We can talk about economics, we can talk about whatever we

like, but unless we have the educational programs in place where our students

can avail of the educational opportunities out there to make the economy work,

to have the private sector to drive it, then it will never be driven if the

education is not there from the people who attend the system. Education is the

key. If we had not had the proper education system, then we would not have had

the invention of the wheel. Since the wheel we have had the invention of the

nuclear age and the exploding of ideas continues at an alarming pace. We are

looking at the increase in the knowledge that we learn as individuals, doubling

yearly. Now, if our students in the small communities that exist within this

Province are to achieve standards that will enable them to compete in the

Province, in the nation, and in the world, then obviously, we have to be part of

an educational program that is going to provide excellence for the people we

represent.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight three forces of change

in education. There are many, many others, there is no doubt about that, but I

would like to spend a few minutes talking about three of them. First of all,

there is a need for higher educational standards. There are no two ways about

that. After being in the education system for twenty-seven years, I recognize

that. The system needs to be redefined. There needs to be new standards met. I

said, a few minutes ago, that if we do not transform the educational standards,

expect more from the students who go to the schools, the parents expect more,

society expect more, the business community expect more, then obviously,there

has to be a redefining. We have to set new standards.

Every aspect of the system needs to be addressed; there are

no two ways about that. We have to have higher expectations from students and

parents, and members of the community in general. I believe that we are

constantly lagging behind in the test that is measured. Now, I know, when we

talk about the Canadian Test of Basic Skills and others, we can talk about - as

I did with the Member for Waterford - Kenmount yesterday; he said he was

probably twelve years old before he knew what a caboose was. I understand that.

So therefore, the nature of the test itself probably does show some indication

that our kids - probably it is unfair when the test is being given, but

accounting for these differences, we still do score lower. There are no two ways

about that. There is indisputable evidence to show that.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, then obviously

the means to the end is to simplify the program so that there can be one

simplified system that we are talking about here in `Adjusting the Course -

Restructuring the School System' , so that we can get at the nub of the

progress that we want to make in education. So it is just the beginning.

I submit that we must redesign, reorient, our programs to

make them more relevant, more efficient and effective. How are we to do that

then, if we are going to do that? We, of course, have to involve the students

more. We have to involve the parents more, and I recognize that, to some extent,

there are parent-teacher associations where parents do have some input there,

but not in the way to influence the curriculum. There has to be more local

control. There has to be more local input into the education system, and the

people who matter most are the parents who have expectations for their kids and

for the community in general.

I heard yesterday the person who was Principal of Cabot

Institute, addressing the Board of Trade in St. John's, saying: We would like to

have input from the business community. If you want students coming to you who

would be qualified - because now you are saying that they are not - then don't

stay on the sidelines; give us some input. Let us have your input into the

curriculum, and you be a part of the curriculum that will, in the end, be able

to give us students who will be well equipped for what you would expect of them.

Therefore, we have to do that.

So we have to redesign, we have to reorient programs to make

them more relevant, more efficient and effective, and we have to work with

parents to do that. We must identify and we must eliminate barriers at every

level of the education system, to set educational standards second to none.

That, I believe, is very important.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the system is failing the

student; there are no two ways about that. I have already said that. We have

students graduate from high school who are functionally illiterate - I wanted to

say that - and I think that is a shame, in a sense, toward the end of the

twentieth century, to have students coming out of the system who are

functionally illiterate. The reason why they can do that, Mr. Speaker, is

because of the choice within the curriculum itself. We probably need more

vigorous standards.

Many of our students can come out of school, for example, and

graduate with just one science, and that is all that is needed - one science.

They can come out of school not doing chemistry, not doing physics, not doing

the honours math, and to me, that is wrong. We have to make sure that the

standards are there within the education system to protect students, to give

them the opportunity. I honestly felt, Mr. Speaker, when I was a teacher in a

school, that many of our brightest kids were given the opportunity, in a sense,

to opt out of the opportunity to get a good education and were not even taking

advantage of those that were there. Obviously, we have to evaluate that and I am

sure that we will. That is the whole purpose of introducing this particular

restructuring system, to get at and to give us a system of excellence. There has

been, without question, a thorough analysis of the system. The high school

program standards are sub-par and will have to be addressed.

Society has spoken and will continue to speak more forcefully

than ever because they know the system. That is the point, the system itself.

There has to be more accountability, because you have more and more parents out

there who know the system, who have come through the system, and they will

demand and expect more of their children. Therefore, that being the case,

obviously, that is what we are getting at, and the whole purpose of this is to

restructure the system to make it work. We know that the standards are too low

and they are not prepared for what they see in the post-secondary institutions.

Let me be fair by saying, though, that we have made strides in education,

nevertheless, other people are making bigger strides than we are so we will

never catch up.

After reading Adjusting the Course and much of the

Williams Report and the idea in education, I see that there is another major

need for what the government is doing here, and to me, it is the demographic

changes that have occurred in Newfoundland. When we look at the demographics

here, we look at Newfoundland's birth rate going from one of the highest to one

of the lowest in Canada. We go back into the 1960s and we see that half the

population was school-age or younger. Now, we have 16 per cent of our population

that is school-age. Back in 1972 there were approximately 163,000 people in

schools in this Province and by the year 2006 it is estimated that it will be

less than 85,000. That, in itself, demands that there have to be changes in the

way the system is delivered. There are no two ways about that. And if we look at

the fact that in the system itself we brought in the Grade XII and, in a sense,

reclaimed 10,000 of the students, if that had not happened, we would be looking

at a decline of about 60 per cent of the school population. It is happening all

over, therefore, there is a need to look at the system. It is fragmented. By

streamlining it and making one agency responsible for the program, it will save

dollars, as I said, and the intent is the first step in the beginning of the

standard of excellence and in accountability to make the system work. We have to

have this, here, first, and that is the beginning of it. I recognize that and

all of us do, as well.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there is also in

Newfoundland a rural shift somewhat, a marked decrease in the number of children

in the rural areas. The government recognized that, the former minister

recognized that, therefore, that was the whole purpose of re-evaluating and

looking at the school system to see a different way of delivering it. Without

that, we are in for real trouble and are not spending our dollars wisely. I

think the vast majority of Newfoundlanders recognize that.

The third point, as I see it, is accountability, and we see

it permeating every facet of society: accountability in the quality of

curriculum, accountability in the quality of evaluation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. LANGDON: I just want to make one more point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. LANGDON: Just one second?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. LANGDON: - accountability in the quality of teaching.

And, in the last half of the few minutes I will have later on, I want to deal

with that. Because the teachers in the school system are put in a particular

predicament in the last half of the 1990s

that was not even recognizable ten years when I was in the

classroom. I would like to deal with that and I see that also as one of the

major parts of the restructuring that is necessary, accountability within the

system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy this afternoon

to rise and to speak on this particular resolution. I have to say first of all

that I am rather surprised at the suddenness in which this resolution has been

placed before the House. Members will note that it was on Monday afternoon, two

days ago, that the member who presented the resolution, rose in his place and

gave notice of the motion that we have before us. At that particular time nobody

in the official Opposition had even heard tell of the title. We did not have a

copy of the document and when the notice of resolution was read we did not quite

understand why it was being brought forward at that particular time.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that we have before us two

very distinct but very greatly different models. The minister rose last week in

his place and mentioned the model presented by the church authorities in the

Province. Yesterday he indicated or he rose in Question Period and drew

reference to the model that the government has presented. This followed his

press conference on yesterday morning.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period I asked the

minister the following, I said: now we have two concrete proposals on the table.

Will the minister expand the negotiations to involve the direct participation of

school boards, Parent Teacher Associations, teacher representatives and others

who have a direct interest in the management of education and the quality of

educational services in this Province? The minister stood and in part said:

another criticism which we are getting - he mentioned the first criticism - is

that we are not keeping people well enough informed and government is very

conscious of that. We want to make sure that people are informed. So last night

- meaning Monday evening - when we met we made a very conscious decision that we

would let this particular model adjusting the course - we would let this go to

the public until early in January. Now we will monitor the discussions, we will

monitor the opinions and all that sort of thing over the next month or so.

Further in his comment he said: We will make sure that this model is fully

discussed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have two very distinct divergent models.

The minister has said that he would allow for people in the Province who have

opinions to be shared, time to share them. But the day before he says that, his

colleague rises and moves a notice of motion that he would introduce today a

motion which would in effect bind the members of this House to agree to the

principles outlined in the resolution and outlined in the document presented by

the government. I find that very difficult to accept.

Our party on this side, to show the effort that we put

forward, I want to inform the House that last evening this caucus met into very

late in the evening, we met again this morning and we have been trying

diligently to try to come to grips with some of the great issues that are here.

I have to say to my hon. colleagues that it is not possible in twenty-four hours

for members who do not have a great background in education and its governance

or for any hon. members to be able to come to a decision as to whether or not

they can accept the principles that are laid out in this document. So therefore

our caucus finds itself in a great quandary.

We recognize that the church model focuses on the traditional

principles of the church and on the perception of constitutional rights, but,

Mr. Speaker, it is totally unfair, either directly or indirectly that we would

place the blame of the - as the member says here: persistent underachievement -

we will place that blame on the denominational system and that they would share

the blame for all the ills and all the deficiencies in the educational system.

Mr. Speaker, that is not only unfair, it is unjust and is not substantiated by

empirical data, so in our restructuring we have to be aware of the fact that the

role of the churches in education has changed over the last 270 years, set since

1723, the first church/school was built in Bonavista.

The role of the churches in education has changed

dramatically in the past twenty or thirty years. We have seen a gradual change

that is both positive and I believe has led to the betterment of a delivery

mechanism in education. However, I have to say to this hon. House, in spite of

the fact that I see in their document some very encouraging aspects, I like some

of the principles that are here, I like the concept of neighbourhood schools,

that is an encouraging strategy, I like the part that talks about school

accreditation, it needs refinement and it needs definition; it needs an

implementation structure but I am certain that will come with time.

I like the strategies for school improvement. School

improvement is where improvements have to start. Every single principal wants

his or her school to be the very best place it can be every single day, and it

is an oversimplification for us to stand here and to say that changing the

structure is going to change the school system. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to

address things like teacher morale. The teacher morale of this Province at the

moment, is not very high. Teachers feel that over the years they have been put

upon; they are facing classrooms of twenty-five, thirty, thirty-five - yesterday

I talked to a teacher who was trying to teach thirty-nine chemistry students in

one class, at one time with a lab equipped for twenty-four.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about the fact that in St.

John's alone, every single day, there are approximately 1,000 children going to

school hungry. They are going to school hungry. Before we can go and fill their

minds with information, we have to address the fact that these children have to

have their stomachs filled first. I like the

part in the report that talks about

parental involvement, and that is a real issue in this Province today. We have

too many parents who are leaving too much in education up to educators and

probably up to the Legislature and the government as well. We have to promote

active partnerships and we are not quite doing enough in that direction.

Another problem in education is the disruptive behaviour of

students. A school board official told me as late as three days ago, that his

particular school board has seven legal notices, directing the school board to

implement ways in which one child can be moved away from another child because

that child's education is being directly interfered with by disruptive behaviour

on the part of another student.

Mr. Speaker, I like some of the things in this report. I like

the parent councils. I think that the future strength of our educational system

lies with the parents, and I like the fact that we are going to be promoting

that kind of thing; but of the government's document I have to ask: Is this the

bottom line?

I was very discouraged last evening to hear the minister say,

on television, that he is prepared to change a few words here, dot a few `i's',

cross a few `t's', and then the next thing he says is, `...but we are willing to

negotiate with the churches'. You cannot have it two ways.

There is such a distance between the two models that it will

take all of the ingenuity of all members of this House to come to a sensible

conclusion and, Mr. Speaker, we, as fifty-two elected members of this

Legislature, owe it to the children of this Province to do everything we can to

make the best system that we can get for the children of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the question is: Can we reach a

consensus in time for implementation in September, 1994? Is there room for

compromise? How do we find a common ground? We have been four years into this

process, two years of Royal Commission, and it has been a year and eight months

since then. Then we have a document presented to us by the churches last week, a

document by the government yesterday, and we are expected today to kind of say:

yes, we agree; no, we do not agree. We find that totally unreasonable,

particularly after the minister stood in his place and said that he would have

consultation with all of the stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I take no joy in saying that this process is

headed for a Mexican standoff. If it is, then all of the initiatives that we

have made in the last several years will be lost. Make no doubt about it, the

church leaders are going back to their perception of their rights that they

brought into Confederation, as outlined in Term 17 of the Terms of Union, and in

Article 93 of the Constitution of Canada. Make no doubt where the churches are

headed. Make no doubt at all that the minister, in this particular case, has set

up a conflict - and I do not think it would be deliberate; certainly it is not.

The minister is a person, I believe, of great integrity; however, now is the

time for dialogue. Now is the time for compromise. This is not the time for

rigidity. This is not the time for inflexibility. This is not the time to see

who can be the toughest. This is not the time to see who can be the biggest

bully. This is not the time for people to be so fixed in their minds that we do

not have any room to manoeuvre, because if we do, then I am telling you now that

in 1998 the people who sit around this House will be having this discussion all

over again.

So today I am saying to the hon. members: Begin the dialogue

to involve all of the stakeholders. We believe in meaningful and constructive

dialogue with the teachers, with the parents, with the duly elected school

boards of this Province. This happens to be a constitutional democracy. I

believe in the democratic process. It is our children; it is their future, and

no less than 100 per cent effort by all the players will do justice to the

children, and assure we do not get bogged down in years of finger pointing and

the fostering of non-productive and non-educational strategies.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the government's whole process is

rapidly running off the rails. It is running off the rails because the minister

stands in his place on one day, promises dialogue, promises to talk to all the

stakeholders, and then on the very same day we have a Notice of Motion by a

colleague of his saying: but, members of the House, we want you to approve this

in principle. So therefore, how can we reasonably go out today and say to our

constituents: we want to have your input? But I want you to know before I ask

you for your opinion that I am totally in favour of the government's proposal.

That is not a way to have dialogue. That is not a way to have

compromise. So therefore I do believe that the private member's resolution today

is non-productive. In fact, it may very well serve the purpose of de-railing

this whole process. That I believe would be a disservice to our children. You

see, passage of this resolution today may solidify the wedge which is already

firmly planted between the government and the churches. If we're interested in

reform, please be assured that we can do without a sledgehammer approach.

The current approach of the government by introducing this

resolution, I don't believe is in the interests of anybody. It is not in the

interest of the churches, it is not in the interest of the government's agenda,

it is not in the interest of duly elected school boards, and right now it is not

in the interest of the children of this Province. Because the potential, if it

is passed, is for messages to be sent about the meaningfulness of dialogue that

we might not want to send.

Mr. Speaker, when we had our lengthy discussions last evening

and this morning, we had a quite a lengthy discussion on the merits, the

principles, the process. At the end of our discussion there was great concern.

There was a plea put forward that we would, on this side of the House, ask the

government to involve all the stakeholders and to get back to meaningful

dialogue, and not to do something which is going to be counterproductive to

reform. Our caucus this afternoon will have a free vote. We will have a free

vote on this particular motion. Some members are ready to make a decision, other

members are not ready to make a decision. Therefore, given the fact that we do

not have a guarantee of the dialogue that we would like to see happen, many

members on this side cannot support this resolution today. They do it out of

care for the system and care for the children of this Province. Thank you very

much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

opportunity of engaging in this debate this afternoon, because I believe that

the subject matter under consideration is concerning an issue that is immensely

more important or of greater significance than anything that we have in a long

time, or will in a long time to come, discuss in this Chamber. It is more

important than the Hydro debate, whether we want to believe it or not. Hydro

debates talk about physical assets. This debate revolves around the

consideration of the greatest asset that any society will every have, or be

known to have the responsibility to manage, and that is our children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: They are our heritage; they are our

future, and they are, and should be, I believe, our greatest concern.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I bring, hopefully, a

perspective to the consideration of the question of education, and the matter of

the churches involvement in it, in a partnership with the state, from a parent's

- and probably from a lay person's - point of view.

My first involvement in educational matters in the Province

goes back to about thirty years ago when, out of necessity and because of

increasing enrolments, I was asked to get involved in a local school committee

and become the treasurer thereof, because we were in a situation of circumstance

where we had to provide - as was and is the responsibility today of churches -

for the education of children. So it was an interesting time because it

involved, at the grass roots and at the local level, what education, for the

most part, is really all about. We were involved in buying land, and developing

plans, and going to the banks, raising mortgages, and then going back to the

committee rooms and setting out a

schedule of fee assessments, and then becoming

bill collectors and trying to figure out how we were going to collect the

assessments.

It is interesting that the activities of the local school

committees twenty-five years ago, which disappeared substantially under the

latest reorganization, it is interesting that the focus is now being returned

somewhat to the involvement of parents - parental involvement at the local

level. I guess it is dj vu; it is back to the future, if you like, in some

respects in the evolution of education.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed that time. I enjoyed my number of

years involved as a school trustee with the school board that did me the honour

of electing me for eight years to represent the constituents, but more

particularly I think I appreciated and enjoyed my involvement as a table officer

of NLSTA, the association of all the school boards, because it gave an

opportunity to get a perspective on how all boards and all jurisdictions were

discharging, and undertook and understood their responsibilities in educational

matters. It gave an opportunity to meet with the various stakeholders -

ministers, government officials, the NTA, the Superintendents Association, and

on and on they go. I hope that I will not lose that perspective, but that I will

be able to translate that into positive debate in this Chamber.

Now I want to say at the outset, or at this point at any

rate, that all of the problems that are alluded to in education are not because

wholly and solely the churches are involved in governance. The problems in

education, contrary to what sometimes the negativity of the media and others

would present, are not problems that are directly related to administration and

governance, but they have more to do with some fundamental things that some

agencies would like to shy away from but which I will take the risk of alluding

to a little later as I speak.

What has evolved over the years then, Mr. Speaker, is a

tripartite arrangement between parents, between churches, as representing the

classes of people, and between government, who have gotten together to discharge

the responsibility of education, and administering education, and organizing

education. Education, in the first instance, fell into the lap of the churches,

if you like, rather by default. It was not their choice in the 1800's, but

governments did not have the money; governments were not very much the in vogue

thing of the day, I guess, back then. I do not remember clearly, but my

recollection, from reading history, is that they were forced into the enterprise

of education, and over the years there has developed this tripartite arrangement

whereby we have arrived, through an evolutionary process, that we are at today

in education.

The last major restructuring, I guess, was attempted, and it

was done, to the greater good, I would suggest probably, of education, in some

cases through the Warren Royal Commission. I happen to know the gentleman who

wrote the report. In fact, I happen to be looking at him. In fact, he was my

predecessor in St. John's North and I am delighted that he is enjoying

retirement and not anticipating coming back, I hope.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: At least not in the old North or the new

North.

We are involved in this discussion in education for three

primary reasons. First of all we have the situation of declining enrollments.

Something that was new to us commencing in the '80's. As a consequence of that

of course we have an overabundance of facilities in some cases. We have the

realities of a new world out there in terms of what is being demanded of our

students in order for them to be able to access employment opportunities. Of

course, underlying all of this is the serious financial situation that all

governments find themselves in today, in trying to address whatever area of

jurisdiction that they are responsible for. So the enrollments are going down,

the demands for higher education are increasing and certainly the dollars are

less to meet the challenges. So then how do we go about it? I like the wording

that is used on this government document and it says: adjusting the course. This

is not a process of hi-jacking, usurping or unilaterally declaring jurisdiction

in the matters of education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: What is education all about anyhow? What

do we understand education to mean? Well I happen to believe that education, Mr.

Speaker, is more than literacy and numeracy. I believe it involves the whole

person. I believe there must be a holistic approach and understanding of what

real education is all about. It involves literacy, it involves numeracy, it

involves the academics but make no mistake that from my perspective and

judgement, it involves a clear understanding of moral values, it involves a

clear understanding of accepted and perceived spiritual values in the

Judaeo-Christian tradition in which we, I think, all recognize as being our

setting and it involves young people coming out of a school with a good

understanding of social graces. We do not want to graduate, I am sure in any

sense, brilliant ignoramuses or people who do not have a good clear

understanding of all of the requirements that will be accounted for of them in

order to be successful in our society. So education is a big, big subject and I

think we should understand that.

Now the Royal Commission on Education talks about 211

recommendations, and I am not getting into a lot of statistics, thirty-four of

them have to do with governance. In that report it was recognized that there

were seventy-four situations in the Province where across denominational lines

could be some consolidation. It also recognizes, and it is a fact that in 85 per

cent to 87 per cent of all of our communities, not withstanding that, there is

only one system of education operating. Where there is only one board running a

school system in those things. Of the seventy-four situations that were

identified for possible consolidation, twenty-eight of them have already been

addressed and others are ongoing.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not really so much a

fiscal discussion as some people would like to make us believe. I was interested

back in - I think it was 1986, the NTA put out the Exploring New Pathways

document and there was much to do about $75 million worth of waste in the

system. Two or three years later the Royal Commission comes out and says there

is $14 million to $19 million worth of waste in the system and that intrigued

me. So I took the opportunity in Gander one day, in dialogue with Dr. Williams,

I said: where is the variance, where is the difference? All of this negativity

about waste in the system has been put out and propagated and people are

believing it. Who is right? His answer to me and I will quote him as close as I

can, he said: the $75 million was a guesstimate and my figure is factual. So

that is the type of negativity that has been created about the system that we

have now as a result of the dissemination of incorrect information.

Let us look at some of the things that the two documents that

have recently been exchanged between the church and government contain. I

believe there is much in both documents that have to be given due consideration.

I'm surprised quite frankly - and I'm pleased to say that I'm surprised - that

there has been such significant movement on behalf of the boards in their

position, if you like, in terms of governance. I see at least three major areas

where six months ago I don't think school boards could have put that position on

paper that they did the other day.

Number one is in the area of the reduction of the number of

school boards. Number two is in the area of consultation with respect to the

expenditure of the construction grant. The third one, I forget what it is, but I

will find it here in a minute and tell you. There are three things there. The

third one has to do with the processing of electing school trustees. The number

of boards, the process of election, and the method of distributing construction

funds are three areas that I don't think the government and the churches are

really that far apart on. That is, to me at any rate, encouraging to see.

The churchs have received the document of course from the

government. The government's position, as outlined in the restructuring thing

that we have here, sets out some ideas, I would suggest, on which there can be

further dialogue and development, leading to a consensus model for education. I

want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, in saying that this, at the end of the day,

in my view may not be the final product. I want to be clear in saying that what

the churches have given us will not at the end of the day be the final product.

If it is, then we have no need to discuss what we're discussing here today.

MR. TOBIN: If that's the case you can't vote for this

today.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I will tell you what I will do at the

end of the day, and you will see, my hon. colleague. I will give my reasons for

what I'm doing.

Let me say also that all of the restructuring in governance

and education, in and of itself, will not give us a better product necessarily

in the classroom. There are other agencies involved in education that have to be

consulted and have to come on side with significant changes. I make no apologies

in referring to the organization that has a very legitimate and a very real and

good interest in education, the NTA. That organization, however, has some

fundamental flaws to deal with within its own organization. Because on the one

hand they are a professional development organization and association, and they

do some tremendous work in that area; on the other hand, they are really a

labour union. I have seen from personal experience where these two areas of

responsibility or interest work at cross purposes to the betterment of the

educational system.

We have to deal with that, or somebody has to deal with that,

so that at the end of the day we get two things into our classrooms. We have to

get significantly probably improved and enriched and better programs put into

the hands of the educators, and we also have to put the proper personnel in

front of the student who can best do the job of educating in the subject area or

in the discipline in which they are employed to do.

Mr. Speaker, we also have to take account of the minorities

out there in our society who do not have rights in education, or at least do not

have sufficient numbers to exercise rights today. We have to ensure that

everybody - no one person in our society is more equal than the other, in my

point of view. Every person must be brought into the discussion and into the

decision making process.

I believe that at the end of the day we will develop a model

that is acceptable to all and that will allow for the improvements we need and

for the refinements we need in education, if all parties, principally however

the church that is representing the classes of people and the government

representing the people of the Province talk and dialogue and discuss and even

negotiate with each other as long as it would reasonably take to achieve that

model. We have to do that.

I want to be unequivocal and say this: that I have no stomach

for the concept of having to go to courts and either enforce or justify or

legalize over again, or otherwise seek to take away fundamental rights that are

enshrined in the Constitution, and even if they were not in the Constitution,

let us not forget that we are dealing with rights that have great historical

roots and great historical depth and so there is the historical right, there is

the Constitutional right, and, Mr. Speaker, I can support the exercise of

dialogue, I can support the exercise of talking about revamping the system as

long as at the end of the day, the rights of the minorities, the rights of every

individual in the society in which we live, are protected and they have the

opportunity to exercise those rights in an educational context that is

acceptable to them and that will be acceptable to society in the improving of

our system.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, too much good has been

accomplished over the past 150 years to be destroyed by a confrontation or a

perception of confrontation at this point in time and I am optimistic enough to

believe, in fact I know, I will go that far, at least I think I know, that it is

the intention of all parties to arrive at a model for the governance and for the

operation of education that will be acceptable at the end of the day to all

stakeholders. This whole thing is about dialogue. It is not about, as I said a

few minutes ago, stripping rights and hijacking anybody's individual and vested

interests in anything. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the exercise that we are now

involved in, as between government and churches, is an exercise and a dialogue

that has to go forward, first of all without distrust.

I believe we can achieve what we have to achieve in

developing a model through negotiation rather than through litigation. I believe

that, and I commend the efforts of the churches and the government to get on

with the job and these positions that have been put forward, it is my view that

they are starting positions in the final negotiation of an acceptable model for

all of us.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I have, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell my

hon. friend that I have no problem with the principle of negotiating and

restructuring and that is what the spirit of this motion is all about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - we are not dealing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with

legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, on a point

of order.

MR. ROBERTS: All are agreed that this is even more

serious than most of the matters which we deal with. Now we heard the gentleman

from Waterford - Kenmount in silence; my friend from St. John's North is making

a most excellent speech, I wonder if the gentleman from Burin - Placentia West

could restrain himself. He may have strong views, I accept those, he will have

an opportunity to speak and we will gladly listen to him in silence as well,

Sir.

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps

my interjection was out of order and I will accept that, but at the same time,

what I was pointing out to the Member for St. John's North, is that what we are

asking this resolution to do this evening, is to approve in principle a document

entitled, Adjusting the Course , and they cannot get away from that issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that it is certainly against our

Standing Orders to interject and to interfere with any member who is speaking in

this House. I ask all hon. members to restrain themselves and to let all hon.

members be heard in silence as they speak in this particular debate.

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Let me conclude

then, Mr. Speaker, by saying this. I don't think any of us - I cannot, and I

don't think any of us - can accept the proposition of reducing everything that

we do in society to the lowest common denominator, and in all too many instances

that lowest common denominator is the almighty dollar. Rather, I believe that we

have to respect the parental, the social and the moral values that we now have

and that we adhere to. I believe that at the end of the day the discussion and

the dialogue, proceeding on the principle of goodwill - which coincidentally

coincides very nicely with the season that we are now entering upon. This is a

season of goodwill. I trust that the goodwill of all of the stakeholders in this

Province, as it relates to the development of an acceptable model for the

governance in education, will not cease with the ending of the Christmas season.

I hope that it will carry on.

We can be positive in our contribution to this debate, or we

can be negative toward it. I believe as we proceed along the principle of

ensuring that constitutional rights will be protected, that individual rights

will be protected, that we will respect each other's view. While we may not

always agree on everything, I believe that there is enough goodwill and enough

agreement on both sides to come to the proper resolution, and the proper

construction, or reconstruction, if you like, of a situation, a circumstance and

a model that will allow all our people to follow and continue to be involved in

the enterprise of education. And that the children will come out of the

classroom a whole person, a complete person, a person who has the academics, a

person who has the moral values, a person who has the social graces, a person

who has the understanding of the big world, and above all a person who has the

good decency and common sense to respect the values and the interests of others

while they might not agree with them.

If we can produce that at the end of the day, by virtue of

the construction of a model, I can support in principle, no problem, a document

that says: let us reconstruct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: It is not a `let us hijack,' it is not

`let us take,' it is not `let us break,' it is not `let us usurp,' it is not let

us do any of these things that the bogeymen would like to make us think we are

trying to do. It is an exercise to develop.

MR. TOBIN: What a slight on the churches!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: This is the government document, Mr.

Speaker, that I refer to, not the church document. The church document is

equally -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Let me, Mr. Speaker, clarify who the

bogeymen are. The bogeymen are bawling, the bogeymen are shouting, the bogeymen

are the mean-spirited people who won't let the poor guy from St. John's East

speak. They're the guys that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: They don't have a lot of heart, and I

only hope, Mr. Speaker, that they have more substance. Mr. Speaker, thank you

very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a former adult

educator there is nobody, I think, more in tune - I shouldn't say more in tune,

but in my opinion, our system needs to be reformed. I have witnessed first-hand

and have worked with hundreds of adults who have borne the brunt of a system

that has not been fair to them. Adults who are parents today of children who are

going through a school system which is doing the same to their children as it

did to them.

On principle, the motion - I must return to the resolution

that the Member for Fortune - Hermitage put before us on Monday. The Member

specifically said that:

"WHEREAS it is essential to our future that we transform the

education system in Newfoundland and Labrador from one of persistent

underachievement to one whose achievement levels rank with the best in the

nation;

AND

WHEREAS it is entirely within our capacity to make

changes to achieve this goal;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House approve in principle

the reform of the elementary and secondary education system in Newfoundland and

Labrador -

If he had stopped there I would have been prepared to support

that motion, but he did not stop there. He went on to say, `as set out in

adjusting the course.' Now, what I find somewhat reprehensible is that the

Member for Fortune - Hermitage, referring specifically to this document on

Monday - and as a member of this House I received it yesterday, on Tuesday - the

spirit and the principles outlined in this document, which I may support at the

end of the day, or which I may not support at the end of the day - I believe

that I, as a member of this House, have not been given ample opportunity to

support or not support the principles outlined in the government's own agenda

here in `Adjusting the Course' .

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I can assure the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture that it is not I who will sit on the fence at the end of the day in

terms of issues. If government puts forth a issue that deserves attention and

deserves to be supported and I believe that it should be supported, then i will

stand and support that issue.

I want to say that in terms of debating the principles, the

process which the government has put in place thus far is evident today by the

resolution that the Member for Fortune - Hermitage put forth in this House on

Monday. We have not been given ample time to discuss with our own constituents,

to discuss with people who are affected by the principles outlined in this

document, we did not consult in any way, shape or form, and I think that is the

point.

While I can concur with the majority of the speech by the

Member for Fortune - Hermitage in terms of what the goals and objectives are of

education, in terms of what is achievable, what we should be working towards for

our children, and while I can concur with the most eloquent statements of the

Member for St. John's North, I will remind both of them that there are

platitudes that nobody in this House, nobody in their right mind would disagree

with. But I must remind the members of this House that we debating a resolution

to support this document, not platitudes. We are not debating a resolution to

support eloquent statements. We are speaking to a resolution put forward by a

member of this House. Do we support a government document, `Adjusting the

Course' , or do we not? That is the question of the day. I believe it is

premature and I find it highly unusual that a resolution is brought before this

House to debate a document into which very few people have had input, government

officials, church officials, not elected school boards, not parents. I find it

highly unusual and premature that we are sitting today putting the motion, are

we going to support this document or are we not going to support this document?

I would find it much more usual if government said - or if the Member for

Fortune Hermitage said, he put forward a motion that would see a Select

Committee of the House travel the Province to gain input from duly elected

school board representatives, from parents, from teachers, on the principles set

forth in this document, and that legislation come back before this House so that

we could stand and support what will be, as opposed to what may be, what we hope

to be, what we really don't know will be.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Discussion is not here, I say to the Member

for St. John's South. I also say to the Member for St. John's South that as a

member of this House, I certainly would expect that a document such as this

would be given a lot more time that twenty-four hours beforehand, so we could

have a discussion on merit and not a discussion on platitudes, clouds, and other

things.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) to take twenty-four hours -

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not telling you that, Sir. I say

to the Member for St. John's South that it does take longer than twenty-four

hours for me to discuss with parish councils in my district, to discuss with

teachers in my district, to discuss with the Parent-Teacher Association in my

district, the principles that are outlined in this document. That is what I am

saying to the Member for St. John's South, and this resolution introduced has

not given me, as a member of this House, the opportunity to do that.

I want to say that this seems to me - I am suspect of the

whole process of this resolution. It is yet another example of an attempt to

hoodwink members of this House - hoodwink us - into clearly coming down on the

government side or on another side. It is not a debate upon principle.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cheating.

MR. E. BYRNE: Some of my colleagues have called it

`cheat' -

AN HON. MEMBER: Cheating.

MR. E. BYRNE: Cheating.

- that the resolution is attempting to cheat the people of

the Province into not having adequate input into this.

Now, the government has said, and arguably - they can argue

that much consultation has taken place in the Williams Report, and I agree that

there has been much general conversation and consultation taking place with

respect to changes in the school system, and many of the principles outlined in

the Williams Report and the Williams Commission, that I have read over and over

on numerous occasions, I support quite readily. However, there has been no

specific consultation on the models outlined, or the model outlined by the

Minister of Education and the government. There has been no specific

consultation with people who are the stakeholders, with people who are directly

affected by the model being put forward here.

I am not going to belabour the point any more, but I will

clue up by saying this to the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand there is lots of time, but I

am not in the habit of trying to waste the time of the House either, I say to

some of my colleagues. I have said what I wanted to say, that I believe this

document should be given fuller viewing by the public at large. I cannot support

the resolution as put forward by the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, but that is

not to say that at the end of the day I will not support the principles outlined

- or I may not - but I need to be given the opportunity and the chance before I

can stand up in this House and debate the merits of what is in this document.

I want to say to the Member for St. John's North, as well,

that this document is not about restructuring. This document is not about the

spirit of negotiation. Restructuring has taken place; negotiation has taken

place. Right here are the principles outlined, the government's agenda, and the

model it sees. Discussion is over; restructuring is over; the sprit of

negotiation is over.

We are to debate today this resolution, and I ask the Member

for St. John's North, Do you support the resolution? Do you, like myself, wish

to have more debate by the general public on the document here?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You are being asked to endorse the

document.

MR. E. BYRNE: What we are being asked today is to endorse

this document, and we, as the House of Assembly today, are not prepared - now

some of the government members may be prepared. Obviously, Oliver Langdon, the

Member for Fortune - Hermitage, was prepared. Obviously, they were fully

prepared, in putting forth a resolution that words exactly what is in this

document, but I can tell you this: I was not prepared. I was not given the same

opportunity as the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, and I think that is what is

despicable.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say to all the

people who participated in this debate, before I get into my few words, that

indeed, this is perhaps the most difficult subject for most people to debate;

but let me also congratulate the Member for St. John's North, in particular, on

a very excellent speech. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman has put the

whole issue in complete perspective.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kilbride, well-meaning as he is,

I am sure, I believe that he believes what he says. I don't believe he is a

member who will stand in this Legislature and say one thing and believe another.

I think the Member for Kilbride believes what he says, but I have to say to him

that I believe he is wrong. I believe he is wrong when he says he needs more

time before he can vote for or against this resolution. I say to him that the

time is now, to make up his mind and for the rest of us to make up our minds as

to whether we believe in the principle that is put forward in this resolution.

And what is the principle? What is the principle, Mr. Speaker, that is put

forward in this resolution? Is it that there will be no denominational schools

in Newfoundland? No. Is it that there will be all denominational schools in

Newfoundland? No, Mr. Speaker.

The principle that is in this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I say

to the Member for Kilbride, is the reform of education. Well, does he believe

that reform, as contained in `Adjusting the Course' - the kind of reform

that is contained in this document, the kind of reform that not even the

churches basically disagree with. Basically, what we are saying is, that the

education system has to be reformed for the benefit of our children, so that in

our schools, there is higher achie