May 23,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLIII No. 13

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine business of the House, I would

like to welcome to the gallery twenty Grade VI students from Greenwood

Elementary School, Loon Bay, accompanied by their teacher, Helen Day and

chaperons, Julie Eveleigh, Gerald Canning, Bonia White, Inez Hill and Bus

Driver, Don Lewis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome Agnes Pike,

Mayor of West St. Modeste, Labrador and Ross Decker, Mayor of Roddickton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government announced as part of its 1996-97

Budget decisions, the elimination of the Public Examination Marking Board which

resulted in savings of approximately $650,000. In making this decision, Mr.

Speaker, government anticipated that the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Association would co-operate in light of the serious financial situation faced

by the Province and the reasonableness of that request.

Currently, there are over eighty Level III courses offered in

the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador, with public examinations being offered

in only eighteen of these courses. Teachers are responsible, Mr. Speaker, for

preparing final exams and evaluating students in more than sixty courses at this

level. Final exams in the eighteen public exam courses have been traditionally

marked by a separate marking board consisting of high school teachers employed

during the summer period. The cost of this separate marking board is

approximately $650,000 and thus, Mr. Speaker, when government had to make tough

budgetary decisions it was our view that it was not unreasonable to request

classroom teachers to mark the public exams for eighteen courses just like they

do for the other sixty at present. There is sufficient time in the school year,

Mr. Speaker, for teachers of public exam subjects to mark these public

examinations. We were not asking teachers to work beyond their 190-day school

year. In fact, we were prepared to revise the public exam

schedule so that

examinations such as literature and language which take longer to mark would be

offered at the beginning of the examination schedule. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I

am very disappointed that the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association has

taken such a firm stand and has directed its teachers and members not to mark

the examinations.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association and

government have been meeting and will be meeting over the next few months to

deal with issues that are critical to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers

Association. Issues, such as the financial stability of the Teachers' Pension

Plan. We are prepared to co-operate with the NLTA on this serious issue of their

pension plan and yet at this point they are not prepared to co-operate on an

issue that does not involve lengthening the school year for teachers and does

not add cost to the system. I trust the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers

Association is seriously reconsidering its position. If the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers Association is not prepared to reconsider its decision

government will have to review its options.

One option, Mr. Speaker, may be the elimination of public

examinations in these remaining eighteen subject areas. Teachers would then be

expected to evaluate students in these eighteen subjects as is currently the

case for the more than sixty other Level 111 courses that they currently do the

evaluations for. By way of information it is interesting to note that public

examinations are not offered in Prince Edward Island, they are not offered in

Nova Scotia, they are not offered in Ontario, and only to a limited extend for

Anglophone students in the province of New Brunswick. Newfoundland may have to

consider joining these other provinces and not offer public examinations for any

courses in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for providing me

with a copy of his statement just shortly before the proceedings this afternoon.

However, on behalf of the members of this side of the House we do have some

serious difficulty and concerns with both the spirit and the subject matter of

the statement as presented by the Minister of Education this afternoon.

The suddenness of this announcement is of grave concern to

parents, to students, and to teachers throughout this Province. This is May 23

and public examinations start in approximately one month's time and the changing

of a

schedule - many conscientious students in this Province indeed are now

preparing for examinations in accordance with the

schedule which has been

predetermined, so any suggestion to change a

schedule at this date is indeed

unfortunate.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the wording on page 2 of this statement.

We see an attempt, a very feeble attempt I would suggest, to encourage and

entice cooperation between government and the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers

Association. However, when we see ultimatum language such as, "One option may be

the elimination of public exams in these eighteen subjects. Teachers would then

be expected to evaluate students in these eighteen subjects," et cetera, what

kind of encouragement or inducement for cooperation does that language suggest?

Therefore I would say that the subject matter of this particular statement is

met with regret -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - by members on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the

minister for making available a copy of his statement. Although I'm surprised

that a former president of the NTA would not anticipate that he would have to

have the agreement of the Teachers Association before implementing such a change

to their workload or collective agreement.

It is another example of the cavalier attitude that this

government has towards the needs of students in this Province who are now in a

state of ultimate anxiety about what is going to happen to their public exams

which are supposed to happen only a couple of weeks from now. I think it is

incumbent upon this government to give some encouragement, stability and hope to

young people whose future depends on quality education and on standards, some of

which are obtained from public exams. I ask the minister to reconsider his

approach and make sure that the students have an opportunity to do exams and get

the kind of education that they deserve.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, today marks an important

event in the history of the Province as Inco Limited acquires the shares of

Diamond Fields Resources and thereby will gain ownership and control of the

Voisey's Bay project in Labrador.

This is one of the largest corporate deals in Canadian

history and is based on one of the largest mineral discoveries in Canadian

history, made by two -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Made by two Newfoundland prospectors, Mr.

Albert Chislett and Mr. Chris Verbiski. The development of this new mineral

discovery at Voisey's Bay will be one of the new economic cornerstones for our

Province as we enter, Mr. Speaker, the 21st century.

Today I wish on behalf of all members of the House, and

indeed on behalf of all people in Newfoundland and Labrador, to welcome Inco to

our Province. I hope to establish a long and mutually prosperous relationship

between the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco. I have talked to Dr.

Michael Sopko, president and chief executive officer of Inco, regarding the

Province's position on smelting and refining of the Voisey's Bay ores in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I have informed him that the mining leases for

Voisey's Bay must, and will, contain requirements to smelt and refine the ores

in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the mineral

resources at Voisey's Bay are sufficiently rich to provide a sound return for

all parties, particularly the people of this Province and the proponent, Inco. I

will be making this position clearly known in greater detail to Inco, to Mr.

Sopko, in meetings that are being arranged over the next few weeks, as we

discuss all the matters related to the development of this deposit.

Now that the ownership question appears to be resolved, the

Voisey's Bay project is poised, Mr. Speaker, to move forward under the

leadership of the largest and most experienced nickel company in the world,

also, I might add, a Canadian-based company. I am confident that working

project will become a model for mining development, not only in Canada, but

around the world. Of course, that model of development has to take into

consideration the circumstance, the aspirations and the expectations first and

foremost of the people of Labrador and must also take into consideration the

aspirations and expectations of the aboriginal peoples as well, both of the Innu

people and the Inuit people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in helping us to achieve objectives for sound,

rationale, responsible development, Inco will become a valued corporate citizen

of Newfoundland and Labrador. It gives me great pleasure on behalf of all the

people of this Province to say to Inco: Welcome. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say

to Inco as well, in the spirit of friendship and co-operation, that some darn

fool posing as a vice-president for marketing has suggested that ore may be

processed in Asia - don't know who he is but they should find him and tie him

down quick, because not a pound will be processed anywhere but in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Possibly, if I could have a copy of that, too, in due course,

I would appreciate it.

I, also, on behalf of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, welcome

Inco here to this Province in what we hope will contribute to a long and

prosperous future for mining in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier and his

government have the responsibility to ensure that the resources of Labrador are

developed in the best interests of the people of this Province and that it does

not become another Churchill Falls.

The Premier has an opportunity to bring in a fair and

reasonable tax regime that is going to be conducive to mining in this Province,

but also will have the long-term interests of the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have been waiting for that for one year.

We are interested in seeing what this government has to offer. If they pull it

back from the Order Paper we are going to call the House together to deal with

that. We want to see long-term prosperity every bit as much as the Premier of

this Province wants to see it, I can assure you, and we would welcome Inco, or

whoever it happens to be, that will develop and discover other mines in

Labrador. We need the same opportunity here in this Province, and I think we

need to have some long-term planning, some long-term fair and reasonable regime

for taxes in this Province that is going to ensure prosperity, and that our

Province will be a better Province in the future. I ask the Premier to ensure

that happens, and we will be watching to ensure that we do our

part in ensuring

that happens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, the New Democratic Party, welcome the end of the

uncertainty as to who will be the principal developer of the Voisey's Bay

development, and in doing so we refer also to the existing and continuing

uncertainty as to what the future will hold for the revenue for the people of

this Province, and in terms of benefits and jobs, and also the resolution of

problems for our First Nations, Inuit and Innu, and the benefits for Labrador.

It is ironic that, to date, millions and billions of dollars

have changed hands, mostly outside of this Province, over the Voisey's Bay

development and, to date, other than perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars on

mineral licences in surrounding areas, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

have yet to obtain their benefit. So I look forward to the legislation that has

been promised to change the 1994 legislation, which would have given an easy

ride if not a free tax ride to Voisey's Bay development, and see what this

government plans to do in terms of full benefits for this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

In the Budget you announced that fees for ambulance operators

would increase from a $40 to a $60 range to a flat fee of $75, an increase that

is almost double for the user fee for patients in some cases. Has the minister

considered what impact this might have on the sick who are unable to pay that

price?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have adjusted upwards the user fee that ambulance

operators may now charge in terms of ambulance usage from $40, $50 or $60 to

$75. The hon. member is correct in that regard. We have expressed to them the

intention of reducing what we pay on a per kilometre rate for the services that

they provide to the people of the Province, proportionate to the increase on the

user fees so that, at the end of the day, there is no net loss of revenue

theoretically, to the ambulance operators.

We anticipate that this will not be problematic. We would

point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. member, that P.E.I., as a matter

of a point of reference, charges $100, a flat rate for user fee. On average, we

are still only about 75 per cent of what the Atlantic Provinces' rate is and we

think it is a fair and equitable way of trying to provide ambulance services to

the Province and, at the same time, needing a budgetary objective that was, of

necessity, to have been met in the process of putting together our Budget this

year.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister realize we are not in Prince Edward Island

and we deal with practicality, not theories, here in this Province? And I will

get to that point in a minute.

Does the minister feel that this high fee of $75 will now

deter people in getting the proper care they need, at a most critical time,

potentially resulting in higher, long-term costs to our health care system?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to that question is clearly, no.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Will the minister confirm - again, I would

like him to make it clear - Will this increase of $35, go into the coffers of

government and not to ambulance operators?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought I was very clear in my first answer to his

question.

It is not an increase of $35. The rates were: $40, $50 or $60

depending upon the distance travelled. We felt, to have a staggered rate like

that for rural purposes was not fair and therefore, we brought in a uniform

rate, so, in some cases, it is only a $15 rate increase. The same rate will

apply to urban centres such as St. John's or Corner Brook where the distances

are less in terms of travel distances. So, to answer the question specifically,

we will not gain or lose as a Province in terms of revenue as a result of this.

We are simply shifting, if you like, to some extent, the burden of billing out a

little extra on the user fee to the ambulance operators that was normally on the

kilometre rate.

I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member and

to the House, that my officials and I have already met with three different

groups of ambulance operators in the Province this week: the private operators,

the community-based and the sub-set or sub-group within the private operators

who represent 50 per cent of the total capacity of the ambulance services in the

Province. The community-based people came to see me, the very first people I met

Friday morning, at 8:30, after the Budget, to express their pleasure with the

Budget we had brought down and the way they have been served and treated in the

budgetary process.

The 50 per cent of the private operators, who are supposedly

represented by the organization of all the private operators, came to my

officials today. We are having discussions, and I have to tell you that they

have indicated very clearly to me, that they want no part and will have no part

of nonsense like withdrawing services. So I just want the House to be aware and

the public to be aware that, on balance, about 70 per cent of the capacity in

the ambulance industry are quite pleased.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter the minister is talking about was a different

matter altogether. His community operators do not get a grant of $24,000; they

get a share of the capital cost. That is the issue that was dealt with by

community operators, I say to the minister. I have spoken with community

operators and other people; it is a different issue from this Budget issue and

he is trying to muddy the water.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they happy?

MR. SULLIVAN: They are not happy with the Budget, I say

to the minister, not at all on this issue, they are very unhappy. The minister

stated in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge the minister again - he said:

government is not going to be the beneficiary of this increase in rates. That is

incorrect. I ask the minister now: will he confirm that his department is using

the ultimate enforcement technique of deducting this increase from money that is

normally paid to ambulance operators? I ask the minister, will he now stand and

tell this House if he is now asking ambulance operators to be a tax collector

for this Budget increase?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should also, I suppose, point out for the benefit of

members of this House that last year we introduced enhanced and increased levels

of standards for ambulance attendants in the Province.

Along with that commitment to an improved ambulance service

in the Province, we added between $200,000 and $250,000 to the budget at a time

when we could not find very much extra money. The Province was committed to

health care in this Province to the extent that we put extra money into the

ambulance services in the Province. The issue that is before us today is whether

or not it is fair to increase the fee from $60 to $75 in terms of patient

services.

The answer to the question, as I have already indicated very

clearly, is that it is eminently fair. It is still well below the Atlantic

Provinces' average. We are simply moving the fee up a little so that people who

use ambulance services will pay a little more, and it is no different in

principle from what we have done with a whole array of other licensure and fee

services within the Province. Clearly, it is not a tax grab. It is not a method

of taxing anybody for anything. People who need an ambulance will call an

ambulance and will use it, and the services will still be readily available on a

fair and equitable and as cost-efficient a basis as can be reasonably expected.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has misled this House. He has indicated that the

$35 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will he stand again and

tell this House that the increase from $40 and $50 and $60, depending on which

one it was, up to $75 is being deducted from money that is being paid to

ambulance operators by this government and is extra cash in the coffers of

government? Will the minister stand and indicate that is the case?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I had to wonder out loud about

a year ago when the hon. member was my critic in health whether or not, as a

result of him asking me the same question four times, he was not hearing clearly

or whether he was just plain stunned and couldn't understand what I was saying.

I still have that concern with respect to his ability to perceive, understand

and comprehend plain, simple language.

We are increasing the fee from $60 to $75, or $40, $50 or $60

to $75. We are deducting proportionately from the kilometre rate that we pay to

the ambulance operators the amount of money equal to what they will collect with

the increased fee. It is no extra money, not a penny in the pockets of

government or in the coffers of the treasury as a result of this initiative. I

can't be any clearer than that, I don't think, but if needs be to try, I will

give it another shot.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deducting a $35 increase directly from ambulance operators on

the kilometre fee is direct money in the coffers of government. The ability to

perceive is far greater than ability to deceive, I say to the minister.

In many instances, ambulance operators, both private and

community-based operators, are unable to collect the patient user fee. Because

some people, Minister, simply cannot afford it. Now, does the minister not

realize that taking this increase in fees, and taking this money out of money

that ambulance operators are supposed to receive, will result in operators now

receiving less money than they would normally have received prior to this budget

technique, making some operators more private and community non-viable?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker. The proposition as he puts

it forward is not correct. The ability to charge a $75 fee and receive

proportionately less from a kilometre rate is a situation that causes, in

theory, the ambulance operators to have at the end of the day, once they collect

all of their receivables, the same amount of money to operate on as they did

last year.

I know the hon. member had a visit from the ambulance

operators last Friday morning, the same time I did. I gather that he may be to

some extent, if one were to look around, playing a little bit to the galleries

today. But the answer to the question is no less valid that I have given,

notwithstanding that circumstance.

The proposition that was being made to me is that because 100

per cent of all billings is not collectable, there will be theoretically a few

less dollars in their pockets at the end of the day as private operators. That

may have some substance if collectibles are not at the 100 per cent rate. I

acknowledge that. But I also have to say to you that my information tells me,

and I know for a fact, that some private operators have not even been charging

the $40, $50, and $60 dollar rate as a fee to the patients, notwithstanding

their ability to do that in the past. So I have to ask the question and wonder

why that sort of revenue has not been taken up on 100 per cent in all cases by

private operators? I ask that question.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the department has budgeted

for a 15 per cent increase in revenues and that is where the revenues are coming

from, I say to the minister.

I ask the minister: Will this increase that has been

announced as a result of this Budget apply to hospital-based ambulances, such as

those in St. John's, and if so, will it also be clawed back from revenues like

they are doing with private and community-based ambulances?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member - I was

going to say, never has the good fortune to get to this side of the House, but

if he does I certainly hope that the people of the Province are not saddled with

him as the finance minister, because the way he is using figures is clearly

nothing short of irresponsible.

We are not gaining one cent or losing one cent in terms of

the Treasury as a result of what we are doing. We have not made up any 15 per

cent, wherever he gets 15 per cent from, in terms of adding anything by way of

additional cost to the private ambulance operators in this Province. We are

simply making an adjustment that we believe is fair and reasonable and that is

in keeping with the principle of, to some extent, a user having to pay within

reason for the service that they get from the people of the Province, whether it

is an ambulance ride that they need, or whether it is a license they need for

some other reason. We believe there is a principle of user pay and it is a

principle in terms of ambulance service that has been in vogue for many, many

years. We make no apologies for the adjustment we made. We believe it is fair

and equitable, as has been told us by, as I say again, about 70 per cent of the

total capacity to deliver ambulance services already in the Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is two questions behind. I

will again ask the minister the question I just asked him. This increase from

$40 in some cases to a $75 flat rate that has been applied to ambulances around

this Province, has that increase been applied to hospital-based ambulances such

as those here in the city of St. John's?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure exactly what the hon. member

is getting at. I gather he is getting at the proposition that ambulances used

for inter-hospital transfers do not get charged anything. To answer his

question, people who use an ambulance, if they call an ambulance in St. John's,

if they call an ambulance in Port aux Basques, or if they call an ambulance in

Grand Falls, they will be charged a $75 fee for the use of that service. That

will not be different in any part of the Province, whether it is St. John's or

in a rural setting. The same principle of fairness and balance that we are noted

for universally applies.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In St. John's, people who are transferred by ambulance from

hospital to hospital do not pay a user fee, but in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador they do pay a fee when they are transferred from hospital to hospital.

Is it so then, I say to the minister, that your policy is discriminating against

rural Newfoundlanders who need those ambulances services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member refers to the situation of

inter- hospital transfers within the city of St. John's. There is no location in

the Province within the boundaries of a town where inter-hospital transfers take

place, that there is an extra charge. Within the city of St. John's, we provide

services to about 40 per cent of the residents of the Province who live outside

of St. John's.

They come in here for particular type high level tertiary

care services. The fact of the matter is, things like MRI, we only have one in

the Province and it is located at the Health Sciences Centre. Are you suggesting

that we should be charging people from rural Newfoundland who come to St. John's

for those services $75 for a ride from the Grace to the Health Sciences so that

they can access the services that they have come in for. I gather what he is

saying by inference in the question, that people who come in to St. John's for

high level tertiary care services have to be moved from one institution to

another to get those services, that these people should be charged $75 as though

they had called from their house to come in. I think it is reprehensible of the

Member for Ferryland, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, to suggest that we

would charge people from rural Newfoundland simply because they have to come to

this side of the overpass for services.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

No, I asked the minister, will he apply the same measures to

rural Newfoundlanders and urban Newfoundlanders alike when they need to avail of

medical services in the area, regardless of where they live? That is what I

asked the minister, can he commit to that? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I thought that the Leader of the

Opposition was going to join with the rest of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador in congratulating the Minister of Health, at a time of fiscal

restraint, for holding the line on the health care budget in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, specifically in response

to the leader's question, and he clearly does not want the answer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Premier. I ask that the

members to my right extend the same courtesy to him as they did to other members

when answering questions.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, specifically in response to

the question - clearly the Leader of the Opposition is uncomfortable at the

prospect of an answer coming - specifically in answer to the question, the fact

is the policy is applied equally in both urban and rural Newfoundland. If the

Leader of the Opposition wants to impose another $75 fee on anybody who happens

to be getting an inter-hospital transfer in the City of St. John's, whether they

are from rural Newfoundland or from urban Newfoundland, he should have the

courage to stand up and plainly say it. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, if we followed

the budgetary advice of the Leader of the Opposition, which was that we should

not take the Term 29 money, there would have been another $40 million or $50

million cut, much of it in health care. It is because of the innovative policy

and planning of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health that we have

maintained health care in this Province and he ought to stand up and give thanks

to these ministers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we could ask this House to allow some

time on the Order Paper to deal with questions by the Premier or by the

government members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Premier feels so insecure with the

answers by his minister he -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - is so compelled. So I ask the Premier,

would he consider doing that so we can get some sensible answers for a change?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of

the Opposition has asked an excellent question. He is saying would we allow a

special time, and we are prepared to give consent right now to allow the

government to ask the Opposition what their fiscal plan is and whether they have

one. Absolutely, we would say yes right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I heard a request for

unanimous consent. We have given unanimous consent. We are ready to ask our

questions right now about the Opposition's fiscal plan and we have agreed on

this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition quickly,

please. To the point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, do you want to

address the point of order raised by the Premier?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I contend there is no point of

order and during my budget speech this afternoon I will tell him what our fiscal

plan is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order but I will just remind the hon.

members that Question Period is only thirty minutes and it should not be taken

up by points of order. If there are points of order to be raised on Question

Period our Standing Orders are quite clear that they should be raised at the end

of the Question Period.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Ministerial Statement

today has prompted me to ask a few questions of the Minister of Education with

respect to the issue of public examinations in this Province.

As indicated, there is only a month or so left in this school

year and teachers, students and parents are gearing up for their final

examinations. Graduates have come to expect that their examinations will be

evaluated according to consistent standards, standards that are acceptable to

post-secondary institutions in this Province and, indeed, outside the Province.

With the elimination of this year's budget of the Public

Exams Marking Board, which as been just announced in the Ministerial Statement,

we now have to question the consistency and the integrity of the public exam

marking process. My question to the minister is: What steps, if any, has this

government taken to date to ensure the integrity and the standardization of our

public exam evaluation, and our students? And what steps have been taken to

ensure that student graduation certificates are not being called into question?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have done in the short term, in a short, concise

answer to the question, is we have asked the NLTA to be reasonable in their

approach, to reconsider, and to mark the examinations because there is plenty of

time in the year to do it.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As again indicated earlier, teachers indicate that they were

not consulted prior to government's decision that they would have to correct

public exams themselves, even though it is a decision that they say violates

their collective agreement and, as a result, the association has urged teachers

not to do the correcting. Will the government attempt to work out an agreement

with teachers and their professional association that will see them correcting

the public exams that are being offered in a month's time. In other words, Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: Will the government attempt not in several months,

as is indicated in the Ministerial statement, but in the next twenty-four hours,

or couple of days, to attempt to negotiate an agreement which is satisfactory to

the teachers of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The NLTA has gone on record and is clear that this is an

issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with their collective agreement, so I

would suggest that the hon. Opposition critic for Education would check back

with the NLTA. That is not a statement that they have made, because they have

admitted that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the collective agreement.

This government, through the President of Treasury Board and

Minister of Finance, and the Premier, committed to all of the unions in the

Province that we would not take any unilateral actions in this Legislature,

through the Budget or otherwise, that would impact upon collective agreements.

This does not. The NLTA recognizes that, and it is not an issue for negotiation.

We have asked the NLTA to join with us in a most reasonable request, to please

mark the examinations during the school year. One month from today, I might

remind the hon. member, the schools will be closed, not that the exams will be

starting. They will be all over, all done, the schools will be closed, the

students will have their evaluations, and they will all know whether or not they

are going on to post-secondary education for the next year.

With respect to that, if we were to look at something that

was in the collective agreement we most definitely would have had a conversation

and a consultation and a negotiation with the NLTA. This issue has absolutely

nothing to do with the collective agreement. It has to do with the government

asking the NLTA to work with us to help solve a problem by taking a very minor

issue in terms of some slight increase in workload for teachers that they can do

in the time available to them so that we would not have to spend $650,000 to pay

the teachers after school closes to come to St. John's to mark the exams when

they could have agreed with us to do that during their regular work day, during

their regular work year, in the next two or three weeks, and then provide a full

evaluation to the students at the end of the year so that they could go ahead

and make their plans for the next year for post-secondary education.

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

final supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to the abolition of the marking board, I will ask

the minister: Will he confirm that special examinations, known in the Province

as scholarship examinations, that have been held to determine the awarding of

scholarships, have now been cancelled? And will he also tell us if there is any

provision to substitute for these special examinations, again known as

scholarship examinations, and can he give this House a guarantee that any such

substitute will be standardized and consistent amongst all schools and

classrooms and will put all students in this Province on a level field of

competition?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should probably

invite the hon. Opposition critic to come over and have a meeting with myself

and some of our officials so he would know what is really happening.

The scholarship examinations that were a part of the whole

scene with the high-school graduates at this time of the year were not scheduled

for this year in any event. This was the first year that the Department of

Education, and the government through the Department of Education, was going to

award scholarships based upon the eighteen courses of the seventy-eight courses

that are at Level III in the schools now, sixty of them marked by the teachers

during the school day, the school year, during their own time, eighteen examined

by the government through the Department of Education and marked by an external

board. This was the first year that we were going to have no separate

scholarship exam but award the scholarships on the basis of the marks in the

public examinations only.

So it is not a matter of cancelling the scholarship exam.

There was none scheduled for this year. We were going to take a different

approach. If the NLTA does not change its position in the next day or so then we

will have to look at re-instituting a scholarship exam, because we are very

interested in making sure that those students who do exemplify and distinguish

themselves as scholars will be given every opportunity to get the money that

they do deserve to help them with their post-secondary education.

So we will look at, after we hear a final answer from the

NLTA, which may even come today, we will certainly look at whether or not, as I

mentioned in the statement today, that we not have public examinations, and

whether or not we re-institute. Because we can very quickly re-institute a

scholarship exam

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - which was not planned for this year.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the

Minister of Social Services. For many years governments have been paying lip

service to the plight of youth between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years

old. They have been caught in the nether world of the mandate of the child

welfare act and the mandate of the Ministry of Social Services. What measures

has the minister initiated to address the real needs of youth between the ages

of sixteen and eighteen, and will the minister be introducing legislation to

include them in the child welfare act?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a member of

the Select Committee on Children's Interests for the House of Assembly my hon.

colleague is very aware of some of the issues that have been raised with respect

to the age group sixteen to eighteen years. We are anxiously awaiting the

tabling of this report to the House in the coming weeks. In addition to this

there is an ongoing project to look at issues related to children from sixteen

to eighteen years of age, and when we have all the information needed we will

look at then the tabling of legislation, if in fact it is what is recommended.

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

Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering if

the minister might be able to give us some kind of a time frame. This issue has

been around for many years. It is now a reality that most of these young people

are high-school students who have not finished their high-school education. They

find themselves in desperate situations in many cases. Can the minister assure

this House that this is a priority of her department and can she give us some

kind of a time frame as to when there can be a resolution of this injustice and

the inequity?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

be on record as saying children's issues are always a priority of this

government, and particularly to the Department of Social Services. When we have

the necessary information from the report of the Select Committee on Children's

Interests, when we have had an opportunity to assess all the information that we

need within our department and from the various groups, we will be putting

forward the necessary legislation as soon as is able to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, annually it is a requirement of

the Mineral Act that the minister table a report of mineral licences and mining

leases issued for the preceding year. Today I am pleased to table the report of

licences issued for the period April 1, 1995 to March, 1996.

AN HON. MEMBER: The thickest report ever.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, it is the thickest report ever. It is

reflecting, of course, all the excitement of the last year with the Voisey's Bay

discovery, where we had about a quarter of a million claims staked in the

Province and a lot of mineral activity associated with it, so I am pleased to

table this report.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the report of the Labour Relations

Board for 1995. The Labour Relations Board is established under provisions of

the Labour Relations Act, and in addition to administering provisions of the

Labour Relations Act the board is responsible for provisions of The Public

Service Collective Bargaining Act, The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act, The Teachers Collective Bargaining Act, The Occupational Health and Safety

Act, The Interns and Residents Collective Bargaining Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have four reports to table. The first is the Annual Report

of the Public Service Commission for the year 1993-'94; the second is the Annual

Report of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation for the year ending March 31,

1995. I also table herewith a list of temporary loans raised by the Province for

the period 16 March 1995, when the last report was filed, to 09 May 1996, which

includes Treasury Bills and which are part of our regular Treasury Bill program

and bank overdrafts. That is tabled pursuant to

section 49.(2) of the Financial

Administration Act and, secondly, I table pursuant to

section 55.(3) the amounts

that government was required to pay under its guarantee programs. These involve

three middle distance fleet vessels and, as well, one particular default under

the Fisheries Loan Board guarantee program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on

tomorrow, ask leave to introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS the House of Assembly has asked Parliament to amend

Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada; and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly, in doing so, has followed the

amending procedure prescribed by

section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and

WHEREAS enactment of a revised Term 17 is essential if the

government is to implement necessary and urgently needed changes in the

Province's educational system;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House respectfully ask

the Members of the House of Commons and the Senate to consider the proposed

amendment to Term 17 at their earliest convenience, and to decide the issue

before Parliament rises for its summer recess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I may, by leave, add a

word...

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, that as

Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador I have been deeply

appreciative of the manner in which all of the parties in this Legislature have

expressed their support for the approval - indeed, all members to my knowledge -

of the amendment to Term 17. Indeed, I take the words of the Leader of the

Opposition to heart when he said in this Chamber a week or two ago that clearly

a mandate has been received - and quote him verbatim - it is time to get on with

it, or get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, in that regard I welcome the support of the

leader of the NDP for the passage of this motion. I seek the support of the

Member for Labrador for the support of this motion, and I call upon the Leader

of the Opposition, and indeed members of the Conservative Party, in the spirit

which was expressed with his own words here some ten days ago - a week or ten

days ago - to give their support to this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is in the interest of all of

the citizens of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the interest of

all of us, to put an end to the debate, to put an end to a dialogue that is

divisive in the best of times and that has the risk of dividing our communities

in ways that none of us wants to see. I believe it is important that, even

though we in this place embrace on occasion as we all do, the spirit of

partisanship, there are times to put the partisanship aside and I think this is

one of those times. I say that I have seen so far, in this place, in this

Chamber, as this Chamber ought to be able to reflect on occasion, a spirit of

non-partisanship, determination to pull the community together and a desire to

see resolution of an issue that has within it, the seeds of division.

Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to see the

amendment passed in Parliament without delay. It is then the intention of the

government to bring forward legislation which will reflect absolutely,

faithfully, the conditions put forward, the proposition put forward, in last

year's referendum. Mr. Speaker, I call upon the good will, and I believe it is

here in this place, and the cooperation of all members to see that happen in the

interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, without delay.

Mr. Speaker, next week I will lead a delegation to Ottawa.

Next Tuesday evening and Wednesday I have invited members of all parties to be

part of that delegation. I believe we have the confirmation of the attendance of

the Leader of the NDP. I believe the Leader of the Conservative Party will speak

to his own attendance today. I want to report to the House and report to the

people of the Province that meetings have been arranged with the Prime Minister

and with members of the Liberal Party, meetings have been arranged with Mr.

Manning and members of the Reform Party, meetings have been arranged with Mr.

Charest and members of the Conservative Party, hopefully from both Houses, both

the House and Senate, and meetings are being arranged with Mr. Gautier and

members of the Bloc Quebeois. Mr. Speaker, it is a non-partisan delegation

representing all sides of the Chamber which will meet and visit with all sides

of the Chamber and of the Senate in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I believe if we do our work well we can

contribute to the well being of the Province and we can take a measure which

will restore a sense, as we need, of camaraderie progress in the reform of our

educational system and put aside any further possibility for division within the

community. I call upon all members, and indeed we welcome the efforts of all

members, to contribute to that worthy cause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, if I can address the

remarks.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to indicate, for the record, that I do support the

resolution put forth today by the Premier and also confirm that I have committed

myself to travelling to Ottawa with the delegation from the Legislature to urge

the early consideration and passage of the amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of

Union. We have had our differences both in this House and in the referendum

debate on the wording of the petition, on the exact provisions that ought to

have been contained in that. It came to a vote in this House last fall after the

referendum produced a majority result, after debate on amendments were

considered and the leaders of the three parties, who were represented in the

House last year, voted in favour of it, although it was not a unanimous

decision.

I think the point to be made now, Mr. Speaker, is that this

constitutional amendment to the Newfoundland Constitution is now out of the

Province of Newfoundland and being considered by the members of Parliament in

the House of Commons and Senate, that it is Newfoundland's Constitution that is

being considered and Newfoundland and Labrador have decided what they want their

Constitution to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I think that rather than engender on the

national level any doubt about whether or not this Province has the right to

amend its own Constitution, I think I would want to go to Ottawa and assure

members of the House of Commons and Senate that it is Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who will decide what their Constitution is and not someone outside

of the Province.

I would also want to assure those members of the Ontario

caucus of the Liberal Party who seem to have concerns because it may affect the

status of the funding for separate schools in Ontario, that after Term 17 is

amended, the status of separate schools in Newfoundland and the funding for, and

the ability to have a say in separate schools in Newfoundland, will be far

greater and have constitutional protection which the funding for separate

schools in Ontario does not now have. So it is not setting a precedent that is

less than what Ontario has, in fact it will establish and provide a

constitutional basis for far more than what the separate schools in Ontario have

right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I see this, Mr. Speaker, as having gone well

beyond the partisan differences that may exist between the various parties in

this Province over the exact means by which the Constitution ought to be

amended, and while we may disagree with statements made by the Minister of

Education and how he is handling things right now -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thoroughly.

MR. HARRIS: Thoroughly disagree, as the Member for Baie

Verte has said - that the amendment to Term 17 will allow the kind of changes to

the school system that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want and voted

for last September.

So I support the resolution, and perhaps, rather than having

a long-winded debate on this, if there is the consent of all members, perhaps

rather than having a separate debate on this tomorrow or Monday, perhaps you can

pass it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We are prepared to debate this tomorrow,

Monday, today, give leave for regular business to have this resolution debated

here and voted on before the adjournment of the House at five today. We are

entirely in agreement with that. We would like, rather than have passage of a

resolution that is so important without having discussion and debate here in

this House - I don't think it is appropriate.

I personally want to go on the record with my comments as I

have done so many times before, and I am sure other members here want to be on

the record with their comments, and that we support carrying out the wishes of

the people of this Province who told the government what they wanted in

Education Reform. Our Party is totally committed to fulfilling the wishes of the

people of this Province as we should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

We are still in the routine proceedings.

Notices of Motion

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions

relating to the raising of loans by the Province;

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

introduce a bill entitled: "

An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act;

and

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow move that this

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain

resolutions relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made

under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957; and

I give further and final notice that I will on tomorrow move

that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain

resolutions relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local

Authority Guarantee Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. TULK: I think we have agreement, I would presume we

have agreement by all parties, that the resolution that was presently introduced

by the Premier that we suspend all other hours of the day and that we proceed to

debate this resolution with the Premier introducing it, and we will debate it

until 4:30, at which time we will call the vote, because I understand the

Premier has to catch a flight at five. So at 4:30 we will call the vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Let's call it at 4:30. Will we call the vote at

4:30? Is that agreed? Then we will go fifteen minutes and fifteen minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five minutes each, if you want, to give

more people a chance to speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think we will forego the Late Show, if

you need and there will be plenty of time.

MR. TULK: Okay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As I understand it, the Government House Leader's suggestion

is that the Notice of Motion presented by the Premier will be debated under the

Orders of the Day and it will forego all the other orders. We need unanimous

consent for that.

MR. TULK: I wonder if we could recess for five minutes,

Your Honour, to set up a format?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed we will have a recess for five

minutes to let members consider the proposal?

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question that we recessed to consider was the proposal

put forward by the hon. the Government House Leader to set aside the Orders of

the Day and debate the resolution put forward by the hon. the Premier.

The hon. the Government House Leader would like to speak to

that.

MR. TULK: After consultation between the three or four

different groups in the Legislature I think it has been agreed that we will

speak for ten minutes if necessary, if people feel they need ten minutes, to the

resolution, that it will follow the normal rules of debate, and that we will put

the question at 4:30 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or whenever everybody is finished.

MR. TULK: Not later than 4:30 p.m. or whenever everybody

is finished. We have agreed that because we don't want to interrupt this

important debate, that the Opposition has said that they do not need the Late

Show this afternoon, they will forego it because they don't want to interrupt

this debate. So that at 4:30 p.m. the House will put the question and adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have unanimous consent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this

motion. In rising to speak to the motion let my first words be words of

appreciation to all members of the House - indeed, members of the House in three

parties and the independent member of the House as well - for allowing this

debate to go forward on this motion with practically no notice.

It would have been normal and it would have been quite

ordinary to have given notice today, to have given all parties and all members

more time to have examined the resolution, more time to have caucused on the

resolution, to have taken advice and debated it another day. I think it speaks

to the desire of all members of the House, and I think that desire reflects, if

I may say so, the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the time

has come to turn a page, to end a

chapter in what has been a long and sometimes

stormy and occasionally divisive debate on the question of education reform in

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that in the context of that debate it

is true that both in this Chamber and outside this Chamber, amongst the

population of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at large, there have

been strong disagreements with respect to this whole question of educational

reform. The views held by those who have expressed them, sometimes in direct

contradiction one to the other, are genuine views. The feelings are deeply felt

feelings. I don't believe that any of us should cast this debate, cast this

discussion, in the context of a right side of this debate or a wrong side of

this debate. Feelings which have been there are deeply felt.

So the issue in putting this resolution is not to affirm one

side or the other in what has been a long debate; but rather, what is being

expressed here in putting this motion is a recognition that the debate is over,

a recognition that notwithstanding views are held contrary to each other, the

democratic process itself has been served.

We have had in this Province a long public dialogue, we have

had a referendum campaign, we have had a result flowing from that referendum

campaign, we have had a vote in the Legislature here on the question which has

now been put before Parliament. When that vote was held indeed there were some

differences then, and we respect those differences. Some members here today who

voted on either side of that question, we respect the vote they cast in

whichever manner it was cast, but there was resolution, too. There was a

decision by the Legislature to refer an amendment to the Constitution, to Term

17, to the Parliament of Canada, and to convey a request to the Parliament of

Canada that such amendment be given consideration and be given passage.

Mr. Speaker, at the time that the debate was held in the

Newfoundland Legislature the leaders of all three parties in the House - the

Leader of the Liberal Party, then Premier Wells, the Leader of the Conservative

Party, then Ms Verge, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who is still in

the House today, Mr. Harris - all voted in the affirmative for this resolution,

and so gave a measure of all-party support to this resolution. I think it is

instructive for all of us that even though all three party leaders had given

support to the motion at that time there was, I think it is fair to say on all

parties around the Province at that time, nevertheless some division on the

question.

I think it is instructive that today, as we begin this debate

on the resolution before us, a resolution that calls upon Parliament to act, to

fulfil the request of the people and Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, it

is instructive that the support for that action has grown sufficiently that we

now have a circumstance where all the parties in the House are prepared to give

unanimous consent to the motion on short notice. And it is my expectation that

all of the parties in the House, and all of the members in the House,

notwithstanding where we may have stood during the debate, today stand together

in saying to the Parliament of Canada, in the words of the Leader of the

Opposition: Get on with it. Give consideration and passage to Term 17 and the

amendment that we seek.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment

will subsequently be, as it ought to be, translated into legislation, and the

legislation that will give effect to the amended Term 17 will come back before

this Legislature. At that time, all members will have an opportunity again to

see that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been faithful to the

mandate that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador gave to government to

proceed with education reform. At that time, as legislation is brought forward

to give effect to the amended Term 17 once it is transmitted from Ottawa, all of

the interested groups who want to comment in the normal legislative process will

have an opportunity to come forward and comment on that legislation as it is

brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter. We now have a

circumstance in our Province where we are without the twenty-seven boards that

we want to replace, in effect. We still have not created, and we have no legal

means of giving birth to, the ten boards that shall be their successor. We are

at the end of one school year, sixty, seventy, eighty days away from the

beginning of yet another school year when we do not have the mechanism in place

to plan and implement the program for the next school year. We have produced a

Budget which has within it an assumption about savings based upon a reform that

we plan to implement, but a reform that has not yet been achieved and cannot be

achieved until the legal basis necessary to achieve that reform is forthcoming

from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Province that is saddled with a debt

that we have built up over generations of leadership, leadership that reflects

all of the political stripes of the Province, and we have to pay the bill today,

and we have to find the efficiencies today, and it is no longer acceptable

against that backdrop that we should sustain excess bureaucracy at a time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: - when we need our dollars to go to work

in the classrooms of Newfoundland and Labrador, not in the administrative rooms

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, all of those who participated in this debate

over many weeks and months have said that they believe in the necessity of

reform. All of those who, whatever their perspective on this discussion,

participated in this debate, say it is time to bring resolution to this cause,

to this issue, to this question.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat again what I said a few moments ago

when I asked for and generously received from members unanimous consent to bring

this debate to a conclusion today. Whatever our strong differences, and

sometimes pretty powerful differences on the issues, none of us in this place

want to see in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1996, our communities and our

neighbours and our families divided on a question of religion. We must never

allow - it is the prime responsibility of members of this place - we must never

allow our public debate to ever divide along those lines, and that is why we

must move now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador,

with all of its problems and all of its potential, is a tremendous place in

which to live, in which to raise a family, in which to build a future. Its

spirit of generosity is second to none anywhere in this country. Why is it, when

there is a famine, and I digress a little bit in saying this, a famine in the

sub-Sahara of Africa, that the highest per capita contribution by any people

anywhere in North America to the cause of famine in Africa is in Newfoundland

and Labrador? It is because there is a spirit of generosity in this Province.

Why is it, when the Children's Wish Foundation that the Minister of Health has

been associated with reaches out to try to fulfil the expectations and the

wishes and the dreams of those who have few days left amongst us, why is it that

the response here is out of proportion to the size of our wallets and the

contributions made anywhere else in North America? It is because this is a

generous place; and the Minister of Health tells me that our contribution is ten

times greater than that given elsewhere. It is because we are a generous place.

It is because we understand, based on our history and based on our culture, and

based on our real life experience, that if we do not pull together we cannot

overcome the challenges that confront us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to pull together in this Province.

We have to set aside those things that divide us. We have to have every citizen,

whether they come from rural Newfoundland or urban Newfoundland, whether they

come from the homes of the privileged or the homes of the poor, whether they

come from a Catholic household or a Pentecostal household, or any other

denomination, working together to reform and utilize the true potential of our

education system, and realize the true potential of our children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let this debate today, and

let this expression of the House of Assembly today, an expression of all of the

members representing all of the parties, representing every district,

representing every denomination, be the true voice of Newfoundland and Labrador,

a voice of people who want to work together and not pull apart when the

challenge confronts us to reform our education system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition, I just want to draw members' attention to the fact that we have

in the Speaker's gallery today a former member of the House of Assembly, a

former fisheries minister, the hon. Aidan Maloney.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to put forth the views of our caucus and to put

on record here in the House of Assembly exactly what we intend to do in support

of carrying out the wishes that the people expressed in this Province. I had an

opportunity to attend school for a fair number of years, and an opportunity to

teach school for twenty years. I taught people of different religions and never

once in my twenty years of teaching did the word religion or the religious

beliefs of an individual in the classroom ever come to the forefront. We are

dealing with people who are human beings. We are all humans regardless of race,

creed, or colour, and we deserve an opportunity to have the best possible

education within the confines of our system and its ability to be able to

deliver it. I have always believed strongly in that.

In 1983, as education critic, in February of that year, I was

quoted in the media, and I have a press clipping from The Evening Telegram

back in February 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1993.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thank the minister for reminding me. It

seems I am a lot younger than I really think I am, I guess. I indicated at the

time, when there were two denominational schools in Corner Brook, one had closed

and one remained open, and they were told they had to send their kids across

Corner Brook by bus to another school. And I said the government of the day had

the responsibility to enforce the

section of the Schools Act to give that

minister the authority to be able to do that.

I said I believe in the right of parents to send their child

to that neighbourhood school. It would create a more competitive school

environment and it would be better. It has always been my belief, that parents

should have an important choice and should be able to exercise that right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador

were asked on September 5 in a referendum to endorse a process of education

reform that would provide for those basic five things. I state for the record

and for the House that I and my caucus endorse the will of the people on

September 5 for those points that were referenced, and people understood were

part of what they voted for on September 5.

They are, and I will repeat them: the establishment of

interdenominational schools that are open to all children without regard to

their religion; the right of all children to attend a neighbourhood school; the

provision for uni-denominational schools, and the appointment of teachers to be

solely based upon merit and qualifications, except in uni-denominational

schools; and finally, church influence confined to religious education and

pastoral care, except in uni-denominational schools. We, as a party and as a

caucus, endorse those basic beliefs that the people of this Province voiced

their opinion on back on September 5. Now, it has been eight-and-a-half months

since the people of the Province spoke. It has been seven months since this

House of Assembly approved that amendment that was presented here last October.

I want to ask the Premier of this Province a very simple

question. I asked my House Leader to have something typed up and run off for the

record, which he has done, and I have a copy. I ask the Premier if he will stand

in his place and if he will commit to me again - and I will ask again and

repeat, I will gladly accompany the Premier to Ottawa and I will gladly ask that

the wishes of the people be carried out. So I ask the Premier - and he does have

a copy - if he will tell me, because I am not entirely convinced that what Term

17 has presented and what the people of the Province understood they were voting

on are exactly the same thing. So I ask the Premier, will he stand in his place

and say yes to this - then I will accompany him and whoever else - if he will

give me assurance that the following is what the people of this Province and

what Term 17 means: (1) the establishment of inter-denominational schools are

open to all children without regard for their religion; (2) the right of all

children to attend their neighbourhood school; (3) provision for

uni-denominational schools; (4) the appointment of teachers to be solely on the

basis of merit and qualification, except in uni-denominational schools and;

(5) church influence confined to religious education and pastoral care except in

uni-denominational schools.

I will give the Premier leave to stand - if he will confirm

to me that that is what is going to be delivered to the people of this Province

and that is what Term 17 stood for, we will support that unanimously, the PC

Party and the caucus here in this House.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have just seen the list,

but I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I might want to add a few

more things to this. For example, the right of parents to make the determination

as to which will be a uni-denominational school or inter-denominational school.

There would be some other things we might add, but if the spirit and the intent,

and I believe it is, of the question of the statement by the Leader of the

Opposition is to ask me whether all of us are committed to implementing exactly

the program that was put before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the

referendum, nothing more - and some are asking for more - and nothing less - and

some are asking for less, as we all know. But if he is asking me whether that is

the intent of the legislation that will follow the passage of the amendment, the

answer I will gladly give the Leader of the Opposition, is yes. Now, having seen

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, some of the members are asking

questions across the way as I am trying to answer. Having seen the list - and

the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate I have just gotten it - I would say

to him, if you are asking me whether this is the total list, there might be a

few other things which even the Leader of the Opposition would agree to.

One of the ones that I would insist upon, for example, would

be the notion that parents - when we have registration of schools and we

determine what the school shall be, it will not be the Department of Education,

it will not be the Legislature, it will not be members in the House, it will not

be a DEC, it will be parents who will make the determination as to what those

schools ought to be in future. So, bearing in mind some of these other factors

that will be part of a reform package, and the Leader of the Opposition and I

can, and should I believe - and it is mandatory if we are going to serve, at the

end of the day, the best interest of the Province - and I would include the

Leader of the NDP and the Independent Member as well, all of us in this House

have to work together. And I welcome the announcement today that you will

accompany me as part of an all-party delegation representing all the people of

the Province, together with the Leader of the NDP, to Ottawa next Tuesday and

Wednesday. I thank you for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Provision of uni-denominational schools, the wording of this,

would not limit in any way the parental choice in selecting that at all. How

that would be determined? This is a general statement for provision of

uni-denominational schools. If it is by parental choice or vote, how it is

carried out can be carried in a variety of ways without derogating at all from

what is stated here. What I want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, to be clearly sure -

and I gather from what the Premier said, I think it is very clear that the

Premier does; if he needs some time to give a definite - before the vote on this

this afternoon to take a little time to look into it further, that is fine. We

don't have a problem with that; but I certainly would like the Premier to

indicate if he does agree with those five specific points, as he has in my

written copy, and I have indicated into the record of the House of Assembly

here, we will unanimously endorse that. I will take whatever action is

necessary, including accompanying the Premier to Ottawa to meet with parties on

this particular issue. So would the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: So the Premier is indicating - it is the

Premier's understanding - I just want to ask the Premier, and maybe he could

answer. I would like the Premier to answer those points that I mentioned here,

if they are what I feel the people of the Province voted for on September 5,

what they understood was to be voted for. If the Premier could confirm that

those particular five points are covered in Term 17, I will accept the Premier's

word on that and we will endorse it.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know neither one of us

wants this moment, because I regard it as an historic moment, to be lost and

turned into a partisan moment. The Leader of the Opposition uses the words: Do I

understand that this is what the people voted for? The Leader of the Opposition

knows - I think all members know - that one of the problems with the debate is

that because of the positions taken during the debate, I am not sure, as you

yourself, I think, have said, that people understood, those who voted yes or no,

exactly what it was they were voting for.

But on the specific question of whether or not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Let's be frank here. Some representatives

of the churches said: If this motion passes it is the end of religion in

schools. Some people said: I'm for that, and voted yes. But it is not the end of

religion in schools, and now we are dealing with distortions that occurred

during the debate, and there are distortions the other way as well.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I think that Term 17

and the amendment to Term 17 includes all of that which he has listed, all five

principles, and as I said a moment ago, may well include some other principles

which I would expect the Leader of the Opposition and all members here could

support. That is why I gave an assurance during my own remarks that the enabling

legislation that flows from the amendment will come back to this place. I hope,

if this place rises to the occasion, that that legislation, if we consult

closely on it - and I give an obligation now to depart from normal practice and

to consult with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New

Democratic Party before I table the legislation. I believe the legislation when

it comes here should come with the same unanimous support.

We need to end this division in our communities and in

society. We need to put an end to it and we need to move forward. I ask the

Leader of the Opposition for his support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I accept the Premier's word that those five points are

included in Term 17, as voted upon on September 5. I would accept that. On that

basis, I say to the Premier, it would have our full support, on the particular

basis that that is there.

I would like to add, in terms of the Premier's offer to

consult with the Opposition regarding any legislation: yes, I feel strongly that

a point last year in the process, a point that I felt personally on this issue,

is that we didn't have an opportunity - and I am glad the Premier is indicating

today - to come to this House of Assembly and to debate the words in that

resolution. On May 31 last year the House of Assembly closed. On June 1 it was

announced by the Premier that there could be a referendum. The day school closed

it was announced that there would be a referendum. The day that school opened

there was a referendum.

I, as an elected member in this House of Assembly, and I have

said it on the record before, did not have an opportunity to stand in my place

and question the wording of the resolution, to get an explanation or any

information pertaining to it. That is all we wanted, to have an opportunity as

elected members here, to have a say and an input into fundamental things that

are going to affect the future of our Province. And I felt insulted as a member

of the House of Assembly not to be allowed to rise in my place in a

democratically elected fashion to be able to voice my opinion on the words of

the resolution. That is one of the reasons I want to be clear here today, where

I didn't have the opportunity to question before in the House - it was done and

over with before it came to this House - that that is what the people voted for.

I am a product and a part of a democratic system and I will function and follow

the wishes of a democratic system. Whether I am in the minority or whether I

happen to be in the majority when a decision is rendered, it is the people who

have spoken in this Province, and I will, as Leader of this Opposition, back the

people of this Province and stand behind them and insure that democracy

continues to rule in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this resolution, and I

am particularly happy to be able to speak to the resolution after hearing the

words of the Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to echo the words of the

Premier, that indeed this is an historic occasion in the Province of

Newfoundland in this House this afternoon, to hear the words of the Premier and

the Leader of the Official Opposition and the indication that there will be

unanimous consent to this resolution. Because I think it will, by coming from

this House today, help to end the divisiveness that this debate has caused

within this Province, within the city and within families, Mr. Speaker, over how

to handle Educational Reform, which every single person, I believe, in this

Province wants to see happen.

They may disagree about the manner of that reform; they may

disagree about the degree of reform; they may disagree about what type of

constitutional protections ought to remain and be in force for those who have

had constitutionally protected rights in this Province. I heartily endorse the

words of the Leader of the Official Opposition when he says that he felt, as a

member of this House, bypassed as part of the process of presenting to the

people of this Province a referendum on such an important question, that prior

it going to the people, there ought to have been an opportunity in this House

for the resolution to be refined, to be reflected based on the opinions of the

people in this House to participate in it. I think that that is a mistake, that

that is a mistake that has taken place and is passed, and now, under the new

government, we have a commitment from the government, from the Premier, that the

nuts and bolts of Education Reform after the passage of Term 17, will also be

presented to the parties for consultation and discussion prior to presentation

in this House.

I think it is important that this debate take place, although

I understand that we only have a short period of time to do so, because there

are a lot of people in this Province who feel betrayed by some of the

statements, by some of the decisions, some of the comments that have been made

emanating from government sources in the last couple of weeks and month or so. I

think that this is something that has to be debated further.

I recognize the commitment that was given by the Premier here

in the House today, to the Leader of the Opposition and to me personally,

yesterday, that the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum held

last fall will indeed be followed; and I look forward to seeing the details of

that in the referendum in due course when the legislation is prepared.

I would also like to express my satisfaction that the

delegation to Ottawa to help support the passage of Term 17 will, in fact, be an

all-party delegation, and I hope that we are able to convince those who might

have doubts that it is important that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians having

decided what their Constitution will be, that the Parliament of Canada should

endorse that and let us get on with it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The members of our caucus have agreed, now that the Premier

has clearly stated what the intent of Term 17 is and what in fact in print it

does say, and since that is consistent with what I believe myself to be the

content and the purpose of Term 17 and what the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador last year voted on when they voted in the affirmative by a majority - I

would ask that any further debate be adjourned on this matter and that the

question now be put.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House

welcome the input of the Opposition House Leader and are prepared to put the

question on Division now. Then, I believe, we have also agreed that at that

point we would move, as soon as the question is put, that the House adjourn for

the remainder of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution say, "Aye".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against, "Nay".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

Division

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

please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of

Education; Mr. Lush; Mr. Penney; the hon. the Minister of Social Services; Mr.

Langdon; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon.

the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Health;

the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Andersen; Mr.

Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Ms Hodder; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr.

Wiseman; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr.

Edward Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr.

French; Mr. Harris; Ms Jones.

Mr. Speaker, thirty-three ayes.

MR. SPEAKER: No nays.

I declare the resolution carried on Division.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if we need a motion to adjourn, I

so move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., and at that time I

guess we will hear some more good words, positive words, from the Leader of the

Opposition on the Budget debate.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we agree that the proceedings

should be discontinued for the afternoon. Also, in conclusion, I would like to

note the historic moment. In my experience here, and in fact in my following of

the parliamentary system in this Province, it has been rare that we have had

unanimous consent. This shows the desire of the Legislature. It also shows, of

course, the unanimous agreement of all the people who were elected to the

Legislature in this particular term. I think it is a unanimous voice. I think it

is a strong voice for reform, and we ask that all of our leaders of all the

parties take that message strongly to Ottawa, and that they say that the people

in this Province want the constitution changed, and we want to have control of

it right here in our Legislature so we can determine the kind of educational

system we want for our children in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow,

Friday, at 9:00 a.m.