October

24, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 41

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, today, Canadians and billions

of people around the world are celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the United

Nations, a genuinely remarkable event in human history.

The purpose of the UN, as envisaged by its founders, was

deceptively simple. In the words of the

preamble to the Charter, they sought to

save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in

fundamental human rights, and to establish conditions under which justice and

respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of

international law can be maintained.

Now, fifty years later, we are able to celebrate a level of

international co-operation unprecedented in history. Through the UN and its

various organizations such as UNICEF and the World Health Organization, the

barriers of ignorance and prejudice are being struck down. As we look around the

world today, it is easy to see that we have some way to go in reaching the

objectives of the UN founders, but we are well on our way.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a special connection to

the UN. Its foundations were laid at Argentia with the Atlantic Conference of

British Prime Minister Churchill and the American President Franklin Roosevelt.

Canada has used the United Nations to peacefully resolve disputes with our

neighbours, France and the United States. We have also been able to change world

opinion and focus attention on the devastation of fish stocks off our shores and

elsewhere in the world.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have contributed their time

and talents on behalf of the United Nations as well. At 1:30 today, on behalf of

the people of this Province, I raised the United Nations flag in front of

Confederation Building to mark this anniversary. I was joined by peacekeepers,

members of the UN Association in Canada, UNICEF and others who have worked for

or supported the UN. They are sitting in the gallery of the House today, and I

would be remiss if I did not mention the presence of Corporal Anderson, in

particular, who really did the flag raising at my request. He is one of those

Canadians who happens to be a resident of Newfoundland, who contributed and

offered his very life and physical safety for the benefit of the United Nations

and in discharging Canada's obligations to the world, and it is entirely

appropriate that I ought to acknowledge his presence here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Those men and women present represent the

thousands of men and women from our Province who have worked with the United

Nation at home and overseas in the fifty years since the Charter came into

effect. Throughout Africa, Latin America, the Far East and the Middle East,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been at the forefront of UN efforts at

peace-making and humanitarian relief. I ask you to join with me in thanking them

for their efforts on behalf of the UN and mankind. We are proud of them and

their record of achievements, as we are proud to support the United Nations and

celebrate its 50th Anniversary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is most fitting that our House of Assembly mark this 50th

Anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations - appropriate because the

foundation of the United Nations was laid near Ship Harbour in Placentia Bay,

Newfoundland during the Atlantic Charter talks in 1941, appropriate because

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians serving in the Canadian Forces have made a

disproportionate contribution - disproportionate to our small population - to UN

peacekeeping efforts worldwide. I certainly want to associate members of the

Official Opposition with the remarks made by the Premier in expressing the pride

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel over the contribution made by our people

to the United Nations over the past fifty years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join with the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition in praising the success of the United Nations over the last fifty

years in contributing to a large measure of international peace and security,

certainly as compared with the conflicts that were about in the world at the

close of the Second World War and shortly thereafter. As part of Canada since

1949, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have played a proud

part in the

development of Canada's well-deserved reputation in international peacekeeping.

The United Nations, through its main general assembly and

through its other bodies such as UNICEF, the refugee organizations, the

international labour organization and others, have played a significant role in

the development of that international peace and security. We still have a long

way to go. There are regional conflicts throughout the world. Poverty and

inequality throughout the world is a modern challenge for us all, but I look

forward to seeing progress being made on those fronts and I want to join with

the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in giving thanks to those

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have played a significant role in the

success of the United Nations to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly

about a significant event that happened in Toronto, last week. Mr. Lorne Janes,

Owner and President of Continental Marble of Canada Ltd., in Paradise,

Newfoundland, was elected as the National Chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers

Association and he is in the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: He is the second Newfoundlander ever to be

elected to this position, Mr. Speaker, we think it is very important. The total

value of manufacturing in our Province was $1.4 billion last year and it showed

a 7 per cent increase to the end of June this year, and in fact, if you exclude

the fishery, it represents 15 per cent for the remaining sectors, the third

largest increase of any province in the country.

Under the leadership of Mr. Janes who is also President of

the Newfoundland Manufacturers Association, and with the support of the

executive, they established the Newfoundland Manufacturers Manufactured Right

Here Campaign and it is receiving national recognition. There are now 180

manufacturers participating in the program and over 10,000 products manufactured

in plants throughout our Province.

The NMA has also worked closely with my department in

organizing successful manufacturing exhibitions right across the Province and in

organizing trade shows around the nation. We communicate with them regularly - I

think Lotek Marine Technologies which was the second EDGE corporation designated

by the Province, a great deal of credit goes to Mr. Janes and the Newfoundland

Manufacturers Association in helping to bring that company here and helping us

to negotiate the actual contract that we put in place.

I think it is important that we recognize the manufacturing

sector, the Newfoundland Manufacturers Association and the great work that they

are doing, and I think it is a great tribute to all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians that one of our own was elected on the national stage to head

perhaps Canada's largest industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We on this side of the House join with the minister and his

government in congratulating Mr. Janes, on being elected to such a prestigious

position and wish him our best and our support in any of his efforts and the

association that he heads, efforts. I want to encourage the government to

continue to support the Newfoundland Manufacturers Association because it is an

opportunity, by doing so where we, as a people can create real and long-lasting

jobs, and I will finish by saying that I am glad to see that the Newfoundland

and Labrador Manufacturers Association received much more support than the

minister did, when he stood to his feet to say a few words.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move to Oral Questions I would

like to, on behalf of all members, welcome to the House of Assembly sixty-five

students from St. George's High School in New Harbour in the districts of

Trinity - Bay de Verde and Bellevue, along with their instructors Mr. Morley

Reid and Mr. Jeff Seymour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about Voisey's Bay. The

mineral deposits at Voisey's Bay promise to be among the richest discovered

anywhere in the world in this generation. Will the Premier tell us just how

valuable the government estimates Voisey's Bay minerals are, and will the

Premier tell us how many hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars profit the

developers of Voisey's Bay stand to make?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can confirm for the Leader of the

Opposition that Voisey's Bay mineral discovery is probably the richest,

certainly the richest in Canada in recent generations. The quality of the nickel

is far richer, twice the richness of Sudbury, for example. They are still

defining the size of the field so nobody knows yet what the full value is, and

it is virtually impossible to calculate, but knowing what they know now in terms

of the quantity that they can readily extract even with open pit mining, without

having to go to underground mining, even with that it's value is measured in

billions of dollars.

Now, that will pay very substantial dividends to the

Province. It will pay very substantial dividends to the mining company. It will

provide employment opportunity for large numbers of people. We have let the

mining company know that the Province will require that all further processing

of those minerals will be done within the Province, wherever in the company's

judgement it is most appropriate to do it. We will leave that to them to decide,

but we will require that it be done within this Province.

It is impossible to judge at this time exactly what the total

value is because we do not know what the total quantity of minerals are, but

based on what is there now they know that as a minimum it will be counted in

billions of dollars in terms of total value.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The supplementary is to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm

that his government has been doing estimates and studies of the opportunity at

Voisey's Bay, and will the Premier table in this House and make available to the

citizens of the Province, who own the non-renewable mineral resource at Voisey's

Bay, the government studies so far, and the government's financial analysis of

the potential benefits of Voisey's Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I can confirm that studies are being

done. We've been doing them for some months now. As new information has come on

we've tried to stay on top of it. In fact, we've put in place a special team.

We've assigned responsibility to head that team to a public servant. He has been

doing excellent work, and he works with other officials from the Departments of

Natural Resources, Environment, Education and Training, Industry, Trade and

Technology, Intergovernmental Affairs because there are aboriginal concerns and

so on. So at least those -

MR. ROBERTS: Employment and Labour Relations.

PREMIER WELLS: Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. ROBERTS: Justice.

PREMIER WELLS: Justice. So there is a team that has been

working on it steadily and it keeps the government fully informed.

The assessments that they do are very preliminary. They are

assessments that are a bit speculative in the sense that it says: If the price

is this, we can expect that there will be a gross return of that, if there is

this amount of material and it has this level of richness and assuming operating

costs will be that. So there are a whole lot of those things. It isn't in the

public interest that those preliminary, speculative assessments be made public,

so the answer to the second part of the question is no, the government doesn't

propose to make them public at this stage.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier,

if the people of the Province had been made aware of the potential of Churchill

Falls, the government he was associated with of the 1960s might not have made

the disastrous contract it entered into with Hydro Quebec then.

I ask the Premier, how can he possibly defend withholding

from this House of Assembly and the people of this Province, who own the

Voisey's Bay minerals, the studies that his officials and the financial analysis

his civil servants have worked up and have given to him and his Cabinet

colleagues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is, Mr. Speaker, if all of the

members of the House, those who were Conservatives sitting on the opposite side

at the time - I happened to be sitting as an independent Liberal at the time -

and those who were all there, if they had had the information that we have today

I expect we would all have treated Churchill Falls differently. I think that is

true. What would be unforgivable is having the kind of information we had in the

case of a venture like Sprung and proceeding with it, for example; that would be

unforgivable negligence.

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to justify the position that

government has taken on this, because the information is not yet definitive or

of a nature that can be made public and justified. It is very preliminary, very

speculative, and it is in the nature of information that is preparing government

to stay on top of things constantly, and you have to do those kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker, when the time comes, and I expect it will come

long before there is any mineral development there, government will make public

all of the information it has as to the character and nature of Voisey's Bay

mineral find, and as to the anticipated value to the Province. As a matter of

fact, there is a piece of legislation, if I recall correctly, on the Order

Paper, that will deal at least with changing the Mineral Act and the Mineral

Holdings Impost Act in part to cope with the circumstances of Voisey's Bay, and

as much information as the government can make public, will be made public in

the course of that debate.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier estimates the Voisey's Bay minerals are worth

mega-billions of dollars, yet the Premier refuses to share with the public of

this Province any preliminary studies and analysis his government has done. Why

has the Premier not yet even tabled in this House of Assembly his proposed

amendment to the Mining Tax Act, to prevent the mining companies and developers

of Voisey's Bay from getting more windfall profits than would be the case

otherwise?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, lest any of the media accept

what the Leader of the Opposition just said as being accurate, let me correct

her. I did not say it was worth mega-billions. I said: The preliminary

estimates, based on the knowledge that we now have, would indicate that its

value would be measured in billions. Now, if it is $2 billion, that is $2

billion, and that is a far different statement from mega-billions. That is

something quite different, so don't pay too much attention to that irresponsible

statement.

The second part of the question, why we haven't proceeded

with the mineral tax, I don't think - is it on the Order Paper?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

PREMIER WELLS: It isn't on the Order Paper. It is just

about ready to come. We haven't proceeded with it because we want to make sure

that we get everything done right, based on the fullest possible information. It

is in process, and the leader need not worry, she will have ample opportunity to

express her views on it at the time. But, Mr. Speaker, the important thing is,

the government, through a statement that I made in this House, gave notice - I

don't know whether I made it or the minister made it -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you made it.

PREMIER WELLS: I made it, I think.

- gave notice of the government's intention in that regard,

so everybody knows, and it will be effective from that date.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier promised to bring in amendments to the Mining Tax

Act. He made that promise in this House exactly five months ago to the day, on

May 24th, 1995. He also promised to have a vote on the Meech Lake Accord. The

people of this Province know what the Premier's promise is worth. I ask the

Premier, what plans does he have to ensure that the mining companies get no more

than a reasonable rate of return on their investment in Voisey's Bay? How will

the government, how will the Premier's government, prevent the developers of

Voisey's Bay from getting huge, exorbitant windfall profits from exploiting the

people's resource, a resource that only comes out of the ground once?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me say to all of the

people of the Province and to all of the people of Canada and the world for that

matter, this government will not try to screw industries into the ground to

prevent them from making profits. We want them to make profits. The biggest

profits they can make the better we like it, provided our people are treated

fairly and there are good safe working conditions, jobs for our people, economic

development in this Province and a fair return to the taxpayers of this Province

in the form of royalties. They can make as big a profit as they want and we want

to tell them that that is the case so as to attract them here to invest and

create jobs for the 50,000 people who do not have jobs. We will not send out the

message that this government will prevent businesses from being successful in

this Province and making profits. They are invited to come here and make

profits, and not only will we not prevent it, we will encourage it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture. Since the Provincial Government agreed to participate in the

Fishing Industry Renewal board to help decide on reducing processing capacity

around the Province, I wonder if the minister would update the House as to the

activity of this board up to the present time?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Harvesting Renewal Board has recently made an

announcement with regard to the realignment of the harvesting sector. That board

has a mandate that has been increased to look at and make recommendations on the

processing sector. It is my understanding, that will be the next move they will

be making. Looking at the processing sector with respect to a realignment of

that sector, these are the resource capacity around the Province.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, since this board was

announced quite some time ago here in the House, I would like to ask the

minister if the board has reached any decisions or are they close to making any

decisions on which plants will remain in the system and which plants will close?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The decisions of the board, the recommendations of the board

concerning the processing sector will not be identifying which plants will stay

open and which plants will close. They will make a broad recommendation to

government to consider, with regard to future policy decisions in that area in

the future.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that is a completely

different board from what we were told it was going to be constructed here in

the House months ago before the House closed for the last session.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, if this

particular board, in making its deliberations, is going to the rural communities

out there and hold public discussions or hold public meetings in order to make

those decisions. If they are, when should we expect this action to take place?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The board will indeed receive input from and have discussions

with the major stakeholders in the industry.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Education and Training pertaining to teacher

certification. I understand the minister is in the process of restructuring

teacher certification and professional development. I want to ask the minister:

Is it his intention to reduce the teacher certification scale to three levels,

namely, an entry level, an intermediate level and a leadership level?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission, back in

June 1992, recommended that we make some changes to teacher certification. At

this moment, a committee of the Implementation Committee is dealing with that.

There is a consultation paper which is only in a draft form yet. One of the

suggestions in that draft paper is that there will be three levels of teacher

certification. At this moment, the paper isn't ready to be made public, although

the NLTA have looked at it and other stakeholders have looked at it. But, at

this moment there is no decision to make certification three levels, there is no

decision not to have three levels, it is simply in the process of being drafted.

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

House Leader.

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

Let me pursue the question with the minister. It is my

understanding that there indeed will be three levels, and where teachers are

placed on the level will depend on experience, professional development, and job

performance. There are some 7,000 or 8,000 teachers in the system at present. I

am wondering if the minister could inform the House what his thoughts are on

what level teachers will be placed on, those already in the system. I can see

new teachers coming into the system going into level one or entry level, but

what about those 7,000 or 8,000 teachers who are there now? What process will be

used to determine what level they are placed on? I would think all of them would

expect to at least be on the intermediate level, not on the entry level. And who

will make that decision?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer

these questions because unlike the member, I don't believe it has been decided

there will be three levels - there may, or may not be. Assuming that there will

be three levels, then we would envisage a certification committee made up of -

the majority of that committee would be teachers. They would be elected by

teachers throughout the Province, not appointed by the NLTA. The teachers would

choose members for the certification committee.

The other stakeholders - the Department of Education and

Training would have representation on that committee. The NLTA would have

representation on the committee. That certification board then would indeed

consider all of the things that the hon. member is talking about - how would you

define whether you are level one, level two, level three, if that is the route

we decided to go. And there would be put in place a fair process where you would

determine that. The major that a person would have had in university would be

counted when you give that certification.

The Royal Commission talked about renewable certifications.

The consultation paper, which we are in the process of drafting, is also talking

about renewals for certifications. We are also talking about professional

development along the way. One of the quirks of the present system is that a

Kindergarten teacher, for example, could go, after he or she is out of

university, and take a course in palaeontology. Under the present system she

could be getting extra money because she went and further educated herself. Now,

there is an intrinsic value in education, yes, but we would hope that under the

new certification program, teachers would be rewarded when they did extra

studies in the area that they are teaching on a day-to-day basis.

Again, I have to caution the hon. member - I'm glad to see he

is interested in the issue - that at this stage the consultation paper is being

drafted. It isn't ready to be made public. The hon. member is grinning - he

probably has a copy of it but what he has will not be the final document, Mr.

Speaker, it is still in the process.

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

supplementary.

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

I am sure what the minister will do after today, is the only

change that will be in the paper that he releases now will be marked `final

draft', that's the only thing but it will be the same paper; but yes, I am

interested and I say, very interested, Mr. Speaker, because what we are about

here, is trying to improve the quality of education for the students in our

classrooms and that is what it should be about and I support that; but I just

want to say to the minister: it is amazing how much his knowledge has improved

in two or three minutes about the process but having said that, do you have a

time frame established, whereby you hope to bring this thing to fruition? You

know, we are into educational reform, does the minister have a time frame

whereby, as I understand it, there will be more professional determination on

this, more involvement by the professional people themselves, could he enlighten

us when he expects this to materialize and when indeed we will see a change to

teacher certification in the Province?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have the

discussion paper released last week, actually I was hoping to make it public but

I did a thorough review of it myself and there were some issues in it that I was

not totally satisfied with and that's why I am stressing that it is today a

draft paper.

One of the problems, I will tell the hon. member, that I had

problems with, was the transition. If you are going to change the total system

and we are taking about major changes, if you are going to change a total

system, then you have to have in place a transition method to determine what do

you do with Mary Doe who has been teaching for twenty-six years, where do you

place her on the scale? In the public service, she would probably be red circled

and when she catches up or whatever, we have to deal with that issue.

Another issue, Mr. Speaker, which we certainly would have to

deal with is that of collective bargaining. Teacher certification is tied to

collective bargaining at the present time; will that be the way we go in the

future or will it not? That will involve negotiations with the NLTA. I have

also, prior to this document being printed in draft form and being leaked to my

friend in the Opposition, I personally had not talked with representatives from

the NLTA; now there was a member from the NLTA on the committee who was working

on this, but since then I have met with the President of the NLTA and we have

discussed some concerns.

As a matter of fact, they have been asked to report back to

me as fast as they possibly can with their concerns with the present draft

document which is only a draft, and I can assure the hon. member that when it is

made public, there will be some substantial changes to the draft document which

has been leaked to the member and the member thought it was the final document;

but when the final document is ready, I personally will deliver it to the hon.

member because I believe he is keenly interested.

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

Extern.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

Last year, Works, Services and Transportation was caught off

guard with the first snow fall and there were a number of accidents and

injuries. My question is: what is the department's state of readiness, and is

the department ready this year, to avoid the type of accidents which occurred

last year during the first snow fall?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we were not caught off guard

last year. We were quite ready for the first fall of snow. I bragged a lot I

guess in my lifetime and I profess to be somebody else but I am not going to

take the opportunity to profess to be what the hon. member is asking me to be,

God.

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

Extern.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, on a

supplementary.

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

We already have one person on that side of the House who

thinks he can walk on water.

Mr. Speaker, in the past few years, there has been consistent

cutback in the number of employees at Work, Services and Transportation

particularly winter-support staff. With the re-organization of the depots, can

the minister tell us how many layoffs and/or how many winter staff won't be

called back this year and give us a breakdown by position?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: The decision that has been made to date - I

guess that's what the hon. member is asking - the decision that we have made to

date is, approximately 200 people will not be called back this year. I think it

is 156 wing men.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many from you district will not be

called back.

MR. EFFORD: Not very many. There are 156 wing men, a

number of mechanics, a number of support staff, a number of labour positions,

and a number of clerks. I cannot give you the exact number of people. The

decisions have been made, they have been totally communicated to all the staff

affected in all regions across the Province, and it is done region by region. No

region will be treated any differently than the other.

What I am saying to the hon. member is that there will be

absolutely, under no circumstances, in the normal operations of a plough a

second operator on that plough. There will not be. That is under normal

conditions, but in the case where there are extreme weather conditions, where it

is absolutely necessary, for whatever reason, the second individual would be put

on that plough.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

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

I say to the minister that during wintertime in this Province

there are mostly extreme conditions.

MR. EFFORD: That is not true.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, boy. There has been a lot of talk

regarding the layoff of wing men. I received a number of calls and letters on

this issue. Works, Services and Transportation are now replacing individuals

with modification kits which include heated mirrors, power windows, and a flag

on the end of the plough, which is laughable. Does the minister actually believe

that modification kits can replace human beings in the middle of a snowstorm,

and has the minister lost all concern for safety of the travelling public?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us deal with the last part of your question first. I have

not lost any concern about the safety of people on trucks, the general public,

or winter snow clearing conditions. I have total confidence in the decisions we

have made in the department, that winter conditions will be just as safely

operated this year as any other year in the past. The new technology, the new

trucks, the fast operating ploughs do not require the second individual on the

plough.

One of the complaints we got in the department all over the

years, long before I went with the department, was why does Works, Services and

Transportation have all of these people standing around when there is no need

for it, wasting taxpayer's dollars? When you make a decision to eliminate people

that you do not really need operating a vehicle you criticize the fact that we

are trying to make a wise decision on saving taxpayer's dollars and still do a

cost effective, safer, winter snow clearing job than has ever been done within

the department. Let us wait and see what will happen.

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

Extern on a final supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Will the minister be as upset and

personally insulted in the middle of this winter when I point a finger at him as

did the Member for Mount Pearl last year?

MR. EFFORD: I will be even more upset.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a

question to the Minister of Health. The minister stated in this House last

Tuesday that we could reasonably expect to achieve savings of around $30 to $35

million by the closure of the Janeway, the Rehab Centre and the Grace, and he

has made reference in the past to a saving of approximately 30 to 35 per cent

when hospitals have been closed in other jurisdictions. I ask the minister if he

has considered that in other jurisdictions there were duplication of services

and programs, unlike the Janeway, the Rehab Centre and the Grace that provide

unique services that are not being duplicated in other hospitals in the city?

And, has the minister been told by hospital personnel that severe cutbacks in

services will occur under his reorganization plan?

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

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

I can confirm that in other jurisdictions the experience has

been that there is a saving of about 30 to 35 per cent of the budgets of

institutions that are taken out of the system, if you like. That is where we

come up with that calculation. There is about $80 to $90 million tied up in the

budgets of the Grace, the Janeway, and the Rehab centre, and we would expect to

see savings along the line of $30 million achieved.

As to the final part of the question, as to whether or not

there will be severe hardship experienced as a result of the reorganization, no,

I do not have any indication that is the case. As a mater of fact what the

Health Care Corporation people and people in health generally tell me is that as

a result of reorganization there will be maintenance of all the existing

programs, an enhancement of the quality of service that we deliver in those

programs, and a higher level of efficiency as a result of the rationalization of

the system in the city.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister said in the House last Wednesday that the new

Janeway will be adjacent to, or attached to, the Health Sciences Complex. Now,

at the present there are twenty-four operating rooms in acute care hospitals in

this city. There are already waiting lists for surgeries, and surgeries are

often being cancelled due to a lack of operating rooms.

On September 28, in The Evening Telegram , Sister

Elizabeth Davis indicated that there may now be a shortage of operating rooms -

that was stated on September 28 - and the closure of the Janeway and Grace will

leave only fourteen operating rooms now in this city.

Now the minister was quoted in the House last Wednesday as

stating, and I quote: "Children will not be mixed with adults for programming.

We will share things like MRIs and we will share OR studios..." Now, does the

minister plan to increase the lengthy waiting lists for surgery, and deny

surgery to people who are in dire need?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The

preamble was long but the question was short; do we

intend to increase waiting lists? No, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to increase

waiting lists.

Let me remind the hon. member again, inasmuch as he may not

have gotten the information that was presented in the House last week because I

recognized you as absent, last week we tabled the July issue of the Fraser

Institute, that talked about where we stand in terms of waiting lists in this

country. Part of the information contained in that was this: Saskatchewan and

Newfoundland have the shortest waiting lists in the country for appointments

with specialists. New Brunswick has the longest.

Another statement was this: Newfoundland shows the greatest

improvement in waiting lists. And I could go on and on and tell you where we

stand on the various waiting lists that there are. We have the shortest waiting

time from GP referral to treatment - the shortest in all of the country.

One other piece of information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that question period has expired.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. I will be glad to

share the rest tomorrow.

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

Before we move on to presenting reports I would like to

welcome to the gallery Councillors Ray Walsh and Tony Doyle and Mayor Gerald

Riggs of the town of Bay de Verde, and Town Clerk Molly Walsh.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to inform members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with

section 5(4) of the Internal Economy

Commissions Act I wish to advise the House with respect to the membership on the

Commission of Internal Economy.

The members are: the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney

General by virtue of his position as Government House Leader; the hon. Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board, and the hon. Minister of Education and Training -

both ministers were appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council; the Member

for Grand Bank by virtue of his position as Opposition House Leader, and the

Member for Burin - Placentia West as a member of the Opposition; the Member for

Bellevue by virtue of his position as Deputy Speaker; and the Speaker who is

chairman of the Commission.

Petitions

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in my place

today to present a petition on behalf of some 706 residents of the communities

of Jackson's Arm, Pollards Point and Sop's Arm in the White Bay area of the

District of Humber Valley.

The petition has to do with the efforts of the people in that

particular part of my district to obtain and have constructed a new school. Over

the last three, three-and-a-half years, the people in that area have worked very

hard in conjunction with the churches involved and all the parents involved in

the three communities to try to have a new school constructed in that particular

area. However, to date they have been unsuccessful. The question I have to ask

today, especially as the Premier is here and the Minister of Education and

Training, on the Order Paper today we are all discussing and debating a

resolution as it pertains to the changes and recommendations to Term 17. A

constitutional change that will change the way education is carried out in this

Province, and have an effect, and in some cases a drastic effect, on some of the

religious and the denominational parts of the education system in our Province.

However, the point I want to make is this. What does Term 17

have to do with the construction of a new school in White Bay? Absolutely

nothing. This is a prime example - and I say to the Premier and ministers

opposite - of people - you talk about the resolution we have on the Order Paper

and how the new system is going to be parental driven. This is a prime example

of something being parental driven.

We have three communities that have gotten together and

agreed to close out all their schools. We have the Pentecostal people in that

area having agreed to go into this new school. Close down their school and go in

with the other people in the area. Jackson's Arm will lose their school. We all

know that when a community loses its school the old saying is that it will lose

its identity. Those are people who for the sake of a better education for their

children have said: We will bus our children twenty kilometres to Sop's Arm and

close out our school; we are willing to do our part. The people in Pollards

Point have said the same thing. Close down their school and bus them to Sop's

Arm so that we will do our part to help enhance the prospects of a better

education for our children. The Pentecostal people have agreed also. Also, the

high school in that particular area. The closure of four schools, or the

construction of one school in the area, and the last three-and-a-half years they

have been unsuccessful.

That says to me that there is also something wrong with the

Department of Education and Training. I know that the minister will get up and

the minister and his staff will say: It is the problem of the IEC. We give the

church groups the money and it is up to them where to allocate their funds in

whatever municipalities, whatever districts, school boards or whatever but, Mr.

Speaker, how can they when they are not getting anything? Four to six million

last year for school construction in the Province, to do what? You cannot change

the light bulbs if they all went together, in every school in the Province, for

that amount of money.

We have a school, the high school in that particular area,

with leaks. We have problems with the sewer out there, all kinds of problems

with cold and misery that the children are going through for what reason? They

should not have to wait for a change in the Constitution to enhance the lives of

the children in that particular area, Mr. Speaker. That can be done today. Now I

ask the Premier and his minister, the minister's opposite, anybody in Cabinet,

that this year when they allocate funding for the IEC in this Province to make

sure that there is funding made available to this particular area so that those

people can carry out the wishes of the parents in the area in order to enhance

the education of the children in that particular part of Humber Valley. This is

a must.

We have all kinds of areas where the government is saying:

well the people should get together and they should do this and they should do

that. This is a prime example of people getting together themselves, carrying

out the will of government and the will of school boards and so on but yet they

still have not been successful. So I say, Mr. Speaker, to members opposite, that

this is the time that some action should be taken, regardless of Term 17 or

anything else or what happens in the next few weeks, those people should be

afforded the courtesy of a new school in that particular part of my district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

today to support the petition presented by my colleague from Humber Valley.

Mr. Speaker, as he said, we are in a very important debate

here in the House these days and again today, talking about educational reform.

There have been many educational reforms that have taken place throughout our

Province, a number of school boards reduced, a number of schools reduced but

here we have an example of a number of denominations and communities who are

willing to cooperate, are willing to be efficient, are willing to consolidate

for the betterment of their children's education and they have been stymied by

the inaction of this government here. That is what we see, Mr. Speaker.

How many reforms could have taken place? How far ahead could

we have been if the government had exercised its rights in its jurisdiction that

it has in education today without amending the Constitution of Canada, I say to

members opposite? It is nothing but a smokescreen, is what it is, Mr. Speaker,

and if the amended Term 17 ever clears the House of Commons and the Senate I

expect that this government will drag its heels just as it has in the last

six-and-a-half years that it has been in power. It is nothing but a smokescreen,

Mr. Speaker, that is what it is. Why are these people denied an opportunity when

they are so willing to cooperate? Why won't they have a new school replacing

some other four schools? We talk cost efficiency and doing away with

duplication, why isn't that situation being addressed by the Minister of

Education and the government? How many other cases around this Province are

there like this one, where we could have seen consolidation and a more effective

education offered to the students, Mr. Speaker?

As the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes said yesterday,

there are so many opportunities this government has lost in education in the

last six years or so. So many opportunities. The Premier talks about our

students underachieving and our standards lower than the national average - who

is he blaming but himself? Who controls the very activities that determine

student excellence in this Province if not the Minister of Education and the

government? Don't blame it on someone else.

MS VERGE: They are the ones who have underachieved.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, there is no doubt about that. If

ever there was a group in this Province who have underachieved it is the group

opposite, there is no doubt about that.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, there are some exceptions

opposite, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs -

MS VERGE: And he is not one of them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - but you have to question what they

have achieved or what they achieve at, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to say

anything more to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs because I know

what he has accomplished, achieved and improved most at in the last couple of

years, and it is not being Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; so I am

not going to buy into the minister's plan. He wants me to tell, now, about his

recreational pursuits, and how his handicap... His handicap, I would say, in the

thing he participates in has improved, but as a minister his handicap has

increased, so I do not know if the minister gets the drift.

I want to support the petition as put forward by my colleague

for Humber Valley, a very legitimate petition, a very legitimate concern that

this government should have addressed if they are sincere about improving the

quality of education in this Province, and about doing away with duplication,

about consolidation, then this case should be addressed and I want to go on

record here as supporting the member and supporting the prayer of the petition,

and supporting those who signed the petition.

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

to the petition.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the

activity of the parents in Sop's Arm and Jackson's Arm and Pollards Point for

the last three years, and I can only commend them in what they have been doing,

because one of the key problems with integrating schools is the problem that you

have with parents, and in this area the parents have overcome their differences

and they are ready to integrate. All they need now is money to build a new

school.

The hon. member who presented this petition on their behalf

said: What does this have to do with Term 17? In reality, it has everything to

do with Term 17. Strictly speaking, this petition should have been directed

toward the DECs, because if this Province had $150 million to put into school

construction tomorrow we could not decide to build this school in Sop's Arm, or

to not build this school in Sop's Arm. The constitution lays it out clearly; the

Province has to give the capital dollars to the DECs. They decide where to build

the schools. They decide to build a school or not to build a school in Sop's

Arm.

Now, the hon. member said, what will the new system do for

Sop's Arm? Here is what will happen: As soon as we have the constitutional

authority to do so, we will be putting in place a provincial construction board.

The mandate will be to build all of the new schools for this Province, whether

that be one or whether that be 100. That board will be operating with a set of

regulations. The regulations will be written in a non-discriminatory fashion -

nobody will be discriminated against - but the overriding rule will be this: The

schools will be built first and foremost based on need. Where is the worst

school in this Province? The board will not be allowed to build schools because

a certain political party represents a district, or because a friend of the

Chairman of the school board has a child attending a school. It will be built

according to regulations, and the overriding factor will be need. Mr. Speaker,

with all respect to the people who spend government's money today, I can assure

you today that there would not have been a $6 million or $7 million structure

my friend talked about yesterday - he said he was capable of pulling the windows

out; I can tell him the school up in Hopedale is almost as bad. Some of the

decisions that have been made in this Province leave a lot to be desired.

I was just reading a letter which was talking about the

mismanagement of some of government money, so I tell the hon. member that I am

in sympathy with the people in that area because they have overcome their own

biases, and are prepared to go into one school, but we do not have the

authority, as a government, under the present Term 17, to build that school even

if we wanted to. I tell the hon. member, when this issue is put to a vote, which

we are debating in the House these days, I would say to the hon. member, if he

wants a school in Sop's Arm to be treated fairly, then for goodness sakes get up

and support the motion which is before the House, and hopefully get it off to

Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay, on a petition.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents

of Baie Verte - White Bay district. I will read the petition first:

We, the residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula are very

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

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

as well as the overall quality of transportation on the Peninsula. We urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reconsider these reductions in order

to ensure that the safety and quality of road transportation is retained at an

acceptable and safe level.

Mr. Speaker, I think this petition is timely, especially

today again, with questioning on behalf of my colleague, the Member for St.

John's East Extern. I am glad to see the minister is back in the House.

I think the whole point behind this is that we correct

something before we get into a situation in this House again, as with last year

when it was too late, and, Mr. Speaker, today, the minister's response to some

of the questions, I don't think will leave very much comfort for some of the

people in rural Newfoundland, when you hear the minister's comments on his

modification kit. I mean, what a farce, a modification kit, a mirror on the side

of a truck.

Are we going to look at again, this year, Mr. Speaker,

fatalities, accidents in this Province that are caused through some simple

modification kit that was put in place? I ask the minister: What studies have

been done to examine these so-called modification kits? What has been done so

far to find out that these will actually work, that they are going to replace a

person in the cab of a truck who has been sitting there for sixteen, seventeen

or eighteen hours, to help out a driver who has a wing on the side of that

truck? I mean, what kinds of studies can the minister tell us have been done? Is

the minister sure - that is the best question probably to ask the minister, Mr.

Speaker: How sure is the minister that these modification kits are going to do

the job?

If the minister is sure and he is 100 per cent sure - because

that is the only way you can accept it; if he is 100 per cent sure, fair enough,

so we won't have to come back and ask the question that my colleague asked in

the last question. Nobody wants to do that, Mr. Speaker. Nobody wants to come to

the minister responsible for transportation in this Province and talk about a

fatality on the highway and point fingers. I think we respect each and every one

of us in this House enough not to have to do that.

But the question has to be answered: Do these so-called

modification kits -and, Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, as far as technology goes,

I don't know how much technology went in to these modification kits; a mirror to

go on the side of a truck, a heater to make sure there is no steam on the

windows. Are those to replace a human being who sits in a truck that has helped

- and I have talked to these people and I assume, that the minister has talked

to these people - not to experts in the department or somebody who is doing some

study in some laboratory somewhere. I am talking about going out and talking to

the men who have been working at this for fifteen, sixteen, seventeen years. I

have done that, Mr. Speaker, and I assume that the minister responsible for

making this decision, has done that. And he has to be getting the same answer

because I have not had a different answer from anybody yet, that if you go into

shift work and overtime and heavy storms and you have a fellow who is sitting

there on the wing, the so-called wing man with these trucks, has been a very

valuable asset to the driver. After sixteen, seventeen, eighteen hours working

and that person is there with him for all kinds of reasons, Mr. Speaker, and

what can happen.

The last thing we want to see this winter, I say in all

seriousness to the minister, is a report of a fatality, of the wing on the truck

that has clipped either a vehicle that has been on the side of the road or

somebody who has been walking out in a storm and so on, or run into a guard rail

on the side that hasn't been seen. There are all kinds of possibilities of what

can happen. But the question has to be asked: How sure is the minister, who has

made this decision, that these so-called modification kits are going to replace

a human being in a truck? And the minister has to be sure, 100 per cent sure,

because if he is not, then he is putting safety in jeopardy in this question.

It is a whole question of safety, and if he feels

comfortable, as the minister, then nobody will have to point fingers. I hope,

for god's sake that none of us will have to point fingers at anybody in this

House. We don't want to do that, on either side, but you have to ask the

question before - not when the first snowfall hits and things start to happen.

It is no good to bring this up in this House of Assembly and present petitions

or raise questions after the fact, after the snowfall has hit and we have

problems on our highways. We have to ask it now. And I would ask the minister,

on behalf of, not just people in this petition on the Baie Verte Peninsula, but

all around this Province - because I think I am representing many people in this

Province who share the same concerns.

Now, my district has decided that it will present petitions;

they got on to this, they have initiated it on their own; I guess they have

talked to people in the area, because we have a lot of trunk roads, as the

minister knows, and there were a lot of concerns there last year.

And besides the wing man, Mr. Speaker, there has been a

cutback in mechanics and labourers in that department also, in the depots. Last

year, I visited these depots very often and I have talked to the mechanics, the

wing men and so on and, Mr. Speaker, they will tell you - I am sure they told

the minister, and he continues to say it is not going to happen. Well, maybe he

won't mind the fingers being pointed afterwards if that is his attitude towards

this. It is too late to do it after the fact, I say to the minister, it is too

late to do it then. So, if the minister is 100 per cent sure -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - then continue, otherwise change it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

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

I stand today to support the petition presented by my

colleague, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. The petition is similar to a

petition that was presented last week. This is a very serious matter. The

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can sit in his seat and be

flippant and make jokes, but this is a very serious matter. The safety of the

travelling public is in question here, nothing less.

My question today was concerning the travelling public in

this Province. Yesterday, I was prepared to ask the same question, but the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was long-winded in responding to his

questions. There is a lay-off of mechanics. The minister just said from his seat

that it isn't going to happen. It has happened. When we have equipment breaking

down on the highway in the middle of a storm, how long will it be before this

equipment is back on the roads? What kind of a dangerous situation is this

department setting up at this time?

They are talking about replacing individuals in this Province

with modification kits: heated mirrors, power windows, and a flag on the end of

a plough. The people who are installing these modification kits - I have spoken

to some of them, and they consider it nothing less than a joke. Simply, this is

not acceptable to the people of this Province. The drivers themselves consider

this to be laughable, if it weren't so serious. The minister continues to make

jokes.

With the cutbacks in this Province over the past number of

years at Works, Services and Transportation, in particular, we have the

operators now working fifteen, sixteen hours a day operating this equipment. And

it is not only equipment, driving the trucks and the ploughs themselves, but it

is the operating equipment, the ploughs themselves, what have you. I would have

to ask the question: Can one person operate such a piece of equipment?

The minister says yes, in his opinion. I would like to ask

the minister how often he has driven a plough, how often he has driven one of

these trucks with the equipment on it. How often has he been out in the middle

of a snowstorm on the Burin Peninsula, on the Northern Peninsula, operating this

equipment? It is alright in the safety of his own office. He made a joke not

long ago that there would be no equipment cut in his district. It isn't

acceptable, and the people of this Province -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There he goes again, Mr. Speaker. He wasn't

joking. Well, I am going to remind the minister in the middle of this winter if

someone is seriously hurt, that he said he wasn't joking when he was joking.

I would ask this government to take a serious look at the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation. Obviously, we have a minister

in place there who doesn't care about the human factor in this Province, Mr.

Speaker. Thank you.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Just a couple of short comments about both

hon. members' comments. First of all, I don't consider it a joke. The only joke

I consider is the members opposite. I can go back a couple of years when they

brought equipment in from Western Canada to grow cucumbers to put in Robin Hood

Bay down in Torbay. That is a joke. If I had that $25 million that was thrown

out on Robin Hood Bay in growing cucumbers I would buy another dozen ploughs and

hire on another dozen operators in this Province. The fact is, that crowd

opposite wasted the taxpayers' money in this Province for seventeen years, got

us so strapped financially now that we can't move.

Mr. Speaker, I have total confidence that what we are doing

this winter will not jeopardize the safety of the operators, will not jeopardize

the safety of the general public, neither in the equipment operating on the

Trans-Canada or the snow clearing responsibility that the individuals have. The

Provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I., those three provinces, have

run the same type of equipment for years with one operator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: There are no hills in P.E.I.!

MR. EFFORD: No hills? No hills in New Brunswick, no hills

in Nova Scotia. Newfoundland is the only place - now there is a statement for a

member to make!

What I am saying is, three provinces - and Quebec makes 4 -

are operating pieces of equipment in the same manner as we are operating this

year. Are you saying that Newfoundlanders can't drive a plough? That we have to

put two people to do the same job as a person from Nova Scotia? Now, you go out

and tell the people in your district that! How silly can you get? This thing

about the kits you are talking about. An individual driving a truck does not

need a second person to drive that truck. Only one person can drive a piece of

equipment at one time. How do you get two people driving a truck at the same

time? He has the controls in front of him. The controls are there to operate the

plough, and if he decides that wing should not be down, he presses a button and

up comes the wing, if he is into a narrow piece of road or area.

The hon. member is trying to make points, and I have no

problem with that. I am satisfied that the decision we made is the right

decision. Yes, there will be accidents this winter, there is no doubt there will

be, and after the very first accident, the hon. member will be up like the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl was last year: `Efford, you caused that.' Well, when

I become God, I will stop all snow from falling and then there will be no

accidents.

MR. TOBIN: You are in the middle of a snowstorm now, boy.

MR. EFFORD: Don't be so silly, boy!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, before we get into the substantive Orders of the

Day, I wonder if I might move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

Motion, that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of members

opposite, I would say, in this House, noise, volume doesn't count, it is numbers

that count.

Mr. Speaker, we don't necessarily intend to ask the House to

sit late this evening, it depends entirely on how we get along with debate. My

friend, the Member for Mount Pearl has something to say?

MR. WINDSOR: I think we will stay here all night.

MR. ROBERTS: We have often stayed all night to listen to

the hon. gentleman speak and we will be delighted to do it again. It is his

colleagues who have the trouble. Your Honour, with that, would you be good

enough, please, to call Motion No. 4, that is the debate on Term 17. I believe

the Member for Kilbride had not concluded his remarks, and accordingly, the

floor is his.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

The majority of my remarks related to the government's

resolution I spoke about yesterday before I adjourned debate, and I would like

to conclude today before my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls, speaks to the

resolution, by saying just a couple of things.

Over the last three years, Mr. Speaker, if this government

had spent as much time and energy, had expended as much time and energy, on what

happened inside the classroom as opposed to what has happened outside the

classroom, we would not be having this debate today. I do believe, firmly and

frankly, that if government had done that, if they had spent their time

implementing the recommendations that came forth from the William's Royal

Commission, if they had spent their time negotiating fairly and openly with the

church leaders, today, we would not be debating this resolution. We would see a

higher quality of education in our classrooms today that would benefit the

children and students of this Province.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the parents and taxpayers of this

Province wouldn't care who was in control of education if that was happening -

you could call it any brand name, or put any name to it that you wished. But the

fact is this, that what is at stake here is a battle between a Premier who is

fixated on the belief of what an educational system and a model should look like

and the reality of what actually could have happened over the past three years.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that I cannot support

this resolution. I have no intention of supporting this resolution, neither

today, tomorrow, or the next day. I will not stand up and support the automatic

stripping away of minority rights when a government during the last election

made it clear that no such stripping away would happen without consensus.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is a bold, two-faced lie by this

government.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw the

remark. It was said within the heat of debate and I apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's remark was certainly out

of order and I accept the apology.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate.

MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The voters of the Twillingate District knew precisely where I

stood on the issue of constitutional change long before the referendum was

called, in fact, long before they voted on September 5. They also knew how I

felt about calling a referendum. I announced at a public meeting held in

Summerford in 1993, where 1100 people attended, that I would not, under any

circumstance, support an amendment to the constitution, nor would I support a

call for a referendum.

I subsequently informed my constituents that while I would

respect their wishes to vote how they see fit, I expected them to show me the

same consideration, because in a campaign leading up to the 1993 general

election, I gave the voters of Twillingate District a solemn undertaking that I

would not, under any circumstance, support or be party to any proposal put

forward by the government to seek an amendment to the Canadian Constitution,

that would tamper with their constitutionally protected rights in education.

Moreover, at the same time, I gave them an undertaking that I

would not support calling for a referendum, because I considered it unnecessary,

unwarranted, divisive, and a shameful waste of public money. Mr. Speaker, I am

unable to reconcile the action now being proposed by government with the

commitment the Premier gave church leaders, Members of the House of Assembly,

and the general public, from the floor of this Legislature on 12 March 1993.

Now, like most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I support

the government and church leaders in their efforts to achieve greater efficiency

and excellence in our education system. I think most Newfoundlanders likewise

support that. Likewise, I support the reforms on which there is general

agreement between government and the churches; however, I am not pleased with

the manner in which government has dragged its heels and have refused to

implement the reforms on which there is agreement between the churches and

government, and on which substantial savings can be achieved. The government's

`all or nothing' policy simply does not make sense. It makes one wonder

precisely what it is we are trying to achieve.

While I support the fact that differences still exist between

government and the churches on the question of education reform, surely, there

is a more civilized way to settle those differences than maligning and

alienating our church leaders, putting our people through a costly and divisive

referendum, pitting people of different religious faiths against each other, and

in the end, removing their constitutional rights.

I believe it was being very naive for anyone, including the

Premier, to suggest that religion would not be a factor in the campaign leading

up to the referendum. I fail to see how you could possibly entertain the notion

that tampering with issues such as church rights and denominational education

would not arouse a very high level of religious bigotry and rancour in this

Province. People in this Province take their religion seriously and, I repeat,

to suggest that you could tamper with those rights, the rights of education, the

rights of the churches, is to court disaster.

The concerns of the churches are understandable, especially

those of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches who have raised some very

serious questions as to their future role in education in this Province, and the

extent to which their rights under the constitution will be affected. It is also

understandable why church leaders feel that they have been betrayed and their

rights trampled on.

Mr. Speaker, March 12, 1993 was a very important day for a

lot of people in this House. There were church leaders in the gallery, the

Premier gave an undertaking in this Chamber on March 12, 1993, just before the

last provincial general election, that government would not seek an amendment to

the Constitution without the consent of the churches. Now these may not have

been the Premier's exact words but it certainly reflects the way it was

interrupted by the church leaders, the news media and members of the Liberal

Caucus who campaigned in the last general election on the strength of the

Premier's commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that as many as eight or

ten hon. members, who now sit in this House, would have found it extremely

difficult, if not impossible, to be re-elected were it not for the fact they

were able to use the Premier's statement of March 12 in their respective

campaigns. I have been told by a gentleman on this side, in fact by people in

Cabinet, that the moment that that statement became available they had it

reproduced and sent to their constituents and in some cases they took it with

them. They would not knock on a door without knowing that they had that

statement in their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I would have found it extremely difficult, if

not impossible, to have been re-elected in Twillingate district were it not for

the fact that my constituents were given an assurance that their

constitutionally protected rights in education would not be placed in jeopardy

and I say now, Mr. Speaker, that I speared no effort to convey that impression.

I did it in good faith, convinced that that was then the policy of the

government and the party for which I ran. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, then

I believe that a general election, not a referendum, would have been a much more

honourable way of dealing with this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Realistically, Mr. Speaker, I think most

Newfoundlanders will agree that neither a referendum or a constitutional change

will alter the fact that geography, a chronically weak economy and isolation are

the real curses that have plagued our education system for centuries. Geography,

a chronically weak economy and isolation, not religious symbols, school colours

or school governance. Of course there are other factors that contribute to the

problems facing our education system and I might add, most of which our church

leaders recognize and have indicated that they are prepared to address.

Notwithstanding these problems, Mr. Speaker, and contrary to what we have been

told, a great deal has been achieved in this Province in recent years in

education reform, without constitutional change or the need for government to

wield a big stick. Let me give you a few examples, the number of school boards

in this Province have been reduced from 270 in 1969 to twenty-seven in 1994. Let

me repeat, from 270 in 1969 to twenty-seven in 1994. What is interesting to

note, Mr. Speaker, is that the churches are quite prepared to do what has to be

done to reduce that number to ten.

We have reduced the number of schools in this Province from

1,046 in 1967 to 492 in 1994. Of the Province's 469 communities only 293 have

schools. Two hundred and sixty, 89 per cent, of these communities have a single

school system. Twenty-four communities have joint service schools. In these

communities two or more school boards operate a single school system jointly

because the number of students doesn't warrant separate school systems. Only

thirty-three communities have more than a one-school system. These communities

are large enough to support more than one system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five.

MR. CARTER: There was an interesting statistic, Mr.

Speaker, and I would ask hon. members to listen. The most recent statistic

available from the Province of Nova Scotia, where they have a public school

system, shows that their annual cost per pupil is higher than in Newfoundland.

For example, in Nova Scotia the annual average cost is $4,755. Ours is $4,535,

which is $120 per student per year less. Although Nova Scotia has a public

school system, in relative terms we both spend the same amount on school busing,

which is 5 per cent of our respective budgets for education.

While I'm on the subject of education costs, those of us who

recently attended a meeting with representatives of the Roman Catholic and

Pentecostal churches were surprised to learn that not once during the past

two-and-a-half years was the matter of cost, or ways to cut cost, raised at any

of the meetings between government and churches. I have to ask myself the

question then: How much emphasis is the government placing on cost-saving

factors within their proposal?

In their wisdom our ancestors firmly established an

educational system based on the principle that you can't separate Christian and

moral development from our philosophy of education and from our school system.

That, my friends, is precisely what this resolution will do if it is approved by

us and acted upon by the Parliament of Canada.

I am convinced that the ultimate outcome of this whole

exercise will, within a very few years, see the removal of every vestige of

religious influence from our schools. I am convinced of that. It is happening in

other jurisdictions. I had a visitor this year from the State of Kentucky in the

U.S. She arrived here in the middle of this controversy, especially the open

line controversy leading up to the referendum. My wife and I visited with her

because she was a relative, and she told me she couldn't believe what she was

hearing. She said: We went through this very same exercise back in - I think it

was Kentucky - twenty years ago. She said: Today most Kentuckians would give

their eye-teeth if they could forget it ever happened and revert to the way it

was. She told me in her schools, in a country where the motto is "In God We

Trust," pupils in those schools are not allowed to mention the word God, not

allowed to make any reference to God. The God in whom they trust is a dirty word

in their schools.

I hope I'm wrong, but I contend that there will be a time in

my lifetime when Newfoundland schoolchildren will be forbidden maybe to even

sing "God guard thee, Newfoundland" in our schools; that is how serious it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am not detracted by that sort

of thing, because six months ago the hon. member would have been up saying the

very same thing I am saying now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: But, for whatever reason, he is not allowed

to do it now.

MR. DUMARESQUE: You don't want to get into that.

MR. CARTER: No, you don't want to get into it.

Mr. Speaker, during last Thursday's Question Period the

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes asked a very simple, straightforward,

question. Essentially, all the hon. member wanted to know was: What will happen

to the schools in places like St. Bride's where every person in the community is

of the same religious faith? Will the character of that school remain intact?

Surely that question, which is the most basic of all

questions raised in this whole debate, should have received an equally simple

answer. Unfortunately, the hon. member's question went unanswered. That came as

a shock to me, as it must have to all other hon. members, because just think

about it for a moment. Here we are debating a resolution introduced by the

government, a resolution that is by far one of the most important

precedent-setting resolutions ever introduced in this House, and government

members are unable, or maybe unwilling, to provide a simple answer to the most

fundamental question that could possibly be asked in this debate: What happens

to the schools in my community, a community where all of the people are of the

one faith?

I say precedent-setting because never before in the history

of Canada have constitutionally protected minority rights been taken away by a

decision or a vote of the majority without the consent of the minority affected.

That is essentially what this House has been asked to do.

Over the past few months we have been bombarded with legal

opinions, provided by so-called experts trained in constitutional law.

Government's experts tell us one thing, and equally competent constitutional

experts acting for the churches tell us something entirely different. I do not

think that any two yet have agreed on anything. Of course, that is not unusual

for lawyers.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is how they make their money.

MR. CARTER: That is how they make their money.

Spokesmen for government put their slant on what they are

proposing; church leaders and their representatives have theirs, and I can say

now that any similarity between the two is purely coincidental.

There is one good thing about it; historically

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have always shown far greater willingness to

believe their church leaders than what they have to believe their politicians. I

am not sure that is called for, but it is a fact of life. It is a fact of life -

I think it is fair to say that clergymen demand more respect and attention than

certain politicians.

Mr. Speaker, maybe, just maybe, that accounts for the low

voter turnout in the recent referendum. The fact that 72 per cent of the

Province's eligible voters either voted against the government's proposal or for

reasons, which I suggest had to do with the wording and the nature of the

question, refused to vote. Their only hope, Mr. Speaker, is that wiser heads

will prevail in Ottawa and the Prime Minister will refuse to be party to this

schemozzle.

The decision to seek an amendment to the Canadian

Constitution on such a weak and inconclusive mandate, Mr. Speaker, is

unacceptable and will not soon be forgotten by those whose rights are being

threatened. To seek an amendment to any Constitution, of any country, is serious

business. The Constitution is serious business. As I have already stated, to

amend the Constitution for the express purpose of abolishing the rights of

minorities, against their will, is simply not done. That is simply not done and

to do so, Mr. Speaker, based on an approval of 28 per cent of the Province's

eligible voters, without regard for the other 72 per cent who voted either

against the government's proposal or refused to vote, is anything but

democratic.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that some of the people involved in

this issue are more interested in carving a niche for themselves in history then

what they are in doing what is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Church leaders and their representatives have

engaged in extensive discussions with government and with the Premier himself,

over the past two-and-a-half years. While certain differences still exist

significant progress has been made. In fact, we have been told by church leaders

that 90 per cent of the reforms recommended in the Williams' Royal Commission

report are achievable, within the framework of existing legislation, without a

referendum or the need for constitutional change.

Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to meet, several times, the

leaders of our churches to discuss this matter and they have made it clear to me

that they welcome any legislation that would readily contribute to an

improvement in the quality of education in this Province. I am satisfied that

they are telling me the truth. I am not about to question their honesty or their

integrity. I believe them and I believed them when they told me that. I can

understand, Mr. Speaker, why they are not prepared to roll over and play dead

while their rights are being abolished. Government has stubbornly refused to

accept the position put forward by the churches as a basis for consensus and are

pressing forward with their proposals as though it is the only legitimate basis

for educational reform and that thought was conveyed to the public many times

during the campaign, Mr. Speaker. Like I say now, I am not prepared to accept

that line. I am of the old school, I still have the upmost respect for church

leaders and for their integrity.

Mr. Speaker, following the Premier's announcement on August

19, 1994, that government would proceed with the implementation of Adjusting the

Course, leaders of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches, who collectively

represent 44 per cent of the population of this Province, served notice on the

government of their intention to initiate court action if they - meaning the

government - introduced legislation in the House of Assembly that would have the

effect of dismantling the denominational system and extinguishing their

constitutional rights. Acknowledging the fact that the churches were within

their rights to take court action, and that any such action would undoubtedly he

upheld in the courts, government proceeded to deny them their rights by seeking

to amend the Constitution, so is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that church leaders

are upset and feel betrayed.

Calling a referendum in these circumstances for the purpose

of extinguishing their rights, is an unforgivable act of high-handedness and

arrogance. Any process that uni-laterally removes rights held by minorities and

denies them the right to appeal through the courts when their rights have been

violated, is totally unacceptable in a country like Canada, which is founded on

the democratic ideals of justice and (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there have always been mutual

trust and understanding between churches and governments in this Province. Past

governments have always recognized and respected the right of parents to seek a

christian education for their children, a right established in the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the UN on December 10, 1948. Mr.

Speaker, I readily agree, that governments have the right, indeed a duty to

establish standards of education that it wishes its citizens to achieve.

Government will always play a vital role in our education since it provides the

legal framework, the financial means and the administrative muscles for the

whole education system.

Mr. Speaker, when it serves their purposes, all too often,

hon. members insist that our students perform academically far below students

from the rest of Canada. They quote batteries of test results that supposedly

support their claim, however, the official publication of the Department of

Education, Profile 93, Education Indicators , paints an entirely different

picture. In a news release dated February 10, 1995, in which the Minister of

Education and Training gave the results of Canadian Tests of Basic Skills

administered to Newfoundland students, he also painted a different picture. The

minister is quoted as saying: `The results of the recent CTBS are encouraging.

It is comforting to know he said that Newfoundland students can compete with

others from across Canada. It is comforting to know he said, that Newfoundland

students are able to compete with others from across Canada.'

Mr. Speaker, if indeed our children are performing poorly,

let those responsible accept the blame. Certainly, we cannot blame it on the

children. The blame rests squarely with the Department of Education and Training

and in the final analysis, with the minister. They have full control over the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to move an

amendment

MR. SPEAKER: With the time at the Chair and the time at

the table, there is a discrepancy. The hon. member has three minutes left.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to move an

amendment to the resolution.

Now I am not so naive as to think that this resolution is

going to pass this House. In fact, I suppose one could almost bet anything that

it will happen, it shouldn't but it will, so I intend to move a resolution that,

while it is not going to remove all of the concerns of the churches, it is not

going to make the resolution perfect but I think it might have the effect of

making it a little more palatable for the people. So, Mr. Speaker, I move,

schedule of the constitutional resolution which would amend Term 17 to the Terms

of Union of Newfoundland with Canada be amended as follows:

(

a) in line 11 of paragraph (

a) by deleting the words

"provided for" and by substituting the words, "direct and determine":

(

b) by deleting the six lines before subparagraphs (1) and

(11) of paragraphs (

b) and by substituting the following:

"(

b) where numbers warrant,"

(

c) in line 7 of paragraph (

c) to insert the words "to

determine and" after the words "to have the right and"

(

d) in line 11 of paragraph (

c) to insert the words "and

determine" after the words "and to direct".

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Chair have a copy of the amendment

from the table?

The hon. member can continue speaking until his time is up

but the House will recess to consider the amendment. I would like to consult

with the advisors on this before we make such an important decision.

MR. CARTER: I did not hear, Mr. Speaker, you want to

adjourn the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Recess the House, not adjourn.

MR. CARTER: Then I presume I am good for half an hour, am

I, if I want to?

Mr. Speaker, if there is a problem with the curriculum whose

fault is it? The Department of Education designs and develops all curriculums

taught in schools in Newfoundland and Labrador with the exception of religious

education. The minister authorizes all curriculum including the text books to be

used. The Department of Education sets the standards for teacher's educations.

The faculty of education at Memorial University trains the teachers and the

Department of Education certifies them. The Minister of Education prescribes the

length of the school year, the length of the school day, and the period of time

to be spent on each subject. The Department of Education sets the criteria for

evaluation and testing. The matter of bussing and funding for school

construction is also the responsibility of-

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to take his

place so that the House can recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has had an opportunity to look at the amendment.

Based on our precedents and our Standing Order 36 the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like I said a moment

ago, I don't think it is going to satisfy all of the fears of the people who are

affected, but I think it will go a long way toward allaying some of their

concerns and making the resolution somewhat more palatable.

I should point out by the way, in defence of my amendment,

where we talk about item (

b) I think it is: "by deleting the six lines before

subparagraphs (

i) and (ii)..." and inserting the words "`where numbers

warrant.'"

Those of you who have in your files a copy of an

advertizement that was placed in The Evening Telegram by the government,

I believe it was in March of 1994, under the heading The Principles of Education

Reform, one of the commitments given in that advertizement is to provide for

uni-denominational schools where numbers warrant. That is the precise effect my

amendment will have on the resolution.

I sometimes get annoyed when I hear statements being made

both in the House of Assembly and in the news media by responsible people,

people who at least should be responsible, that focus on the illiteracy rate in

this Province and other unflattering negative aspects of our educational system.

These serve only to cast the people of this Province in an unfavourable light in

the rest of Canada. It also gives comfort to certain Upper Canadian editorial

writers and journalists - we know who they are - who appear to derive great

satisfaction, great joy, stereotyping us as somewhat less than first-class

citizens.

The people of this Province don't deserve to be cast in that

light. Historically Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, most of whom are the

product of our much maligned education system, have made a very significant

contribution to the professional, cultural and corporate life of Canada and the

rest of the world.

I listened with some considerable interest to the speech made

in the Chamber last Thursday by the hon. Member for Conception Bay South, and I

have to say that while I fully appreciate the hon. member's sincerity, and I am

sure she did not mean any harm, I did find certain aspects of her speech to be a

little offensive. Several times she referred to our education system as being

medieval. Now I do not have any statistics to back up what I am about to say,

but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell the hon. member, that on a per

capita basis our so-called medieval education system has produced more brains

and has made a greater contribution to this country in terms of human resources

than any other Province in Canada, including her native Province of Ontario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Historically Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, some of whom came out of one-room denominational schools, have

excelled at home and abroad. It is also worth noting that there is scarcely a

country in this world - certainly not a Province in Canada - where you will not

find ex-Newfoundlanders who are doing extremely well. For example, in the arts,

the medical and legal professions, the clergy, in the field of communications,

commerce, and in the military, our native sons and daughters have proven to be

as good and in many ways better than the best of them.

I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to learn that the

first woman to be admitted to the Bar in Newfoundland, Louise Maude Saunders,

was the product of a one-room school in Greenspond, Bonavista Bay. Equally

interesting is the fact that a native Grand Banker, General William Carr, became

the highest ranking officer in the Canadian Air Force - no mean feat for a

Newfoundlander to attain that position. Another well-known and highly respected

native Newfoundlander, Colonel Clarence Wiseman, was born in Morton's Harbour,

which is in my district, became the head of the Salvation Army in the entire

world.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Yes, General Clarence Wiseman filled the

shoes of General William Booth as the world leader of the Salvation Army; what

an honour.

Former Newfoundlanders, most of whom are the product of small

denomination schools in outport communities, have become outstanding leaders in

their chosen field. Some have become university presidents, great artists,

theatrical producers, men of the cloth, poets, architects, bankers, physicians,

lawyers, politicians and diplomats. An example that is not a widely known fact,

the president of the largest bank in the world, the Bank of America, was one Mr.

James Kennedy who was born in Newfoundland. Two native born Newfoundlanders,

Arthur Jensen, who was born in Harbour Breton, and George Neal from St. John's,

became Chairman of the Board and Vice-President of the Bank of Montreal

respectively.

For years Newfoundlanders have dominated the communications

industry in this country. Newfoundlanders Geoff Stirling, Ralph Snelgrove, and

the late Don Jamieson dominated the Canadian Radio and Television industry for

years.

Two other Newfoundlanders who are seen daily on one of

Canada's largest television outlets, and have become well-known in the Ottawa

area are also native-born Newfoundlanders. One of them is Max Keeping, a native

of Grand Bank, who is now vice-president and senior broadcaster with the largest

privately-owned television outlet, I suppose in Canada, certainly in Central

Canada, CJOH-TV. Needless to say, my wife and I take some considerable pride in

the fact that the other Newfoundlander who was seen daily in Ottawa on that

large t.v. station, is our son, Glen. Of course, we have another well-known

Newfoundlander whose star is rising very rapidly on the national scene as a

radio and television personality in the person of Mr. Rex Murphy.

In the field of politics, a number of native sons and

daughters of Newfoundland have risen to the top in other parts of Canada. For

example, Edward Halliburton and Roland Thornhill, two Newfoundlanders, spent

considerable years as Cabinet ministers in the Government of Nova Scotia. A

former Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, Dr. Clarence Gosse, is also a

Newfoundlander. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and time will not permit me to do

justice to it, but let me name a few more.

We have Dr. Robert W. Pilot, who was Canada's outstanding

artist, A.J.C. Paine, a nationally acclaimed architect, both Newfoundlanders;

John Murray Anderson, one of America's leading theatrical producers, Captain

Robert Bartlett, a famed Arctic explorer, Sir Thomas Roddick, one of the

greatest medical pioneers in Canada, all Newfoundlanders; Dr. E.J. Pratt,

Canada's Poet Laureate; Newfoundlanders, Chris Pratt and David Blackwood, both

of whom have become internationally acclaimed in their chosen profession, as

have business tycoons, Craig Dobbin, Harry Steele, and members of the

Collingwood family.

Mr. Speaker, if we had time to research, there are hundreds

of Newfoundlanders who are the products of these small, so-called medieval

schools who have gone away and excelled and have reached the top in their chosen

fields. All too often we are inclined to do and say things that do nothing to

enhance the image of our Province and our people. We Newfoundlanders are good,

we are excellent, we excel at putting ourselves down. Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have no reason to take a back seat to any Canadian, and I believe

it would be in all of our best interests, certainly in the best interests of our

Province, in our children, and their children, if we get off this silly kick we

are on about criticizing ourselves and our educational system.

Let me give you another personal story which I use to back up

what I'm saying. In 1968, my wife and I moved our eight children to Ottawa.

Naturally, we were both a little apprehensive about their schooling and how they

would fit into their new environment. Coming from Newfoundland, and we were

exposed to this inferior attitude that all too often prevails, some of our

friends told us: You are going to have problems, they aren't going to be able to

fit in. I can tell you now, we were absolutely overjoyed when we found out that

not only were they capable of adjusting, but two of them were so far advanced

that their teacher saw fit to have them skip a grade. One of my daughters who

left here in Grade VII was allowed to skip Grade VIII and go on to Grade IX. One

of our sons also skipped a grade. He left here in Grade V and in the Ottawa

school he immediately went to Grade VII.

Mr. Speaker, these were not above-average children, in fact,

they were very average children of average intelligence. As a parent, naturally,

I would prefer to believe that credit for their advancement was due to them

entirely. However, I willingly concede that most of the credit for their

advancement belongs to the schools they attended and to their teachers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to the amendment presented today by the

Member for Twillingate and seconded by the Member for Fogo that would have the

effect of making a couple of changes to the proposed Term 17 amending the

Constitution. Let me say first of all, Mr. Speaker, that the debate that we are

having here this week and last week in the House of Assembly is a debate that we

should have been having before any referendum took place.

It is not precedented, Mr. Speaker, in the constitutional

realm, to have an amendment to the Constitution and a referendum without public

discussion, prior to the referendum being called, of the question to be asked

and the nature of the amendment to the Constitution to be proposed. What has

happened in this particular instance, to an issue so important to so many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that it has caused divisions in this Province

and will continue to cause divisions, that instead of trying to craft a proposed

new Term 17 that would accommodate and recognize the attachment and the needs of

a minority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to having what in other provinces

are called, separate schools.

The government decided, the Cabinet decided, to go ahead with

the referendum by Cabinet fiat, with a proposed constitutional amendment not

subject to wide public discussion and debate - let alone debate in the House of

Assembly - where amendments such as those proposed by the Member for Twillingate

could have been moved or other amendments that members on this side, I know,

have been contemplating.

I, myself, had prepared and had typewritten an amendment that

would have been to the same effect as

section B of the Member for Twillingate's

motion which would have read as follows; `...the Member for St. John's East to

move that Motion No. 4, in the name of the Premier, be amended by deleting from

the

schedule thereof in the proposed Term 17(

b) of the Terms of Union of

Newfoundland and Canada, the words; `subject to provincial legislation that is

uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for the establishment

or continued operation of schools' and replace them with the words, `where

numbers warrant.'

That was a motion that I had prepared, an amendment to the

proposed Term 17. I want to talk for a moment about the effect of that motion

and, in the process of doing so, explain to members of the House and put on the

record of Hansard why it was that I personally voted `no' in the referendum held

on September 5, 1995. First of all, let me say, and reiterate, that I, and my

party, have been the most consistent supporters of the reform of the

denominational education system in this Province over the last twenty years. I

read in The Telegram files recently, around September month, a reference

to an NDP convention in Grand Falls taking place over two or three days, in

1972, I believe it was, which featured as one of its resolutions for debate, and

which was passed, the reform, if not abolition, of the denominational education

system in the Province of Newfoundland.

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? Does that mean that there

should be no more schools in this Province that are exclusively Catholic schools

or exclusively Pentecostal schools? No. What that means is that the system of

education, the system that involved the layers of administration, the layers of

responsibility, the layers of bureaucracy, the duplication that was even worse

then in 1972 than it is in 1995, that, that system had to change and be

reformed. And I don't think there is a single person in the Province today, if

the question had been put in the referendum: Do you agree with the reform of the

education system? who would have voted `no'. But what happened, Mr. Speaker -

and certain other members on the other side of the House have expressed this

more eloquently than I would be able to do here today.

The Member for St. John's Centre has outlined the position

taken by this government prior to the last election. The position taken by the

Premier in this House and reiterated to the public in the May 1993 general

election, was that government would not seek to change the Constitution with

respect to denominational schools without the support of the churches. I opposed

that at the time, Mr. Speaker; I think that was the wrong position to take. When

the government and the Minister of Education and Training were talking in this

House about attempting to achieve consensus with the churches, I supported that

attempt, but I cautioned, and I am on record as having cautioned this House,

that one must not commit oneself to saying that if there is no consensus nothing

can be done, yet, that's what this government did.

In 1993, it said to the people of this Province, to the

church leaders sitting in this House and to all members present, that they would

in fact, not bring about change without the consent of the churches. So what we

have then, is a process, whereby the government went through a series of

negotiations, if they can be called that, the consensus attempt failed and I am

not going into pointing fingers and blaming the churches, as the Member for

Mount Pearl did, blaming the churches, suggesting that they acted in bad faith.

I don't agree with the Member for Mount Pearl when he said that the churches

acted in bad faith.

AN HON. MEMBER: Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HARRIS: Waterford - Kenmount, I'm sorry. I misstated

myself. The Member for Waterford - Kenmount, the Education critic who stated

that the churches had in fact acted in bad faith in the negotiations, I didn't

agree with that. I think they went to the meetings, they had proposals; they

responded to the invitation of the government and the Premier to get involved in

the consensus-building process, but they weren't able to agree. They weren't

able to agree, and therefore, there was no consensus.

Now, some might say, Mr. Speaker, that the government had

boxed itself into a corner because they had committed themselves to a consensus

process and they had reached the point where they felt that consensus was no

longer possible. The right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, would have been to come

back to this House of Assembly and say, We have failed to achieve a consensus

and we are now proposing to bring in an amendment to the Constitution consistent

with government objectives - put it before the House, seek the support of the

majority of the members of the House to put a referendum question to the people,

listen to members on both sides express their own and the constituents' concerns

about what the new amendment would do, what affect it would have, not only on

the school system but on the rights that their constituents enjoyed under the

existing constitution; that would have been the right thing to do. What did the

government do? It closed the House, and the next day announced that it was going

to have a referendum, waited until the schools were closed and then issued a

press release saying what their new Term 17 was.

AN HON. MEMBER: And waited until July to give us the

wording.

MR. HARRIS: And waited until July to tell us what the

wording of the referendum was, and then have the referendum held on the day that

the schools were reopening again. That is what they did. They did not invite

this House or the people of Newfoundland to participate in the wording of a

constitutional change. This is from a Premier who traipse across this country,

and may have contributed to its destruction on the Meech Lake Accord because the

process was inadequate, the wording was inadequate, even though he had agreed to

bring this matter to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, did not do that

either.

I have to say, and I am going to say this quite openly, when

I saw the wording of the proposed Term 17, and I was given a copy by the

Minister of Education, the Minister of Education and I, and the Leader of the

Opposition were sitting together on a radio program with CBC and I had a copy of

the wording from the minister, and I did not have a real problem with it because

I saw, in

section 17(b), the provision for uni-denominational schools, with one

problem. I pointed it out at the time to a caller who had called in and talked

about this, because I wanted to be supportive of the changes that were being

brought about. I pointed out a problem in the words, `subject to provincial

legislation'. I pointed that problem out at the time, and I expected, over the

course of the summer - although I was away for three weeks out of the Province,

like many people, having their vacation, entitled to it - I expected to hear the

Minister of Education and the Premier give some commitment, some comfort even,

to those people who were asking questions, like the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes was asking in the House last week: Does this mean, Mr. Premier, that in

Trepassey or in Ferryland -

AN HON. MEMBER: Or St. Bride's.

MR. HARRIS: Or St. Bride's, as he asked last week, but

the people phoning into these Open Line programs were phoning from various

places, does this mean that our school, in an area with 99 per cent Catholics,

will still be a Catholic school? One would have expected: Oh, of course. That is

what you would have expected. Even when people from St. John's called in and

said: Mr. Premier, are you telling us that this referendum change will still

guarantee that we will be able to have a Catholic school in St. John's, with the

Catholic schools that we have there, given the population of St. John's, and the

number of people who want to have Catholic schools, that that will be so, I

would have expected the Premier to say: Of course; I cannot imagine it not being

so - and the Minister of Education the same thing. I would have expected that.

That would have been a decent compromise between the need to

reform and the desire of certain people, not a majority, but certain people to

continue to exercise the right to have their own school. Now, what did the

Premier and the Minister of Education say, no problem. We do not have any

problem here. They did not say that. They said that would depend on what

legislation was passed, and that would depend on what the school board rules

were. They would be making the rules after all and not the government, I

presume, so there would be legislation, there would be school board rules, there

would be viability rules, and then there would be something else called

budgetary considerations, so all of these things would have to be going into the

mix to determine whether or not the simple question asked by the people, who

called in from St. John's or from a rural community with a sole denomination, as

to whether or not they would still be able to have a school that was a Catholic

school or a Pentecostal school, as the case may be.

Now, I am going to go a little bit farther than that because

I had a conversation recently, or a few days before the referendum, I had a

conversation with a former president of the NTA.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Do you think they do not know what they

are going to do or are they trying to cover-up?

MR. HARRIS: I think they have an idea I say to the Member

for Grand Bank. I have an idea that what they are going to do is not going to be

very popular with the people who voted, no, but it is probably not going to be

very popular with a lot of the people who voted, yes, either and their

fifty-four per cent majority is going to start slip sliding away, as they say.

People are going to be scratching their heads and saying: well, I do not think

that is what I voted for. I voted for reform. I did not vote for the jackboots.

I do not know what they are going to do but I suspect it is not going to be very

happy for the majority of people in this Province, even those who voted, yes.

I say I talked to an active politician at the municipal

level, a former president of the NTA and he said, I am an Anglican and we gave

up our rights years ago, and I disagreed with him. I said: no, you did not give

up any rights at all. You may have chosen not to exercise them, you may have

decided that you did not want to insist on having a separate Anglican school for

the common good of your school children of the communities, but you did not give

up any rights.

What has happened here and what turned me against the Term 17

was initially not the wording but was the attitude of the Premier and the

Minister of Education in failing to reassure people that certain things they

regarded as rights were going to be acceptable and were going to be possible,

and there was a commitment to it from the government, and the reality is that

they are not. They have converted, through this amendment, a constitutional

right into a legislative privilege. Now, any right to have a separate

denominational school is going to be subject to provincial legislation. That is

not a constitutional right and that is why I support the amendment, because the

amendment by removing that section, `subject to provincial legislation', and

replacing it with the term `where numbers warrant,' provides a constitutional

means whereby, where numbers warrant, people can have a denominational school.

Now, I hope the minister is going to speak to this amendment,

and I hope he is going to deal with the substance of the amendment, particularly

with respect to that particular section. The wording `where numbers warrant'

still permits the Province to make legislation. Hopefully, it will permit it to

make the very same legislation that it plans to make. But what would be left,

Mr. Speaker, would be an opportunity for those people if they disagreed with the

legislation and weren't being provided with an opportunity to have a

uni-denominational school where numbers did warrant, whether that be on the Port

au Port Peninsula or in St. Mary's - The Capes, or in St. John's or in

Lewisporte, that the opportunity would be there to challenge the legislation.

The phrase "where numbers warrant" already appears in the

Constitution. It is there in the Charter of Rights.

Section 23 of the Charter of

Rights provides a guarantee of minority language education for Francophones and

for Anglophones in Canada where numbers warrant. It was that constitutional

change that provided a French school in Port au Port. Without that

constitutional provision the people of Port au Port would be continuing to do

what they've been doing for years before that: begging, asking, pleading,

petitioning, trying to find somebody to support their minority language

education rights that they didn't get until the Constitution was changed.

Is that what they want to do? Is that what this government

wants to do to the Catholic population of Newfoundland, to the Pentecostal

population of Newfoundland? Put them on the outside looking in, saying: Please

change the legislation so that we can have a school in our area because numbers

do warrant and there is 99.9 per cent of a particular religious denomination and

we want to have a separate school. Is that what they want?

It may not be this government. If this government were the

most liberal government on this issue possible I would still feel the same way

about supporting this amendment. Because it isn't this government, it is the

next government, it is the government thereafter. When the government said:

Trust me, and yet they weren't prepared, and they are still not prepared, to lay

before this House of Assembly what provincial legislation that is uniformly

applicable means, and we won't see the legislation, then I have to seek to

change that constitutional amendment and support the motion by the Member for

Twillingate to continue a constitutional right where it is required to use that

constitutional right in order to achieve what exists in other provinces; that

is, the right to a separate school.

While I and my party may have supported and still do support,

and I still support, reform and change and in fact the abolition of the

denominational system, that system with all its trappings, I don't wish to see

the right to have a separate school to be relegated to a legislative privilege

as opposed to a constitutional right.

I did support, and do support, most of the reforms that have

been brought in. I support and did support the removal of the institutional

churches in the day-to-day administration of the school system, and would want

to see any rights exercised by the classes of persons to be exercised through

elected representatives to school boards, and only through elected

representatives to school boards.

That is what I see as the fundamental change to a

denominational system that would in fact put power and control in the hands of

elected citizens of this Province in any particular school district. That would

achieve the reforms that have been so desirable for so many years, without

taking away a right that should seldom have to be exercised. If the intentions

of the government are honourable then they would presumably have no difficulty

with this improvement to the resolution. Surely they would not refuse to allow a

denominational school, where numbers warrant it, surely that would not be

permitted. Surely one could expect them to recognize that in certain areas of

the Province there are sufficient numbers of people to form, support, create and

make a viable school. What is the danger, Mr. Speaker, in making that a

constitutional right? What is the danger in ensuring that a class of persons who

currently exercises or has certain rights in education can still have rights to

have a separate school, where numbers warrant? Is that imposing a financial

burden on the Province? If it is, let us hear the explanation of that because

one can still have the constitutional right without ensuring duplication of

services, while still having viability rules and viability standards that are

adequate and protect the standard of education in this Province.

I suppose that the bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, I support

this amendment and I support the retention, not of the denominational system,

not of the layers of bureaucracy and appointed boards, not the convoluted school

construction obligations that exist under the current Constitution but I do

support the right of parents to choose to have their children educated in the

manner that they have had before. With control of that particular education

system in the hands of, not the churches but elected school boards.

The other provisions of the proposed Term 17 provide for the

manner in which members of particular classes, who are represented in a

particular school district, can be elected as members of that class and that

those individuals, as elected members of that class, will be able to carry out

through a democratically elected method, the other aspects of religious

instruction and religious involvement and the rules therefore in a particular

school.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I end my remarks on the amendment,

and say that I will be voting for this amendment in the hope that the government

will see the light and take heed from the members who have spoken about the

importance of accommodating the traditions, the feelings, and the rights of the

minorities who wish to exercise them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There will be ample

opportunity for other members to speak in this debate, of course. We have no

intention of trying to rush it but instead we will ask the House to sit whatever

hours are necessary to accommodate any member who wishes to speak, within the

rules of the House.

It probably would be appropriate if some member of the

Ministry spoke with respect to the amendment moved by my friend for Twillingate.

We shall be asking our supporters to vote against it and to defeat it. Let me

just briefly outline the reasons why. I will not delay the House long and I

don't intend to get into the substance of the debate.

My first point is to deal with the matter just escorted

across the floor by my friend for Ferryland, the fact that there are one or two

minor changes in the draft before the House and the wording which was presented

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on the referendum on September 5. I

acknowledge that. The Premier has acknowledged it. The changes are very

straightforward and each has a particular reason and each was dealt with during

the period before the referendum.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, my friend wished to say

something?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) familiar with it.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. My friend may be familiar with it,

I assure him I am familiar with it too, and that being so I'm sure he will agree

with me that the changes simply reflect the policy embodied in the amendment

itself, by which I mean the Term 17 amendment. They don't in any way change the

principle put before the people of Newfound