May 26,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 30

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources

and Agrifoods.

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

I stand today to update the members of the House of Assembly

on several programs that are enhancing the agrifoods sector.

The first is the Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development

Program or CARD II. This program provides a national allocation of $60 million

per year for four years and focuses on six adaptation policy priorities. These

are research-innovation, human resources, environmental sustainability, food

safety and quality, marketing and rural development.

Federal allocation for our Province will be on two fronts.

The first is a $1.4 million allocation over four years to the Provincial

Adaptation Council. This Council is a non-profit organization that will be

governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the various agriculture and

agrifood organizations in the Province. The role of this Council is to help the

industry adapt and grow in a rapidly changing world economy. The second

commitment from the federal government is in the area of Farm Business

Management.

Another program we participate in is the Agricultural Safety

Net Agreement. It covers NISA, Enhanced NISA, Crop Insurance and the Agrifood

Innovation Program including marketing, diversification and human resource

development. Initiatives such as on-farm processing, improvements in feed

efficiency and land development are eligible for funding under this Program and

will be funded this coming summer.

This agreement is designed to assist farmers to stabilize

incomes and to provide long term stability for the industry. It has been

extended for the 1999-2000 fiscal year in the amount of $1.2 million federally

and $800,000 provincially.

It is through programs such as CARD II, the Income Disaster

Program just recently announced, and Safety Net that the Province continues to

support the diversification of the agrifoods industry.

A fine example of these programs assisting the industry was

recently displayed at the successful 1999 Agrifood and Garden Show in Corner

Brook. The largest single local show ever held at the Canada Games Centre drew

12,500 people over a three day period.

Attendance at the show's Horticultural seminars increased by

100 per cent. Over 6,000 students were invited to attend the exhibits and many

were very impressed with the exhibits that were shown by the industry.

The success of this show illustrates the agrifoods industry

in Newfoundland and Labrador has come of age and now has become an entity which

is beginning to grow on its own.

Also, the interest from rural boards across the Province,

regional economic development boards, has been tremendous in wanting to develop

the agrifoods industry, and a number of the meetings that we have held with the

RED boards have been very successful. We look forward to working with them in

the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for forwarding his ministerial statement

to me beforehand.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very viable agrifood sector, and

enhancing this sector is most important to our Province's future. Introduction

of CARD II and $60 million for the next four years is certainly a positive one.

This industry must adapt and grow to meet the expectation of our changing

economy. The Agricultural Safety Net Agreement and the Agrifood Innovation

Program are certainly steps to ensure the agrifood industry will prosper for

many years to come.

The Agrifood and Garden Shows are a good way to involve other

people outside the industry, and I encourage the minister and his staff and his

department to be more involved in such a good exhibition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement today. The involvement of the government in a very proactive way in

the area of agriculture and agrifoods is certainly positive. As I have said on

many occasions, I think we should be far more proactive and aggressive than we

have been. There are many opportunities and, of course, the important thing

about agriculture and agrifoods is it is something that assists rural

development, saving our communities, and allowing our rural communities in

particular to survive better and have a more prosperous rural life in this

Province. We support these initiatives and look forward to more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I stand today to inform hon. members about an agreement which

has been reached with emergency room physicians in St. John's. After some weeks

of discussion, a decision has been reached to pay emergency room physicians

using a block funding model which provides for base rate compensation of $88 per

hour. This requires no new funding and is cost neutral. These physicians gave up

their right to bill on a fee for service basis providing some of the savings

required. Additionally, money saved through reduced hours at the Grace Hospital

Emergency Room is also available to provide for a second physician during peak

hours at the remaining emergency rooms in St. John's.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association was fully

involved in discussions regarding this issue with the department, the Health

Care Corporation of St. John's and the Emergency Room Physicians. However, there

was some disagreement as to whether or not there was sufficient money to cover

this block funding arrangement. This eventuality is covered by a clause in the

physician Memorandum of Agreement which provides for a mediated dispute

resolution process.

The NLMA was in fact informed two days in advance of the

decision being taken through a telephone conversation between our medical

consultant and the Executive Director of the Medical Association. We followed

that up with a letter two days later and also copied the NLMA a letter which we

sent to the St. John's Health Care Corporation informing that organization of

the decision. Emergency room physicians represented by the NLMA indicated

agreement with this move. In fact, this information has been verified by those

same physicians on an open line program this morning.

This arrangement will help to stabilize the system as it

provides the doctors with a cost neutral solution and it allows for additional

emergency room physicians during peak times.

Doctors' salaries are varied depending on services offered,

complexity of work and volume. In St. John's, for example, emergency room

physicians at the Janeway Hospital currently, on average, receive more than $88

per hour base rate. Throughout the province some doctors have received more than

$100 per hour, again depending on individual situations, the volume of patients,

the complexity of the service provided, and their choice to be paid on a fee for

service basis or an hourly rate.

We have received plans for several different compensation

schemes from doctors throughout the Province and they have also put forward some

very creative alternative service delivery models. We have said we will be

flexible in looking at all offers from our physicians which are cost neutral and

we will continue with that commitment to ensure the best possible health

services for the people of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indicated that the funding to deal with

emergency room doctors was not coming out of any new funding. It is monies

realized in savings. She stated in today's Telegram and made reference

today that the extra savings by closing the Grace emergency from twenty-four

hours down to sixteen hours has created additional savings.

Minister, the Grace emergency department did not decrease

from twenty-four to sixteen. Last year it was only open eleven hours and went up

to sixteen. It is open more hours this year than it was last year and it has

increased. How do you get savings when you increase by over 40 per cent the

hours that it is open? So I cannot see how the savings are in that situation. If

the member remembers correctly, they shut it down from twenty-four hours only to

about 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., until last year the situation was so severe at

other emergency rooms they had to extend the hours again, requiring more money

rather than less money to keep that operating, I say to the minister.

What is going to happen in rural Newfoundland now? You have

said that doctors in this city can get $88 an hour, bottom line, in emergency

departments,

whereas doctors are going to work in Clarenville, Corner Brook,

Gander, and everywhere else in this Province, I say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a question; it is a Ministerial

Statement, I say to the member. How are you going to justify paying doctors $17

an hour less than rural Newfoundland where it is hard to find these particular

doctors, I say to the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is difficult. It is not going to solve

the problem. It does not address it. The minister is shirking responsibilities

by isolating a certain sector and trying to get (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes I wonder what the occupation of the minister is.

She is billed as the Minister of Health and Community Services but she is acting

like a firefighter. If there is a fire here she tries to put it out, another

fire over here, nurses quitting in (inaudible), no doctor in Churchill Falls,

doctors threatening to quit down on the Burin Peninsula, and the minister is

going out trying to put out a fire here, put out a fire there. Now she has the

medical association up in arms. The fact that they knew about it does not excuse

the fact that they are forcing them to go to a dispute resolution mechanism

rather than recognizing them as the correct bargaining agent on behalf of all

the people.

The problems that we have need to be solved by proper,

overall action by the government and the minister, not by trying to put out

fires -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and stop them from getting out of control.

The minister and the department are out of control here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and

Community Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They shouldn't be.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, in a news

conference today, stated that there is a shortage of nurses in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and they reiterated once again that there are three issues essential

to solving this problem. One is workload; one is casualization; and the third is

compensation.

I say to the minister, there has been some response to

workload and casualization but most people would admit that government waited

too long to address this problem and now we see not only the new graduates

leaving our Province but we see many experienced nurses leaving this Province as

well.

Workload and casualization cannot be properly addressed

without appropriate compensation. That is why nurses are leaving this Province.

Twenty-one of the forty-one graduating this year have already committed to going

to work outside this Province.

I want to ask the minister: Are you convinced that this

problem of nursing shortage can be addressed without addressing appropriate

compensation? If you are, why are the new permanent positions you announced two

months ago not even near filled yet?

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

Community Services.

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

First of all, I am very happy to hear the member opposite

identify the initiatives that we have taken to address the issues around

casualization, also the creation of the permanent positions from casual to

permanent, and also the $4 million that we put forward to introduce new support

staff into the system.

Mr. Speaker, clearly there is a nursing shortage right across

the country. I did a Ministerial Statement in this House. I have been speaking

publicly about that, based not only on our own indication but based on

information put forward by the Canadian Nurses Association, by Stats Canada and

by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. It is clear, Mr. Speaker,

there is a nursing shortage and it is right across the country. We do not have

the monopoly on that here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are working with the parties with respect to

putting in place the positions. As the member opposite would know, there is a

process whereby positions have to be posted. They have to be posted internally

first, and positions that are to be filled have to be filled internally first.

That is why the time factor is involved, because before permanent positions can

be posted for outside applicants they have to be filled from within.

So each of the boards that are moving forward with the

completion of the process are doing so in the most expedient way. In some

instances, in fact, some of the local branches have agreed to expedite the

process with the employer so that they can move the process along as quickly as

possible.

We are trying to deal with the issue of permanent positions

as quickly as we can. As well, each of the boards have been working as well to

identify support positions that can go in place; positions such as licensed

practical nurses, porters and aids that will also help address the workload

issue for nurses in the system.

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister again: Is she convinced that this problem

can be solved without addressing appropriate compensation? Or, does she feel

that the problem can be solved without that?

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

Community Services.

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

Any situation that you have to deal with has to be dealt with

through a number of initiatives, and those initiatives were put forward by this

government back in April when we looked at trying to address issues around

casualization because, remember, that was one of the biggest issues.

The next biggest issue that was identified was the workload.

The compensation was addressed through the collective bargaining process.

Albeit, I know that during the process there were a number of initiatives left

of the table because we were very clearly told that it had to be 17 per cent on

the salary or nothing.

Unfortunately, at the time we had made it very clear that our

compensation was based on a 7 per cent salary increase. We were willing to work

in other ways to address workload as well as trying to address the casualization

issue, and we continue to do that.

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Surgeries are being cancelled weekly. We have cardiac

intensive care beds being closed, as well as dozens of other hospital beds being

closed because of a nursing shortage. Remote communities like St. Lewis have

lost the only nurses that they had. Minister, that list goes on.

We still have not dealt with the annual bed closures that

occur each year to allow people to take their vacation. We will not see the

crunch on that really until after the summer.

Minister, certain health care professionals have been

reclassified to reflect the nature of their work. I ask the minister: Will you

do as the nursing union has requested and conduct an occupational review of all

nursing classifications to reflect their added responsibilities in comparison to

other Canadian jurisdictions?

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

Community Services.

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

With respect to the collective bargaining component, my

colleague, the President of Treasury Board, would perhaps like to expand on

this.

As you know, when we were in negotiations a number of issues

were raised not only for nurses but also for other groups - allied health

professionals, social workers, and other groups as well - around the whole issue

of classification review and an occupational review.

That is an initiative that as a government we will be looking

into certainly and we have not ruled it out. We have had some discussions with a

number of groups, including the nurses, including NAPE, about the issue of

classification review and occupational review. As I said, we have not ruled that

out.

As I said as well, we were talking about a whole number of

initiatives. We have made it very clear to the Province through the media and

also through other means that there were a number of issues that were left

unresolved at the bargaining table. There were some preliminary discussions

around the issue of a classification review. There were preliminary discussions

around a number of other ways which we, as a government, try to introduce to

acknowledge some of the very difficult challenges that nurses face in the

workplace.

As I said, the issue was made very clear: 17 per cent or

nothing. We had put a proposal forward on salary to identify a 7 per cent

increase and we would try to work around other ways. At the time, that was not

considered acceptable, but in response to the particular issue around

occupational review, we are continuing to look into it on a much more broader

perspective as it relates to all classifications and all occupations.

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might add that government had a position, too: 7 or

nothing. There was no compromise.

Minister, I asked questions in the House yesterday regarding

the extra money. You have indicated no - new money available in The Telegram

today and in your Ministerial Statement also today you have indicated it.

I want to ask the minister and ensure an opportunity to

clarify that: How are we getting extra savings to allow for emergency room

doctors, from increasing the hours at the Grace from eleven to sixteen, not from

twenty-four to sixteen? Where is the extra money, Minister? Could you tell us

how it is going to occur when we have increased hours by five a day as opposed

to reducing them by eight, as you said? Where are the savings by reducing?

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, we

have gone back to the original question about the physicians now.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am talking about money within the system.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Talking about money within the system

for physicians, specifically?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will give you an opportunity to explain

what you said this morning in (inaudible).

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

I am only too happy to reiterate what I mention in my

Ministerial Statement. I can provide another copy as well for the House and

other members.

Mr. Speaker, it is a two-part process. The first part of the

process is identified through savings in the amount of money which, when the

Grace hospital was originally reduced from twenty-four hours to sixteen hours,

the money that was there to provide for physician services -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I may have an opportunity, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Mr. Speaker, the money that was there to provide for the

services, for the twenty-four hours when it was reduced to sixteen, whatever the

reduction in hours, the money was never increased or decreased. The money

remained in the system. In other words, when the physician services were not

provided for twenty-four hours that money was not removed from the amount of

money that is allocated for providing physician services. So, Mr. Speaker, when

the physicians came forward and made that approach to us, it involved two

things: the base salary was increased because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The base salary has been identified because the

fee-for-service component that was there is no longer in place. The emergency

room physicians have agreed to accept a flat rate of $88 per hour. This is based

on their average that they normally take and that is why the amount was

allocated at $88.

The ability to provide - which I thought the member opposite

would be delighted to hear that we are providing extra physician services during

peak times in emergency. I would think that the health critic would be pleased

to hear that; obviously not.

Mr. Speaker, I would say it is a two-part process. One was

about not taking out the money that was previously identified for twenty-four

hour service. We have reallocated that money to provide extra physician services

to the other emergency departments to offset their busy times. The second

part

is about the fee-for-service component -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

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

- which has now been turned into a base salary of $88 per

hour by the emergency room physicians in St. John's.

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Grace Emergency has not opened for twenty-four hours in

over a year. It operated at eleven hours, I say to the minister, and only went

up to sixteen. So you are saying there is surplus funding there because of

reduced hours over a year or two ago.

Why, if you have certain surplus funding, did the board have

a deficit that had to be bailed out by this government up to the end of 1998,

and a further deficit this year, if there are surplus funds, Minister? Explain

that.

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to

note that when you take out a piece of the salary that was no longer able to be

provided - because, as you know, at the time we were having difficulty with

recruiting physicians to provide services in emergency departments - that

component of service was taken out but the money was never taken out. Therefore,

when we went back and looked at the money over the last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Over the last year, Mr. Speaker, it was

identified.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is making an assumption

and I think it is important to note that the management will identify the peak

periods and work with the various physician groups -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Management will work with the various physician groups to

identify when those physicians will be working for peak periods of time, but the

physician services were not provided, the money was never taken out. That is

part of the piece of the money that is now available for providing those

services, from that block funding allocation of money.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment. Minister, I understand that the Neighbourhood Goodwill Centre, which

is in a crisis now and will have to close its doors at the end of this month

after thirty-one years of service to the city, has submitted a proposal to the

minister to keep the centre going. Has the minister received and reviewed this

proposal? If so, what does she plan to do about it?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Goodwill Centre has had some

discussion with the Department of Human Resources and Employment over the past

six months or so about some difficulties that they have been experiencing. The

Goodwill Centre has been receiving a small operational grant from government

over the past number of years and that funding is now provided and is still

continued under the Department of Health and Community Services.

In fact, when the Goodwill Centre came to the departments -

and I would speak to both at this point - looking for assistance, one of the

requests that they made was that the department would advance their operational

funding and I understand that the Department of Health has agreed to do that.

In addition to that, my department did assist the Goodwill

Centre with $5,000 for some assistance to hire a consultant to help them with

some business planning. That planning has taken place and up to this point that

is the nature of the assistance that has been requested from my department. We

have been in dialogue with the Goodwill Centre over the past few weeks. We

continue to offer any assistance we can to assist them in looking at where they

can go in the future. I do know that they have tried to look at some other

source of funds.

They are experiencing some difficulties and I am aware that

they have given notice to their staff. At this time my department is providing

them with what assistance it can in the way of help to figure out where they

need to go from here. I understand that the Department of Health and Community

Services, as I said, has advanced their grant to provide this assistance as

well. We are simply waiting to see what further the board decides in this

regard.

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I am not sure if I understand correctly.

The amount of $70,000 to keep them viable for six months while they focus

themselves on their proposal, has that been advanced? Is that the grant you are

talking about, or is it the grant of $14,000?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a request to

my department or to this government for the amount of $70,000.

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I was under the impression that they had

written a letter to you, asking that they be given an amount - I think the

amount is $70,000 - to keep them viable for six months.

In the meantime, if that assistance is not provided, the

Centre will close and ten people, nine of whom are socially and/or physically

disadvantaged, will be out of jobs. What programs does the minister's department

have to help these people find other employment if, in fact, the Centre does

close at the end of the month?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the department has a variety of

programs which it uses to help provide employment assistance to individuals in

this Province. Some of those are employment assistance for people with

disabilities; others are our general employment services for people who are

looking for work or trying to pursue career development. The same type of

service that is available to all people in the Province would naturally be

available to anyone who is laid off, and particularly to current staff of the

Goodwill Centre.

Of course, in addition to that, the staff would have EI

eligibility and would also be eligible for services and support through HRDC,

through the federal government.

This is the nature of the supports and services that are

available to everyone in this circumstance and they would, of course, be

available as much as we can possibly provide to the staff of the Goodwill Centre

if this ensues as it has been laid out here today.

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the minister: Rather than have

them switch over to another program that your department could provide, wouldn't

it be more logical to keep them afloat for the next six months for this nominal

fee of $70,000 while they attempt to focus on what the report - I think it was

Don Gallant Associates which provided them with a report and a new focus. I

think they need $70,000 to give themselves six months so that they can remain

open. Wouldn't it make more sense to do that rather than switch these ten people

over to other programs within the department?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning,

the department has been working with this particular not-for-profit organization

for the better part of six months to a year and providing that very kind of

support that the hon. member speaks to: helping the organization focus, actually

providing them with some financial assistance so that they could hire a

consultant to help them look at a business plan for the future.

So it is within the realm of the board then, though, to

determine what their future is and where they can go from here, and whether the

plans that have been identified are ones that they want to pursue. I believe

that the board is in the process of doing that. We are still in dialogue with

the Goodwill Centre and we have made the offer even in recent days to continue

that dialogue and explore what the possibilities are.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour. I

should

preamble by saying that the focus of these questions is with the

intention of getting better regulations and policy regarding hazardous waste.

Minister, an official from your department said last November

that the Province had no standard policy regarding the disposal of liquid waste.

Your official said that while the Province does issue licences for the disposal

of liquid waste, conditions vary from permit to permit. Your official said that

your department had hoped to have a mechanism put in place to ensure the proper

dumping was carried out at the Robin Hood Bay site within months.

Several months have passed, Minister. Has that mechanism been

put in place at this time?

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

Labour.

MR. LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, the regulations have not

been in place. I indicated to the member opposite that is a part of the

hazardous waste legislation we are about to do, and regulations. It would all be

incorporated into one piece of legislation that would be brought to the House

this fall.

I might go farther and say to hon. member that yesterday he

indicated there was an amount of hazardous waste material that was being

deposited at Robin Hood Bay, probably in the form of liquid waste. After

checking with the officials at the department, the only known indication was

that there was some asbestos that was landfilled in 1997 as per the provincial

policy, and it was contained in double plastic bags. I would say to him that if

he is leading to the fact that there is somebody who is doing something

illegally from Argentia, he should notify the department so it should be

investigated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, I ask what plans you are hoping

to put in place with the new regulations regarding hazardous waste and how they

will affect liquid waste materials that are being dumped in this Province or

controlled in this Province, how they will affect the treatment of those liquid

wastes.

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

Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems with the liquid waste, as the hon. member

would probably know, is that in this Province we have 254 landfill sites, many

of them unattended, gates unattended and so on. If we bring in a policy we want

to make sure that we can enforce it Province-wide in the Island part and in

Labrador. When we do bring forth the regulations we will account for that and

hazardous waste will be part of that legislation.

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

John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: A final question, Minister. Judging from

your answers, are we to assume that you are prepared to say on behalf of your

department - and this is only an exploratory question - that there is no oil or

oil substances being dumped at the Robin Hood Bay site?

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

Labour.

MR. LANGDON: I did not answer that, I did not say that,

Mr. Speaker. What I did say was, inferring from the member yesterday that there

was liquid waste and hazardous products being trucked from Argentia into Robin

Hood Bay, after checking it there was no evidence of that being done.

What I can also say to the hon. member opposite is that every

one of the contractors that are at Argentia are licensed. Every one of these

trucks that leave the yard are manifested so that their load has been noted and

the destination that they are going to is all being prescribed. So if the member

has some knowledge where that is being violated, contact the department and we

will check into it.

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

John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Let me direct the question again to the

Minister of Environment. Will the Minister of Environment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Will the Minister of Environment confirm

or deny whether or not there is oil or oil substances being dumped from any

source at the Robin Hood Bay site?

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

Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity

yet to check every truck that goes into Robin Hood Bay, but I would assume there

is competition between two companies here - Crosbie and Pardy - and from what I

understand they are head-to-head and neck-to-neck. There are allegations being

made that one company is doing it and the other is not. That is being

investigated by the department. To tell you that there is no liquid waste going

into Robin Hood Bay, I cannot do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for

the Minister of Education. For the past several months, Madam Minister, there

certainly have been plenty of rumblings within the education system: teacher

cutbacks, programming loses. We have people in the gallery today who are looking

at the loss of some French immersion programming within this city.

The questions today are involved with regard to the future

role of school boards in the scheme of things. On May 18, as recorded in

Hansard, the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, the Member for Bellevue, is

quoted as saying, "Probably we need only one school board in this Province."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the school

boards, trustees and other people involved in education have mentioned the very

same thing to me. They are expressing concern about this very same issue. So the

question is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: The question, Madam Minister, is: What is

your government's view of the future role of school boards in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have elected school boards in

this Province, school boards that have taken on a very onerous task, with very

responsible individuals elected by their constituents. To date we have no reason

to look at any other format other than what presently exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, considering that this government

has waited so long to react to the programming needs of school boards, is there

any movement afoot within the government to make school boards more accountable,

Madam Minister?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, as with any board that spends

money allocated to it by government, obviously there is always a concern that

the money is spent in the most effective and efficient way possible. I think

that government has a responsibility to ensure that is the case.

In terms of accountability, the intent would be to make sure

that both of us are accountable to each other. We would be looking for strategic

plans from the boards as well as good sound financial statements. In terms of

accountability, it works both ways.

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

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, there has been ongoing

talk about the possibility that school board directors may become direct,

permanent employees of the Department of Education. School boards again, an

interested party, have raised this issue with the former education minister. Can

this government today alleviate concerns of school trustees that this absolutely

will not happen?

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

MS FOOTE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me set the

record straight here in that these school board trustees - elected school board

trustees - are not scapegoats for anyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I expect not only the

trustees would take great exception to that comment by members opposite but, as

well, those who elected those trustees.

Mr. Speaker, whether or not we change the approach that we

are taking with respect to the delivery of education in this Province, whether

or not we change the curriculum that is being delivered, whether or not we look

at, in the future, one school board versus ten or eleven - just two years ago we

had twenty-seven school boards - circumstances change. I cannot stand here today

and tell the hon. member that circumstances will not change a year, two years,

five years, ten years from now, because I do not look into a crystal ball to

determine those types of things.

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

for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

address the minister in asking about the difficulties, the rumblings that are

going on outside this House with regard to educational concerns. One of them

that has been an issue right across this Province has been French immersion.

The question is: Is the minister prepared to seek further

funding to make sure that French immersion programs throughout this Province are

certainly given due regard?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are going through educational

reform. Clearly, the first part of that education with reform was with respect

to consolidation, and a lot of that has taken place throughout our Province, in

fact, where we have reinvested the savings as a result of those consolidations

back into education. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you want to look at the amount of

money that has gone back into education as a result of that, I can give you

lists and lists: $125 million for new school construction and redevelopment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: - $10 million into improving air quality, and

the list goes on. So we have indeed been reinvesting in education.

What we have to do next is look at the content of what is

being delivered and how it is being delivered, and that will take a longer

exercise than just standing here and responding to the member in the House of

Assembly.

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

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I

want to present five reports on public hearings that the PAC had recently. I

would like to thank the members of the current committee, which was appointed on

April 30: the Member for Terra Nova, the Vice-Chairperson; the Member for

Torngat Mountains; the Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for

Burin-Placentia West; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; and the Member for

Humber East, who just recently clued up these reports.

I would also like to thank the previous committee who had the

hearings last November. They were, again: the Member for Terra Nova, who was

Vice-Chairman; the Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for St. John's

West; the Member for Port au Port; the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; and the

former Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, Mr. Don Whelan.

I would like to also thank the witnesses who appeared before

the committee on the five hearings, for the time they took and the answers they

gave.

Also, I would like to apologize now because the report,

although being presented today, will not be available to the public possibly

until early next week because of printing concerns. We wanted to get the report

presented in this sitting because we could not present it in the last sitting of

the House, the winter sitting, because the committee had not been appointed.

Basically, with that, I want to present the following: the

report of the PAC on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Computer

Services Limited; the report of the PAC on the review of the government's

pension plan; the report of the PAC on the Government Purchasing Agency, the

Public Tender Act exemption reporting; also, the report of the PAC on the

hearings of the Public Accounts Committee on the privatization of Newfoundland

Hardwoods Limited; and, last but certainly not least, the report of the PAC

hearings on the Health Care Corporation of St. John's.

I would like to present these here today, and just reiterate

that the printed bound copies will be available early next week, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

Labour.

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

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

Environment Act." (Bill 21)

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period,

the Member for St. John's South insinuated here in the House that there was

hazardous material being shipped from Argentia down into Robin Hood Bay.

I just want to inform the House that the site at Argentia -

Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible for the cleanup

there. It is my understanding that they have done a really good job in recycling

material there and, wherever possible, it has been disposed of on site. If, for

example, the waste has to go off site, it is well prepared in approved

facilities.

I would also like to say, for example, that PCBs that are

there are handled as per the federal and provincial regulations. It means

shipping to Alberta for destruction or, in the case of low levels, land filling

in an on-side engineered landfill.

Used oil is also as per department policy. It does not permit

it to be deposited into Robin Hood Bay. It can either go for recycling to North

Star Cement or to the mainland.

Other wastes will be treated on site permanently or in a

landfill site that is secured until the permanent landfill site is complete.

Non-friable asbestos has been disposed of in the former town

site at Placentia. Public Works and Government Services Canada will totally

rehabilitate this former landfill once the work is complete.

As I said earlier, a small amount of asbestos in 1997 was put

into Robin Hood Bay but it was double-bagged as per regulation and designated

and placed clearly in an area of landfill in that area. There has been no other

waste - the officials have been telling me - that has gone into Robin Hood Bay

since. All waste undergoes appropriate testing to ensure that it is disposed of

in an acceptable manner.

Public Works Canada also have a number of full-time employees

on site who are ensuring proper environmental procedures. Also, the Department

of Environment and Labour sits on a working committee for Argentia and those

projects with provincial requirements are laid to Public Works Canada.

In addition, as I said earlier, all contractors who haul

waste from the site are licensed and every one of these trucks that leave the

area are also manifested so that we know what is going out and to what

destination it is going.

As I said earlier in Question Period, if the hon. member or

somebody else has knowledge that something was done in an unacceptable manner

they should contact the department so that we can investigate it.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring a

petition to the House of Assembly.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned parents and

supporters of students attending cole St. Grard;

WHEREAS students learn French better by being fully immersed

in the language; and

WHEREAS cole St. Grard has offered students full French

immersion through its uni-track French immersion program; and

WHEREAS we are convinced that the decision of the Avalon East

School Board to shift its French immersion program from a uni-track program to a

dual-track program will undermine our children's opportunities to learn the

French language and become fully bilingual; and

WHEREAS parents have put a tremendous amount of time and

energy into our children's school to ensure the success of its uni-track French

immersion program;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the necessary resources to ensure the

continuation of the Uni-track French Immersion Program at cole St. Grard.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, some of the parents of cole St. Grard

presented this petition to me today. Some are present in the gallery. This

particular school community is no more as of September of 1999. It is

interesting to note that this is probably the only program cut in the city with

regard to programming. It was announced at a school board meeting. The thing

about it was that this program certainly could continue for the sake of perhaps

a half dozen or seven teachers.

Many people here in the House certainly have been aware of

what Uni-track French Immersion is, and they all now that it is a premier

program, a program that is equal to anything in this great nation of ours,

anywhere. This French Immersion program was encouraged by the school board. It

was supported by the school board and the Department of Education. It was touted

as one of the best programs in Canada. It is surprising to see that now this

program is just cut for the sake, as the chairperson of the board said, of seven

teachers.

I know that these parents have not taken it lightly and they

have lobbied as many places as they can lobby. They brought their lobby today to

this House in the hopes that there would be someone listening who would perhaps

help out, and to make sure that this type of program - which I might add was not

only put together by the Department of Education, it was not only put together

by the educators, this program was put together by the parents. I can tell you,

because I am aware of what program is in cole St. Grard, that the parents

played a large

part in making this happen.

Now they are looking at it being lost and perhaps never ever

recovered again, and, again, for the sake of seven teachers. It is amazing.

Because when we look at reform, reform was restructuring phase one,

reprogramming phase two, but not programming that would take a step backward, as

this is obvious to anyone.

The minister is aware of this situation. The parents have

petitioned the minister to make sure that she does everything she can in her

power to keep this type of programming going. Because I say to you, it is not a

step forward, it is a step backward. French Immersion throughout this Province

is such an important program. To see that the funding props and allocation are

not there, and the loss of this program, it is just horrendous, to say the very

least.

This community takes in, in the city, probably 60-plus per

cent of all the French Immersion students. As a result of the cancellation, many

of the students that are in this program now are talking about giving up French

Immersion, because once again it is a shock to them. They cannot believe that

this government can allow programming such as this to be lost. This petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: This petition, Mr. Speaker, is to the

House in the hopes that something can be done and something will be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and support the petition as presented by

my colleague the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

It is clear in speaking to parents - the colleague and other

members of our caucus - as we travelled the Province and met with a variety of

parents in various communities, and as recently as last night with parents who

support French education in this Province, it is clear that the French Immersion

program is for many families a way of life. It is a dedication, it is a

commitment. Fundamentally, it is a choice.

What we see happening now as a result of the eroding of this

choice and this program that has existed so successfully for the past number of

years at cole St. Grard, for example, is we see an absence of choice. We see

no longer parents feeling that they are in charge of their own children's

education. That, it seems to me, is the exact opposite of what reform was to be

all about. In fact, perhaps one of the more positive aspects of the schools' act

that was incorporated a number of months ago in this Legislature was the fact

that this act, introduced by members opposite, incorporated the provision of a

school council which allowed parents to take control of, at least in part, the

education of their children.

What is now happening as we go through this very difficult

phase of education reform is we see this very control being taken away. I think

the petition that is being presented by my colleague and the wording of the

petition is a very strong illustration of that. We have parents who have chosen

a French education for their children as a matter of choice, as a matter of

commitment, as a matter of dedication, and we see that choice now being lost. I

say that is grossly unfair to the parents and to the children of this Province.

What is required is government, through school boards, to at

least have the flexibility to listen with open ears, to listen in a very willing

way to the very legitimate and genuine concerns of parents, whether it is cole

St. Grard here in St. John's, or it could be C.C. Loughlin Elementary School

where we visited approximately a week ago in Corner Brook, or it could be the

all grade school in Wings Point in Gander Bay. There are very serious legitimate

concerns. Parents now feel left out.

It is time that this government through its school boards say

to parents in this Province: As we go through this somewhat difficult phase in

education, we are prepared to listen. Then and only then will education and

reform have manifested itself to be exactly what it was intended to be, for the

betterment of the children of our Province.

I would ask members opposite to take heed and to listen to

the spirit of what is being said in the thrust of this petition, to hopefully

endorse what these parents are saying, and hopefully, ultimately, listen so that

their concerns are met.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for

bringing forward the petition on behalf of the parents of Uni-track. I am well

aware of their concerns. As he has indicated, I have indeed met with a group of

concerned parents. In fact, my colleague the Member for St. John's Centre, the

Minister of Health and Community Services and I, have both met with a group of

concerned parents before the board had in fact rendered its decision with

respect to the Uni-track program.

They brought forward some very legitimate concerns. In fact,

what I did then was proceed to facilitate a meeting between a group of concerned

parents and representatives of the board. Certainly that request went forward

from my department to the chair of the board, again recognizing this particular

program and the concerns of the parents out of respect to it being eliminated in

its entirety.

Since then I have had a subsequent meeting with concerned

parents. We have also attempted to facilitate further meetings between the board

and the concerned parents group, again, bearing in mind that these school boards

are there, they are elected school boards. They have jobs to do. They are out

there doing those jobs. There are 10 such boards, eleven including the

Francophone board. They go through a very thorough consultation process. I know

that at the end of the day there are going to be decisions that are taken that

are not in keeping with what all of us would like, or certainly what some

parents and students would like.

Again, the board is there to do a job and as the minister

responsible I have to respect their decisions, if they have gone the route of

holding public consultations and ensuring that everybody has had an opportunity

to have their concerns heard. Whether or not those concerns are addressed is

another matter.

I understand that, because of our efforts again to facilitate

a further meeting with the board, the staff and the chair will be bringing that

request to the board at their meeting tomorrow evening to again put the request

forward to the board to see if they would entertain a meeting with the concerned

parents of the uni-track system.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, the hon. member will

have about twenty seconds, I believe. Is he presenting a petition?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on behalf of constituents

of my District of St. John's East.

MR. SPEAKER: I tell the hon. member that it is now 3:00

p.m. Unless he has leave -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very brief. I attended a meeting last night on

behalf of parents of Brinton Memorial School and also St. Pius X and St. Paul's.

These parents have expressed serious concerns with respect to perhaps what was

expressed in the earlier petition, the fact that representations are being made

to the school board, to the school trustees, and unfortunately many of the

points and representations being forwarded are going on deaf ears.

It is hoped that through this petition, and by the signatures

which are attached, it can be seen that the reform process is far from complete,

the evaluation process is far from complete, and there continue to be many

concerns and many stresses with respect to improvements that are hopefully to be

seen and achieved through the changes that are being made in these particular

schools.

I would ask that members opposite give consideration to the

fact, as expressed earlier, that there are points of concern being expressed by

many parents in this Province, many of whom exist or live in the District of St.

John's East, and their exact details of concern, the particulars of which are

shown in this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, the private member's

resolution, I believe, is the one -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, before we get into the

process here, I understand that the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne will

introduce a resolution. There will then be a speaker from down in the corner - I

do not know what to call him those days - and there will a speaker from here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, I think that is what it will be.

Then there will be a clue-up by the hon. gentleman opposite

and we will move on to do government business, by leave, until such time as we

feel we have made sufficient progress.

AN HON. MEMBER: Considerable progress.

MR. TULK: Considerable progress.

MR. SPEAKER: Do they have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we give leave after a

rapid conclusion of the private member's resolution to move on to government

business.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I move this resolution again

to bring attention to the House of the grave concerns that many of the public

have expressed throughout the last number of weeks regarding the state of

affairs and the delivery of K to XII education to the students of this Province.

Of course, I would also like to make note that not only were there grave

concerns brought forth but there were many very positive things brought forth

with regard to our looking at the situation in light of the teacher cuts that

were announced back around Budget time.

To look at the reform process is the most important thing

because this reform process - and I just indicate to you a document, Our

Children...Our Future, dated back in 1992. Back in 1992 - this was probably in

the works for a couple of years so we are talking about a reform movement that

started at least a decade ago and we are now approaching the twenty-first

century. The promise of reform was to certainly bring into the twenty-first

century a calibre of student that was most prepared to meet the challenges of

it.

Again, just to remind the House of the type of a student that

we were looking for with regard to the reform - and this comes back from the

early 1990s - that first of all we would have a student who could cope with

technological change, scientific innovation, requiring a set of basic skills

which go beyond the necessary fundamentals of literacy and numeracy. These

students in fact would be able to go forward into the new century with all the

tools that would be necessary for them to address the needs of the particular

marketplace or wherever.

The schools in this Province, despite a decade of attempted

reform, have only come to the stage right now where the first stage of reform

has taken place and that is the restructuring phase. Fortunately, throughout the

Province it looks like restructuring is upwards of about 90 per cent and that is

positive but this is now a very, very critical time in educational reform and

henceforth the reason why I would bring forth this resolution.

Again, the restructuring has been somewhat successful because

right now we are looking in the Province at schools numbering probably 370, give

or take a few. It appears to most that there is no further cutting of the number

of schools even though the population will, in all likelihood, continue to

decline, but we have now the job of maintaining this number of schools

regardless of the number of students that would be in those schools. There lies

the problem, because of late we have found that it is the programming that

appears to be most at risk with regard to the teacher cutbacks or anything that

is done to try to take care of the delivery of education in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

With regard to the delivery of education, it is very

interesting to note that this particular year, as I pointed out earlier, is a

very, very critical year for whatever reason. We found things going on this year

that we have never, ever seen before with regard to setting up for the school

year of 1999.

If we go back a little ways, we find that the cuts of 182

teachers certainly brought forth many, many, many concerns. The allocation

formula was looked at and very quickly dismissed as antiquated, in need of

change. I understand that will be changed and that is a very, very positive

thing because that has to be changed. Unfortunately, it was not changed up to

this point in time but it will be addressed; but that is not going to cure all

of the ills that are going to appear as time goes on. The one thing that has to

be assured is that the programming that is currently in place must be maintained

in September of 1999, if we are to go forward.

The interesting thing about looking at the programming and

how teacher allocations affected it is that, in talking with people, in

listening to people, in getting correspondence from people, that not only was

programming discussed but a lot of other concerns were brought forth.

We mentioned already today, or I did mention already, that

programming such as French immersion is critical, to make sure that continues at

least at the level and perhaps even better in the coming years.

To get away from programming, questions such as air quality

certainly came up. In just about all of our conversations with different

schools, air quality was a concern. Now we know there was a fair bit of work

done on air quality but the follow-up on air quality - the surprising thing

about it is that we often associate air quality with older schools. I was very

surprised, in a number of schools, to find that air quality in newly constructed

schools was causing problems as well. This is something that certainly would

need to be addressed.

Another concern that was certainly brought to our attention

was the aspect of raising funds. Again, the parents were indicating that when it

came to providing even some of the core materials for curriculum concerns, often

times parents and other stakeholders in the education community were forced to

fund raise in order to get the very basics that were necessary in order to

action a particular subject area. If this is to continue, again there is a

question as to the quality of programming if parents have to go out and

basically raise money to pay for curriculum supplies.

There were, as well, concerns raised with regard to rural

areas. Again, on both sides of the House we have heard some concerns raised

along those areas. That is worrisome as well because we have to look at the

statistics. Unfortunately, statistics do not always tell the full truth of it,

but yes, in rural areas you do have perhaps a higher drop out rate, for example.

There is a tendency in rural areas for people to move to larger areas when

unemployment sets in or other factors.

The big concern - talking with parties from rural areas - was

the equal opportunity. It is very difficult, obviously, to make sure that the

same quality of instruction is in every school, in every area with course

offerings, but you have to maintain at least a basic level of programming to

ensure that those that are coming from any area of the Province are given the

equal opportunities, especially when it comes to post-secondary opportunity.

These are concerns that were brought up certainly as I

travelled with our committee from Port aux Basques over to Shoal Harbour. One of

the other surprising things that we came across in our listening to parents,

students, teachers and administrators was the aspect of morale. Morale is a very

important part of, I suppose, any particular building, institution, group

organization. What was surprising is that there is a lot of talk these days of

low teacher morale, but let me tell you, that from our listening to parents and

students, there is a low parent morale and a low student morale, especially as

some of these concerns about their futures, or the future of their children,

were brought to the foreground.

There is a lot of frustration, not necessarily directed

towards the government or whatever, but frustration in general, I guess

sometimes brought about by employment factors or unemployment factors, if you

want to put it that way. There was a lot of frustration. There is a lot of

disillusionment as to what reform, what education, means and so forth. That is

an issue that was surprising, in a sense, that when you just go out and you are

just looking at teacher allocations and programming, a lot of these other issues

surface that are equally important and equally need to be addressed.

It is very easy to go around and talk about perhaps the

negative issues, the grave concerns, but let me tell you as well - and I would

like to go on record as saying - that in travelling from different area to

different area there are a lot of positives out there that really need to be

accented. My hope is that the department will indeed make sure that a lot of the

accomplishments of our educators, our parents, and our students are brought to

the foreground, are broadcast so that other schools, other educators, other

school communities can see what is working in one area so that they can

understand how they can perhaps make it work in their area.

Here are some examples. At the principals' conference on

Friday I was down there, and I could not help but notice as soon as I walked in

a beautiful display of paintings. In the main hall itself, scattered all around,

were masks. Of course, my question was: What artist did it? I was told that this

was student work. I could have mistaken it for an artist's display. I tell you,

the work was absolutely fantastic. I believe the students of Bishops College

here in St. John's were responsible.

As well, just staying, I suppose, on the positives, there are

a lot of innovators out there who are trying as best they can to make sure that

what programming they have, what tools they have, they are putting to good use.

Again, there are two gentleman, two educators, Jim Moore and Pat Wells, that I

understood got Prime Minister's awards not too long ago. David Dibbon, who is

the principal of Bishops College I understand, is the distinguished principal of

the year here in Newfoundland, and in cap throughout the country as well.

It is good to see. I visited Balbo Elementary in Shoal

Harbour. As soon as you go into that building there is a display there and every

signature of the students is on a framed document. This document was put in

space a year or two ago. What a beautiful display. Again, there is and there are

many examples of some of the very positive things. Our job, of course, is to

make sure that these things do indeed continue.

In looking at the need - and the need is that we are at a

very crucial time with regard to reform. We need to turn a corner, we need to

get on with the job. One thing about the whole situation that is again very

positive is the fact that the reform has given the opportunity to parents to be

directly involved in the education process. They have indicated to me that they

are there to stay, which again can be a very positive thing. The parents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: I did not hear you. Again, the

interruption is unwarranted but I will continue on, because when we are looking

at education I consider education to be a top priority, a priority that needs to

be dealt with and one that needs to be put to the foreground. Because education

certainly is going to be the way to success for many of our young people today.

The reason for the resolution is that there is a need,

believe me, for this House to do a reality check as to the real concerns of what

is happening out there and to make sure that, in what I consider to be

mid-reform - because we have a long way to go yet - we are following what was

intended for reform. We need to have partnership with the stakeholders out there

who are very interested now in making sure that the programming, the buildings,

the delivery of education in Newfoundland is indeed up to scratch and preparing

our students for the upcoming twenty-first century.

Again, I am asking the government, the minister, to consider

putting together a task force to go out and address the concerns that are

brought to the attention of the House today, to make sure that we can turn the

corner and move forward in educational reform.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on this today, briefly. We

have talked about school reform here for the last three or four years. I think

everybody in the House, with the exception of one MHA, voted in favour of

education reform, and one of the reasons for that was the duplication that we

had in the Province.

In my district alone I had six schools for approximately a

population of 4,500 people. Most of them underpopulated, the schools, and every

day -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was the vote for school reform unanimous?

MR. TULK: Yes, it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Anyway, the problem I have is that I have been

listening for the last two or three months, even today: All it takes to fix the

problem with cole St-Grard - a great school, yes - all it takes is another

seven teachers. All it takes all over the Province is another seven teachers;

seven here, seven there. All it takes in St. John's West is to reopen

Beaconsfield, and it goes on and on and on, but every day we also hear the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) being done right?

MR. REID: As right as you could do it, for sure. You

should pay attention; you might learn something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: At the same time that we are talking about how

there is only a need for seven teachers here, seven teachers there, the

reopening of a school there, Brinton Memorial that we are closing, the health

critic is standing up: I have the answer to the Minister of Health. All he says

is: The answer is simple. Put more money here, put more money there.

I think we have it added up that he has asked for somewhere

in the area of $900 million in the last three years in health care.

Whereas

everyone else: We only need a school here and a school there.

We talk about neighbourhood schools. The Member for St.

John's East, across the floor, stood today talking about Brinton Memorial. My

kids went to Brinton Memorial, a lovely school, but we also talked, during

educational reform, of the need for neighbourhood schools and to do away with

duplication.

I tell the hon. Member for St. John's East that the distance

between Brinton Memorial and Pius X might be 200 yards but yet he wants to keep

Brinton Memorial open. The hon. Member for St. John's West wants to keep

Beaconsfield open, all neighbourhood schools.

Let me tell you about neighbourhood schools. We have ten

communities on Fogo Island and Fogo Island is larger, far larger, than all of

St. John's put together. We have one school from K to XII and when I hear people

talking in here about -

MS S. OSBORNE: Who pays for the busing?

MR. REID: Who pays for the buses? There are buses in this

area as well.

MS S. OSBORNE: Who pays for it up your way?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: The kids pay a portion.

MS S. OSBORNE: Who pays for it in St. John's?

MR. REID: Let me talk to you about St. John's West. You

have two high schools out there in St. John's West today, as far as I am

concerned, because I do not know - unfortunately, coming from the bay, I cannot

draw the boundary around Mount Pearl and I would challenge most of the members

here to show me where Mount Pearl ends and St. John's begins. I don't know why

we cannot put more kids into Mount Pearl from St. John's West. I don't know why

we need a high school.

When you are talking neighbourhood schools, look here in St.

John's Centre. We have Brother Rice just down over the hill here, we have Holy

Heart of Mary, we have Gonzaga, we have Booth, we have Prince of Wales and

Bishop's Colligate, all within five minutes walk, ten at the maximum, of each

other, and you are talking about closing neighbourhood schools.

I heard during the election about the big racket and the

demonstrations downtown because kids in Brother Rice did not want to go to Holy

Heart of Mary - in the same garden - and it rather sickens me to listen to you

all talk every day about neighbourhood schools.

Next year on New World Island we will have one school for

nineteen communities. When you are talking neighbourhoods, that is not a

neighbourhood but I think personally that is the best education we can give

those kids on New World Island, one school with 650 people. We can offer more

programs.

MS S. OSBORNE: Do they have to stand by the bus stop in

the rain and then get transferred to another bus?

MR. REID: The flips that you do.

The member for Brigus out there today talking about: Is the

government talking about abolishing school boards? When right in the Blue Book,

right through the campaign: If we are elected we are doing away with hospital

boards, we are doing away with school boards. But when you get an audience in

the gallery that you want to play to, what do you do? Jump up: What are you

going to do about school boards? Is it true that you are going to abolish them?

That is the member over there.

We will go down to the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

Throughout the election we were talking about: Going to give up grants for small

businesses. Oh, yes, that is part of our platform, doing away with that, a total

waste of money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: He comes here to an Estimates Committee

meeting, and what does he do? He looks at the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology and says: Here, you have to put more money into small business loans.

You talk to the Member for Labrador West, who represents a

party who says no tax breaks to big businesses. What does he say? Government

should give $150 million to IOC.

Do not talk to me about neighbourhood schools. Do not talk to

me about education reform. You all voted for it, but in the back of your mind

you are saying: Sure, close schools, but do not close them in my backyard.

Well, we have closed three on New World Island and we are

going to close another three next year. I think it is for the good of the

children in the area. You should do likewise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today to speak to the private member's

resolution brought by the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. It is an important

resolution because it does speak to, I guess, the end piece, if you want to call

it that, of school reform.

School reform is something that has occupied, I say to the

Member for Twillingate & Fogo, it certainly has occupied the attention of a lot

of people in this Province for a lot of years, not just the last three or four

years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue before the House today concerns the end piece of

education reform. It is something that has occupied the attention and debate in

this Province for many years, long before the hon. member who last spoke was in

this House. It is something that for some people was a very difficult issue, one

that caused them a lot of concern and a lot of consternation.

In the end, the majority of the people in this Province voted

for and supported education reform based on a number of principles that were, I

guess, part of the selling points of education reform. Despite many people's

interest in keeping the denominational schools, despite many people's interest

in the traditions of their home community or neighbourhood, or the tradition of

the school, they supported school reform because they were led to believe that

this would result in an improvement for their children.

In this Province, the education of our children is regarded

by most people as being one of the most significant issues facing certainly the

children's future but also the future of the Province.

When we are now in a situation where we have elected school

boards, the first thing that these elected school boards were presented with -

AN HON. MEMBER: One school board is enough, too.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Bellevue wants to have one

school board. I suppose he would just as soon that this House ran all the

school, perhaps, if he were the Minister of Education. I do not know. The Member

for Bellevue wants to have one school board in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo has an

unreasonable anger over there. I do not know where it comes from. Ever since the

election, I suppose, when there were no new Cabinet ministers, he seems to be in

a awful snit. I do not know why. For some reason he is angry at me. Perhaps it

is because I got elected. I don't know.

I want to say that education reform is something that I spent

a considerable amount of time concerning myself with, and supported it. I

supported education reform.

In my own constituency there were a number of areas where I

was particularly concerned about the benefits of educational reform, because one

of the big planks on the platform of educational reform was the support of

neighbourhood schools. There are a couple of schools in my own constituency

which I was very concerned about. One of them is called St. Joseph's. Another

one is called Virginia Park Elementary. These are schools which existed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) neighbourhood.

MR. HARRIS: I am talking about the ones I was concerned

particularly about because there was a danger of them being lost. The issue of

neighbourhood schools was particularly important for these schools. They

represented a special type of school which had children who benefited very much

from the kind of school they went to, because it was a school that had adapted

to their particular needs. They had recognized that many of the children from

the school area did have particular needs. There were many who needed the

benefit of the school lunch program that the school provided. In fact, they were

working on a breakfast program as well to compliment that because the need was

there.

They knew their children and the families, and knew the needs

of the families and children, and did a terrific job in supporting those needs

and preparing them for the next stage of their education.

That was part of the reason that I supported education

reform. We were going to avoid duplication in areas where - I hear the member -

you have three or four schools in one block. You are not going to keep all of

those schools open if there is a way of reorganizing those schools in a sensible

way. I do not have a problem with that. I do not think anybody who listened to

anything I said during the election, or anybody who listened to anything I said

throughout this debate, ever heard me say that every single school should be

kept open.

What I was concerned about is that the needs of children - I

am talking about my own district for the moment, but I talk about others as

well. One of the things that those children need is access to the school. A

neighbourhood school for them means a school they can walk to.

There is another issue here. The Member for St. John's West

was asking questions, as well as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on this very

issue. Who pays for school busing in St. John's? The answer is: The parents and

the children pay because, with some exceptions, the Metrobus system is the

school bus system for St. John's, which is a user-pay system subsidized by the

taxpayers of St. John's to some extent. It is a very expensive system for people

who have no money.

That is a serious and important issue for a lot of

schoolchildren in St. John's; one that we have not yet seen a resolution to; one

that the minister has to have something to say about and has yet to commit to.

The point is, the commitment was made by government to

neighbourhood and community schools, and the commitment was made that we were

going to have the money saved go into education and the improvement of

education.

There have been a lot of people trying to deny it on the

other side, but the commitment was made. It was made by the Minister of

Education, who is no longer a member here now. On behalf of the government, he

made a commitment at a seminar at the Health Sciences Centre where he said that

the government was committed to putting the money saved back into the system.

People expected that at the end of school reform we were

going to have some serious improvements in the school system as a result of

change. What do we have? The appointed boards, the boards that were in

existence, had already made notices of motions to close schools. The first act

given the newly elected boards, before they even got their feet wet, was the

task of closing schools.

They made some mistakes. They made a number of mistakes that

they were taken to task for by the courts. What had happened was the agenda of

the old non-elected boards was foisted upon the new boards which had to make

some kinds of decisions.

Two years in a row, and again this year, teacher reductions

were forcing school boards to make very difficult decisions in a very short

period of time without even really having a long-term plan in place. We have

laid upon the floor of this House something called an accountability act. If

that act is passed - and I am not going to decide while I am on my feet whether

it is going to passed or not - this minister is going to have the power to issue

directives to boards as to what schools to open and what schools not to open,

and interfere with the decisions of school boards.

I suppose in the House we cannot have it both ways. We cannot

complain that the minister is not doing her job if she does not have the power

and is not going to solve the problem, and at the time say we have elected

school boards. That is what this government has now put in the new

accountability act, that the minister is going to have the power to issue

directives to boards about these very issues.

So we have an elected board given the power to make all the

tough decisions, given the obligation to make the tough decisions where the

minister is holding the control over the teacher allocations, and we have

problems all over the place. Some of them are quite legitimate problems that

deserve to have a public airing and a public answer and deserve to have,

perhaps, the interference of this minister. I know the minister has taken

actions, in her own district for example, and others, where the necessarily

existent schools policy is required to save schools in particular communities.

We support that.

We do have a problem because we are now dealing with, I

suppose, one might call it the final phase of education reform, and we have to

provide some extraordinary mechanism beyond the elected school boards to see

that justice is done in a lot of anomalous situations. We have a formula which

everybody agrees is out of date and the minister says she is not implementing

it. Well, she is implementing it except for a couple of hundred positions, so

she is using the formula and the method of the formula as the basis, but giving

herself some flexibility.

The Premier is on record as saying that the minister has the

discretion and ability to deal with the problem. What could be wrong with having

an independent commission? I myself, a couple of weeks ago, when the Progressive

Conservative Party set about to do - if the Member for Baie Verte is prepared to

call it a road show, I am certainly prepared to call it a road show too - the

road show across the Province, listening to what people have to say about the

school board issue, my comment at the time was that there was a danger in that,

that we should have had an all party committee. The danger was it was going to

be treated as a partisan act, and lo and behold, within a matter of forty-eight

hours, the minister was calling it a political committee and constantly started

attacking the people of the Province who prepared for the committee as political

people instead of parents, teachers and school councillors who had a particular

concern about their school, their children and their children's education.

If it had been an all party committee the minister would have

to pay more attention instead of putting her foot in her mouth on many occasions

as she has done on this issue. Now there is a chance here to redeem herself, and

to agree that there should be some independent and non-partisan review of the

issues that have been brought before the school boards, that have been brought

before the road show, if I want to call it that, that have been brought before

the public mind, the public attention, and brought to the minister's attention.

Have someone look at independently and make some

recommendations, because if the minister is going to have the authority that the

accountability act is going to give her, then I would like to see some

independent review of all of these issues so that people can have input and it

is not just the minister making whatever political decisions she feels she must

make to satisfy whatever political constituency she wants to recognize.

I think that if the minister is prepared to be fair here, if

the government are prepared to be fair, reasonable and responsive here, then

they will agree to an independent commission or a task force, as it is called

here, to be able to do this job and to make a report after having public

hearings. It does not have to be very lengthy. Most of the people who have

something to say have already said it at least once and prepared recent reports.

It would be a matter of gathering those together, collecting them, and making

them available for a fairly quick turnaround so that the minister could have the

guidance of this commission in issuing directives or making decisions, to ensure

that the school programs do not suffer as a result of the cuts to teacher

allocations. Whether that is cole St. Grard, which has a very strong point to

make, or whether it be other schools throughout the Province which have made

very strong points about how their programs are being affected. The people who

appeared at the public meeting in Whitbourne to which all members, or members on

both sides of the House, were invited - as it happened only members on this side

showed up, but that was not because for lack of invitation. An invitation was

made to a number of members opposite who were, for one reason or another, unable

to attend.

There is an opportunity now to get the partisanship out of

this and respond directly to the real needs and the real issues that parents,

school boards, school trustees, school councils and educators are bringing

forth. Students themselves are bringing forth needs and issues for consideration

here. The case can be made for a special -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Just one moment to finish the sentence, Mr.

Speaker, by leave.

A special case may well be made to reduce the reduction in

teacher allocation from 182, way down below that, down to zero if necessary, to

avoid programs being struck out of the school system so that adaptations can be

made. If it takes one, two or three years then we should be prepared to make

that sacrifice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, to the Private Member's

Resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Do you want me to vote for you the next time,

Jack? Are you still looking for my vote the next time?

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed going through a lot of change with

respect to education and education reform. I think if anyone would admit to it,

what we have gone through in the past two years has not been easy on anyone,

particularly the stakeholders out there in education. It has been a big

responsibility to take on, not only as a government but for the members opposite

as well who supported education reform.

The issue that we have to grapple with now is having gone

through the consolidation part of education reform - and contrary to what the

Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne has said, there still is some more

consolidation to take place. In fact, if you look at where the boards are today,

I would say in the next year or two you will still see some more schools closing

and more consolidation happening, in some cases because of declining student

enrolment, in other cases again because they have made the decision and it will

take a couple of years to implement that decision.

You know, we have gone to the extent of looking at the

consolidations, and everybody recognizes that has been a big task. The boards

have taken on that task, and I think they have done an admirable job. Again, I

go back to the fact that these boards are elected school boards. They are

elected by the constituents out there and elected by people who knew whom they

were electing and expected those members to act in their best interest. Of

course, again, I will repeat that. You are never going to please everyone. It is

difficult to do. What you have to do, I think, is realize that when you are

talking about education there are as many opinions as there are issues. How do

you come to that consensus that enables us to have the best possible education

system that we can have in the Province?

The issue for us today, I guess, is now to move away from

consolidation and to start looking at programming. Not only looking at content

but looking at delivering. I know there are those who say that distance

education is not the favoured way of delivering a program, but I have to tell

you that I have spoken to a good many students who have no difficulty at all

with doing a course by distance education. In fact, maybe you would have seen

the program on CBC last night where teachers were talking about the independence

it gives to students to be able to do this type of program, to be able to get on

the Net and be able to think for themselves and carry out a program without a

lot of hand-to-hand or direct supervision, working just with the teacher that is

offering the distance education.

I think we have to look at a number of means of ensuring that

we, at the end of day, offer a program that meets the needs of all of our

students. When I say all of our students I am talking about the mainstream

program, as well as those with special needs, as well as those with exceptional

abilities.

In some cases those with exceptional abilities may need to

take advantage of advanced courses that may have to be offered through distance

education. I think if you talk with Dr. Erin Keough at the University, if you

talk with Dr. Max House, if you talk with Ken Stevens over at the centre for

rural education at the University, they will all speak to the value of distance

education.

It is not something to be scared of, but I can appreciate

that where it is new and where it is different for some students that there

would be some reluctance to go that route. I think we have to encourage our

young people and work with them to get them more acquainted and familiar with

the technology. If we are talking information technology and we are talking the

future, we are talking the Internet and talking about access to that type of

programming.

We want to talk about access to courses. We all want to make

sure of course that access to courses increase. Hopefully, that will be an

outcome of education reform. Having said that, we must look at the content, we

must look at what is being delivered. I think if anybody in this House is honest

about what is out there now, you have got an assortment of programs out there,

particularly at Levels I, II and III, where the department has approved 162

courses at the high school level. There are another 101 courses that are

offered, courses that have been requested and developed by teachers. Some of

these are pretty watered down courses.

I have some concern when I am told that: I am losing half a

unit, that means I will not be able to offer woodworking, or I will not be able

to offer safety in the workplace, or I will not be able to offer textiles. I

have a concern there. If those are the types of courses that are being impacted

by the loss of a teacher unit I am not too concerned about that. Where I do get

concerned is when there is loss in terms of access to advanced placement

programs for those students with exceptional abilities, with superior abilities.

That concerns me.

Again, we still have to bear in mind that we have a severe

declining student enrolment. In fact, it concerns me that if we look out to the

year 2010 you are looking at a student enrolment of below 60,000 students. That

is the crisis in our system. It is not the number of teachers, it is the number

of students that we have to educate in this Province.

We have not seen the formula applied to teachers in this

Province, allocation of teachers. In fact, on the contrary. For the past two

years, since education reform came into being, we have done quite the opposite.

In fact, we put in place the designation of a Small Necessarily Existent School.

That is particularly for rural Newfoundland. There are no Small Necessarily

Existent Schools in the urban centres in this Province. In fact, of our 365

schools, ninety-three of them are Small Necessarily Existent Schools. Clearly,

that is to ensure that rural Newfoundland has access to the programming that

they require to enable their students to get a quality education.

Of course we have gone that route, but now we are finding as

a result from consolidation that there is another category that we have to look

at, and that is the small school. It does not mean the Necessarily Small

Existent Schools. This small school would be larger than those that exist now in

terms of a Small Necessarily Existent School. We have to look at that category

as well. In doing that, in the exercises that we have been going through - and

it has been a very valid exercise. Because contrary to what has been said by

members opposite and others that we have not been listening, we have indeed been

listening.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on a road show by the

members opposite. We have our own ways of getting information. We have parents,

teachers, principals and students that have come forward. Some to tell us that

they are doing just fine, others to say: If we lose this half unit it will mean

we cannot offer music, or if we lose this half unit it means we cannot offer

phys. ed.

In every case where the information has been brought to us,

and we have gone out and gleaned information, all of that will be taken into

account when we make our decision in terms of the add backs to the system. There

will be add backs, primarily because we have seen some legitimate concerns out

there.

We allocate teachers to the board. The board allocates them

to the schools. How those teachers are utilized in the schools, we do not know.

We do not have any direct involvement in that. This is something I talked about

long before we allocated the teachers for this coming school year. I talked

about the need to look at a different way of allocating teachers. I talked about

having consultations with all of the stakeholders out there, particularly with

school councils, because they are comprised of parents and teachers, as we know,

but as well with the school boards, with all of the stakeholders, to see what we

are doing in the Province with respect to education now that we have gone

through education reform in terms of the consolidation. That is, what the next

phase is.

Clearly we have to look at programming. The members opposite

have heard me say time and time again that we will be talking with all of the

stakeholders. In time for the school year 2000 we will have a different system

in place, but it will be a system based on wide consultation with all of the

stakeholders. That will happen, I would say, starting in the fall of next year.

For this coming school year we are going through a valid

process. We have talked at length with school boards, with their education

directors, with parents, with students, with teachers, and with principals. We

have been listening. If we were not listening, we would not be adding back

teachers. We have indeed gone through a valid process. We are also looking at

individual schools. What we are finding - we are given examples, for instance.

In one case they wanted to offer advanced math. There were thirty-seven students

in a particular math class. There were two teachers. Nine wanted to advance

placement. The two teachers could not agree on which one would take the

twenty-seven and which one would take the nine, so the principal decided to have

two classes of eighteen. That is the kind of information I find disheartening,

when we are trying to make sure that we have a quality education system out

there.

Again, I think we have to look at the school boards. You talk

about resources not being available in the classes to make sure we can offer

quality programming. I'm at a loss to understand that, because for the past two

years, and for this school year coming, school boards have been able to maintain

the same level of operating grant even though they have fewer students and fewer

schools. In fact, in the last two years, even though they had fewer schools, we

did not take away from their operating grant, and this year we are saying: It

does not matter that you have fewer students. it does not matter that you have

fewer buildings, we are going to give you the same amount of money. Mr. Speaker,

$138 million of our budget actually goes into the operation of the school

boards. I am at a loss to understand where the difficulty is in terms of

ensuring that every school in this Province has the resources that it needs to

offer the programming that it delivers.

That is why we have to look seriously and work closely with

all of the boards again, and we are having these discussions now. A committee

has been put in place to discuss some of the concerns that the boards have

brought forward in terms of their expenditures. What we are doing is a

comprehensive review with the boards to again look at what their expenses are,

because at the end of the day we have a responsibility as a government to make

sure the taxpayers dollars we are trusted with are spent wisely, effectively and

efficiently. That is precisely what we are doing. If you are telling me that

there are concerns in the classroom because they do not have the number of

resources they need to carry out a class, then that concerns me. That is

certainly something that will come out of this ongoing discussion that we are

having with the school boards.

We have some very positive things happening in this Province.

We are always so quick to jump on negatives when we hear them for whatever

reason. I think the member opposite pointed out some of those positives, and I

appreciate that. Because we have a superb teaching force in this Province. We

have very good students, and we have good principals in this Province. I have

had a lot of correspondence from principals who made some very valid points with

respect to the impact that a loss of a teaching unit will have in their school.

On the other hand, I have had some correspondence from

principals that has nothing but derogatory. That concerns me to think that they

are in fact principals of a school where children are being educated. Having

said that, I tend to ignore that type of correspondence and to work with those

who are offering constructive criticism and suggesting ways in which we can

improve the education system.

That is why we have been paying a lot of attention to what

parents have been saying, to what children have been saying, to what principals

and teachers who have something to offer have been saying. As well, I've met

with the President of the Federation of School Councils and I've met with the

President of the School Board's Association, all with a view to making sure that

we have every bit of information we need to make sure that when we do the add

backs to the system it will be in a responsible manner and not because somebody

is standing up to say: If you don't do this, what if this happens, what if that

happens? This might happen, this probably will happen.

We need to have the concrete evidence, and that's exactly the

process we are going through. It is a valid process. We are a government. We are

charged with the responsibility of delivering a quality education system and we

will do that. That is our responsibility as a government. It does not require an

all party task force. It requires the government, through the Department of

Education, to do its job, and as minister I am charged with the responsibility

of carrying out that job.

I cannot support the private member's resolution. Again, it

is calling on a task force to do something that the department, with a minister,

is doing already, and going through what I think is a very valid process, Mr.

Speaker. I am confident that at the end of the day we will respond in an

intelligent and responsible manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I just draw to the attention

of the minister that I am kind of disappointed that you would rise and deny that

there are going to be problems that you are going to have to face in the future,

sooner than you think. My point is that we have gone beyond restructuring. Not

100 per cent, as you pointed out. We have not gone 100 per cent but we are

getting close to it. To have a member stand up and say: We are still looking at

closing schools, well, we have gone beyond that I hope, and I hope that over the

last number of weeks I have gotten across the point that we are gone beyond

that.

I was told by one of the members that he has forgotten more

than I will ever know. That kind of stuff coming back is worrisome because we

are talking about making sure that we turn the corner on reform, that we move

forward. We are not if you are going to get up and say: Everything is okay,

everything is rosy, we are going along fine. Because I tell you Minister, things

are not fine out there. That is the purpose of my putting forward this

resolution, to make sure that the minister realizes that she has to get beyond

the school boards. You have to get beyond the school board and you have to get

down to the grassroots. Not only do you have to talk, but more importantly you

have to listen. If you are going to stand and say: I have done all this and I

have done all that, it is news to me, because over the last number of weeks you

have said not.

It is unfortunate we will have to go through the same process

again next year as we bring to your attention the problems that are going to

surface. In finishing up, I am saying that the government is dragging its heels

with regard to reform. It has taken now close to a decade to get the

restructuring done. My question is: How long is it going to take to get the

reprogramming done? That is the question.

In finishing up, right now the education system in

Newfoundland is at a very critical point. We need to have some vision of what is

ahead, and if we are looking behind all the time we are not going to be able to

move forward. We are looking for vision. We are looking for the vision so that

we can move forward in a very positive way, accenting the very positive things

and getting it done, but you will not get it done if you deny that there are

concerns out there, there are issues that need to be addressed.

Again in finishing up, I would ask for support for the

resolution, that we can be assured that if there is an independent task force

that is going to look at the concerns of education, they are going to report

back the real concerns and then we will have real action to deal with them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the rest of the

time we are here we are going to devote to business of the House, government

business. In that light I call - if the Minister of Municipal Affairs is

listening - the Acting Minister of Finance.

I am going to call Order 9, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax

Act", Bill 6.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I can take a minute to find my notes,

An Act To Amend the

Jury Act it is not.

The bill that was just called, "An Act To Amend The Income

Tax Act", is basically to accommodate two initiatives that were announced by

government in the Budget. The first one is to accommodate the changes in the

national child benefit credit and the second one is to accommodate the seniors'

benefit that was announced, starting at $200 a year and going down until

somebody meets $20,000 income, at which point it will be eliminated.

The reason for these amendments is simply because these two

credits or two levels of support that are being introduced - one for the child

national benefit credit and the other one for the seniors' credit - are really

refunds under the Income Tax Act, so the act has to be amended to accommodate

these levels of support that will come into existence once these program kick in

this year.

I do not need to say any more than that, Mr. Speaker. It is

quite obvious that the seniors' benefit in particular is one that is brand new.

It has been introduced by government in response to the demonstrated need, I

would say, of some seniors who are not wealthy, having a tough time making it on

low pensions, some on no pensions, some on pensions only that are provided by

the federal government, such as the old age pension and the supplement.

For seniors who are between $12,000 and $20,000 a year in

household income, this is a welcomed addition. However small it may seem to

some, to these people it will seem significant - $200.

The amendment to the Income Tax Act as being provided for

under Bill 6,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, will facilitate the refund

cheques, or the tax credit cheques that will go out to the seniors as well as to

the family of young children who qualify for the provincial portion of the Child

Tax Benefit credit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I note that the minister has introduced second reading. We on

this side of the House note that when the Budget was presented there was a

commitment made by the government to do something for seniors. It falls far

short of what the seniors in this Province have been led to believe and had

expected would be delivered by the government.

We note the commitments made by the Premier in the days

leading up to the vote on February 9, that he had made certain public promises

that the pensioners of this Province would have their just causes addressed.

However, we note that did not occur because the seniors of this Province, those

public service pensioners, are still expressing great concern, great

dissatisfaction, and are showing great consternation at the way in which they

have been treated by this government.

We on this side of the House say that the changes to the

seniors' income, the seniors' tax benefit, is but a token of what should have

occurred. While we applaud the government for making at least some initial step,

what they have done is most inadequate. It still leaves the concerns of the

public service pensioners and what they have just cause to expect. We note that

many of the public service pensioners have retired for many, many years. In

fact, if my memory is correct, there are approximately some hundreds of them who

have incomes that are less than $300 a month.

While the Minister of Finance can stand in his place and say

that this reflects the benefits that they should receive based on the money that

they have paid into the pension plans, these pensioners also make the case that

until 1981 the government of the day, regardless of what label it was, was

spending their money to finance hospitals, roads, schools, and all these kinds

of needs of the Province, the infrastructure needs of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The public service pensioners are not going to be greatly

helped by this initiative of government, if you break it down to so much income

per day. We know as well that this particular amount of money is, as has been

said, mere tokenism.

We on this side of the House would have done some things

greatly different, because we on this side of the House, this party, stand for

treating our seniors and our pensioners fairly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: In our public commitments, as contained in

our Blue Book, we certainly gave commitments that we would recognize the

long-standing tradition of government's responsibility to look after its public

service pensioners. That did not happen.

While the Premier, in the hours leading up to the election,

when he was confronted with the public service pensioners' lobby group, and

while he gave them words of encouragement and, as one pensioner said when he was

in the gallery one day: The Premier placed his hand upon my shoulder and said

that things would be okay.

We want to note that the seniors of this Province feel

betrayed. They feel let down. They feel that their work for the government is

unappreciated. We note as well that this government should be looking more

carefully at what it says it is going to do and then what it does.

We on this side again say that the steps taken here do show

some steps in the right direction, but it is a long way from addressing the real

social needs and the hardship needs that many of our seniors face from day to

day, week to week, and month to month.

It is regrettable that the minister who introduced the second

reading of this bill is not more aware that there are seniors in his district

who have to rely on food banks because that is the only way they can supplement

their daily living.

I have talked to many people who work with the Seniors

Resource Centre. As a matter of fact, I was talking to them just a few minutes

ago. They tell me that they continue to have a strong representation, very

strong representation, from the seniors' group who want more done to assist

seniors to be able to live sensibly, adequately, and compassionately in their

retiring years.

We, as I said, implore the government to look again, to

remember the commitments made by the Premier that he would look after the public

service pensioners. While we say that this is a step to look after, in a broad

way, the needs of a very low income level people, we also say to government that

you have a greater responsibility. You have an additional responsible to look

after all those public service pensioners out there who were and are your former

employees, and they deserve better treatment.

Also, on the Child Tax Benefit, it is a step in the right

direction. We applaud the great work done by the Member for St. John's West.

Last year, if it was not for the great work the Member for St. John's West did,

I am sure that the consciousness of this government would not have come about in

such a way as to say that they were on the wrong track when it came to

recognizing the Child Tax Benefit, and the way it was going to be addressed by

this government to be wrong and most inadequate.

It was a great day, after many, many months, when the now

Minister of Health stood in her place and said: No, we are going to take that

money back from the people who are not working. We are going to give that to

people who are out there, the working poor we will call them.

We say that the great work done by this party, and the great

work done particularly by the Member for St. John's West, calls the government

to think again. It was a great moment when we saw her work being recognized, to

cause this government to say that the Child Tax Benefit should go to the most

needy families in the Province and that we should not be taking from the very,

very poor in order to assist those who are not quite so poor.

The Child Tax Benefit now is at least headed in the right

direction. Again, we say to the government, a step forward; but, as we all know,

there is always a greater need than there is a capacity of government to be able

to fill when it comes to looking after special needs families.

We still have the great problem in Newfoundland and Labrador

of child poverty. We know that child poverty is multi-dimensional and merely

putting more money into it will not solve all of the problems but it certainly

would help, because the solution to child poverty is, of course, to have more

jobs. Jobs are the solution. When families are poor, children are poor. When

children are poor, for the most

part it is because their families have no jobs

and have inadequate or very low income.

We make a plea here for the connection between child poverty

and educational achievement. We know that there is a cycle of poverty. We want

to tell the government that they have a responsibility to try to break that

cycle. While we talk about the Strategic Social Plan, we want to see more

evidence that the Strategic Social Plan is having some impact at the grass

roots, in the ordinary homes and in the ordinary families of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We say to government that they have a lot of work to do,

because there are still a lot of children in this Province who want more done to

assist their families to be able to live adequately, to be able to provide for

education of their children, and to be able to do so in a society that gives

them respect and dignity. That respect and dignity is found when these families

have adequate income, adequate housing, adequate clothing, and adequate means to

be able to provide for their children in a way that we all in this House expect

our own children and our own grandchildren to be provided for.

Just because you are poor does not mean that you do not have

a right to dignity and self-worth and respect. We certainly have to say to

government that they have a responsibility to give every child, when they go

home in the evening, an opportunity for respect and dignity. We do not see that

coming forward. We cannot punish people because they are poor. We can only

assist them to get out of their poverty.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. Member for

Humber East that if he wants to speak in this debate then he should rise in his

place and do so. If he wants to express the concerns of the poor people in his

district he will have an opportunity to do so. He can share with this House the

impact that poverty is having in his district, because he has every opportunity

to do that.

So I say to the government that your steps are in the right

direction on the seniors benefit. They are in the right direction. They are

totally inadequate, not what you committed to do, but at least they are a step

in the right direction. We will just say to them that some day you will find it

necessary to live up to the commitments you made, live up to the promises made

by your Premier when he tapped people on the shoulder in the election and said:

Please, don't cause a fuss, stop your protest and I will look after you. The

protests stopped but the Premier suddenly had selective amnesia. At 8:00 p.m. on

February 9 the Premier's mind went into blank and he forgot altogether the

commitments that had been made in the days leading up to the election.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the children in this Province,

on behalf of the poor people in this Province, on behalf of the seniors in this

Province, we say to government, you have done a little bit. You have made one

little baby step forward but you have a long walk to go yet before you finish

the road and give people in Newfoundland and Labrador a fair opportunity to live

in dignity and comfort, and to live in a way that we ourselves would want our

families to live in this Province.

Thank you very much.

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

Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have noted the hon. Member for Waterford Valley's

insightful comments on this bill to amend the Income Tax Act to make provision

for the National Child Benefit Credit, provincial government portion, and for

the seniors tax credit.

As I think I said yesterday in one of my comments, it never

ceases to amaze me that when the Opposition critic for finance - or for any

portfolio for that matter - speaks, they seem to have a fetish, a desire and a

recommendation that we do more and more in terms of programming, but when it

comes to the taxation issues they suggest we tax less and less. I am still

waiting for comments that would bring the two concepts together and still allow

the Province to remain solvent in terms of its financial circumstance.

Any time you recommend $800 million in new spending be

introduced, and then you recommend tax cuts happen, and then you say: We will

balance the budget in doing that -

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - really, I would like to quote from my

hon. colleague from the District of Terra Nova, who said the other day that it

is nothing but balderdash -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to my hon.

colleague that his own Premier was out days before the election making the same

promises, same commitments. They were saying the same thing we are saying now:

Be fair to seniors. What we are saying is the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HOD