May 20,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 28

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine business of the day, there are a

number of groups that I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today.

First of all, I want to welcome to the Speaker's gallery,

Senator William Rompkey and his wife, Carolyn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have fifty students from Grades

V to IX from the Port de Grave Pentecostal School in the District of Port de

Grave, accompanied by teachers, Mr. Junior Taylor, Mr. Keith Russell, Mr. Calvin

Stride and Ms Karen Janes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have forty-five Grade V students from

Vaters Academy in the District of St. John's North, accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. Ralph Cann and Ms Roxanne Rideout.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we want to welcome twenty-two Grade

IX from O'Donel High School in the District of Mount Pearl, accompanied by

teacher, Mr. Mike Sutton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, certain members of the Roman

Catholic and Pentecostal denominations, with the support of the Roman Catholic

Archbishop and Bishops and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and

Labrador have commenced a court action against government and the school boards

of all ten districts in the Province.

Broadly stated, the court action attacks the validity of the

amendments of the Schools Act passed by the Legislature of the Province in

December of 1996, as well as the validity of the school boards as presently

constituted and any designations made which adversely affect any Roman Catholic

or Pentecostal school in the Province.

They have asked the court to grant an injunction that would

essentially stop the education reform process which is currently under way.

Mr. Speaker, over five years ago in March of 1992, government

received the Report of the Royal Commission on Education, Our Children, Our

Future . This report recommended the reorganization of the primary,

elementary and secondary education system in Newfoundland and Labrador to permit

government to administer the system in an efficient manner. The Commission

proposed the creation of a single interdenominational school system encompassing

the four separate denominational systems currently in operation.

Since then, government has been attempting to restructure the

education system of the Province, along the lines recommended in that report.

Because certain religious denominations held constitutionally protected rights

dating back to the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada in 1949,

restructuring could not be carried out without either church consent,

constitutional change, or both. To that end, extensive discussions took place

with the churches over a period of almost three years beginning in the fall of

After nearly three years of discussions, government and the

denominational representatives were not successful in reaching agreement on a

restructured school system. In the fall of 1995, government sought the approval

of the people, in a referendum, to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of

Newfoundland with Canada, in order to proceed with the restructuring plans. That

approval, Mr. Speaker, was granted by a 55 per cent majority of the votes cast,

and the amendment to Term 17 was proclaimed after approval by this House and the

Parliament of Canada.

On December 19, 1996, this House of Assembly passed a new

Schools Act and a new Education Act and the ten new interdenominational school

boards assumed responsibility for the administration of schools. The student

registration process has been completed throughout the Province for the next

school year. School boards summarized the information contained on the student

registration forms and identified the numbers of students whose parents prefer

that they attend uni-denominational schools. All school boards have been advised

of their teacher allocations for the 1997/1998 school year. Educational planning

for the consolidation of schools and designations for nine of ten boards has

been completed.

Mr. Speaker, after overcoming many obstacles, education

reform is well under way in Newfoundland and Labrador. Any action which would

impede the reform process would negatively impact on the system and cause undue

stress to the students.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to

three principles: The first is that each and every child in this Province should

have access to the best educational program possible with the tax dollars that

are available; the second is that students of all denominations have a right to

religious education, activity and observances in each and every school in the

Province regardless of its designation, and the third is that where there is a

demand for a uni-denominational school which can reasonably and practically be

accommodated, that demand should be met.

Government, Mr. Speaker, is confident that the Schools Act

provides an appropriate and legally correct basis for the implementation of

these principles; therefore, government is prepared to defend it before the

courts.

The school boards will be represented by their own lawyer in

this matter. Over the next several days, government will be designating and

instructing its legal counsel. The matter is before the Court, and it is there

that the case must be presented and the arguments made. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is

unfortunate that with such an important issue before the Province today that

I've just received this very important and critical ministerial statement just

moments before the House commenced this afternoon.

I would like to state that what I don't like about this

statement is that this statement attempts to shift the blame, to shift the

responsibility for the confusion and the chaos which we have in Newfoundland and

Labrador today with respect to education reform, to a particular group in this

Province, namely the churches. I say that this is unacceptable.

What we really have in this Province today is the majority of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are completely fed up and at their wit's

end -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - with the disgraceful way that the

reform process has been carried through, beginning with the previous

Administration, and being adhered to as well by this present Administration. The

students of this Province deserve better, the parents of this Province deserve

better, educators and administrators alike deserve better. All of us deserve

better, and to attempt to shift blame and to remove the focus of blame from

government is most inappropriate and completely unacceptable.

I have asked repeatedly to have the minister intervene. He

has refused to do so. He has allowed education reform, or so-called education

reform, to go to the point where we are today, namely, before the courts of this

Province. That too is unacceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the minister it is not too

late. What is wrong with a resolution or a settlement prior to a decision being

made? What is wrong with the minister playing an active role in attempting to

bring all sides together to attempt to alleviate the confusion and to resolve

this dispute in the interests of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is of course

within the rights of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal peoples to seek the

interpretation of the courts as to whether or not the new schools act conforms

with Term 17. I think all Members of this House relied on the law officers of

the Crown to ensure that the Schools Act that was devised after the passage to

changes to Term 17 was in compliance with it but of course it is within their

right to seek the

interpretation of the court as to whether that is so. It would

be regrettable if the process of reform were to be totally disrupted as the

result of such an action but nevertheless this is their right.

Of more concern I think to the people of this Province who

have gone I think well beyond the issue of denominational education and are now

into fighting themselves for what the minister calls his first priority, that

being a quality education for all and the best educational program possible for

their students. That these people have to come to the House of Assembly and

fight with the government because the school boards are not listening, the

government is not listening and people are not listening to the commonsense

approaches that people of this Province are taking and are demanding answers

from this government. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government is not going to

continue to wash its hands of this responsibility here. The responsibility lies

with the government

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - with the minister and with the Premier to

resolve these problems.

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

Labour.

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

I am pleased today to inform the hon. House of Assembly that

I have received the report of the consultant whom we appointed on December 16,

1996, to make recommendations on an employee/employer framework for labour

relations on offshore oil production platforms that come under provincial

jurisdiction.

Mr. Morgan Cooper, the consultant, engaged in dialogue with

numerous stakeholders on this matter. Mr. Cooper met with nineteen of the

twenty-eight organizations that submitted written briefs. He also met with

selected representatives from government, business and labour, in Nova Scotia

and Alberta as well as in the UK and Norway. The report is well presented and

contains a total of twelve recommendations, many of which will require

amendments to the Province's Labour Relations Act to specifically address the

labour relations processes that are to be applied to offshore oil production

platforms. These include bargaining unit configurations, access in union

representations.

Mr. Speaker, government supports the report in principle and

will be closely examining Mr. Cooper's report over the summer with a view to

introducing the appropriate amendments to the act in the fall session of the

House to give effect to the recommendations. On behalf of the government we want

to personally commend Mr. Morgan Cooper on a very thorough job and thank him for

his dedication to this very important and challenging task. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

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

I cannot stand today and say we either support or not support

the document that the minister speaks about because we have not seen it yet. I

can say and take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to offer some constructive advice

to the minister and government that the recommendations contained in this report

or the direction that government will proceed with respect to a labour relations

framework with respect to production platforms in the offshore oil and gas

industry is very important.

I urge the minister to walk cautiously but strongly, and I

urge the minister to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that when a labour relations framework

is put in place that it is one that the stakeholder agree with to the greatest

extent possible. Most importantly, from a practical point of view, that dispute

resolving mechanisms be put in place to ensure that any disputes arising out of

this industry

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - are solved in an -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: - expeditious and immediate manner. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped the

minister was announcing he was going to table the report so we can all have a

look at it and study it over the summer months as well.

We are at a crucial point when the government starts changing

labour relations legislation, particularly the crucial offshore sector, that we

make sure the democratic process is still at work. We had an incident recently

where a special agreement was negotiated by people outside of this Province, two

groups outside of this Province, which is going to control labour relations at

the Bull Arm site over the next while.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: That is a very dangerous precedent, and I

hope it is not going to be repeated in these particular circumstances.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I am

pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Doreen Neville as the CEO of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. In the recent

provincial health forum, participants told us that information sharing and

evidence based decision making was a key direction for long term planning in the

health system. This appointment is the first step in providing government,

health care providers and the public with the information they need to make

sound decisions about health care.

We are very pleased that Dr. Neville has accepted this

position as her qualifications are exemplary. She brings with her twenty years

of experience in the health system to this challenging new role. Beginning her

career in the nursing field, Dr. Neville has extensive experience in ICU and

psychiatric nursing. She has since gone on to become involved in all aspects of

administration and program development in the health sector. Dr. Neville is also

a graduate of the Harvard School of Public Health. She is currently an assistant

professor of Health Policy and Health Care Delivery at Memorial University. I

ask hon. members today to join me in welcoming Dr. Neville to this very exciting

new position.

As CEO for the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health

Information, Dr. Neville will be responsible for developing a strategic plan for

the new organization and providing administrative leadership.

The establishment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for

Health Information was announced in October 1996. It will help improve the

long-term health system of the Province by bringing together existing health

information systems into an integrated and comprehensive information technology

system for health and social services. It will incorporate data related to the

Department of Human Resources and Employment in recognition of the determinants

of health such as income, employment, social support networks and housing, among

others.

The Centre will be located at Southcott Hall under the

authority of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's and will be reviewed

after two years. It will have responsibility for co-ordinating, monitoring and

analyzing data Province-wide. Currently, various information systems exist

separately. In bringing them together, we will improve the future of health

services in the Province by co-ordinating evidence-based health information

which will assist government, health providers, consumers and special interest

groups in making more informed decisions about health care.

Mr. Speaker, through the Provincial Health Forum we heard

that government needed to identify where health resources could be most

effectively placed based upon timely, accurate, and reliable information. This

Centre will provide government with the ability to make sound financial

decisions based upon proven health outcomes. It will also ensure effective

utilization of health services and assist in carrying out sound financial and

human resource planning.

We look forward to seeing the results of an integrated

information system. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the Newfoundland and

Labrador Centre for Health Information will carry out its mandate in a timely

manner under the competent direction of Dr. Neville.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Official Opposition, I congratulate Dr.

Neville on this new appointment with the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for

Health Information. I am sure her expertise would bring a lot to this position

and, it is so important today that we do have an integrated information system

so we can have long-term planning for health care in this Province.

We have seen too many decisions, Mr. Speaker, that have been

short-term, band-aid approaches to health care in the Province. We have seen a

recent announcement of sending fifty to sixty people out of this Province as a

short-term solution; we hope it is only a short-term and does not become a

long-term solution to the export of health jobs out of the Province.

It is important that when the information is assembled, it

will be an ongoing process and I am confident it will be, but it is also

important that we use that information and that the political will and the

political commitment be there to ensure that decisions are going to be made to

make this information all the worthwhile. If we do not have that, if we do not

have a commitment from this government, we will never have an improved health

care system in this Province and that is important. That is what has been

lacking in this Province, Mr. Speaker. There has been sufficient information in

many areas in health care available to us but we have not had anybody, we have

not had a minister or the government with the political will to do something

about it. So I look forward to adding to the data base; to do the integration of

information so we can have a long-term plan that could serve us well into the

future.

Thank you.

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the appointment of Dr. Doreen Neville to this

position. She is a woman of terrific experience and qualifications, as the

Minister pointed out, and has achieved a remarkable degree of educational

achievement in her own right. Here is another nurse, I might say after Nursing

Week, who has demonstrated her astounding capability in the field of health

care.

On the issue of the new centre, though, I hope we are not

just setting up a bureaucracy. The people of this Province, Opposition

politicians, community groups, citizens, doctors have been informing the

Minister of Health and the government for the past six or eight months about the

crisis in health care. It took an awful lot of informing to convince the

minister in fact there was a problem and to start doing something about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: So I hope they will be acting on the

information that is being provided to government so that we do have some good

solutions in our health care system.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.

members of the House of Assembly of the substantial initiatives my department

has committed in the area of silviculture for 1997.

This year, Mr. Speaker, we will see a grand total of $12.4

million spent on silviculture-related work across this Province. This represents

an important investment made by the Provincial Government, the two pulp and

paper companies; Abitibi Price Consolidated Incorporated and Corner Brook Pulp

and Paper Limited and a combination of Federal-Provincial Government investment

through the transitional jobs fund.

Mr. Speaker, as the result of this combined investment, over

15,000 hectares of forest land will be treated in 1997. This represents an

increase of approximately 1,000 hectares over and above the 1996 silviculture

program. In total for 1997, we will see 8.5 million seedlings being planted.

Mr. Speaker, the Province will be directly responsible for

about forty-five projects involving site preparation, planting and thinning to

be conducted on Crown land plus other projects related to research and

development. Industry will carry out approximately another forty-two projects

which will be undertaken on forest lands within the company limits.

In addition, the transitional jobs fund is entering year two

of a three-year program which will result in approximately another fifty

projects. This fund also has a segment to foster a value-added forest products

program. Through this program, approximately $640,000 will be applied to improve

employment opportunities in the saw-milling and secondary manufacturing

industry.

In total, the efforts under these three particular

initiatives will result in 14,759 person weeks of employment. However, this

number does not include any silviculture projects traditionally conducted

through the Department of Social Services, now called the Department of Human

Resources and Employment. As a department, we are creating the same number of

person weeks of employment as in 1996. This has been achieved by prioritizing

our projects in order to maximize employment opportunities.

These silviculture projects are created throughout rural

Newfoundland and Labrador and they will provide employment where it is most

needed. This level of investment and activity, is proof of this government's

commitment to a sustainable forest for the future. Mr. Speaker, this continuing

dedication to long-term forest development programs will ensure the viability of

the forest industry for the benefit of all the people of this Province. Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to commend the government for its initiatives in

silviculture. However, I want to point out to the hon. the minister, as he

already knows, that the management plan, the twenty-year plan that was announced

some weeks ago, show that our forests are being over-harvested to the tune of

about 50 per cent. In other words, we do have a crisis developing in our

forests.

Mr. Speaker, we also say to the minister, in his budget for

this year, we see that silviculture has been reduced by about $500,000. So I ask

the minister: Is this a signal that we are reducing our commitment rather than

increasing it? We compliment the industry, we compliment the government for its

share; however, it is not enough, we have to do more. Because if we do not do

more, then we are going to have at risk of happening in the forest industry what

happened in the fishing industry of this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that the importance of silviculture,

reforestation and commercial thinning of our forest cannot be over-emphasized.

We obviously have to ensure that our forests are there for the future, so our

forest industry can be protected.

I do wonder at times, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the minister

can address this on a future occasion, as to the success of these programs in

actually achieving a reforestation. I know they spend a fair amount of money and

perhaps members want to see reforestation in their districts for political

reasons, but I would like to see at some point, a good solid study of these

silviculture projects as to how successful they are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education.

Today, in our Province, we have total and complete chaos in

education. We have parents out there, and we have students who are more

alienated in this process than ever before. And these are representatives from

the school councils that were here in the lobby and here in the House today.

They are expected to represent the concerns of the people in those areas and

that is exactly what they are doing, and the minister knows full well their

concerns.

I ask the minister: Will he not only address those concerns,

but also act upon them and restore some form of stability to education here in

our Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important that everybody understands and

everybody knows, because they are in the midst of it, that there is major change

occurring in the school system, K to XII in Newfoundland and Labrador this year,

and I think when people look back in perspective, in history, in time, in a few

years, they will realize that maybe there is more change going on in the schools

of Newfoundland and Labrador this year than in any one year that anyone could

understand or even comprehend or even contemplate might have occurred.

So, I understand some people wishing to refer to it as chaos

and so on, we do not describe it as chaos at all. There is major change

occurring, change is always difficult, and in fact, we are going to meet with

representatives of the parents, probably at the conclusion of Question Period

and have a working meeting as to dialoguing again, but exactly what their

concerns are with respect to possible impacts in the classrooms and on the

educational opportunities of the student themselves.

But Mr. Speaker, we should not confuse everybody's concern

with that issue with respect to another major issue that is going on in the

Province for one time only this year, the first time ever in history, which is

again, a designation process going on in the schools, new legislation that was

supported a few months ago by members opposite and the fact that now we have a

court case launched in the Province that will run its course over the next

period of time.

So, there are several things occurring, all of them

tremendously important for the improvement and advancement of education in the

Province and we will certainly meet with the parents, as we have done at any

time, and go forward from there.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, and our side proposed twenty-six amendments, too, I say

to the minister, that government did not support, on the schools Act and the

minister should be well aware of the concerns in education.

It has been five years since the report of the Royal

Commission on Education was brought down in this Province, and we are continuing

today to still deal with infrastructure, we are dealing with designation instead

of curricular improvements in education. Parent-student involvements and

equality of educational opportunity for all people in this Province, I say to

the minister. Why is reform taking a back seat to this chaos and confusion that

is occurring today? It is the children who are suffering as a result of this.

When are you going to bring this reform process back into the classrooms of

children here in our Province where it belongs, I ask the minister, and to allow

students from all parts of this Province, whether it be rural areas or urban

areas, to have an equal access to a quality education?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might point out again, that while the Opposition critic and

members opposite did indeed introduce some twenty-six amendments to the Act that

were considered and some of them approved by this Legislature, none of them had

to do with the kind of rhetoric the member was just talking about and they were

very much more technical amendments than the substance. Because the big plea -

and I heard in the response of the Opposition critic to the statement by the

Minister of Justice today about the Minister of Education getting involved.

There was no suggestion of an amendment by the Opposition that we should change

the Act and have the Minister of Education make decisions about which schools

should operate in areas of the Province. As a matter of fact, the Opposition

fully supported the notion that those decisions should be made at the local

level by school boards. I know it is nice and convenient to jump up now and say:

We want the minister to make these decisions. This group supported the notion

that the school boards should make them.

There are two things that are going on at the same time. One

clearly is the whole notion that was a matter of the statement today, a court

case that has been launched. Because the key administrative issues about reform

which are being taken to the court have to do with who controls and administers

the system. The people of the Province have clearly spoken. They want less

church control in administration of the system. They want a denominational

influence in the schools. That is what this court challenge is largely about.

On the other side, whether we were having education reform

based on the new Term 17 and the new legislation or not, every year - the

seventeen years that members opposite were in office and the eight years now

that we have been here - every year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to draw his answer to a conclusion,

please.

MR. GRIMES: Yes. Mr. Speaker. Every year governments make

decisions about how much money they can afford on any of the program in

government. We have a commitment this year in education that is second only to

health in the Province, and we hope to maintain that into the future.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is utter nonsense for anybody here to pretend that anybody

would believe what the minister is saying. Before one speaker on our side got an

opportunity to debate certain readings of the bill, a closure motion was

introduced, I say!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Before we had one speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: It was a closure motion! A closure motion

was introduced.

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

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He ought to get to his

supplementary immediately.

MR. SULLIVAN: We presented an amendment asking that

savings be reinvested in education. If you do not consider that important, we

do, I say to the minister.

Education reform was supposed to save millions, but you and

your government took $100 million out of education the last three years in this

Province. Why have you taken $100 million out of education, I ask, in this

Province, instead of redirecting the funds back into the classroom where we can

see a benefit? Why, Minister, did you do that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the hon. member every now and then gets a

bit excited and raises his voice and suggests to people that these things are

very important to him and his party. They are very important to all of us.

The reality of it, in correcting a couple of the points made,

in and during the debate the time allotted to members opposite under the rules

of this House was not used to its maximum. Because they can say what they like.

They supported the schools Act as it is now written. That is the record of this

Legislature. For political reasons now they can suggest that they disagree or

maybe now they are wavering on their support for the reform of the education

system. Maybe they want to go back to a time where the denominations and the

churches had more administrative control of the system. They strongly supported

this legislation, and that is what the record suggests.

In fact, the reference with respect to the monies from

education - what the Leader of the Opposition said is not correct in terms of

the monies being reduced. He tries to give the impression now that we are

dealing with questions with respect to Kindergarten to Grade XII, and he lumps

in funding reductions that have occurred at the University. Because there have

been some transfer reductions from the Federal Government related to

post-secondary education. There have been some reductions with respect to the

community college system. He lumps all of that in now to try to suggest that

hundreds of millions of dollars have been taken from education.

The reality is it has not occurred, and he knows, in the

Budget that is currently still before debate in this Legislature, that the plan

of the government over the next three years is that funds provided to school

boards to run the 430 schools in the Province that serve children from

Kindergarten to Grade XII will be maintained at their current levels -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - for the next three years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Only when there is a decline in enrolment

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to end his answer

quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - and a closing of schools will there be some

money from the administrative side reduced. Because the fact is, the system is

shrinking at about 4,000 students a year. It is getting smaller -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - it requires fewer schools -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the minister to take his seat

MR. GRIMES: - it requires fewer teachers, but the money

directly spent on students -

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

MR. GRIMES: - will stay the same, Mr. Speaker, for the

next three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It shows how much he is in touch. He does not even know the

Budget is already dealt with in this House. He does not even know that! That is

his commitment to education in this Province, where have you been, Minister? It

is not we who have failed in reform, it is you. You and your government have

failed in education reform in this Province.

I want to ask the minister: This House introduced legislation

that created a French first-language school in this Province and this

legislation has provided for parental involvement in selecting their interim

school board, I say to the minister. In fact, it says that appointments to the

interim Conseil Scolaire shall be made on the recommendation of the Federation

of Francophone Parents.

Now Minister, this is a good process and we support that. The

minister himself said in debate in this House last week that, this process is

more democratic than the Province-wide process that is out there today for the

rest of the schools.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, why the double standard? Why

can't other school boards in this Province be given the same opportunity, why do

they have to be hand-picked by you?

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

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

hon. member raising this issue as well because it is a very important

distinction being made.

With the ten school boards in the Province that serve some

430 schools that will likely be less than 400 next September, Mr. Speaker, we

did appoint ten interim school boards, they will all be elected at the end of

September this year. We had a debate, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature as to

whether or not for a one-year period, because we did this last year, we should

spend $1.8 million to have an election or whether we should wait a year. The

decision was made to wait one year. We appointed, Mr. Speaker, school board

members, the vast majority of them by the way, who went through an election

process before; they were elected under the old legislation and then they had

served some period of time; they are experienced school board members, they have

offered their time as volunteers in the Province, some of them for as many as

eight or nine years, Mr. Speaker. We trust and appreciate their work, effort and

consideration.

With respect to the French language, could we have used the

model for the rest of the system that we are using for the Francophone School

Board? Here is the difference and the big difference, Mr. Speaker: The ten

school boards run 430 schools; the new legislation just brought in the

establishment of school councils. We are going to have school councils for the

five Francophone schools as well, not 430 but five. They are well-established,

they are already there; they will name their council representatives and from

their council representatives, Mr. Speaker, they will then choose their

provincially-based school boards. They have to deal, Mr. Speaker, with five

schools, all of which, already will have a school council. We were dealing with

430 schools, Mr. Speaker, less that 100 of which had school councils.

So now, maybe the Leader of the Opposition, in his

brilliance, can suggest to us how we might decide which of those less than 100

of 430 schools that had councils, should be allowed to name people to the school

boards. We are going to have an election. The election, Mr. Speaker, will occur

in September of this year, co-incidental with the municipal elections, the same

as has been done in this Province ever since we have had school board elections

because, we used to have 100 per cent appointed school boards, Mr. Speaker, at

the whim of the denominations, then we went to partial election -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - partial appointment (inaudible) were

elected and they will all be elected again in September, Mr. Speaker, an

election that coincides with the municipal elections in the Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation was passed in this House last fall and the

minister knows full-well that now, there is no opportunity for parents to have

input to an elected board, it is an appointed board, and I say to the minister:

What do you say to the people who are out there today and are here and most of

the people have been forced to fight for a fundamental right, I say to the

minister, their children's education. You cannot turn your back on them now; you

have not given those parents a right to have a say in the education of their

children, you are going to give them the right after you make your decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Why have you turned

your back on them throughout this entire process?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would not go as far as to

insult and degrade the 180 volunteers on the ten school boards who are currently

doing a very difficult job and we appreciate the fact that they accepted

(inaudible) because many of them have been on school boards already for seven,

eight, some as long as ten years, very experienced, Mr. Speaker, doing this and

people need to be reminded doing it for absolutely zero remuneration, no pay.

These are members of the community, Mr. Speaker, and I am always surprised when

I meet with the parents after, I guess I will say the same thing as I have done

in some twenty meetings throughout the Province in a public consultation last

fall.

I am always surprised when the Leader of the Opposition or

anybody else would suggest that these volunteers on the school boards, because

they accepted appointment and were not elected, are making improper decisions or

that there would be different decisions had we gone through an election before.

These people, Mr. Speaker, these 180 dedicated volunteers who have sat on these

boards for years, many of them will likely offer themselves again in September

and many of them I expect will be elected and I am delighted that they have

given this particular effort. These people, Mr. Speaker, are the same people who

are our neighbours. They are neighbours of the same people who are on school

councils. They know them intimately in the communities and for someone to

suggest that because they agreed and accepted an appointment that the quality of

their decision making and that their value as a volunteer is different or

diminished because they did not go through an election process, I won't say

that, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to quickly end his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - for any of the 180 members of the school

boards in the Province. The Leader of the Opposition can go and insult them, Mr.

Speaker, if he wants to, it is entirely up to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister can try to twist things whatever way he wants.

There are good people on school boards and he knows it as well as I do. What I

want to ask the minister, quite simply, is not a reflection of anybody who is on

boards. Why are you, as minister, denying the parents of children in this

Province the right to have a say in the education of their children?

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

MR. GRIMES: I don't know, Mr. Speaker, why. I really

don't know why he would even ask the question, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We weren't allowed to get up and debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, I

ask that the minister be given an opportunity to answer it.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know why he would ask the question because we just

answered it. In fact, there are 180 parents currently, who are on school boards,

making decisions on behalf of the rest of the parents and children in their

geographic areas as to how education should be organized in the best interest of

the students that they represent.

The only distinction that has been made here today, Mr.

Speaker, that I can recall, is he is suggesting there will be some difference in

the level of decision-making had we gone through a $1.8 million election a year

ago instead of asking these people to serve by appointment. Mr. Speaker, we had

that debate last year. These people are making the decisions. The school

councils, Mr. Speaker, are also very involved in decision-making with their

school boards. The parents are more involved than ever in the schools of

Newfoundland and Labrador and, Mr. Speaker, this final point in conclusion, when

this issue was addressed in the Legislature last fall and with twenty-six

proposed amendments by the Opposition, there was no such suggestion that there

should be any change in terms of the structure of the school councils or the

structure of the school boards or that there should be further parental

involvement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: It did not happen, Mr. Speaker, and he can

play to the audience all he likes, he can play to the gallery all he likes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to quickly draw his answer to a

conclusion.

MR. GRIMES: - he can play, Mr. Speaker, to anybody he

wants for political reasons. The fact of the matter is, he supports this

legislation and he knows now that what is happening is what has to happen in the

Province in order for us to proceed this spring with the changes that must occur

in the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question I guess is really a follow-up from the

ministerial statement as read by the Minister of Justice. Come next September

parents, students and teachers are expecting to have a new reform system of

education. Teacher's careers are at stake, parents lives are in turmoil and the

children's futures are being jeopardized. My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the

Minister of Education. In view of success in the churches application for

judicial intervention, if the churches are successful what contingency plan does

the hon. minister have in place to deal with the proposed intention for

educational reform come September?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this point in time all of our energies are being placed in

terms of providing information and working with the Department of Justice to

defend the case before the courts with the full expectation and hope, Mr.

Speaker, that we would be successful in the defence and that the petition before

the courts would fail.

If, in fact, as the member points out, there is the event

that the injunction and the request for the injunction could be successful, then

we will certainly look at working with the boards as to what the outcome could

be. I can only speculate at this point that the most likely unfortunate outcome

would be that school boards themselves - and I've addressed this publicly in the

media before - would likely have to spread their teaching resources more thinly

than they currently plan to do, and therefore there could likely be some more

detrimental program affects in the system than are currently contemplated with

the arrangements that the boards now have planned for next year.

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: One last point, Mr. Speaker. The hon.

member has really just answered the question I'm about to ask. He has indicated

he is prepared to deal with the boards at that time should that situation arise.

That is essentially what I'm getting at. Why isn't the minister prepared now to

intervene? Why is he not prepared to sit down with school boards,

representatives, his officials, in a real genuine effort to resolve this

dispute, in a real genuine attempt to put aside these differences and to get on

with education reform? Why not intervene now Mr. Minister and not when required

to do so at a later date?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the hon.

member in responding to the statement today indicated he hadn't had the

statement for a long time. The statement clearly indicates that the government

believes the legislation is sound, and that it will be found in the court that

the decisions that the school boards have made based upon the legislation will

stand. We don't see any reason why we should be going around trying to deal with

the myriad of complaints that are registered in the court documents. Because it

ranges everywhere from suggesting that the boards are improperly constituted to

the statement that the individual decisions taken about individual schools by

individual school boards are incorrect in law.

There is nothing for us to talk to school boards or the

people involved with the court action at this point, and there is nothing for us

to get involved with. Because they cast the net so wide in terms of the

complaints they want adjudicated by the court that it would be hard for anybody

to know that if you dealt with this issue would that satisfy you, or do you have

to deal with about 150 issues to see if that would satisfy anybody. As the

Minister of Justice has indicated, the matter will go through the courts. We

will see how it unfolds. We would hope there wouldn't be any decisions at the

end of the day that would be detrimental to the students in the Province and

their educational opportunity.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Health. Minister, as recently as this morning the Health

Care Corporation of St. John's was reporting it had not identified sufficient

emergency room physicians to allow them to open the Grace Hospital emergency

room in the evening hours, following the unexpected resignation of several

doctors. Minister, what is being done to identify doctors to work in the

hospital's ER, even on an interim basis, and is the minister satisfied the

remaining ERs in the city are capable of accommodating the demand for emergency

services during this period?

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

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

clarification purposes, it isn't the intention of the emergency department to be

open twenty-four hours a day. The intention is that we will maintain the

existing hospitals - the Health Sciences Centre, St. Clare's and the Janeway -

with twenty-four hour services, and we will continue to provide maternity care

to patients at the Grace after 10:00 p.m. Prior to that it will be regular

emergency departments. The patients are very aware of the process that has been

in place over the last year.

In respect to the second part of your question, the staff

were informed on Friday of the impending situation. The Health Care Corporation

will be meeting with general practitioners over the coming days. To assist

doctors make that decision they will be offering an ACLS course, an Advanced

Cardiac Life Support Course, to assist doctors who haven't worked in emergency

departments for a number of years. I think also it is important to note that we

have about sixty-six physicians, general practitioners, in the area of St.

John's who have consulting privileges. If we were able to attract even one shift

from each of these sixty-six physicians who are now practising, we would have

the Grace Hospital emergency room covered for the next two months.

We are working. We are also working with the medical school

to contact the new graduates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I'm answering the question that has been

asked, I say to my hon. colleague

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

South, supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, Dr. Eric Parsons has publically raised the spectre

of permanent closure of the Grace Hospital emergency room, if new ER physicians

are not identified and if the impact is not too great.

When will a decision be made on whether to permanently close

the Grace Hospital ER? Who will make that decision? What specific criteria will

be used to make a determination of the impact of such a decision and what is the

ministers continuance plan in the event that such a decision is made that the

Grace ER is taken out of the system?

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

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

I think first thing's first. I think my colleague would agree

that the most important

part is communicating to the staff and that is what we

have done first through the Health Care Corporation. The Health Care

Corporation, as I have previously said in my previous response, is planning to

meet with the general practitioners, will be offering an advanced cardiac life

support system to enable physicians who have not worked in the emergency

departments recently, to do so and I think it is important to stress the fact

that we do have some time, we are concerned certainly because we have to meet

those deadlines, but the Health Care Corporation in conjunction with the

Department of Health with the medical school will be working to try to resolve

the problem.

With respect to what will happen, I have been speaking with

Sister Elizabeth with respect to long-term plans with the Grace, right now our

immediate concern and our immediate priority is to meet the needs by putting

physicians in the emergency room and that will be our priority on the

short-term.

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

South, supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the Grace Hospital is slated for closing in the

next year and this administration and the former administration have assured us

the emergency room capacity that now exists will continue to exist in the new

system as beds are transferred to other facilities, but in light of the

physician shortages and the ER closure this weekend, what assurances can the

minister now give us that ER capacity in this region will not be demised

following the restructuring of the areas hospitals?

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

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

I think what the Health Care Corporation has put in place

over the last year is a very important part of the process of completing the

plan. When the emergency was closed last year to all but maternity patients,

those people requiring services went to the other three existing emergency

departments. I think it is obvious, when you look at the number of people that

are visiting the emergency department now at the Grace compared to the other

ones, that we are meeting those needs, but we have said that we are going to try

to staff the emergency room at the Grace. That is our plan and for the record,

we are working with the Health Care Corporation and the medical school to

identify ways of staffing the emergency on the short-term and looking at the

bigger process of emergency room physicians, which I might add Mr. Speaker, we

are hoping to have an announcement in the coming days that will help address the

whole issue of emergency room physicians and staffing emergency departments in

the Province.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Minister, skate fishermen in zone 30 have to stop fishing due

to the high bi-catch of cod. Less than half the quota of skate have been

harvested and cod is being found in abundances in depths of water from

sixty-five fathoms to 200 fathoms. Those fishermen are using twelve inch gear

and from what I understand in conversation with them are catching cod fish in

access of thirty pounds each.

Minister, since the cod stocks in this particular area were

never considered to be in trouble, will the minister now influence the people at

DFO to increase the bi-catch limits so those fishermen might be allowed to

continue with this particular fishery?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Actually Mr. Speaker, the cod that they are

catching is averaging forty to fifty pounds, not thirty pounds.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, the last information that I had with

the skate fishery, just a couple of days ago, was that is was not a factor of

the large amount of bi-catch because the mesh they are using is a twelve inch

mesh and in fact, the last fishermen I was talking to had 50,000 pound of skate

and they had twenty cod fish which weighted a total of 800 pounds for twenty

fish, that was not a ten per cent bi-catch. The biggest problem with the skate

fisheries out there, that DFO closed the skate fishery because they think that

the quota of skate is caught. In the meantime I have my officials meeting with

DFO now, as we are talking, to find out all the problems with the skate fishery

because I think it is like most species out there, it is overregulated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it was only this morning

that I met with five fishermen who are carrying out that fishery and they have

their boats tied up today with only 50 per cent of the skate being caught, I say

to the minister.

Inshore fishermen Minister, are permitted to use 5.25-inch

mesh for the 1997 turbot fishery. DFO has issued a small-fish protocol. If more

than 15 per cent of turbot caught in those nets are less than 17.5 inches, the

fishery will close. Minister, you certainly know that this measure is totally

inconsistent with 5.5-inch mesh size and virtually guarantees a major problem

with small fish. Is the minister aware of this problem and if so, is he

satisfied with DFO's decision?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem. I,

like the fishermen out there in the area have concerns with the regulations that

have been put in place, not only the turbot fishery, the skate fishery, the cod

fishery and all other fisheries. We are meeting with DFO now to discuss the

concerns that these fishermen have; we are concerned about the by-catch in all

instances, we are concerned about the size of mesh that is being talked about in

the turbot fishery and other fisheries, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the one

thing that is uppermost in our minds and everybody's mind in this Province, is

not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

The other concern I have is the micro-management. The

micro-management of the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to quickly end his answer.

MR. EFFORD: You have to have a bookkeeper aboard your

boat now to go out to the fishery with all the paper work that is there so we

are concerned about it and are meeting with DFO to try to lessen the problems in

the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

The Chair would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery

today, Dr. Noel Murphy, a former member of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the minerals of Voisey's Bay belong to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador and the primary beneficiaries of the development of

those resources should be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, subsections

4.1.1 and 2 - 4.1.1 states: a person may in the current taxation year deduct

from the amount payable under

Section 4, the amount payable to the Province

under the Income Tax Act in respect of mining income in the Province for that

year; and 2: Subsection 1 shall apply only for each of the first ten years after

the achievement of commercial production in the mine from which mining income is

derived; and

WHEREAS even though the hon. the Premier stated in this House

on November 20, 1996, that there would be no ten-year tax holiday for Inco, yet

there is nothing in the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act or any other

legislation to exempt Inco or its subsidiaries or operations at Voisey's Bay

from these provisions; and

WHEREAS the Provincial Government has, to date, given the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador no opportunity to understand, evaluate or

have input regarding the various royalty regimes that may be under consideration

with respect to Voisey's Bay minerals; and

WHEREAS the mineral Act states in paragraph 31.5(c)(6), that

a lease issued under the Act is subject to the condition that the leasee shall,

where required to do so by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, complete primary

production in whole or in

part in the Province of a mineral or a mineral ore

extracted or removed under the lease;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to act promptly to ensure the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that they derive maximum benefit from the development

of our resources at Voisey's Bay; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the

government to act promptly to amend the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act by

adding in subsection 4.1.1 immediately following the words, `a person' the

words, `other than Inco and its subsidiaries and operations at Voisey's Bay';

and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the

government to hold an open consultation process with the people of our Province

with respect to the various royalty regimes under consideration regarding

Voisey's Bay minerals and do so prior to the finalization of any such royalty

regime; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the

government to do everything it can, as is required by law, to establish a copper

smelter refinery in this Province to process as much as possible of the Voisey's

Bay copper resources here in this Province.

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present a petition which I will read for the

record: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador

- approximately 7,000 names - that

WHEREAS the variation of gasoline prices throughout the

Province is wide and unfair; and

WHEREAS we want to ensure that all people within the Province

pay a fair and equitable price for gasoline regardless of the geographic region

of the Province;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce the appropriate amendments so that

gasoline prices in this Province will be regulated by the Public Utilities

Board.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a thorny issue and a sore point

for many people in the Province, myself included. In 1989, members of the

present Liberal Government campaigned on a promise that they would look at

regulating the oil and gas industry dealing specifically, Mr. Speaker, with home

heating fuel and gasoline prices, but today we see in Trinity, where you pay 60

cents to 70 cents a litre, in Corner Brook you may pay less than that, in Grand

Falls it is higher, in St. John's it is something else. People fundamentally are

asking the question: Why? A very legitimate question. There is no sound or just

reason for the variation of prices per litre in this Province to be taking

place.

It is important to note for the record that in 1990, the

Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, with the commitment of the Premier of

the day, Premier Clyde Wells, commissioned an internal study of regulation of

the gasoline industry with the possible view that two things would happen: one,

that where inequities existed they would be corrected; and two, that a more

stable plan be put in place for the regulation of gasoline prices.

People of that day, the Premier of the day, the Minister of

Mines and Energy of the day, fought an election on the issue. They said that the

only appropriate manner in which gasoline prices could be stabilized - to take

it out of the realm of politics, to depoliticize it, if you will, to put it into

an arm's length independent board that would look at the industry for what it

is, and make recommendations that would be binding in law - would be to send it

to the Public Utilities Board.

We do that today. We do it with energy. In terms of the

heating cost, electrical cost, that we all pay as electrical consumers, each

time that Newfoundland Power or Newfoundland Hydro wishes to have a rate

increase or an increase in prices, they have to make application to the Public

Utilities Board. It is that simple. Once they make application to the Public

Utilities Board, a hearing commences, a hearing which allows the public to have

their input, a hearing and a process that allows a consumer advocate to present

the views of the public and to balance, to provide a counter-argument, to the

argument of the industry.

Seven thousand people signed this petition in and around the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What they are asking for is very

legitimate, very simple. They are not asking for gasoline prices to be so low

that it would put companies out of business. What they are asking for simply is

that if you pay 55 cents a litre in Corner Brook that you pay 55 cents a litre

in St. John's; that if you pay 55 cents a litre in Trinity, Newfoundland and

Labrador, that you also pay it in Badger and Grand Falls.

Mr. Speaker, I support their aim, I support the petition, and

I urge government to strongly consider the recommendations in this petition that

would put forth to the Public Utilities Board a process by which, when gasoline

prices are supposed to go up, that it go to the Public Utilities Board for a

fair hearing so that the public will know clearly why we are paying such

dramatic differences for gasoline in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support the petition put forward by my

colleague, the Member for Kilbride. It was only a couple of weeks ago that I

presented a similar petition here that was circulated in my district. I

indicated at that time that within a short distance of something like thirty

kilometres there was a difference of something like six cents a litre. Now, if

somebody can tell me or convince me that that is not price gouging, then I do

not know what is.

The argument the oil companies continually put forward is the

cost of transportation. I am not convinced that the people in Bonavista should

be paying six cents a litre more for gasoline than the people, say, for Trinity,

thirty-five kilometres up the road. It is not uncommon to be able to come here

in the St. John's area, fill up your car, and save in excess of $8 or $10 on a

fill-up, one tank of gas, compared to what you pay in rural areas. In a

committee meeting I brought it forward and raised a concern with the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology. He indicated that it could not be regulated,

because if you regulated gasoline, then everybody would be paying more than they

are paying now. I do not accept that.

Everybody agrees that you should be able to make a profit in

business today, but it is certainly unfair for one gasoline dispenser to be

selling his gasoline in excess of 70 cents a litre and somebody else to be

selling his at 62 cents and 64 cents a litre, totally unfair, and I suggest that

government react to the problem immediately and bring in regulation so that

everybody in this Province will be paying the same price for this commodity

which is not a luxury, but that people use in order to go to work, to visit a

doctor, to go to a government office. Every time you move today, you have to use

some form or mode of transportation and gasoline is certainly a necessity. So I

implore the government to look into the suggestion as put forward by the

petition and react to the needs of the consumers in this Province.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of

Newfoundlanders who are petitioning this honourable House to direct the

government to establish a universal, comprehensive school lunch program for

every school in Newfoundland and Labrador, to help end child hunger and to give

our children a better chance.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the series of petitions, and I

understand there are more to come, calling on government to look seriously at

the issue of child hunger in the Province which has been recently identified as

having increased by 50 per cent from 1989 to 1995.

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be pretending that the

only child hunger in Newfoundland exists in St. John's but that is very, very

far from the truth. It is a problem throughout this Province and has been

identified in many communities throughout the Province and in fact, it is a

hidden problem. It is a problem which is hidden because people do not like to

talk about it; parents do not like to talk about it because of reasons such as

stigma and also the concern that, if they talk about their children being

hungry, the Human Resources and Employment department might be interested in

coming after them to see whether or not they are properly looking after their

children despite the fact that they get inadequate funds from the Department of

Human Resources and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, we have to address this problem through

government action and the amount of money being given by the government to the

school lunch foundation is not at all adequate, it is a very paltry amount when

one considers the problem. It is pretty obvious that the government is saving

and intends to save many, many millions of dollars. The figures that have been

bandied around is upwards of $100 million as a result of changes to the

education system in the next couple of years and over the last year or so. With

teacher allocations changing, with schools closing, with busing changing, there

is a lot of money being saved in this Province, some of it unnecessarily saved,

I might add. Parents are here having to fight government to recognize the need

for community schools and many schools in the Province and are fighting for

quality education for their children. But this is one area, Mr. Speaker, where

government can act, and can act with some of the money they are saving, and

ensure that each school child in the Province has access to a nutritious meal

every day they are in school so that they can participate in the educational

opportunities that are available to them and hopefully, hopefully improve their

chances in life and their chances in school. This is of utmost importance, Mr.

Speaker, and I urge, along with the petitioners, the House of Assembly to direct

government to follow these petitioners' request.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition put forward by my

colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the House that this petition

has been before the House now almost every day since this spring session began.

We know the evidence is out there that says that many children go to school

every day in this Province and they have insufficient nutrition.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a concern that is quoted in

Volume 1 of the Report of the Strategic Social Planning Public Dialogue,

Newfoundland and Labrador. Let me read what it says on page 10. It says: When

parents deny a child food, clothing and shelter, it is considered abuse, yet,

when governments do it, it is called fiscal responsibility and, Mr. Speaker,

that is where we have difficulty, in a situation where we know there are 40,000

children who went to school this very day in this Province, and stats will show

that these children had insufficient food. We know the relationship between good

nutrition and learning. That has been established; therefore, why are we

continuing to fail as a Province to address the issue? We compliment those

agencies, those private businesses, the church groups, the community groups who

are out there saying: We have to do something about this very very important

problem. We have the studies put forward, like the study I hold in my hand now

called, Special Matters ; a report of the review of special education, Dr.

Patricia Canning's report. Mr. Speaker, all of

chapter three talks about poverty

and education. It draws the relationship between how children are fed and how

they achieve in school, and I have to say to the government, as I have said on

many occasions, the results of the study are self-evident. We do not need to

have any more studies. We want, now, action. We want to say to the government,

in their budget they talked about bold initiatives. We have not seen any. We

have not seen those bold initiatives, have not seen any evidence of any great

deal of planning. We just talk about the problem, and on this side of the House,

that is all the power we have, every day to bring it forward. And I regret I

have to do it, but every day that we bring forward this motion, I will continue

to support it, because when you have that number of children who are going to

school every day hungry and knowing the relationship between achievement and the

nutrition of the child, we cannot do anything of any greater order in this

particular Legislature than to try to address that fundamental question.

So, Mr. Speaker, all of the evidence is there. We know what

should be done, we call upon government to increase your activity, to increase

the commitments that you have towards the issues of child poverty in this

Province. We commend the Federal Government for their initiatives, but do not

forget that when we talk about these, they are just the beginnings. Canada has a

crisis in child care, it is called, child poverty, and in Newfoundland and

Labrador we probably have as great or a greater problem than anywhere else in

this country. Mr. Speaker, we have to do something about it, we call upon the

government: before September, this year, show some leadership, show a commitment

and do something about child poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Opposition

House Leader and the NDP member in the House - there were a couple of ministers

who missed a step on the Order Paper when you called for Presenting Reports -

and they have agreed to give us leave to table two reports; we do have leave, I

take it.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave of the House, we revert to Reports.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister

responsible for the Status of Women, I hereby table the status report on the

implementation of the Prevention Strategy Against Violence. The Prevention

Strategy Against Violence, I believe, is a successful example of co-operation

between five partner departments of government and the community, the schools,

(inaudible) prevention of violence and improvement of service delivery to

victims of violence.

Mr. Speaker, I table the report. There is also the 1996

Annual Report of the Department of Environment and Labour, the Labour Relations

Divisions. I table it on behalf of the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions. The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise to present a petition to the hon. House of

Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session assembled. The

petition is from residents in the St. John's region.

Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:

WHEREAS a number of mentally handicapped young adults have

resided in certain group homes for ten to fifteen years or longer; and

WHEREAS the uprooting of these people would be very traumatic

and could lead to very serious regression; and

WHEREAS the only reason for this move is to save government a

paltry sum of money;

THEREFORE

be it resolved that the proposed changes to group

home care program be deferred pending public consultations with front-line

workers, family representatives and social workers to determine the validity and

reliability of the restructuring proposals as to whether or not these changes

represent the best interest of clients.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support this petition. We know that

there has been a great deal of dialogue in the Province, after the announcement

was made by the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, on April 4, about

the proposal to restructure all of the home care facilities in this Province. We

know that many parents and many of the brothers and sisters, in cases where

parents are no longer able to care for their loved ones, have come forward and

said: We want to be assured that these changes to group homes are in the best

interest of our loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to you that many of these parents

- I have had calls from parents who are now in their senior years, and it

grieves me greatly that mothers who are well into their eighties have been

crying, and asking: What is going to happen to my daughter? In her lifetime, she

has been at home, a patient at the Waterford Hospital in the last few years.

In one particular case, the mother said her daughter has now

been out in a group home.

They are afraid that what is happening is not in the best

interest of the individual. What they are asking for in this petition is not

that we change the thrust of what we are attempting to do. I will read it again.

It says: that we defer the proposed changes to the group homes pending public

consultations with front-line workers, with family representatives, with social

workers, to determine the validity and the reliability of the whole

restructuring process, to make sure that the changes that are being made are in

the best interest of the people who are involved.

Mr. Speaker, for the most part, these are people who cannot

speak for themselves. We have to be their advocates. We have to be the people

who will speak up for them. I want to say to the hon. House that today we ask

this House: Will you put a hold on those changes that the government said are

going to be all implemented by September 30, 1997? That is the date that has

been set.

We say to the minister, we are not judging here as to whether

or not this is a good initiative or a bad initiative. We are saying, talk to the

real people, talk to the front-line workers, talk to the people who care for

these people, talk to the siblings, talk to the parents, who want to be

reassured that what you are doing is in the best interest of the people

involved. What will it matter if we delay the changes by two months, three

months? If we cannot show it is in the best interest of the individuals, then we

should cancel it altogether.

Let us wait until we can have a proper public consultation so

that we can show to those care givers, to the workers who work in those homes,

to the family members, that the proposed changes in the group homes in this

Province represent a step in the right direction, and they represent more than

merely an effort to show budgetary restraint. Because we, certainly, in this

Province, do not want a situation to arise where we are going to balance budgets

on the backs of some of the people to whom we should give the greatest level of

care, namely, people who are unable to care for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the prayer of the petition, and I

ask the hon. House if the government through the minister would listen to its

prayer. Because this particular prayer makes a great deal of common sense.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to give support to a petition which has been

signed by a number of people in the St. John's area, including a number of

people in my own constituency of Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

I want to relate to you a story about a couple who are

residents of one of these co-operative housing activities, group homes, or co-op

homes, who are living together. The two women, former residents of Exon House,

had a difficult time there, and spent a number of years in foster homes after

Exon House was closed.

Recently, and when I say recently, that is over the last

seven or eight years, as a result of this program of group homes and support for

independent living, these two women, who have been together now for some twenty

years, and are friends, have difficulties - they have difficulties with mental

handicaps - but they are working. Both of them are working. They are, in many

respects, self-sufficient, but they cannot live on their own. They do have some

support provided by employees of the Avalon Community Accommodations Board and

they are able to live pretty happily as a result of this program. These women,

Mr. Speaker, are now crying themselves to sleep at night, wondering what is

going to happen to them because they have been told by the Minister of Social

Services that they have to get out of their house for which they are providing

rent money, get out of their house that they have enjoyed the kind of

accommodations and living arrangements that most people in society have come to

expect, Mr. Speaker, a degree of independent living where that is possible. All

the petitioners ask for is that there be a public consultation to talk about

with the care givers, with the residents themselves, with the relatives, with

the people who are directly involved in the situation of these individuals to

see whether or not there is some other way that these families can be

accommodated or these individuals can be accommodated without the kind of

drastic solutions that are being proposed - because basically they are cut off

the program - and whether or not the changes that are being made are in fact in

the best interest of the clients of this program or indeed of the public

interest.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the government has been through

a fairly rigorous program of so-called program review where government has

forced departments to go through their programs and their books and identify

savings of an incredibly substantial amount. This is downloading, Mr. Speaker.

This is part of the downloading of the federal government deficit on to the

provincial government. The provincial government is downloading it, in some

cases on the municipal governments but in other cases directly on the

individuals, such as students for example who are now having an increased debt

load, social assistance recipients who are being asked to borrow money to - in

the case of single parents - feed their children, clothe their children and pay

interest on that over the next fifteen or twenty years. Downloading to

individuals.

Here is another example, Mr. Speaker, where the individuals

are going to bear the burden of the national deficit passed on to the Province,

now being passed on to individuals, are innocent people whose lives are going to

be dramatically affected for the worse for government programs of this nature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is time to start to up-load some of the responsibility and

the blame for what is happening to people. People of this Province are going to

come in here every day to protest and they are saying that they have enough of

the ill affects of government cutbacks, that the deficit is a problem that has

been foisted upon them and not being dealt with properly at the provincial and

national level. How much pain do we have to cause, Mr. Speaker? How much pain

does government have to cause to people before they realize that there must be

an end to this? The people who I have talked to, Mr. Speaker, said: Don't they

know? Don't they understand?' or then they say, Well don't they care? The

conclusion that they have reached, Mr. Speaker, in many cases is that government

just does not care of the pain and suffering that is caused to individuals.

There is an awful lot of signatures on this petition, Mr.

Speaker, and they seem to all have been obtained in a period of one, two or

three days which is obviously a lot of concern about this issue throughout the

region where the petition was brought. It is obvious that a lot of people are

very, very concerned about what this government's policies are doing to

individuals who need to have the support of group homes, who have had that

support for ten or fifteen years. A change, Mr. Speaker, from the

institutionalization of the past to a more pleasant environment, a more

reasonable environment, a happier environment in fact, for these individuals who

are now being forced to take a step back into the unknown but certainly much

worse circumstances as the result of this change.

I ask - I more than ask, Mr. Speaker, I beseech the

government to reconsider the drastic nature of this program decision -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and to reconsider it and go through a

consultation process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have another

petition to present.

It is: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland, in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, ask for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer: We, the undersigned, give our support to Student

Parents for a Better Tomorrow in their efforts to address the affects of the

provincial Budget on student parents attending post-secondary institutions.

Effective September of this year, student parents attending post-secondary

institutions whom previously received financial assistance from the Department

of Social Services will be forced to take on additional debt to cover the basic

cost of living, for them and their children. Compensation for this denial of

social aid will be the eligibility for maximum student loan allocation from the

Department of Education's Student Aid Division. Students graduating from

Memorial University, for instance, will be weighted with debts as high as

$52,000.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition is signed by hundreds

of student parents and their family members throughout this particular Province.

We know that the Province in its wisdom or lack of it in the provincial Budget

said that all student parents must take the maximum student loan. We have had

consultations with the student parents who are attending the post-secondary

institutions in the St. John's region, particularly those who are at Memorial

University, and they tell us that this change in policy is going to mean a

tremendous disincentive for these parents in their ability to be able to

continue their education.

We know that these parents can stay at home, and they will be

paid the full social services assistance program. They will get their money from

the department by staying home and doing nothing. But if they happen to say: We

want to go to the University, then what the department says is: We are going to

now say to you we are going to cut off your social assistance. We are going to

say to you: Now all your money must come from student loans. Only when you have

maximized all your student loans will you be able to get any further help from

the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

What that means is that we are going to ask those young

parents, primarily young mothers, if they will go and take on this additional

debt load. Instead of having a debt load of, say, $20,000 or $25,000 at

graduation, they are going to have a debt load of $40,000 or $50,000 at

graduation. We are going to say to a young mother with one, two or three

children, and I do know cases where people are going to university who have

three children: When you graduate we are going to expect you to, in addition to

trying to care for your three children - who by that time will be three

teenagers -, we are going to say to this mother: We are going to victimize you

further. We are going to say to you that we are going to make you not only care

for the physical needs of your children, but we are going to say to you we are

going to make you start paying back on a loan of $40,000 or $50,000.

We ask the government, where is the compassion, where is the

fairness, where is the rationale for that kind of decision making? What we are

doing really is we are balancing a budget on the backs of the people out there

who we should be encouraging. We should be applauding them. We should be saying

to them: We hope that there are more people out there who are on social services

who want to go to post-secondary. We should be out there saying: Here are the

incentives, here is what we will do. It isn't going to cost us any more than it

was costing us before. We will continue to assist you.

But no, we don't say that. What we say to them is: If you

want to go to University, you want to go to post-secondary, we are going to say

to you, first of all, we are going to cut you off on social assistance. We are

going to make you then take all of the full student loan component. Only if you

need more money after that will we then go and give you any help through social

assistance (inaudible). We are saying that is fundamentally flawed, it isn't

good educational policy, it isn't good human policy, and certainly it is the

wrong message we are sending.

We are saying to people out there today who are parents who

want to go to school, want to better themselves: We would rather - and

indirectly, because we aren't giving them any encouragement - we would just as

soon you stayed home and stayed in the particular difficulties that you are now

in. These parents here, because they have initiative, they want to get ahead in

the world. As I said, they are primarily women, and very often when divorce

occurs, it is a case of where it is the mother who is left with the children, it

is the mother who has to try to get her life in order; it is the mother who has

to say to her three children: I am going to try to make life better and then,

when she decides to go back to school to try to make it possible, the government

says: Yes, there is a penalty for that, we are going to make you absorb all the

costs. So, Mr. Speaker, we find that this is not a good policy for a whole lot

of reasons and we say to these student-parents, we regret again that this

government has put fiscal responsibility here in balancing the Budget on the

backs of some of the most defenceless people in the community -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - in this particular case, on the backs of

the student-parents who can ill-afford to take on this kind of burden and

responsibility.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition presented by the Opposition

House Leader. It is an issue that is of great importance not only to the

individuals involved but to the Province in terms of its social policy.

We are dealing here fundamentally with women. They call

themselves student-parents because they want to be inclusive because there may

be one or two men involved but 99.9 per cent of the people involved here are

single women on social assistance who, if they do not get the kind of support

they need are probably going to end up staying on social assistance and, Mr.

Speaker, the government has decided to treat them equally, equally with

everybody else who applies for student loans.

I think, what has to be realized, Mr. Speaker, is that equal

treatment does not always deliver equality. Equal treatment does not deliver

equality when the results of that equal treatment are to burden these particular

individuals, almost all of whom are women, with an unacceptable and impossible

level of debt for them to be able to pursue an education. I think the minister

responsible for Human Resources and Employment and also the Status of Women

ought to consider both of these issues when she is looking at this policy.

Now this policy, Mr. Speaker, represents forcing women - and

some of them are young women in their early twenties, some of them are in their

late forties and early fifties in some cases - with children whom they are

trying to support and at the same time trying to improve their education and

their job prospects.

Mr. Speaker, if the department persists in pursuing this

policy, it is going to force many of these women to abandon their careers, some

of them will continue of course, but many others who find themselves in the same

circumstances as these women are not going to even pursue it at all, Mr.

Speaker, they will not pursue post-secondary education because they cannot face

the prospect of having to go through several years of either university or other

post-secondary training and borrow the money to pay for diapers; borrow the

money to buy baby food; borrow the money to buy clothes for their children and

then face the prospect of paying interest on that for years and years and years

to come, on the amount of money that is so large, that has to be beyond their

comprehension of them having the ability to pay it back.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, when I went to university and, Mr.

Speaker, you too probably had the advantage of a fairly generous student loan

and grant program, that I think I managed to at least get one year where tuition

was in fact free, and I was able to get a university education and the

Opposition House Leader got a salary.

MR. H. HODDER: One hundred dollars a month.

MR. HARRIS: One hundred dollars a month. The Opposition

House Leader got $100 a month for going to university.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to do that today, but

we are going so far in the opposite direction so as to make university education

inaccessible to all but the most well-off students or the people with the best

prospects for the future and, Mr. Speaker, students are starting to realize that

they are being treated unfairly, all students are being treated unfairly by this

government, by governments generally, and in particular these students who are

struggling to change their lot in life from that of a recipient of social

assistance, a recipient of society's beneficence to a contributor, by getting a

proper education. They are being asked to bear an unconscionable burden and they

are being forced in many cases, to stay on social assistance. It is an awful,

awful regressive step that is being taken by this government, they think they

are going to save $2 million, they may save $2 million of their budget this

year, they may save $2 million of their budget next year, but I will guarantee

them that they may be paying social assistance to more people for longer periods

of time and that $2 million is going to look paltry indeed, when they see

themselves with an ongoing obligation for many, many, many years to come to

provide support to these single parents and their families.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the result of this policy. It is cruel,

it is unconscionable, it is discriminatory against women and it is short-sighted

and it ought to be changed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before I move to Orders of the

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

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 6, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a

bill "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act".

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Teachers' Association Act" (Bill No. 19).

The hon. the Government House Leader introducing the bill.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a fairly

simple bill that has been put forward and it is being done, I think, at the

request of the NLTA in which they have asked us to change references in the

Teachers' Association Act from an annual meeting to a bi-annual meeting and they

have also asked us to amend

section 9 of the act by requiring a bi-annual

meeting or convention of the association, rather than an annual meeting and to

reduce the executive membership, I believe, from fifteen to twelve and in

addition, would make the immediate past president of the association an

executive member of the association.

I think, Mr. Speaker, those are the two main things that this

bill requires and it is being done at the request of the teachers' association

and of course, those people who have been teachers in the past would know that

you would want to cooperate with them in every way, shape and form that is

possible.

While the Minister of Education is busy solving problems with

AN HON. MEMBER: Creating problems.

MR. TULK: - education in the Province today, it gives me

great pleasure to introduce this bill for second reading.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on Bill 19 to amend the Teachers' Association

Act. My first inclination was to oppose the bill, Mr. Speaker, and force them to

meet every year, so that the Minister of Education would have to face the music

every single year and not get off the hook, but when the minister first

introduced the bill I thought that he was doing it in a self-serving way to

avoid confronting the reality of having to talk to the teachers at least once a

year, now he only has to talk to them every second year, but I say that slightly

tongue and cheek, Mr. Speaker, clearly the NTA ought to be the master of its own

constitution and if the teachers have decided, under the appropriate provisions

of their constitution, of their association to have a bi-annual meeting as

apposed to an annual meeting for both the teachers' association and the pension

association, there is no reason why this House ought to interfere with that.

There is also the concern that the number of executive

members be changed in conformity with the associations request and also to add

the immediate past president as a member of the executive and certainly, if that

is the wish of the teachers' association there is no reason why this House

should interfere with that.

While I am on my feet and we are talking about the teachers'

association, I heard a disturbing comment today, from a letter sent to some

teachers out in the Avalon West District where the protesters who were outside

in the lobby of the House of Assembly before the House met, were talking about

the concerns about education that were being expressed in communities around the

Province and many groups were there today from the Burin Peninsula, Bonavista,

from Fogo Island, from Badger, from the Trinity - Bay de Verde area, Mr.

Speaker, from Brigus. All concerned that their issues and their interests

weren't being properly aired before the school boards.

One of the groups of people they were hoping would be able to

be involved in public discussion and public debate about these issues were the

schoolteachers and principals themselves. But I was shocked to have quoted to

the gathering outside a letter from the executive director of the Avalon West

school board, directed to teachers and principals, telling them that if they

spoke out publicly - I don't have a copy, but I wouldn't mind having a copy of

it - on issues involving the school board they would be considered to be guilty

of a disciplinary act, and potentially insubordination, apparently, supposedly,

undermining the authority of the employer.

If a teacher speaks out against a school board's policy they

have been under threat by letter from the chief executive officer, who doesn't

seem to be happy enough to meet with people. He takes pains to write a letter to

all the teachers and principals in his district reminding them that to speak out

could be considered disciplinary action.

I haven't heard from the NLTA on this. I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This is a directive, yes. But I'm just

concerned that not only this directive but - this comes from the NLTA - but I'm

wondering when we are going to hear from the NLTA about this letter that was

sent to teachers and principals out in the Avalon West, basically telling them

that they aren't to speak out about school closures and school designations. The

NLTA is in fact, by a bulletin sent out April 22, warning people that they may

have a problem if they speak out publicly about school closures and school

designations, because the employer may regard that as insubordination.

Mr. Speaker, that to me is one of the most undemocratic

approaches to public policy in this Province that I've ever heard. I understand

the employment relationship, if you are dealing with corporate operations and

that sort of thing, but this is a matter of public policy. A schoolteacher is

not only a schoolteacher, as you know. A schoolteacher is also a member of the

community, and as a member of the public has every right to speak out on public

issues affecting his or her community. Has every right to run for public office,

as Your Honour did, and got himself elected, and a number of other people here

did too.

If schoolteachers can't speak out on public issues how can

they participate in the public discussions that are going on in this Province

about education? Whether it be denominational education, whether it be community

education, whether it be issues affecting the school closures and designations

in their area. How can they participate in that, as members of - not only

employees of the school board, but as members of the community?

I thought that that day had gone. I thought we had gone past

the day when schoolteachers were frightened to speak out because the priest or

the minister or somebody might see that they lost their job because they weren't

playing the game, they weren't being who they were supposed to be, they weren't

carrying the right flag at the right time, or attending the right church, or

doing the right things in the community. I thought that that day was gone - one

of the reasons why so many people supported the changes to Term 17 in this

Province - and many teachers supported it as well, both publicly and privately.

Because they believed that the time had come for schoolteachers to have more

personal freedom in terms of not only their opinions, but their activities and

anything else associated with their life in the community.

Now we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where school teachers

and principals are being threatened with disciplinary action if they speak out

and speak their mind. Now why is that, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps because they might

have a little bit of credibility on these issues because they are school

teachers and they know more in many respects than some certain lay people about

the issues and how they are going to affect the quality of education? Is that

why they don't want them to speak out? Do they want to keep them quiet because

they are concerned? Is this a directive perhaps from the Minister of Education?

Has the Minister of Education told them this is the way to keep them quiet? A

very good question, Mr. Speaker.

Now the Minister of Education is not here to respond to that

so I won't leave it hanging in the air but that is a very good question. I think

it is time that the Minister of Education made a public statement denouncing

that kind of comment from a chief executive officer of a school board or a

school superintendent - director I think they are called now under the new act -

but that is not the kind of statement that we want to see made to teachers and

principals in this Province, that they should keep their mouths shut less they

be subjected to disciplinary procedures for disagreeing or commenting on the

school closure or school designation within their district. So I am hoping that

the Minister of Justice will look into this. It is a very serious matter.

Perhaps he can talk to his colleague the Minister of Education and perhaps

something could be done about this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading of

Bill No. 19.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently, by leave. (Bill No. 19)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No. 9, "An

Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law". I don't believe the

Leader of the Opposition has spoken. I believe that he wanted to ask some

questions. We would ask him to adjourn debate and move on today.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few comments and when we get to the committee level

we will have some questions that the minister will hopefully be able to provide

some answers to. It is very lengthy. There are numerous different amendments and

numerous different acts. There is a whole galore of those out there and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not raise any yet, Mr. Speaker. The

Opposition House Leader made reference to numerous sections and so on. I just

looked at some of the more troublesome ones and had an opportunity to run

through some of these and I am still in the process of digesting a couple of

them that I had to rush through. So I have an opportunity to look at a few of

these. So I will just have a few general comments overall and then when we get

to committee we will be able to ask some specific questions and get answers

then. It will be a better forum than doing it during second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that's fine. I will keep my comments

fairly brief here.

Overall the Opposition House Leader listed numerous sections

the last day that some concerns or someone answered questions or some reasons

why they are doing what they are doing and in some areas here we are looking for

an explanation. I see nine specific areas. There are seven clauses in question.

There are a few of these dealing with the Financial Administration Act, the

Hydro Corporation Act and other acts. The Hydro Corporation Act again in another

point. I think those are the clauses I believe on these. I will just make

reference as I go through them generally. Clause 21 makes reference to the

Financial Administration Act and clause 31 is the Hydro Corporation Act and it

mentions other acts there, the EPC and so on. Clause 32, the Hydro Corporation

Act again. Then it mentions Clause 45, the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act.

Clause 56, the Provincial Parks Act. Clause 65 deals with the Securities Act and

clause 70 deals with the subordinate legislation revision and consolidation.

That is clause 70.

So, they are some of the ones that are of some concern, the

retroactivity, and maybe the minister will have an acceptable answer on some of

these. There are always concerns with retroactivity, and going back and dealing

with so many the one time; and there is something happening at various points

that another act is kicking in and doing the same things and I think that

happens with the Hydro Corporation's act in clause 32. For instance Bill No. 9,

is really amending and I will just use one example: It is amending the 1995 act,

An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control Act,

1994 and other acts, it says: To remove reference to 44 (4) and 47.

In other words, what is happening is, 44 (4) and 47 are

unrepealed I guess, effective the same day that the limitation act kicks in, the

appeals end April 1, 96. So I am just wondering what is the point of the

amendment overall, you know, for instance, why would we be unrepealing 44

(4) and 47 retroactive to the very same day that they are being repealed by another

act, and the use of retroactivity in this instance, can add some confusion to

the process here and I am wondering if there is a specific reason why this

amendment will be needed then if another act is supposed to do it or, is it done

so the limitations act is not repealing a

section and subsection that does not

exist? So that adds a little bit to the confusion there and I am sure I have

added a little bit to it too, I say to the minister but, they are some of the

points

I see the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is

smiling, I am sure he knows all about confusion, I say to him. Those points for

example, and I will not put these into question form but, in clause 32, the

Hydro Corporation Act, it talks about, you know, on behalf of the Province,

giving the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, who had the power, but it

also adds in his or her deputy minister or another minister whom the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may designate and that signature is added there

must be engraved, lithographed or whatever. In other words, it adds to that

approval list, they can designate the Deputy Minister of Finance. I mean, is

that just an error, an anomaly or is that a policy change? Are we now going to

invest certain powers in the deputy minister that have ordinarily been invested

in the minister?

I mean, that could be significant, that is clause 32 and I am

just wondering whether that itself is an anomaly and we can consider an anomaly.

Maybe some powers we do not want to invest and maybe we should I suppose. We

invest a lot more in the deputy minister I say and I will invest in the

minister, maybe you are on the right track but, the deputy minister was not

elected, he is not the minister who represents the department even though I have

great respect for him, he is doing a tremendous job but it is his minister with

whom I have a big problem.

There is clause 45 also I made reference to, the Mining and

Mineral Rights Tax Act, which we are all so familiar with that one; that is the

one with the most recent amendment which was the ten-year give away of tax,

where, they can write-off their income tax against their mining operations tax;

your income tax at the corporate rate for mining is 14 per cent and mining

operation tax is 15 per cent so we can write one off against the other for ten

years, which is a big mistake. The former Premier saw it as a big mistake and

realized and brought a Bill No. 43 to this House to correct that problem which

we supported changing. We called for changes for months and months, since the

spring of '95 and we have been calling for it for the last two years and we have

been told: no need to worry and you know what happened since then. A company

called Inco went out and reached down in their account and on behalf of the

owners of the company paid out a cheque for $4.3 billion in August of '96 I

think when the litigation with Freidland had finally cleared and any outstanding

challenges in the court, wrote a cheque for $4.3 billion well after the

legislation tells Inco they have a ten-year tax holiday.

Now, put yourself in that position; If you bought a company

for $4.3 billion or $4.3 thousand and you found that the Province was giving you

a ten-year tax break, they changed that tax break and they told you you were not

going to get it, you said: I bought that company knowing that was going to be

there, the laws of the Province said it is there. The Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology, the future Minister of Mines and Energy say it is

nonsense, the future minister, I am not so sure. The future Minister of Mines

and Energy says nonsense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rex will be back.

MR. SULLIVAN: If the laws of the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Clear notice. Where is the notice? Table it

in the House. Where is the clear? To me legislation is clear, Inco in a room or

meeting is not clear. Let's see the proof. To me there is nothing clearer than

the law, that is written in the legislation of the Province, that is the

clearest indication of intent anyone could ever want is what is written in the

laws of the Province. What is written into the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax

Act, even the member representing - it is now Windsor-Springdale, who did

represent and does represent mining in the area would even know the importance

of legislation takes precedence over what we might have said in a back room

meeting or in a front room meeting or in some other form. Legislation takes

precedence, the law takes precedence over other matters.

Even the minister now would not admit to anything being any

different than that, I am sure. A person who aspires to be the next Minister of

Mines and Energy in the Province is going to try to tell us that he is going to

ignore the laws of the Province. They did that with Trans City and look what

happened. They did it with Atlantic Leasing and look what happened. Now they are

in court again. My god the record in court is not very good, I said before, you

should either fire your legal advisors or fire the ministers if you keep pushing

- if you are spending tax payers dollars unwisely, unwisely because ministers

make a political decision, you should fire them. If the legal advice is not good

and you keep losing, you should fire the legal advisors. It has to be one or the

other in that case. I certainly would not call upon the government to defend me

if their track record is that bad, a multi-million dollar case and this is a

matter here, not a matter of whether Inco may take us to court, it is a matter

whereby they can use that to their maximum advantage in negotiating, they are

big players on the field, we are only a spot on the map of this world.

Inco is bigger then us, they have annual sales higher than

the revenue of this Province, we are only minor compared to them and on that we

get a big chunk of that from the federal government. We only generate revenues

less than $2 billion of our own in the Province, the rest of it comes in

transfers under transfer payments and under Canada health and social transfer

and other areas, about $1.9 in that range. I can pull out a little thing called

estimates here and give an exact figure if the minister wants it, but we raise

only half as much money as Inco raised before some of the recent expansions. I

think the last financial statement I read, the statement showed sales of about

$3.5 billion, I believe, in that ball park. That was about a year ago or more, I

do not know what it is now, but they are double the revenue that this Province

raises on their own and they are more than the Province counting transfers.

So, it is a big outfit, big players, play a touch game, stand

up for their shareholders and do not kid yourself, they do not represent the

interests of people here in this Province, so if you happen to be a shareholder

and have shares in Inco, then they will represent your interests, not the public

interest.

So, I say to the future minister, no I do not have shares in

any companies that deal in Newfoundland and Labrador. I even divested myself of

all of by business interests when I got in politics and any shares or anything

that dealt with the Province. I do not even want the perception of conflict, not

say the potential of conflict here, I will say that, unequivocally that is the

fact. I took my hundreds of millions then and threw it aside with the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology, probably sitting there with his millions, out

there earning great rates of return. He should have loaned it to the Province.

We are out paying 14 per cent on some of our loans in the Province. We should

have gone to him and hopefully he might have been a little more generous but I

don't know if he has that much confidence to loan his money out to the Minister

of Finance, who sits over there. I am not sure that he would want to take a

chance on that minister. I am not sure he would want to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I am not sure, talk is cheap. Money

talks, when you move it that speaks volumes. Money and mineral rights tax act,

other than giving away the shop - and we heard that before, `... sold the shop.'

That's right, `...sold the shop,' that's what he did. It sounds great doesn't

it? It sounds great but we paid a price. We are still paying it on Churchill

Falls. That atrocity

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, he went out to BC. Sold the

shop and then closed the shop. That is basically it, he sold the shop and then

hightailed it out of here.

MR. TULK: He was a good Newfoundlander.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure he served his time like everybody. I

don't have any qualms with -

MR. TULK: And he was a good Newfoundlander. In many ways

I admire him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There have not been many. There have been

three - there is one back here practising now, coming back to the Province and

there are two gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: As far as I know he has been doing very

well and my colleague from Baie Verte is not there. He is a bright fellow, I can

tell you. He used to be a Liberal at one time and then he became a PC. He's a

real bright guy. I have no doubt he could pass his law exam if he figured that

one out. Yes, he is a smart person. I would imagine they are finished now by

April. I think they are back here as of this month, as far as I know. I have not

spoken to the man in a year or more or a year-and-a-half so I don't know his

whereabouts but I am sure it is unfortunate - it is not only the former

Premier's colleague that Industry, Trade and Technology made reference to out of

the Province, there are a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I can tell

you, gone out around this country looking for jobs and it is a sad commentary.

It is a sad commentary when people have to take up roots and go out of here.

Almost everyone is affected by that. Most families are affected in some way. Now

there were always a lot of people who went out of the Province. That is not -

part of it is not always new.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I guess with what they are doing here

to the pharmacists, I don't see there is great hope to come back. The Minister

of Health took care of them. He cut that back on a level playing field between

here and the rest of the country. We are getting in the mail order drugs

business now because there is no money in it here. We have not done a good job

of maintaining Newfoundlanders and Labradorians here. We have been really kind

to the airlines. One way tickets we have been issuing here from this government,

one way tickets.

Under the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he is halfway there. You are halfway

there I say to the Government House Leader. You are halfway there in the battle

of wits. If you keep at it -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Ed Roberts.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, in a battle of wits he only came

half-armed I think is what he said. Yes, that's right and I have always said the

former Minister of Justice was always a bit of a wit. I admit that.

MR. FLIGHT: He was a bit of a myth too.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Windsor - Springdale said he

was a bit of a myth. I did not say that. I am telling you, he was no myth when

he was over there. He made the Member for Windsor - Springdale or Windsor -

Buchans toe the line, I can tell you. He did what he was told. He said if you

don't support this legislation leave the House. He said that, or not stay here.

That has happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well he could be now. He could be. I have

nothing to say about him. I can tell you, he did not dump ten bills on us in two

days. He came with a legislative agenda. He did not beat around the bush, the

former Government House Leader, if you did not have your bill here, leave it for

the next session. Don't pour it on top of us on Thursday and Friday - bills

flying out of your ears everywhere. Read a bill and expect to pass all three

stages in one day and get leave to introduce it. We have been pretty generous.

We gave leave to introduce bills and to get into first reading. We have been

cooperative.

But they wouldn'