October

30, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 45

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we get to the routine proceedings of the day I would

like to welcome to the galleries twenty students from the Council of the

Students Union from Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. The Premier and his

government have maintained their silence through yet more Federal Government

cuts, this time Marine Atlantic's downgrading of the Lewisporte to Nain coastal

boat service with the retiring of the Taverner and the elimination of forty-four

more jobs. Does the silence indicate the Premier's agreement with these cuts and

agreement on the part of the Liberal members who represent Newfoundland and

Labrador districts directly affected?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, the government hasn't been silent on

the matter. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has had numerous

meetings on issues affecting transportation and transportation plans of the

Federal Government. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the

Minister of Justice, and I don't know if there were two ministers specifically

involved with doing a full assessment of the Federal Government's obligations to

Newfoundland with respect to transportation matters.

As a result of that work, I have written the Prime Minister

to spell it out very clearly. We have not been silent on it, we just haven't

been making noise. We have been doing the work as it ought to have been done.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a supplementary for the Premier. Did the Premier say

to the Prime Minister, thank you Uncle Ottawa for reducing the Northern

Newfoundland coastal Labrador ferry service from two ships and an eight-day

turnaround, the Northern Ranger and Taverner operating from Lewisporte to Nain,

to next summer a one-vessel twelve-day turnaround service, the Northern Ranger

only operating from St. Anthony to Nain. Is that the Premier's approach?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the

approach we have taken. I mention those two things, the letter to the Prime

Minister is the culmination of a fair number of efforts mostly done by the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and also by the Minister of

Justice, and also by myself with Mr. Tobin. The letter to the Prime Minister

only went out, in fact, this morning so when he has had time to get it and

review it, I assume he probably won't mind its being made public. It is a pretty

general kind of letter talking about federal responsibility generally. It

doesn't make any of the kinds of comments the Leader of the Opposition has

facetiously, I am sure, suggested.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not much fight from this Premier or this government, just

passive acceptance - passive acceptance of whatever comes down from Ottawa.

I ask the Premier: Marine Atlantic has revealed to the public

that they are now reviewing the rate structure for the Labrador Coastal Boat

Service. Evidently, Marine Atlantic is making plans to charge higher rates for

slower and lower-level service. What is the Premier doing about this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional

obligations of the Federal Government with respect to the Marine and Coastal

services, particularly on the Coast of Labrador, are reasonably clear but not

absolutely certain. They are subject to argument and discussion but from our

point of view we think they are reasonably clear. The Federal Government

undertook an obligation in 1949 to take over and relieve the Province of

Newfoundland from the financial burden of operating, carrying on certain

transportation and other responsibilities.

Now, if the Federal Government doesn't do that, doesn't live

up to its obligations, then we have looked at our rights with respect to the

matter, we have had them legally assessed. It is our conclusion that we will, of

course, have the right to resume those things and simply sue the Federal

Government to recover the additional cost that the Province incurs as a result

of having to do it. Their obligation, we think, is that clear. So, my letter to

the Prime Minister suggests or requests, really, that they change this approach

of unilaterally making these kinds of decisions but trying to work in a

co-operative way with the Province.

Now, in the meantime, I have to say to you that the Province

has always acknowledged that the Federal Government has to get its expenditures

under control; it must get those expenditures under control, it must bring the

debt of the nation under control. If they don't, then we will be in a far worse

state than anything that their decisions now could cause, so while we support

their general management of the finances in order to keep the deficits and the

debt under control, nevertheless, we have to ensure that they meet their

obligations under the Constitution, too.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A question to the Premier. I ask the Premier: What

obligations does he think he has to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who

depend on the Northern Newfoundland and Labrador Coastal boat service, and to

the businesses which are trying to foster the tourism industry along the Coast

of Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The obligation I just outlined, to make

sure that the Federal Government lives up to its constitutional obligations. If

it does not, I believe we have the right to take over and operate those services

ourselves and recover the cost from the Federal Government, because the specific

undertaking was not simply to take over and operate the facilities, but to

relieve the Province of the cost involved in doing it. So, if they fall down on

it, if they don't give the kind of service that is necessary, then we believe we

have a right to do it and to recover the cost from the Federal Government.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Education following on

the statements by the President of Memorial University, Dr. May, over the last

few days, as it pertains to the tight financial situation at MUN. Dr. May made

some statements that have caused great concern for students, parents, the

business community and, I guess, all fifty-two of us here. Does the minister

think, from the statements made by Dr. May that an affordable, accessible

university education will remain a possibility for every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian who seeks to go to university at Memorial?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the University receives it

funding from various sources. One source is the Provincial Government, another

source is tuition fees. There are other sources, but one of the main ones is

established program financing which is a transfer from the Federal Government.

It is common knowledge throughout Canada today that the Federal Government,

indeed, intends to make that transfer payment much, much smaller. It is going to

amount to a substantial amount of money for the whole post-secondary system of

education, for the Department of Health and for the Department of Social

Services. Unfortunately, the Province is not in a position to pick up that cut

in transfer payment, Mr. Speaker, therefore we have to pass it along to the

University, the Health department and the Social Services.

Dr. May is quite right when he says it will be a substantial

cut to the budget of the University. Dr. May also went on to say that he would

want to look at all options before he would attempt to raise tuition. He says

that he wants to look at the salary that the professors receive; he wants to

look at the whole operating budget of the University. And he sees an increase in

the tuition, but that is the last thing he wants to do. I share that concern,

Mr. Speaker, I recognize there is a problem, and just as government has to deal

with the problem, so, too, the University must deal with the problem. I am

pleased, though, to hear that his last resort will be to raise tuition. That is

not to say there will not be an increase in tuition, there might well be, but

hopefully, it will come only after he has looked at all the other options

available to recover the loss because of this transfer payment.

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

House Leader.

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

Let me remind the minister that transfer payments have gone

up. I think last year you got some $20 million more than you anticipated or

projected.

Let me ask the minister this. Is the minister really saying

then that we are going to see a lay off of staff at the University and that

programs indeed may be watered down as Dr. May alluded to, where we may see

four-year degree programs condensed into three-year programs? Is that what the

minister is suggesting that we may see at the University? Is he at all concerned

that the integrity of the University may be threatened? Will he go on record in

this House today as saying that this government will support Memorial

University, enough financial support so that the integrity of the University

will not be compromised in any way?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a statement

that transfer payments have gone up. I can assure the hon. member that the

established program of financing has not increased. It is a substantial decrease

which we are going to have to pass on.

Dr. May in his address this morning which was quite clear - I

have a copy of the speech; if the hon. member wants a copy of the speech I can

make it available to him - he did outline various ways that they would attempt

to deal with this very serious issue. He did not talk about watering down. I

heard the same speech. He did not talk about watering down the programs. He

talked about maybe condensing it more. He talked about different ways of doing

things. He could also have talked about more distance education, which would

involve keeping students in school longer. Also, we've already addressed the

Grade XII program. We are hoping to make that a better program so students won't

have to be repeating things in University.

I have every confidence in the way that Dr. May and the Board

of Regents at Memorial are attempting to deal with this crisis. But I have to be

fair to the hon. member and to the people of this Province, to say that as a

result of the deficit that the federal government had, notwithstanding what is

going to happen as of today's referendum, the world that we once knew is no

longer there. There are tremendous changes to take place. We would hope that one

of the top priorities would be to educate our people. That remains a top

priority. But I cannot assure people on social services or people who take

advantage of the health care system or people who partake of the education

system that there will not be changes. We have to work together as a group. The

faculty, the administration, the students at Memorial, government, all together

have to face the reality. The facts of life are that things have changed and we

have to attempt to deal with that. I'm confident that working together we will

deal with that. Hopefully we can maintain in this Province the access to all our

people to a better education above all other changes that we have to make.

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

House Leader.

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

said in my question there is a great deal of concern out and about this Province

today as a result of Dr. May's statements, and I'm sure the minister as well

shares those concerns. It has been suggested by the leadership of the CSU - I

believe it was made to the Premier - that there be a task force struck involving

all stakeholders, students, parents, the business community, administration, and

on and on it goes, there has been that suggestion made, let me say to the

minister, that there be a task force struck to look at the future viability of

the university, to guarantee the future viability of Memorial University of

Newfoundland and Labrador for all our people. Has the minister given any

consideration to that, and if he has not would he do so? I think it is a very

fruitful and meaningful suggestion, and I think the minister would be wise to do

it. Has he heard of this? Has the request been made? And if not, would he

entertain it?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the first time I heard the task

force suggestion was this morning when the President of the Student Council

talked about it. The only correspondence I had received was a letter to the

Premier and myself requesting that we would sit down and meet with the students'

union, and we are trying to put that meeting in place. The issue, as important

as education is, is much broader than that. We are having concerns with health

and with social services as well, so we certainly would encourage a process to

examine all of that, but I don't have the authority to announce any task force.

That is an issue I am sure government will take under consideration.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

As the minister responsible for the creation of jobs in this

Province, and as the minister who is responsible for the overseeing of the

economy, I would like to ask the minister: Has his department, under his

direction, begun or completed an analysis of how many jobs will be lost, either

directly or indirectly over the next eight to twelve months per se, as a result

of declining transfer payments?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that is more

appropriate to the Minister of Finance who deals with these budgetary impacts,

and I am sure the minister is looking at that very issue.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very

appropriate question for the minister who is responsible for the creation and

maintenance of jobs in this Province. He is a member of P and P; he should know

the answer to that question, and if he doesn't then I suggest that he get his

department to move in that direction to find out what the impact will be on the

economy.

Let me ask him this. Mr. Speaker, our research indicates that

there will be as many as 1,500 people from within the public service, Memorial

University, the community college structure, the hospitals within the Province,

who will lose their jobs as a result of declining transfer payments in the

upcoming months. Can the minister confirm that these job losses will occur, and

what the impact will be upon the economy?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that I don't

think any government has a responsibility for creation of jobs. If that were the

case it would have been an abysmal record for the Conservative government for

the last seventeen years. So that's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: But I mean that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: I say to the hon. member, we are responsible

for creating a business climate. This government certainly has done that. We've

provided the strategic plan in terms of setting about the private sector as the

engine of growth. We've decreased corporate income tax, we've decreased

manufacturing and processing tax, we've decreased small business tax. We've put

in place the EDGE program - which I'm happy to report, Mr. Speaker, speaking of

jobs, talk about creating an environment, this legislation is only seven months'

old. We have twenty-five new companies in this Province directly responsible for

600 new jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Six hundred direct jobs, Mr. Speaker. I can't

take credit for creating those. We can take credit for creating the environment.

I should also point out to the House that that will cause $100 million of new

investment in this Province of which 90 per cent of it is directly from the

private sector. Not from governments, not from agencies, directly from the

private sector. So when the hon. member prefaces his questions with the

assumption that we create jobs I tell him he is all twisted out of shape. That

is an incorrect assumption.

When he talks about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: When he talks about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to draw his answer to a conclusion.

MR. FUREY: When he talks about the financial impact I

tell him that the Department of Finance and Treasury Board is looking at that. I

would be most eager to look at his research and in fact to see where his

research has come from.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House and

the people in this Province that the only person in this House who is twisted

out of shape is the Minister of ITT in terms of being a contortionist. The

reality is this, that there are a couple of thousand jobs that are about to be

lost. If his department has not looked at what the impact will be then I say the

minister is not doing his job.

Let me ask the minister this. Will he direct the Economic

Recovery Commission which is responsible for stimulating the economy, for

creating the business environment that he so talks about, that attracts wealth

and that creates job in this Province, will he get the Economic Recovery

Commission to take a positive step to look at what the impact on the economy

these job losses will be, and will he report back to the House on that matter?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Recovery Commission

has undertaken some extremely valuable work and it is a good opportunity for me

to praise the Economic Recovery Commission for the work that they've done over

the last number of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: I think some hon. members who have asked for

their help have gotten it, including the hon. member who just burst out

laughing. They've been very supportive of Copper Creek which will generate new

jobs in Baie Verte. They've been very supportive of the Argentia development

corporation which is creating new work. They've been very supportive out in Deer

Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Copper Creek. We know why it is called Copper

Creek.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Copper Creek, I said, not copper top.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I would be glad to ask the

Economic Recovery Commission in concert with the Department of Finance and

Treasury Board. But the Department of Finance and Treasury Board takes the lead

role on equalization and transfer reductions and the impacts on the economy. Of

course our department feeds into that. We have a business analysis division that

does just that. I would be happy to lend the support of the Economic Recovery

Commission any time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Recently several dozen highway signs have been erected in the Districts of

Ferryland and St. Mary's - The Capes to promote the Irish loop drive, which goes

through Bay Bulls, on to Trepassey, St. Mary's and Salmonier Line, back to the

Trans-Canada. Will the minister conform that the design was developed in

conjunction with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and the

erection of the Irish loop drive signs was done by a private contractor?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no idea if it

was done in conjunction with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

We developed a new signage policy this year where officials from my department

who have been working in the signage area for quite some number of years have

had the responsibility to carry out a whole new signage policy for the whole of

the Province.

On a day-to-day basis I don't go out and ask that individual

about a particular sign. We did contract out to some of the private contractors

this year to put up the highway signs. In some instances the contractor did not

get the job done because he found that he had bid to low so we took it back and

did it ourselves but the particular one that the hon. member is talking about, I

could not answer now and say who the contractor is or if we did give it to a

private contractor.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were all new

signs erected, I know in my district I observed them and I have been told in St.

Mary's - The Capes district also. It has been brought to my attention that all

the regular highway signs were erected by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation and they were installed at the appropriate height of 1.8 metres.

However, all other signs erected in my district by a private contractor were

installed almost 2.5 meters high, well above the regular height for normal and

safe viewing. Now will the minister tell the House, what was the total cost of

doing all the new signage in the district and what he plans to do about the

signs that are erected that do not meet regulations?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: As the hon. member says, I got that right at

my finger tips. I don't know about how high the signs are. Nobody has brought it

to my attention about how one sign is not as high as the other sign or that some

were done by another contractor. The only thing that I know for sure, from a lot

of people in the Province, is that we have some complimentary words this year on

having a new highway signage policy right across the Province. To date, I have

not had a single call from anybody in the hon. member's district, including the

hon. member, about any problems about the putting up of signs, one is too low,

one is too high, or somebody bumped their head or a moose ran into it or

whatever. I have absolutely no idea what the hon. member is talking about.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Everybody in his

department who are working there know what they are talking about because your

officials erected them at the proper height and the ones that were not done by

your department were put at an improper height and do not conform to

regulations. It is your department's responsibility to see they meet

regulations. Now all signs in the Ferryland, St. Mary's district, there are

almost 100 in total and with the exception of two, have the four-leaf clover on

the signs instead of the shamrock. Mr. Speaker, the people in the district who

visit around this Province from outside the Province are laughing because the

purpose of all these new signs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am at the question, Mr. Speaker, if they

will give me a chance to ask it. The purpose of all the new signs was to promote

the Irish loop drive as a distinctive tourism route detecting the Irish culture.

Now I ask the minister - and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

were involved in the design - I ask the minister who was responsible for putting

the four-leaf clover on all those signs except two that have the shamrock? I ask

him, what is his department going to do to correct this much talked about and

laughed about thing along the area and who is responsible for this very mistake?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I can just visualize the hon.

member now going with his measuring tape, all day and all night measuring up the

different signs. The one thing I can tell the hon. member, this is not a case of

the Orange and the Green. This is just a simple case, if what the hon. member is

saying, a simple case of a mistake on somebody's part of not painting a shamrock

when it should be a four-leaf clover or four-leaf clover when it should have

been a shamrock, I have no idea. In all seriousness, if the hon. member would

have called I would have sent out one of the officials with a paint brush and

probably got a fellow from Port de Grave who is a good artist and we could have

corrected that if the hon. member would have made a phone call.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. I would like to ask the

minister what efforts his department is putting forward to collect outstanding

monies owed by fishermen of this Province to the Fisheries and Farm Development

Loan Board, now that the moratorium is in effect.

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue of outstanding loans that fishermen owe to the

Fisheries and Farm Development Loan Board is treated very seriously by this

government and in the past, over the last number of years, since the moratorium

came into effect, we have looked very carefully at the ability to pay by

individuals who have outstanding loans, and in every case, where there is a case

that can be made where the individual has difficulties in paying, every leniency

is offered to that particular individual.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister inform the House as to the criteria his

officials use in determining the ability of a fisherman to make payments on

those accounts?

For instance, is there a minimum income consideration, or is

all money payable to the individual, like GST rebates, income tax overpayment,

et cetera intercepted and taken before the fishermen can take possession of such

monies?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, none of those dollars are intercepted I can tell this

House unless there is every indication from the review, that the individual

receiving those dollars is in such a position that he can indeed be paying on

his loan.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister justify the actions of his department

deducting money payable to fishermen, such as taxes paid on insurance policies,

through J. J. Lacey, being intercepted by the Fisheries and Farm Development

Loan Board, even after the individual lost hundreds of dollars, Mr. Speaker, in

premium payments or the individual's only income was a TAGS cheque?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not familiar with the particular case or cases that the

hon. member is referring to but I certainly will look into it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Approximately two years ago, there was a fire on the

Trans-Canada Highway near Glovertown which destroyed a motel, restaurant and gas

bar facility.

To date, the burnt area remains an environmental eyesore, so,

Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise what the hang-up is as to having this site

cleaned up and when can we expect the clean up to begin?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: This must be a day for questions to the

minister who doesn't know anything about it. I mean, I don't know what

responsibility -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: - that my department would have with a

premise that was burnt on the highway and some building owner, property owner,

owns the building and is not removed off the site, the only thing I can tell the

hon. member, I will find out why the owner hasn't removed it and if it is on our

property -

MS YOUNG: Plant some Shamrocks.

MR. EFFORD: The hon. minister says we will plant some

Shamrocks and probably that is what we will have to do.

I will check it out. Again I come to the House and there is a

building that was burnt down a couple years ago on the Trans-Canada and it is

the first time that anybody has asked a question of the Minister of Environment,

I would say you must be getting desperate for questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls, on a

supplementary.

MR. MACKEY: No. I think, Mr. Speaker, this situation is

serious enough that we don't have to make light of it. It has been brought to my

attention on a number of occasions.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that someone is dragging his feet.

After two years of exposure to the elements, certainly, there can't be much more

there to investigate. If it is the police who are dragging their feet or if it

is the insurance companies who are blocking the process, I ask the minister:

does he know when the ongoing insurance investigation will be completed so he

can get on to get his workers to clean up this mess?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I am not making light of the situation. What

bothers me about it is that I am in my office pretty well every day on a day to

day basis, from seven in the morning until whatever time in the evening, and the

hon. member did not see fit to phone myself or one of my officials. We could

have answered the question. Number one, I can only do what the hon. member would

do, phone the insurance company or phone somebody and find out why they have not

cleaned it up. It is not my responsibility as minister to tell somebody that

they have an insurance problem. It is maybe going through the courts, I do not

know, but I will do what the hon. member could do, phone and find out for you.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday, I believe it was, October 26 the hon. Member

for Mount Pearl posed a number of questions that had some detail that needed a

little more research. The department has now completed it and I can advise the

following with respect to most of the questions the hon. member posed related to

the sale of the assets of Hotel Buildings Limited, which operated the Holiday

Inns in four locations in the Province and a hotel in Port aux Basques.

In answer to the first question, I believe the hon. member

asked what the amount owing by Hotel Buildings Limited was to the Province.

There was a $9 million serial debenture issued in the mid-1960s to facilitate

the construction of the Holiday Inns. That was paid off on December 31, 1989.

The debt was guaranteed by the Province, and because the funds generated by the

hotel operations were insufficient to pay off that debt it was serviced through

advances from the Province. In other words, because a hotel did not produce

enough money to pay it off, the Province paid on it in its place. The advances

from the time that the debenture was first taken out until 1989, when it was

paid off, totalled $14,363,300. This was a direct payment by the Province to the

bond holders.

It was felt that the Province, because it was paying money on

behalf of the company, in this case Hotel Buildings Limited, should charge

interest on these advances at prime plus 1 per cent, which reflects, I think, a

very modest corporate rate. When that amount is included over the life of that

loan, that amount of interest at prime plus 1 per cent amounted to an additional

$15,610,900, so that Hotel Buildings Limited now owes the Province, and this was

the figure I referred to in simpler terms to the hon. member, the amount of

$29,974,200. As of March 31, 1991 on the advice of Hotel Buildings Limited

auditors, the Province ceased accruing interest because at that point we

realized there was no point in accumulating interest since we would not realize

that amount from any sale that might take place in due course, so that amount is

on the books; that is how it is calculated.

In answer to another question by the hon. member, Atlific

Limited manages the hotels on behalf of Hotel Buildings Limited and is

remunerated for these services under a management agreement that has subsisted

essentially since the hotels were first opened in the mid-1960s. It has changed

over a period of years. The department has continually negotiated. It was

essentially a revenue-based arrangement with so much of gross and so much of net

profits. They were recently renegotiated pending sale of the hotels for a fixed

sum.

Atlific, under the terms of that contract, was not required

to pay any fees to Hotel Buildings Limited, but was required to remit excess

cash flow to be applied by Hotel Buildings Limited to amounts owed the Province.

Given the financial results over the past several years, there was no excess

cash flows from the hotels since they were not making any money. The last

remittance we had on this basis, in other words an amount over and above the

expenses of operating the hotels and the Atlific management fees, the last

remittance we had of any amount was in the fiscal year 1990-'91.

In answer to another question posed by the hon. member, I

will give you the profits and losses for Hotel Buildings Limited for the years

ending March 31, 1990 through 1994.

In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990 Hotel Buildings

Limited lost $43,388. In 1991 the company which essentially owned the hotels

lost $513,787. In 1992 it lost $108,169. In 1993 it made $125,442, and in 1994

it earned $94,366.

Another question, I think related to the tender process, we

have received the following bids: There were two bids for all five properties

owned by Hotel Buildings Limited. There was one bid for the four Holiday Inn

properties which are in St. John's, Clarenville, Gander and Corner Brook, and

there were seven individual bids for various of the properties for a total of

ten bids. The tender was structured such that interested parties could bid on

all five properties as a group, the four franchise properties, in other words

the four Holiday Inn operated properties as a group, or on any, or all

properties on an individual basis, so it was a very broad based call for

tenders. As I am sure the hon. member will appreciate I cannot comment

specifically on what is happening right now. We have the bids in and they are

being evaluated. The paper will be going to Cabinet shortly to consider what if

any disposition should be made of them and I will make a full report to the

House at a later date.

The other question the hon. member asked was whether or not a

recent appraisal had been done. The answer to that is, no, the most recent

appraisal, I guess, are the bids we received on October 20 and we will be

reporting to the Province and to the House in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: In response to a question asked Thursday

by the hon. Member for Ferryland with respect to the 1992 operational review of

the Newfoundland cancer clinic, the Newfoundland Cancer Foundation, rather. He

asked how many of the 107 recommendations contained in the 1992 review had been

acted upon and I can report the following for the House. Seventy-three of 107

recommendations have been implemented, thirteen were not applicable to the

foundation as an organization, although they were included in that review, and

the remaining twenty-one are being implemented on an ongoing basis. They are

more of a long-term nature and their full implementation has not yet been

totally effected, but they are still in the circumstance of trying to implement

them as is appropriate on an ongoing basis. Of the 107 recommendations

seventy-three are implemented, thirteen do not apply, and twenty-one are

ongoing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to present to the hon. House a petition on

behalf of the constituents in the Torngat Mountain district in the town of Nain.

I have here a covering letter that came along with it which I will just enter

for the record, and I will now read the prayer to the petition.

To the hon. House of Assembly in Parliament assembled, the

petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Torngat Mountains,

humbly showeth:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did issue

a permit to NDT Ventures Limited to diamond drill on Nain Hill in the town of

Nain in the District of Torngat Mountains;

AND

WHEREAS the area in which NDT Ventures Limited plan to

diamond drill is within the protected watershed zone and the rural zone of the

municipal planning area of the town of Nain;

AND

WHEREAS diamond drilling on Nain Hill could have

detrimental effects on the town reservoir and adjacent areas;

AND

WHEREAS residents of the town of Nain have traditionally

used, and continue to use Nain Hill and land within the municipal planning area

for hunting, trapping, gandering, recreation and leisure activities;

AND

WHEREAS the undersigned recently circulated the attached

petition within the community of the town of Nain;

AND

WHEREAS in duty bound the petitioners will ever pray that

the hon. House of Assembly and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

will; (1) cancel all permits issued for mineral exploration and drilling within

the town of Nain municipal planning area; (2) declare all land within the town

of Nain municipal planning area to be exempt from all mineral activity and

development. This petition, Mr. Speaker, is dated October 17, 1995.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to

speak in support of this petition. In speaking in support of the petition and

the constituents in Nain, Labrador, I don't want to be seen as a person opposed

to development and exploration activity in my area.

I think in hindsight one of the mistakes that has been made

with exploration activity in Labrador is the issuance of exploration permits by

just looking at a map here in St. John's without ever considering where there

might be people living. I believe the fear that the residents of Nain face today

is the fact that if exploration activity takes place within the municipal

planning area they could very well in the future be uprooted.

There have already been two communities, namely Hebron and

Nutak that were uprooted in 1956, 1957 and 1958 without ever having the

opportunity to consent to that. I realize dollars and cents in terms of

exploration activity and development means a lot to the treasury of the Province

and the well-being of mineral companies, but should it be looked at in terms of

destroying a community? I'm afraid I cannot agree with that.

I think this problem too could have been alleviated, and I've

spoken to the Premier on this issue more than once, and the Minister of Natural

Resources, if the town had been consulted. The town, and along with myself as

the representative to government for the District of Torngat Mountains, were

only informed long after the decisions were made. Perhaps the company would be

exploring up there if there had been consultation right in the beginning;

perhaps not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

believe it is very important that, even though I understand that NDT Ventures

Ltd. who are contracted by Takla Star have appealed this decision, if

exploration and mineral development are going to get the required support from

the district of Torngat Mountains, especially the aboriginal people, that it

needs, then right within town limits as such their decision should be supported

by government, and number two, respected by the companies.

I realize companies are investor driven, but perhaps it is

time there was a message sent out to exploration companies that they should

perhaps first of all consult with the people before they assume they can go

ahead. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like a

few words with regard to the hon. member's petition.

As the mines and energy critic for the Opposition, generally

speaking I am one that certainly favours ongoing and extensive mineral

exploration throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. However, that being said, it

should be done within a certain context of civility, of consultation, especially

when we are talking about drilling in and around populated areas. Add to this in

Labrador the unresolved matter of native land claims and it would appear, on the

surface of it, just hearing this today, that the circumstance the hon. member

refers to would indicate a degree of insensitivity on the part of someone with

regard to the views and concerns of the local community.

I attended the mines conference dinner on Friday past after

the House closed. Some of the things raised in talk afterwards were certainly

some concerns from the mineral industry with regard to possible restrictions on

drilling in Northern Labrador with the creation of a new national park. There

are certainly some very significant issues that need to be addressed there about

drilling in a wilderness area, and how much wilderness area should be possibly

set aside with absolutely no type of exploration or development. Those are major

areas and major issues, I think, that we need to visit and look further at, but

certainly, Mr. Speaker, drilling in and around a community with a community plan

without proper consultation is less than okay, as far as I am concerned, and I

ask that the Minister of Natural Resources take a look at this matter.

Thank you.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words

on this matter to try to clarify it.

It is unfortunate that in this particular case - because we

are talking here about an area in which there is very little history of

explanation, and therefore, very little understanding of the normal process of

exploration. My staff who issued the permit to drill should have consulted in

advance with the Town of Nain so they would have known before they received the

first contact from the company, but let me give you some of the facts.

My staff did issue a drilling permit, but that drilling

permit had several conditions attached, and it said: `...is approved subject to

the following conditions...' because we, as a department, do not issue all of

the permits for any activity. We issue the permits related to the mineral

exploration itself. The first condition on our approval: The drilling is within

the municipal boundary of Nain. You must contact officials with the town,

etcetera. That is the first condition.

The second condition: The drilling is partly within the

protected watershed and the water supply of the community, etcetera. I will not

read all of it, because I have limited time.

The third and fourth conditions relate to archaeological

screening. The fifth condition: The activity will be entirely helicopter

supported so that any movement of the drilling rig will be through the air and

not over the ground, so that there can be no ground disturbance in this

traditional area in this particular town.

The final, the sixth condition, was: All personnel should be

familiar with and must observe the environmental guidelines for mineral

exploration companies.

So we had numerous conditions put on, and the first one was,

go consult the town. Now, I will acknowledge in this particular case my

officials should have consulted the town, too, and should have told them up

front that this was coming so that they would be more familiar with it instead

of seeing it at the end.

What has happened since, of course, is that the drilling

company, after getting a rejection from the town, and the town had the right to

look at it and say no - after getting a rejection from the town, the drilling

company has appealed through the normal municipal appeal process. That appeal is

still under way; it has not yet reached its conclusion, but the town will be

able to make its case, the company will be able to make its case. One thing the

company has said, though, is that now they only require approval to drill

outside of the watershed but within the town.

Now, mineral exploration activity is a normally approved

activity in rural areas of any town, and there are a lot of towns where there

has been a lot of drilling done and a lot of exploration activity, and gladly.

In the Town of Buchans the number of drill holes is literally in the thousands.

In the Town of Baie Verte it is in the hundreds and maybe in the thousands, and

towns in Pilley's Island, Robert's Arm, in other parts of this Province, where

we give the permit, they will consult, and then the drilling goes ahead.

There are examples in this Province where drilling has been

done not only in the watershed area but on the watershed itself in the winter,

with appropriate environmental conditions, and there hasn't been any problem.

The footprint of a drilling rig is less than the footprint of one-half of the

public gallery opposite in this House, so it is not a huge area. It does not

have an effect on the traditional uses, and if someone tries to make it so, it

can be corrected quickly.

So, Mr. Speaker, in the future, my staff have certainly been

given direction to ensure that the Town of Nain is consulted, but this is not an

unusual activity. In this case we will also give the appeal process time to

work, and let that work and we will see what comes out of it.

As for making it exempt mineral land, since last January

everything except this one mineral licence in that area has been exempt mineral

land. We have over 285,000 mineral claims in the Province right now. In Nain, we

have one mineral license maybe including twenty claims, so this is only a very

small area of what is being explored in the Province, and I think we should let

the process work but we must make sure that we consult appropriately.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to prejudge or I am not trying

to prejudge the disposition of the House with respect to Motion 4 which we will

be debating, but I understand there is some suggestion that perhaps we may

conclude the debate today. I mentioned on Friday and I believe there is a

consensus among the groups in the House, and if my friend, the Member for St.

John's East would acknowledge if he in fact is a group for these purposes, that

we should

schedule a vote so that members could arrange to be here and not have

to hang around, or, you know, be on call. If we finish the debate today, we will

not take the vote today, perhaps tomorrow might be an appropriate day, but I

will consult with my friend, the Member for Grand Bank and my friend, the Member

for St. John's East.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, certainly we will, but we haven't

finished the debate yet, I say to my friend, the Member for Grand Bank. But, Mr.

Speaker, in order to accommodate members who may wish to speak, I would first of

all move that the House do not adjourn at five o'clock, and I would say, I do

not anticipate we shall sit beyond seven because members will no doubt want to

follow on the radio and television the results of the vote now underway in

Quebec.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House

should not adjourn at five. All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Motion, carried.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We are voting at ten o'clock.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Member for Grand

Bank may be here at ten o'clock, and if that is so, he will be the only person,

I suspect, in the House tonight.

Your Honour, would you please call Motion 4. As I recollect,

my friend, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, adjourned the debate. I

understand he has an amendment to move, and provided he so move, we will deal

with that and then get on with the debate in the normal course.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's

- The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, the members on my side of the House are waiting with

bated breath for my few remarks and I am sure I will get to the quote by the

Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture; it may fall back into the speech

again.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and

say a few words - especially today; it is a very historic day in Canada -I won't

say in Newfoundland - as the people in Quebec go ahead and vote in a very

important referendum that they are having in their province today. The country

waits for the answer. There are many similarities between the vote in Quebec,

Mr. Speaker, and the vote here today or the vote that we anticipate here in the

next couple of days. The similarities lie, Mr. Speaker, with a litany of broken

promises by hon. members opposite and indeed by the Premier himself.

Mr. Speaker, just to touch on the Quebec referendum and the

fact that a free vote wasn't allowed here in the House of Assembly on the Meech

Lake Accord, is one broken promise. Another broken promise that we go back to,

was a promise that was made here to the church leaders on March 12, 1993 by the

Premier. The promise made at that time was, and I will read the Premier's own

words: " Mr. Speaker, in response to the church leaders' concerns that

implementing certain recommendations of the Royal Commission Report would

jeopardise their traditional rights, government has assured the leaders that it

is not seeking change to the Constitution that will remove

constitutionally-protected rights of classes of people specifically provided

for." And he goes on to say: "It was recognized by all at the meeting that, if

after the conclusion of these discussions, there is consensus amongst the

leaders and the government however, that some adjustment or changes to the

Constitution are necessary or desirable, then they could be pursued".

Now, that is what was said in the House of Assembly by the

Premier on March 12, 1993. We all know that, had that commitment been kept, we

would not be standing here today voting on a change to the Constitution of

Canada to take away the rights of denominations in the schools in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it is a litany of broken promises that this

Premier has made to the Province - and indeed, to the country, as it relates to

what is happening in Quebec today.

Mr. Speaker, we all talk about honour and honesty when we

stand in this hon. House. As a matter of fact, we are referred to, many times,

as hon. members. I have to ask myself time and time again, do people know in

this particular House the definition of honour, when you have the Premier making

promises that are broken afterwards, when you have members on the other side of

the House, people who sit in the Cabinet, making promises that are not kept.

I refer once again to a November 16, 1994 quote by the hon.

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation when he quoted in this House, `that

this government was not then and is not now and it is not our plan to seek a

change to the Constitution. Our plan is to try to get needed reforms for a

better education system by consensus. That was the plan then, Mr. Speaker, it

was the plan last week, it's the plan this week, it's the plan this afternoon,

it's the plan tonight, it will be the plan tomorrow and it will be the plan

until the day we die.' Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, the Member for Exploits, made that statement in this House on

November 16, 1994.

I look at the results of the September 5 referendum in the

minister's district, when we had 4,694 people vote and 2,752 of those people

voted `no' and 1,929 voted `yes'. I say that the minister should remember the

remarks he made on November 16, 1994 and listen to the people in his district

and what they said on September 5, 1995, and if he had any conviction he would

stand here and vote with his people on November 5.

I would like to just touch on the results of the district

vote in St. Mary's - The Capes on September 5. The people of St. Mary's - The

Capes sent a loud and clear message, not only to me as their member, Mr.

Speaker, but indeed to the government, that they are not in favour of stripping

the constitutional rights that they hold so dear under the Constitution. They

sent that message loud and clear on September 5, in my district, when 2,790

people cast their ballots and 2,243 people voted no while 541 voted yes, with

six rejected ballots. Mr. Speaker, 87 per cent of the people in St. Mary's - The

Capes have voted and sent a loud and clear message to this government that they

want to hold on to their constitutional rights. It was the largest vote, Mr.

Speaker, for the `no' side in the Province.

I was glad to see that vote coming forward from my district

because I had emphatically put forward, before the referendum, my stand on this

very important issue facing our Province; to see a community like Point Lance in

my district, eighty-six people cast their ballots and eighty-four of them voted

`no'; to see a community such as Mall Bay, where seventeen people cast `no'

ballots and five marked `yes'; to see communities down in Trepassey where in one

poll in Trepassey we had ninety-one people casting ballots for `no' and

twenty-five casting ballots for `yes'. In St. Mary's East, for another example,

120 people cast `no' ballots while only twelve voted `yes'.

So, Mr. Speaker, the message was loud and clear from my

district on September 5, that the people were proud of their constitutional

rights and wanted to hold on to them.

Before the referendum, Mr. Speaker, as I touched on earlier,

I had put forward my stand on this very important issue. I had received letters

and several pieces of correspondence from individuals in my district, the parish

councils in my district, the Holy Name Society in St. Mary's, and so on. I had

responded with a letter to all those concerned, my stand on this very important

issue and the fact that I would be voting `no' on September 5.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation - I will leave him for another day. It is too important an issue

to carry on a conversation with this minister today.

I put forward my beliefs and my concerns to the people in my

district and they responded on September 5 with an overwhelming majority voting

`no'. That is why I have no problem in saying that when the vote comes before

the House of Assembly, I, too, will be voting `no' once again, Mr. Speaker - I

once again will be voting `no' when the vote comes before us in the House of

Assembly, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people in my district.

Mr. Speaker, the history of education in my district is a

history of Catholic education. Ninety-nine per cent of my district is Catholic.

Our history of success in our schools is evident. If you had the opportunity to

attend graduations or any sort of achievement days or nights that are held in my

district, you would find that the records of achievement speak for themselves.

From Stella Maris in Trepassey to Dunne Memorial Academy in St. Mary's to St.

Catherine's Academy in St. Catherine's to Fatima Academy in St. Bride's, there

is a list of successes.

Because of the faith that the people have and because of the

concerns they have with the taking away of their constitutional rights, I cannot

agree with what the government plans to do here with Term 17. Therefore, today,

I would like to move the following amendment, seconded by the Member for

Placentia;

constitutional resolution which would amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of

Newfoundland with Canada be amended as follows:

By deleting the words "be denominational schools" on lines

five and six of paragraph (

a) and adding the following: "continue to be

denominational schools" within the meaning of

section 29 of the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms."

By deleting the words "right to provide for" on line eleven

of paragraph (

a) and adding the following: "rights which now exist with respect

to the provision of."

By adding to paragraph (

b) on line two following the word

"provincial" the word "viability".

By eliminating all words after the word "and" on line ten in

paragraph (

c) and substituting with the following: "to determine and direct the

teaching of aspects of curriculum affecting religious beliefs and student

admission policy and to establish and carry into effect policies regarding the

assignment and dismissal of teachers in that school."

So moved, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently as the hon.

gentleman read his amendment. I have not seen the text of it. I think it might

be possible to argue that it is out of order but I don't propose to do that. I

would suggest that perhaps Your Honour might wish to recess. If Your Honour

determines it is in order we will raise no quarrel from this side. I am prepared

to ask the House to deal with the issue, assuming Your Honour finds me in order,

but my suggestion would be that you might wish to recess and take counsel from

your Clerk.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair hasn't seen the amendment, so we

will recess briefly and have a look at the amendment to see if it is legitimate.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to rule on the amendment put forward by

the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Let me say that the amendment

that was proposed has given the Chair some difficulty. This amendment appears to

be out of order, particularly the first paragraph of the amendment. This

paragraph has the effect of negating the resolution and for this reason the

whole of the amendment is out of order. I quote Beauchesne, Paragraph 569,

Section 2: "When an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is

not admissible and must be ruled out of order."

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling.

I only have a few minutes left and I am sure the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation wished I had never stood up to speak, but I am

sure his quote will receive wide recognition over the next few months.

I have brought forward the concerns that have been raised to

me by the people of St. Mary's - The Capes on this very important issue leading

up to the referendum and since the referendum. As I stated earlier, over 83 per

cent of the people in my district voted, `no', in the referendum because they

want to send a clear message here to the government, that they want to hold on

to their constitutional rights that they have held so dear over the past number

of decades and that they do not see any reason for them to be taken away.

Mr. Speaker, government has major control over education in

this Province as it is today, and in relation to the reforms they want carried

out they can do very much of that without changing the Constitution and without

upsetting and dividing the people of this Province. I believe that was the

intent of government from day one and that is the intent of government today.

In closing off I would like to say that this amendment, I

believe, will see the light of day tomorrow and after that it will receive

darkness, because it will not see the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, it will not

go before the Senate. It will either be caught up in court challenges or

whatever the case may be and we will wait for years for school reform to start

taking place in this Province. At a time when I'm sure over 90 per cent of the

people in this Province would vote to agree with reform, we will have to wait

years.

Because the Williams report gave the government over three

years of time to start putting reforms in place in this Province and they

refused to do so based on the government's issue with the churches. They refused

to bring forward and make conditions with the churches and (inaudible) agreement

that had been reached with the churches as it relates to cost in relation to the

school boards, in relation to the number of schools in the Province, et cetera.

Agreements that were put in place as it relates to student achievement. All

these agreements were made, but the government for some reason or other still

disagreed with agreeing with the churches on reform. Therefore we ended up with

a referendum.

I say that the success of schools in this Province speaks for

itself, and that only through negotiation and agreement can we continue to carry

out the necessary reforms that are needed in our education system.

In closing I would like to say that I will go back to March

12, 1993 once again and the Premier's promise to the people of this Province

when he made a promise that he would not seek a constitutional change to take

away the rights of the minorities or the classes of people who held those rights

in this Province. Shortly after being re-elected on May 3, 1993 the government

went full-speed ahead in stripping the rights of those people and are still on

that course today. We go back to those promises that were made, the promise that

was made by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to the people of

this Province as a member of the Cabinet, and indeed out to the people of the

District of Exploits, and he backtracked on his promise just as the Premier

backtracked on his promise that he made on March 12.

I say only time will tell the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation and the Member for Exploits, and the Premier and his government

whether the people are satisfied with having broken promises. I say I promised

the people in my district that I would stand up and bring forward their concerns

on this very important issue that affects every man, woman and child in this

Province. I promised the people in my constituency of St. Mary's - The Capes

that I would bring forward their concerns and I have tried my best to do so. I

didn't break any promises I made to the people of St. Mary's - The Capes, as the

Premier and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation did. I didn't break

the promises that I promised the people and I will not do so.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: That isn't breaking a promise, what the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) resignation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, we will have another day I'm

sure to bring forward the concerns.

We have in my district several schools, one Fatima Academy in

St. Bride's, St. Catherine's Academy in St. Catherine's, Dunne Memorial Academy

in St. Mary's, and Stella Maris in Trepassey, all who have a list of teachers

who are second to none. Along with that they have, like I said the other day, a

community within their own community, a community to be proud of. Every school

in my district, the people of the district and the people of the communities

that the schools are in are definitely proud of their schools. I'm sure if you

went out around my district you would get the same answers that I have gotten

when I asked about what they thought about the schools in their community.

The schools come first in a lot of cases before anything else

in our communities. We are proud of the Catholic schools, we are proud of the

Catholic tradition, and we want it to continue. I haven't seen any way under the

legislation that has been brought forward here or the comments that have been

made, questions I have asked, that will guarantee that Catholic education will

remain in St. Mary's - The Capes, or any district for that matter. That is why

the concerns are being brought forward not only by me but by several members of

the House of Assembly over the past couple of weeks.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No, leave, he spoke twice already.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave! By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I say the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation refuses me leave -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I will speak again, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we on this side will agree to a

couple of minutes to clue up his remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Government House

Leader for giving me the opportunity as was availed of by many other members to

clue up their remarks.

I can understand the frustration of some members on this very

important issue. When you look back through the results of the referendum and

see what happens in many districts in the Province. There are people who have

some major concerns. There is major division not only within the Province but

within districts themselves. I ran into family members throughout my district

who thought on both sides of the question, and it is definitely a major issue.

In cluing up my remarks, I would just like to say once again

that from the people of St. Mary's - The Capes, the issue of Catholic education

in schools is very important. We have depended upon it for many, many years.

When I look back on the years I spent in school, and I look back on the

commitment of the people in my community and my area, whether they were from the

churches or they were from the people out on the streets, even people who did

not have students and children in school, they were always there in full support

of their school, in full support of their teachers.

We have problems, and I admit we have problems, in our

education system, and we are in desperate need of reform in some parts of that

system, but our problems are not because of denomination. Our problems are not

because a teacher is a Catholic or a Pentecostal or a United or any other

denomination. Our problem has to do with dollars. Our problem has to do with

resources. Our problem has to do with the teachers who do not have the tools to

do the job in our schools. That is the problem we face, and whether the changes

that the government proposes are going to change that and put dollars into the

coffers of the schools of this Province remains to be seen.

Mr. Speaker, the people of St. Mary's - The Capes, feel that

we, in some cases, lack some of the opportunities that other people may have and

other schools may have, but we do not think it is going to change. We do not

trust this government far enough to think that because they are going to change

and take away the rights of denominations in the school that dollars will start

flowing into the several schools in my district and provide the computers and

the library books and the guidance counsellors and so on. We do not think that

is going to happen. That is why the people of St. Mary's - The Capes sent a loud

and clear message, and I reiterate that today, that we do not, and I will not,

stand and support something that will take away the rights of the people of St.

Mary's - The Capes, or anyone else in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a difficult issue for me because I found myself in a

bit of a quandary over the past six months, because I thought I would be the

last person who would have voted no in the referendum that was held, because I

essentially support everything the government is trying to do in reforming

education in the Province. I have some problems with it. I think that the effect

of what is being planned is going to centralize more power in the education

bureaucracy with the government. I think it is going to reduce choice in the

Province, and diversity, and that sort of thing to some extent, but as for the

savings that are to be made I do not think government is doing enough. I think

there is a lot more fundamental reform we need to make in education in this

Province than has to do with the denominational aspect of it. I think there is a

lot more money that we could be saving. The Royal Commission Report projected

that we could be saving $30 million a year right now, and if we had been saving

that just since this government has been in office for seven years we would have

saved over $200 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) get on with it.

MR. NOEL: That is one of the concerns that I have also,

that I think we may be getting into a complicated situation looking for a

constitutional change in Ottawa, and that might well mean that we will go a

longer time without making the changes that we are able to make.

Essentially my position throughout all of this was that I

sympathized with everything that government was trying to do, but I think that

religious freedoms and minority rights and those sorts of things are very

delicate things for a country, and very delicate things in a constitution, and I

was really impressed by the case made to me by people who favour the

denominational school system. Those people feel that it is of great value to

them and to their children, and they stand to lose something that they really do

not want to lose. I thought that we could have found a way to make the changes

that are necessary without scaring them as to what may happen in the future, and

it looked like it was possible to make those changes. During the negotiations

over the past couple of years at various times it looked like government and the

churches had come to an agreement. I met with the church representatives several

times, and met with government representatives, and each time you listened to

the case being made by each side it was a persuasive case. You would go to one

side and they would say the problems they had and that the other side was not

being reasonable and that sort of thing, and then the other side would make

their case.

It is a very complicated issue and a lot of people took

positions without understanding all of the complications, some of which I think

we have an advantage of having some understanding of because all the people

involved talked to their members of the House of Assembly. It was a very

complicated situation and by the time the referendum came, I guess, a lot of

people in the Province were not really sure who was making the most accurate

case. That is why I felt that it would be best if we could proceed without the

option of constitutional change and that government would go ahead and make the

changes it wanted to make, and hopefully they would have gone the distance they

needed to go without taking away the rights that some people were so concerned

about. At any rate if we had chosen that course we would have more clearly

identified the obstacles that remained and hopefully had more support for making

the changes that were being contemplated.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I voted, no, in the referendum when

voting personally, and that is why I do not have any difficulty in voting, yes,

to the resolution in the House of Assembly, because I clearly made the

referendum a referendum in my district. I made clear to all my constituents that

I would vote in this House in accordance with how they voted and I intend to do

so, but, Mr. Speaker, I think we have some real problems in education that we

have to start focusing on, aside from the denominational aspects, and they are

becoming much clearer as we hear of the problems over at Memorial University.

The President of the university, I think, said yesterday that

they may be looking at a 50 per cent increase in fees over the next few years,

or laying off 400 people, or reducing salaries 12 per cent, that sort of thing.

I think there is more money being wasted in education in this Province today

than in probably any other aspect of government activities. Look at all the

people who are being over educated in terms of what education they need in order

to get jobs. I have people coming to me with bachelors and masters degrees who

are out working as security people, who are doing jobs that require very little

education. We see all kinds of government programs putting people into private

schools, community colleges, in universities, and other means of education, that

are never going to help them find jobs.

Now, at some point government has to realize that we cannot

keep pouring money down the drain in this way. It may be useful for those people

to acquire additional education for their own purposes. It will, no doubt,

increase their quality of life, but the public and the government have to ask

questions as to just how much we can afford as a society to spend on educating

people. I think we have to concentrate on educating people to find employment,

but the education they want to improve their own quality of life, I think, they

have to be prepared to undertake on their own.

The kind of problems that exist in the Province were

illustrated by the Dean of Education over at the university who was quoted as

saying, that whatever the most important educational issue facing the Province,

one thing is certain, that it is not denominational education. There are a lot

of things happening in education in the world today as a result of technological

change and all sorts of other changes happening. I think we are going to see far

more of what they are calling, tele-learning.

Newfoundland and Memorial University has had a great history

of involvement in distance education in this Province and I think we have to

look at educating people in that sort of way because it is going to be a lot

more economical. We are spending hundreds of million of dollars, I think, on

education in this Province today that is not being spent productively. We have

to look at new ways of doing things. One of the things that has been talked

about - some people who have spoken to me and in other parts of the world these

days, is a voucher system of education, whereby the government allocates a

certain amount of money to each student.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of noise in the House. If people

expect me to listen and be quiet while they are speaking I think they are going

to have to show the same kind of accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to look at different systems in

order to encourage choice and diversity in our education system. One possibility

is the voucher kind of system whereby an amount of money is allocated to each

student. That student can go to whatever kind of school the person would like to

go to and the government would pay that amount of money to that school. That

would encourage diversity, it would encourage competition and it would maximize

people's freedom to go to whatever kind of school they want and for people to

set up whatever kind of schools they want. That of course could include

religious schools and schools for all kinds of purposes. We are seeing some

schools for very extraordinary kinds of purposes being set up in the country

these days, Mr. Speaker. So I think that we have to look at doing far more basic

reform in the field of education and doing it more quickly.

On the question of busing, Mr. Speaker, St. John's residents

are really discriminated in the amount of money that the provincial government

spends on busing. We get very little busing in St. John's but St. John's

residents, my constituents, pay their share of taxation to the Province. They

have to pay their own children's way for transportation to school

whereas people

in other parts of the Province and lots of people just on the outskirts of St.

John's are having their busing provided for free. That is something I think that

we have to change, Mr. Speaker, and of course I think there is a lot of money

that can be saved in busing, as the Minister of Education indicated in the study

that he produced last August. My question is, why aren't we saving it this year,

Mr. Speaker? If that amount of money can be saved I think we've wasted - Mr.

Speaker, if hon. members are going to continue making as much noise as they are

I am going to keep speaking for the maximum time available to me. If they would

be quiet a little bit they may not have to put up with me much longer.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make clear my position on

this whole issue today. I don't see any point of going into all of the details

of the debate. I do have concerns with the process that was adopted. I would

have done it differently if I would have been organizing it and I do have

concerns about the process in Ottawa. I think that we are dealing with changing

the Constitution and I think the process has to be unimpeachable when you are

doing that. I think a number of people have raised questions about the process

that was used and that might add further complications to what Ottawa will do

with our request.

But having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think that I don't need

to impose my views on the House any longer today and I would -

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that man is trying to make a

speech and he cannot do (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member complaining is the

one I've heard most while I have been trying to make the speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will be

enthusiastically supporting this resolution in the House when the vote is

called, thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise at this time

to speak on the main motion now before the House, the resolution relating to the

proposed changes to Term 17. My previous intervention in this debate was to

support the amendment put forth by the Member for Twillingate that would have

the effect of retaining the right as a constitutional right of parents to choose

to have their children educated in a uni-denominational school where numbers

warrant. That amendment has been defeated despite my support and the support of

a goodly number of members on both sides of the House. That being the case, we

are left with the main motion that is the result of, I would submit, a rather

unsatisfactory debate in this Province and a rather unsatisfactory process as

other members have commented on.

The proposed changes to Term 17 were devised in the offices

of the Premier of this Province and communicated to the public by means of a

press release, a process of a referendum was set into motion after schools had

closed, after the House had closed, while the citizens of this Province were on

vacation, attending to the needs of their families and planned vacations that

they had. The referendum itself was held right after the Labour Day weekend; all

calculated and designed, Mr. Speaker, to give the minimal amount of scrutiny to

the actual provisions of this Term 17.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, the final results of

the referendum were in support of the changes that are now before us today. The

question was not black or white as the government tried to put it to people, if

you are in favour of reform of the education system, you should vote `yes', if

you are in favour of the status quo, you should vote `no'; that is the same kind

of referendum campaign that the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are

trying to put before the Quebec people, that if you want change vote `oui', if

you want the status quo, vote `non', that is what they are trying to tell the

people of Quebec is the issue before them today in Quebec. That's not the case

anymore than it was the case in Newfoundland on September 5th, that the choice

was between either the reform or the status quo. Nevertheless, it is very clear

that my own party and I myself have been on record for many years to seek

fundamental changes to the denominational educational system in this Province.

Those changes include the removal of the control by the

institutional churches of the day-to-day operation of the schools; they include

the removal of the layers of bureaucracy which have made for additional cost and

prevented quick changes when necessary to the system; they included,

unfortunately, a provision set in stone in 1949 and whatever was in effect in

1949, would be in effect forever. Those rigidities, those provisions which

provided for a lack of democratic control over the education system are the

provisions that needed to be changed to provide a modern system of education in

keeping with the needs of this Province. So, I supported and urged this

government to proceed with the seeking of reform to the education system, and

did not agree when this government took the position that the only changes that

would be made will be made by consensus. I always thought that at the end of the

day, consensus may not achieve what needed to be achieved, and I believed that

constitutional change was necessary in order to modernize our education system.

The changes that were necessary have in large measure been brought about by the

proposed Term 17.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying to those

members of the public, including some of those members of my party who believed

that voting `yes' in the referendum was going to remove religion from the

schools, was going to take religion out of the schools, was going to take any

rights of the churches out of the schools - there are people who believe that.

There are people in my party who believed: I must vote `yes', because that is

what this was going to do; that I must vote `yes' as an individual in the

referendum because this was going to take religion out of the schools. And I say

to them, as I say to members here, that was never the intention of the New

Democratic Party in seeking to bring about change to the denominational

education system, and it certainly wasn't the intention of the government in

Term 17, because if you read it, Term 17, in fact, entrenches and spells out

rights that have never before been contained in the Constitution as it affects

the rights to control certain religious aspects of the schools, teachers'

hiring, and admission policies, and so on.

So, this was not a black and white resolution that was being

presented to the public on September 5. This was a situation where certain

rights were being removed, and certain others further entrenched, so it is not a

black and white, it was a grey and grey, and individuals had to make up their

minds, first of all, on a personal level, whether they were prepared to support

in the referendum the changes that were spelled out, including the change that

would have the effect of taking away the individual rights of parents to have a

choice, where numbers warrant, of having their children educated in a

uni-denominational school.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that it was not necessary for the

government, in the referendum and in the proposed Term 17, to remove the

constitutional right of parents to have that choice. They could still have the

reform that was wanted without taking away the constitutional rights that so

many, a very large minority, as it turned out, of 45 per cent in the referendum,

but a very large minority of people felt were very important to them and they

wanted to keep. They didn't have to do that; they chose to do that, and as a

result, people made their individual decision on the referendum based on that

point of view. Those who were prepared to go along with the change, including

the change to the Constitution, voted `yes', and those who thought otherwise

voted `no'.

I want to say that there is a difference between what an

individual may do in a referendum - because each individual in this House had

his or her particular choice to make when casting a ballot in the referendum -

and what an individual does in the House of Assembly representing a

constituency, representing a party, and representing a point of view

consistently over time and presenting it to the public on election. It was our

position as a party, and mine, to support the Williams report and to support

fundamental changes in denominational education. As a result, despite the

inadequacies of the proposed Term 17, it is my intention in this House, as the

Member for St. John's East and as Leader of the New Democratic Party, to support

this resolution when it comes to a vote in this House. It is unfortunate that

government has seen fit to take away the constitutional right, and efforts in

this House to restore that right have failed. Nonetheless, constitutional change

is necessary to achieve proper results, and therefore, I will support it.

I do see one important change that is also fundamental. When

I said that I wanted to see the role of the institutional churches diminished, I

do not want to see the role of the classes of persons diminished in that they

have a right to participate fully in the democratic selection of members of the

school board, and that those persons elected by that class shall have the right

within the school board to carry out as part of the democratic process a mandate

received by them from the electorate. I see that, Mr. Speaker, as a proper way

for the conduct of the business of the school boards and for the classes to be

represented in the operations of the school.

The minister has talked about this. Based on census data or

other methods to determine the percentage of a particular class, a resident, a

particular school area, and that that class would form a separate electorate to

whom would be assigned a certain number of seats. And if an individual wished to

run for one of those seats then he or she would offer himself or herself and the

electorate would have the right to choose amongst those offering themselves, and

those individuals would be representatives of that class, that religious group,

on the school board.

That is the democratization of our school system, which is

also a fundamental change that we in the New Democratic Party sought. When we

say we seek to remove the role of the institutional churches that is not to say

we wish to seek the removal of the influence of a class of persons. What we seek

is to have those classes of persons democratically represented through people

elected by them on the school boards, and this is a feature of the new proposed

Term 17 that appropriately recognizes the role of the classes of persons in

contributing and continuing to contribute to the conduct of education in our

Province.

I do think, Mr. Speaker, that this has been an unsatisfactory

process, but I think at the end of the day, we have to recognize that this is a

fundamental change that has been crying out for reform for many years, and

though we all may not be happy with the exact form of the Term 17 that is before

us -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology that no, I am not moving another amendment. The amendment that I

supported was an amendment that would have restored the right, a constitutional

right of parents to choose, if they so wished, where numbers warrant, to have

their child or children educated in the uni-denominational school. That's the

amendment that I would have liked to have seen passed and I supported the

amendment put before the House by the Member for Twillingate. In fact, it was

the same amendment, that particular part of it that I intended to bring before

this House. The minister saw fit to vote against that and members opposite

decided to vote against that; they want to take away that constitutional right

and I wanted to restore it because I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that that

particular right can co-exist with the reforms that are necessary and desirable

to move our education system forward.

But, Mr. Speaker, even though that has not been included in

the proposed Term 17, one has to take into consideration; one has to take into

account, the ultimate results of the referendum and the desire for reform.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of this resolution when the

matter comes to a vote. As Member for St. John's East and as Leader of the New

Democratic Party which believes in reform and democratization of our education

system, that is the stand that I take in this House. The efforts to bring about

the changes that are desirable have failed and we are left with deciding at the

end of the day whether or not one supports the reforms that are necessary. Those

are my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all hon. members for their attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult time for me. It has been a

difficult, maybe three years, I suppose, four years, ever since it became

apparent to me, anyway, that one day we would resolve the education issue the

way we are doing it today.

There are three members sitting in the House of Assembly that

were elected at the same time I was elected, the Member for Bonavista North, the

Member for Mount Pearl who is not in his seat, and the Member for the Straits.

The best part of twenty years in politics, twenty years totally supporting the

Liberal Party, in most capacities, three years out through no choice of my own -

the electorate decided they did not want me to continue representing them in

1982 to 1985, two years out later, of that twenty years, by my own decision, and

I have never, ever, stood in this House of Assembly and questioned policies of

the Liberal Party or of the Opposition. Even in the Opposition I have never

publicly criticized decisions made in caucus and I surely never criticized

decisions made in Cabinet. As a matter of fact there are people still in Cabinet

on this side of the House, there are ex-ministers of Cabinet, there are

ex-ministers of Cabinet over there, and each of them knows that at some time or

other during their four, five, or six years tenure, issues were discussed that

they may not have personally agreed with, made the case and then lived with the

consensus.

That was true in my case, Mr. Speaker, but I never, ever came

outside and criticized or voted against a decision made by the Cabinet, even by

the caucus or the party, but not this time, Mr. Speaker. There are those who

will say that what I am going to do today, vote against my own government, is

politically motivated. It is a fact that I represent the biggest Pentecostal

congregation east of Montreal, one congregation in the town of Windsor. There

are a substantial number of Roman Catholics in that district as well, and I have

reached a point in my political career where I have to make a decision as to

whether or not - and you can be the judge as to whether it is politically

motivated, I may or may not ever again ask the people of Windsor - Buchans to

vote for me, whatever denomination they are. There is one thing I can stand here

and say, that whatever else can be proven right or wrong I have been consistent.

From the day this issue first surfaced, in the House, in the caucus, in the

churches, in the clubs, when talking to constituents and talking to everybody

else's constituents, I have from day one believed that what we are doing here is

wrong. We should not change the Constitution, and take out and extinguished the

rights of the classes of people.

There are people here in this House of Assembly who in their

speeches these last few days have said this is not an issue. Well, it was an

issue two or three years ago when I was called to my constituents and other

constituents and faced 500, 600, or 700 people. The purpose of the meeting was

not necessarily for me to take a stand but for me as their member to hear their

concerns. It was an issue where the Leader of the Opposition stood up to a

standing ovation and said, I agree with educational reform but my party will

never agree, the Opposition will never agree to changing the Constitution and

taking out the rights. It was an issue then.

It was an issue when every member in this House received

correspondence from their constituents, particularly constituents of certain

religious followings in this Province. It was an issue to warrant that kind of

letter writing. Whether we like it or lump it, it is an issue when you set up a

situation where the majority of people are given the opportunity to extinguish

or take out the rights of minorities. It was an issue, Mr. Speaker, when just

prior to the general election in 1993, the Premier felt obligated to make a

statement which in effect, as I interpreted, as I read it, which in effect said

that we would not change the Constitution, we would not take out the rights

without the consensus of the churches.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what happened in other

districts. I will not pretend. What I am saying here today are my thoughts, Mr.

Speaker, and I respect the rights of everyone else here to be for or against

this issue, and I am prepared to accept their reasoning. I do not know what

happened in other districts but I know what happened in mine, and maybe it goes

back to the fact, as I said a few minutes ago, that I have a major, major

Pentecostal congregation. I had people ahead of me going door to door

campaigning and saying: if you elect Flight it will mean changing the

Constitution, it will mean this, it will mean that, it will mean the end of our

denominational schools, it will mean the end of the Pentecostals, in this case,

being able to continue on in their own schools.

I had the statement to fall back on. I don't know if that

contributed to my being re-elected. I don't know to what extent that

contributed. I don't know if those people if I could not have produced that

statement, if I had to leave that door in a situation that: Yes, indeed, maybe I

will be party to doing that. I don't know what would have happened. In any event

I won the election. Let me say for those who think anywhere in Newfoundland, not

just in this House, that this is not an issue: This is an issue that will be

around for many generations.

My personal experience is I came from a one-room school. I

was born in Notre Dame Bay, Cottle's Island, Cottlesville now. My mother died

when I was very young and I moved from Cottlesville to Embree which is in the

Speaker's district, which he will be very familiar with. I went to a little

one-room school. The teacher was referred to as a little. Actually, she was

referred to as a little Salvation Army lieutenant teaching school. I remember we

carried our own wood. We bought our own school supplies, our slates. We bought

our own scribblers. I was better off than most of the kids in that school, the

young people. The age was only from primer then to Grade VIII. Because my father

had got a job in Buchans and could afford to buy scribblers and slates and send

me.

I don't know what contribution the government was making to

that school. We carried our own wood, we carried our own supplies. They weren't

providing that. The Salvation Army was providing teachers. I suspect the

Salvation Army owned the school. No wonder we evolved and developed a

denominational system of education in this Province. If it weren't for that I

don't know what would have happened. In many communities such as that one there

would have been no schools, I presume. There would have been nothing. There was

no need for us as a society to turn our backs on what has been accomplished by

the churches with regard to education in this Province.

We will talk about underachieving. In the debate one of the

reasons we are being given that we have to do this is because our students are

underachieving. The fact of the matter is, and this is an undeniable fact to

this day, there are hundreds if not thousands of students in this Province today

going to school hungry, undernourished. Now that kind of a situation in a

classroom does not contribute to achieving.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Undernourished, certainly.

Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of children in this Province

today going to school not properly dressed, damp, wet, cold feet, not conducive

to achieving or overachieving. There are thousands of families who cannot

provide the basics to their children. They cannot provide the basics for their

children, eye care, the kind of glasses they need, to understand what is going

on around them in school, maybe not being able to afford to be able to heat the

house properly, these are the kinds of things, among others, that will

contribute to underachievement; but no, the cause of underachievement, we are

lead to believe, is the churches involvement in the role of education in

Newfoundland, and the solution is to end denominational education as we know it,

to diminish or eradicate the churches role in education, to risk having

Newfoundland end up with a secular education system, and what does getting to

that solution involve? It involves spending scarce monies, scarce dollars, in a

referendum. It involves sapping the energy and emotion of everyone in

Newfoundland, including the Members of this House of Assembly, and it involves a

referendum that in the end, and during the referendum, pitted community against

community, church against church, school against school, and in some cases

friend against friend, and it revived bigotries that everyone had hoped no

longer existed in this Province, and what was accomplished? In my opinion

nothing was accomplished.

People could not believe that we would have a referendum on

this issue. They saw it and said: no, no, there will not be a referendum. They

will see it as a move to give the majority the right to remove or to rescind or

to extinguish the rights of the minorities. That frightened people. It concerned

me, it worried me, and yes, it upset me. You see, in the early negotiations,

right up to the referendum call that is the way it was seen. The integrated

churches, the churches representing the integrated schools, did not seem to have

a problem. It was only the Catholic and Pentecostals who were resisting

government reforms, so in this environment, in this kind of a referendum, it

would be majority against minority, and the minorities suddenly felt vulnerable,

and suddenly felt very threatened.

But ironically, Mr. Speaker, you see when we were talking

about if we ever got to a referendum or if we ever got to a resolution that

would take out the rights from the Constitution, they all went. The rights of

the churches as part of the integrated system went as well. So, Mr. Speaker - I

said ironically, that may be the wrong word but interestingly, coming on towards

the end of the referendum and after the referendum the churches representing the

integrated schools wrote letters to their adherents, expressing concerns about

the governments proposals. They were telling their adherents that they were

the government's proposals that our denominational Christian based education

system was at risk and they have recently, within the past two days, Mr.

Speaker, written to the Premier expressing those views. No one believed, Mr.

Speaker, that the issue would go to a referendum. The risk was too great, as I

referred to the religious bigotries that we thought were behind us.

In that referendum, Mr. Speaker, not many people have

referred to it - in that referendum it all happened. The worst of our fears or

certainly the worst of mine, materialized. I sat listening to open line shows

and I was ashamed of what I was hearing. I grimaced; I cringed at some of the

comments I heard that was supposedly part of this debate. I knew, as did many

other people in this Province, I knew that the issue in a lot of people's minds

was not educational reform but then the referendum came and we had to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I will never question nor do I question the

government's right to act on the results of that referendum, 55 per cent is a

majority, regardless, Mr. Speaker, of who votes. I would have accepted 55 per

cent in the six elections that I ran in and I would have accepted a two-vote

majority of that 55 per cent, as winning. I don't question and I don't argue

with the government's right but I tell you what I do question, Mr. Speaker, and

it is my opinion and I am entitled to it, it is my spin and I am entitled to it,

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that 28 per cent of the people of this

Province voted yes. That tells me that 72 per cent either voted no or was not

moved to vote yes, who did not see this as such a major compelling reason. Now

one spin can be that all the people who did not vote, if they had voted, would

have voted no. Well, Mr. Speaker, my spin is exactly the opposite. The people

who did not vote - because I tell you something that was going on in the heads

of people in this Province during that referendum, Mr. Speaker.

What was going on was 100 per cent of the people of this

Province supports the government in major education reform. But I can tell you

that a lot of Newfoundlanders were concerned about the necessity - even if there

was no necessity - they were concerned about indicating to the government that

they were prepared to change the Constitution, to take out the churches' rights,

to extinguish minority rights. My spin on that is rather than do that, and

rather than take that chance, and rather than take a chance on visiting secular

schools on this Province, they stayed home.

I keep referring to secular schools. I've never ever used in

the debate godless schools. I heard that used. There are times one feels like a

ping-pong ball. I listened to the advisors and the lawyers speaking for the

government who say that there is no risk in Newfoundland, that we are not at

risk. Our education system is not at risk of becoming secular. Then I listen to

the heads - and I'm not talking about the negotiators either. I'm not talking

about the Gerry Fallons or the Earle Batstones, the people who a lot of people

said were building empires or protecting their empires or protecting their big

salaries. I'm talking about the leaders of the church, the people who speak for

the classes of people. Their view of the world and their legal

interpretation is

that a revised Term 17 can indeed lead to secular schools. Because it will be

subject to a court challenge in a way that the existing Term 17 is not subject

to a court challenge.

What did the people see as necessary education reforms? They

saw the number of school boards in this Province. The people of Newfoundland

have watched for years as the school boards built empires in this Province and

the people were concerned about it. They were prepared to give the government

the right to change that and to reform education and to reform the system as far

as the school board is concerned. I'm told that the churches agreed on a

construction board that would see the schools rebuilt in this Province where the

need existed, and not based on purely because some denomination said: We want to

build a school. School busing, although not covered in the Constitution, was the

kind of reform.

These are the three reforms that the people of this Province

could feel, could touch, could talk about. There were the number of school

boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: There were the number of school boards, the

waste and duplication in building schools, the waste and duplication of school

busing. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief and the belief of many Newfoundlanders that

these reforms were attainable without amending the Constitution, without

removing the rights of minorities. Mr. Speaker, I know something about wasted

money in building schools.

In Badger today, there is a school called Terry Fox. When I

became the member, every student in Badger, every student in high school was

being bused to Grand Falls. The first thing I did in this House of Assembly, was

present a petition to ask that the government stop busing students to Grand

Falls from Badger and build schools. Eventually, the Catholic School Board built

a school and called it `Avoca', a state of the art school in Badger and every

integrated family agreed to send their children there, and they did. But what

happened, Mr. Speaker, the day that school was opened, the Integrated School

Board decided - we talk about the empire Building - the Integrated School Board

decided to build a school, $400,000 of taxpayers money. Today that school is

closed and yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it was sold for $6,500, so don't anyone talk

to me about the necessary reforms on education in Newfoundland.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that these reforms could

have been attained through negotiations. It was not necessary, Mr. Speaker, to

change the Constitution to effect those reforms. The people have spoken, even in

the referendum, have spoken loud and clear, the churches had the message, the

educators had the message, government reform the system and I believe, Mr.

Speaker, we could have reformed the system without taking out the rights. Now,

Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing I might say here. I have identified what

most Newfoundlanders see. There may be other reforms that were necessary, that

were worthy and worth changing the Constitution for, Mr. Speaker. I believe it

is incumbent on the government to lay those reasons on the table because that's

the three that the people in the Province saw as a real need for reform.

Mr. Speaker, if there are other reforms necessary that are so

important so as to change the Constitution, so necessary as to alienate half the

population, so necessary as to cause our total population to be concerned, in

some cases feel guilty, then put those needed reforms on the table with the

other three or four major reforms so that Newfoundlanders can understand them,

and if there are not such reasons, Mr. Speaker, for reforms, then there is no

need for this drastic action we are about to undertake.

As I travelled through my district, Mr. Speaker, people came

up to me during the three years the debate was going on and they were saying:

Graham, why are we having this referendum? Why does your government want to take

our rights out of the Constitution?... and I explained the need for reforms. Oh,

they said, we understand that, we understand the need for reforms.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, I have never had a constituent

or a Newfoundlander ever question me on the extent of the reforms. They knew we

had to have reforms, and they weren't putting any limits on the reforms they

were prepared to see government do. What they did not want, and I can tell you

what they still don't want, is to extinguish the rights from the constitution.

Mr. Speaker, early in negotiations there were times when we

were like we were on a roller coaster. There were times when there was a sense

of relief because it appeared that we were going to come to a consensus and

reform education by way of consensus, which is what everybody wanted. Then the

word would come out that consensus wasn't possible and we were talking about the

constitution again.

Mr. Speaker, the one sentiment that I heard throughout my

district and throughout Newfoundland on this debate was the need and the plea

not to change the constitution, not to take out the rights. Reform the system,

by all means, but don't take out the rights; it is not necessary.

Mr. Speaker, could the government have implemented the

reforms that you know and that I know and the rest of this House of Assembly and

all of Newfoundland know are necessary? For argument sake, let's talk about

schools. I am told by people who know that in excess of 50 per cent of the

Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland will close in the next five years. If there

were no government here that would happen because of the dropping enrolment,

because of the lack of dollars, because the dollars are not going far enough,

for all sorts of reasons the decisions have been made. What will be

accomplished? In lots of cases people are saying we are fighting a battle that

has already been won.

Mr. Speaker, let's take the three major reforms. Remember,

our denominational education system was entrenched in this Province for 150

years. So what if it took ten years to get the reforms we needed? So what if the

churches said, we accept ten school boards, from twenty-seven to ten?.... but

there is a little caveat or two here. So what if it took three years to say,

okay, we have the ten school boards, down from twenty-seven? We will accept the

caveat and we will take the two or three years that is needed to do away with

that caveat, to make that change as well. So what if they said that we have to

have construction boards?.... and with that we agree to a construction board.

But the only reason we agree, and we agree that schools have to be built on a

needs basis; however, there would come a point when we would have to look and

see if the denominations were getting their fair share. There was a caveat or

two caveats. So what?

Why could the government not have said, we accept the fact

that we have now got a situation after 150 years where the churches agree that

schools will only be built on need, but there is a caveat. We will take two or

three years. We will work out that caveat as well. The same thing applied to

school busing. So what if it took ten years to change a system that was so

important to people, that was entrenched for 150 years? I would say to you, Mr.

Speaker, it would be a major accomplishment.

I believe that hundreds of thousands of graduates from our

Newfoundland schools over the last years are better off and are better-rounded

citizens because they attended a Christianity-based denominational education

system. And I'm talking about all schools and all churches. I believe that what

we are doing today will put at risk our Christianity-based schools, our

denominational education system. I believe we could see secular schools visited

on Newfoundland.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are known around the world

as a caring, decent, God-fearing, compassionate people with high standards, high

morals. We are told that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are unique. I ask you,

Mr. Speaker, and it will sound rhetorical, but I will ask the question: To what

extent did our unique-based education system contribute to the reputation that

we are all so proud of? Because every Labradorian and Newfoundlander alive today

came out of our denominational-based education system.

There are some people who suggested that over the last three

years we were into a power struggle, that certain people, negotiators for the

churches, Mr. Fallon and Mr. Batstone, were people who were defending their own

empires, defending their own jobs. But it won't be only those two who will lose

their rights. It will be the parents, it will be the people, it will be the

family who believes they need the protection that the Constitution affords them.

The risk for secular schools being visited on Newfoundland is

too great. Even as late as October 26, there have been letters from church

leaders signed by church leaders - not signed by negotiators, but by church

leaders, pleading to have the reforms that are necessary attained through

negotiation, pleading to reform our education system without amending the

constitution.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I realize a lot of the things I said

have been repetitious but I believe everything I have said. I believe we are

embarking on a drastic, unnecessary action, an action from which there will be

resentment and recriminations for years to come, an action under which thousands

of our people will feel let down and betrayed, and it need not be so. The

message is clear from the people of Newfoundland to the churches, to the

educators. The people want and will support whatever reforms are needed and

necessary. The people are not demanding, nor will they support, constitutional

change which is seen not to be necessary. I believe the government has the means

and the options to implement whatever reforms are needed, that are necessary,

without extinguishing minority rights and without amending the constitution, and

I implore the government, in a spirit of understanding, in a spirit of goodwill,

in a considerate spirit, in a compassionate spirit, to do so, because if we

don't use the option to reform our education system without amending the

constitution, without taking out or extinguishing minority rights, then this

Province will be forever, in my opinion, the worse off.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

October

30, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 45A

[Continuation of sitting]

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to have a few words about the motion put forward

by government to deal with amending Term 17, so that we can move the process

forward to reform our school system, Mr. Speaker.

This has been a difficult process I think for a lot of people

but what we are discussing here today and have been for the last couple of

weeks, is an issue about moving on for the future, that's what it comes down to

and we can either decide to go with the process that we have had for

two-and-a-half years, which the government and the Minister of Education and

Training and the officials, and church leaders and the negotiators for the

churches attempted to do, find a resolution or you go to the people and you ask

the people for a resolution and in this case we went to the people.

Now if the government had lost that vote, the government

would have accepted that vote. In this case, we are talking about moving towards

the future so at the end of the day, the vote was held and everybody had an

opportunity, Mr. Speaker. It would be like having an election and that 50 per

cent never got out so you better go back and check with them first. I mean, at

the end of the day, everybody had an opportunity and they voted, and so we went

forward after attempting to negotiate as best we could, an arrangement that

would see a modified change, some modifications to the present system that was

called Adjusting The Course , so really, there were adjustments, Mr.

Speaker, to our system.

It wasn't taking away massive rights, it wasn't taking away

and making it a secular system, it was making some adjustments to the system; it

was making some adjustments for the 1990s and going into the new millennium,

that's what we are talking about, and every attempt was being made - as a matter

of fact, two other people were brought into it at the behest of some other

people, the hon. Phil Warren and I believe Mr. Dennis Browne as private citizens

attempting to try to get an understanding and go back and forth between both

parties to try to see if there was a way to have this settled.

So every attempt really, was made to try to do that and I

think everybody in the House of Assembly want to see it resolved that way. I

know I did, personally. I mean, no one wants to go and have to make an amendment

to a Constitution to resolve something but in this case after many, many

attempts, it was decided by government and by caucus to go forward to do this

and to call for a referendum, and so it was called, and we have an outcome, and

what we are talking about today is moving on, trying to move on to make some

changes to our system amongst other changes that are now being made, they have

been made, that will be made in the future, the plan that was set out in the

Royal Commission that was set out to make some changes to our school system, to

make the changes in the curriculum that are needed.

As a matter of fact, I have a copy of some changes here, Mr.

Speaker, a copy this morning of some changes that are being made to the

curriculum now on educational reform, and they are going to deal with the high

school system and deal with the credits in the high school system, about more

math in the system, more technology in the system so there is a whole range of

changes that are being made as we speak. A professional development centre for

teachers is now set up and that's starting to bring some new improvements to

professional education for teachers in the Province, so there is a whole range

of changes that are being made to deal with improving our education system.

The attempt, Mr. Speaker, by government, was to modify our

present system, to make some changes in the structure of the system so they

could operate efficiently and effectively. The hon. Phil Warren used to say, Mr.

Speaker, there is more scholar for the dollar and this is what we are talking

about here and the Minister of Education and Training of the day and the

government of the day is trying to do the same thing.

When you look at the amending of Term 17, government is not

taking Term 17 and throwing it away. Government is amending Term 17, modifying

Term 17, leaving Term 17. Now if Term 17 protects something now and you are

amending Term 17, the amended Term 17 will prote