The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine business of the House, I would like to welcome to the gallery twenty Grade VI students from Greenwood Elementary School, Loon Bay, accompanied by their teacher, Helen Day and chaperons, Julie Eveleigh, Gerald Canning, Bonia White, Inez Hill and Bus Driver, Don Lewis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome Agnes Pike, Mayor of West St. Modeste, Labrador and Ross Decker, Mayor of Roddickton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government announced as part of its 1996-97 Budget decisions, the elimination of the Public Examination Marking Board which resulted in savings of approximately $650,000. In making this decision, Mr. Speaker, government anticipated that the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association would co-operate in light of the serious financial situation faced by the Province and the reasonableness of that request.

Currently, there are over eighty Level III courses offered in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador, with public examinations being offered in only eighteen of these courses. Teachers are responsible, Mr. Speaker, for preparing final exams and evaluating students in more than sixty courses at this level. Final exams in the eighteen public exam courses have been traditionally marked by a separate marking board consisting of high school teachers employed during the summer period. The cost of this separate marking board is approximately $650,000 and thus, Mr. Speaker, when government had to make tough budgetary decisions it was our view that it was not unreasonable to request classroom teachers to mark the public exams for eighteen courses just like they do for the other sixty at present. There is sufficient time in the school year, Mr. Speaker, for teachers of public exam subjects to mark these public examinations. We were not asking teachers to work beyond their 190-day school year. In fact, we were prepared to revise the public exam schedule so that examinations such as literature and language which take longer to mark would be offered at the beginning of the examination schedule. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association has taken such a firm stand and has directed its teachers and members not to mark the examinations.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association and government have been meeting and will be meeting over the next few months to deal with issues that are critical to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association. Issues, such as the financial stability of the Teachers' Pension Plan. We are prepared to co-operate with the NLTA on this serious issue of their pension plan and yet at this point they are not prepared to co-operate on an issue that does not involve lengthening the school year for teachers and does not add cost to the system. I trust the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association is seriously reconsidering its position. If the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association is not prepared to reconsider its decision government will have to review its options.

One option, Mr. Speaker, may be the elimination of public examinations in these remaining eighteen subject areas. Teachers would then be expected to evaluate students in these eighteen subjects as is currently the case for the more than sixty other Level 111 courses that they currently do the evaluations for. By way of information it is interesting to note that public examinations are not offered in Prince Edward Island, they are not offered in Nova Scotia, they are not offered in Ontario, and only to a limited extend for Anglophone students in the province of New Brunswick. Newfoundland may have to consider joining these other provinces and not offer public examinations for any courses in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his statement just shortly before the proceedings this afternoon. However, on behalf of the members of this side of the House we do have some serious difficulty and concerns with both the spirit and the subject matter of the statement as presented by the Minister of Education this afternoon.

The suddenness of this announcement is of grave concern to parents, to students, and to teachers throughout this Province. This is May 23 and public examinations start in approximately one month's time and the changing of a schedule - many conscientious students in this Province indeed are now preparing for examinations in accordance with the schedule which has been predetermined, so any suggestion to change a schedule at this date is indeed unfortunate.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the wording on page 2 of this statement. We see an attempt, a very feeble attempt I would suggest, to encourage and entice cooperation between government and the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association. However, when we see ultimatum language such as, "One option may be the elimination of public exams in these eighteen subjects. Teachers would then be expected to evaluate students in these eighteen subjects," et cetera, what kind of encouragement or inducement for cooperation does that language suggest? Therefore I would say that the subject matter of this particular statement is met with regret -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the minister for making available a copy of his statement. Although I'm surprised that a former president of the NTA would not anticipate that he would have to have the agreement of the Teachers Association before implementing such a change to their workload or collective agreement.

It is another example of the cavalier attitude that this government has towards the needs of students in this Province who are now in a state of ultimate anxiety about what is going to happen to their public exams which are supposed to happen only a couple of weeks from now. I think it is incumbent upon this government to give some encouragement, stability and hope to young people whose future depends on quality education and on standards, some of which are obtained from public exams. I ask the minister to reconsider his approach and make sure that the students have an opportunity to do exams and get the kind of education that they deserve.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, today marks an important event in the history of the Province as Inco Limited acquires the shares of Diamond Fields Resources and thereby will gain ownership and control of the Voisey's Bay project in Labrador.

This is one of the largest corporate deals in Canadian history and is based on one of the largest mineral discoveries in Canadian history, made by two -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Made by two Newfoundland prospectors, Mr. Albert Chislett and Mr. Chris Verbiski. The development of this new mineral discovery at Voisey's Bay will be one of the new economic cornerstones for our Province as we enter, Mr. Speaker, the 21st century.

Today I wish on behalf of all members of the House, and indeed on behalf of all people in Newfoundland and Labrador, to welcome Inco to our Province. I hope to establish a long and mutually prosperous relationship between the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco. I have talked to Dr. Michael Sopko, president and chief executive officer of Inco, regarding the Province's position on smelting and refining of the Voisey's Bay ores in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have informed him that the mining leases for Voisey's Bay must, and will, contain requirements to smelt and refine the ores in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the mineral resources at Voisey's Bay are sufficiently rich to provide a sound return for all parties, particularly the people of this Province and the proponent, Inco. I will be making this position clearly known in greater detail to Inco, to Mr. Sopko, in meetings that are being arranged over the next few weeks, as we discuss all the matters related to the development of this deposit.

Now that the ownership question appears to be resolved, the Voisey's Bay project is poised, Mr. Speaker, to move forward under the leadership of the largest and most experienced nickel company in the world, also, I might add, a Canadian-based company. I am confident that working together with Inco, working with the Government of Canada, the Voisey's Bay project will become a model for mining development, not only in Canada, but around the world. Of course, that model of development has to take into consideration the circumstance, the aspirations and the expectations first and foremost of the people of Labrador and must also take into consideration the aspirations and expectations of the aboriginal peoples as well, both of the Innu people and the Inuit people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in helping us to achieve objectives for sound, rationale, responsible development, Inco will become a valued corporate citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador. It gives me great pleasure on behalf of all the people of this Province to say to Inco: Welcome. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Inco as well, in the spirit of friendship and co-operation, that some darn fool posing as a vice-president for marketing has suggested that ore may be processed in Asia - don't know who he is but they should find him and tie him down quick, because not a pound will be processed anywhere but in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Possibly, if I could have a copy of that, too, in due course, I would appreciate it.

I, also, on behalf of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, welcome Inco here to this Province in what we hope will contribute to a long and prosperous future for mining in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier and his government have the responsibility to ensure that the resources of Labrador are developed in the best interests of the people of this Province and that it does not become another Churchill Falls.

The Premier has an opportunity to bring in a fair and reasonable tax regime that is going to be conducive to mining in this Province, but also will have the long-term interests of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have been waiting for that for one year. We are interested in seeing what this government has to offer. If they pull it back from the Order Paper we are going to call the House together to deal with that. We want to see long-term prosperity every bit as much as the Premier of this Province wants to see it, I can assure you, and we would welcome Inco, or whoever it happens to be, that will develop and discover other mines in Labrador. We need the same opportunity here in this Province, and I think we need to have some long-term planning, some long-term fair and reasonable regime for taxes in this Province that is going to ensure prosperity, and that our Province will be a better Province in the future. I ask the Premier to ensure that happens, and we will be watching to ensure that we do our part in ensuring that happens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, the New Democratic Party, welcome the end of the uncertainty as to who will be the principal developer of the Voisey's Bay development, and in doing so we refer also to the existing and continuing uncertainty as to what the future will hold for the revenue for the people of this Province, and in terms of benefits and jobs, and also the resolution of problems for our First Nations, Inuit and Innu, and the benefits for Labrador.

It is ironic that, to date, millions and billions of dollars have changed hands, mostly outside of this Province, over the Voisey's Bay development and, to date, other than perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars on mineral licences in surrounding areas, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have yet to obtain their benefit. So I look forward to the legislation that has been promised to change the 1994 legislation, which would have given an easy ride if not a free tax ride to Voisey's Bay development, and see what this government plans to do in terms of full benefits for this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

In the Budget you announced that fees for ambulance operators would increase from a $40 to a $60 range to a flat fee of $75, an increase that is almost double for the user fee for patients in some cases. Has the minister considered what impact this might have on the sick who are unable to pay that price?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have adjusted upwards the user fee that ambulance operators may now charge in terms of ambulance usage from $40, $50 or $60 to $75. The hon. member is correct in that regard. We have expressed to them the intention of reducing what we pay on a per kilometre rate for the services that they provide to the people of the Province, proportionate to the increase on the user fees so that, at the end of the day, there is no net loss of revenue theoretically, to the ambulance operators.

We anticipate that this will not be problematic. We would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. member, that P.E.I., as a matter of a point of reference, charges $100, a flat rate for user fee. On average, we are still only about 75 per cent of what the Atlantic Provinces' rate is and we think it is a fair and equitable way of trying to provide ambulance services to the Province and, at the same time, needing a budgetary objective that was, of necessity, to have been met in the process of putting together our Budget this year.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister realize we are not in Prince Edward Island and we deal with practicality, not theories, here in this Province? And I will get to that point in a minute.

Does the minister feel that this high fee of $75 will now deter people in getting the proper care they need, at a most critical time, potentially resulting in higher, long-term costs to our health care system?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to that question is clearly, no.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Will the minister confirm - again, I would like him to make it clear - Will this increase of $35, go into the coffers of government and not to ambulance operators?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

It is not an increase of $35. The rates were: $40, $50 or $60 depending upon the distance travelled. We felt, to have a staggered rate like that for rural purposes was not fair and therefore, we brought in a uniform rate, so, in some cases, it is only a $15 rate increase. The same rate will apply to urban centres such as St. John's or Corner Brook where the distances are less in terms of travel distances. So, to answer the question specifically, we will not gain or lose as a Province in terms of revenue as a result of this. We are simply shifting, if you like, to some extent, the burden of billing out a little extra on the user fee to the ambulance operators that was normally on the kilometre rate.

I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member and to the House, that my officials and I have already met with three different groups of ambulance operators in the Province this week: the private operators, the community-based and the sub-set or sub-group within the private operators who represent 50 per cent of the total capacity of the ambulance services in the Province. The community-based people came to see me, the very first people I met Friday morning, at 8:30, after the Budget, to express their pleasure with the Budget we had brought down and the way they have been served and treated in the budgetary process.

The 50 per cent of the private operators, who are supposedly represented by the organization of all the private operators, came to my officials today. We are having discussions, and I have to tell you that they have indicated very clearly to me, that they want no part and will have no part of nonsense like withdrawing services. So I just want the House to be aware and the public to be aware that, on balance, about 70 per cent of the capacity in the ambulance industry are quite pleased.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter the minister is talking about was a different matter altogether. His community operators do not get a grant of $24,000; they get a share of the capital cost. That is the issue that was dealt with by community operators, I say to the minister. I have spoken with community operators and other people; it is a different issue from this Budget issue and he is trying to muddy the water.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they happy?

MR. SULLIVAN: They are not happy with the Budget, I say to the minister, not at all on this issue, they are very unhappy. The minister stated in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge the minister again - he said: government is not going to be the beneficiary of this increase in rates. That is incorrect. I ask the minister now: will he confirm that his department is using the ultimate enforcement technique of deducting this increase from money that is normally paid to ambulance operators? I ask the minister, will he now stand and tell this House if he is now asking ambulance operators to be a tax collector for this Budget increase?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should also, I suppose, point out for the benefit of members of this House that last year we introduced enhanced and increased levels of standards for ambulance attendants in the Province.

Along with that commitment to an improved ambulance service in the Province, we added between $200,000 and $250,000 to the budget at a time when we could not find very much extra money. The Province was committed to health care in this Province to the extent that we put extra money into the ambulance services in the Province. The issue that is before us today is whether or not it is fair to increase the fee from $60 to $75 in terms of patient services.

The answer to the question, as I have already indicated very clearly, is that it is eminently fair. It is still well below the Atlantic Provinces' average. We are simply moving the fee up a little so that people who use ambulance services will pay a little more, and it is no different in principle from what we have done with a whole array of other licensure and fee services within the Province. Clearly, it is not a tax grab. It is not a method of taxing anybody for anything. People who need an ambulance will call an ambulance and will use it, and the services will still be readily available on a fair and equitable and as cost-efficient a basis as can be reasonably expected.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has misled this House. He has indicated that the $35 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will he stand again and tell this House that the increase from $40 and $50 and $60, depending on which one it was, up to $75 is being deducted from money that is being paid to ambulance operators by this government and is extra cash in the coffers of government? Will the minister stand and indicate that is the case?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I had to wonder out loud about a year ago when the hon. member was my critic in health whether or not, as a result of him asking me the same question four times, he was not hearing clearly or whether he was just plain stunned and couldn't understand what I was saying. I still have that concern with respect to his ability to perceive, understand and comprehend plain, simple language.

We are increasing the fee from $60 to $75, or $40, $50 or $60 to $75. We are deducting proportionately from the kilometre rate that we pay to the ambulance operators the amount of money equal to what they will collect with the increased fee. It is no extra money, not a penny in the pockets of government or in the coffers of the treasury as a result of this initiative. I can't be any clearer than that, I don't think, but if needs be to try, I will give it another shot.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deducting a $35 increase directly from ambulance operators on the kilometre fee is direct money in the coffers of government. The ability to perceive is far greater than ability to deceive, I say to the minister.

In many instances, ambulance operators, both private and community-based operators, are unable to collect the patient user fee. Because some people, Minister, simply cannot afford it. Now, does the minister not realize that taking this increase in fees, and taking this money out of money that ambulance operators are supposed to receive, will result in operators now receiving less money than they would normally have received prior to this budget technique, making some operators more private and community non-viable?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker. The proposition as he puts it forward is not correct. The ability to charge a $75 fee and receive proportionately less from a kilometre rate is a situation that causes, in theory, the ambulance operators to have at the end of the day, once they collect all of their receivables, the same amount of money to operate on as they did last year.

I know the hon. member had a visit from the ambulance operators last Friday morning, the same time I did. I gather that he may be to some extent, if one were to look around, playing a little bit to the galleries today. But the answer to the question is no less valid that I have given, notwithstanding that circumstance.

The proposition that was being made to me is that because 100 per cent of all billings is not collectable, there will be theoretically a few less dollars in their pockets at the end of the day as private operators. That may have some substance if collectibles are not at the 100 per cent rate. I acknowledge that. But I also have to say to you that my information tells me, and I know for a fact, that some private operators have not even been charging the $40, $50, and $60 dollar rate as a fee to the patients, notwithstanding their ability to do that in the past. So I have to ask the question and wonder why that sort of revenue has not been taken up on 100 per cent in all cases by private operators? I ask that question.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the department has budgeted for a 15 per cent increase in revenues and that is where the revenues are coming from, I say to the minister.

I ask the minister: Will this increase that has been announced as a result of this Budget apply to hospital-based ambulances, such as those in St. John's, and if so, will it also be clawed back from revenues like they are doing with private and community-based ambulances?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member - I was going to say, never has the good fortune to get to this side of the House, but if he does I certainly hope that the people of the Province are not saddled with him as the finance minister, because the way he is using figures is clearly nothing short of irresponsible.

We are not gaining one cent or losing one cent in terms of the Treasury as a result of what we are doing. We have not made up any 15 per cent, wherever he gets 15 per cent from, in terms of adding anything by way of additional cost to the private ambulance operators in this Province. We are simply making an adjustment that we believe is fair and reasonable and that is in keeping with the principle of, to some extent, a user having to pay within reason for the service that they get from the people of the Province, whether it is an ambulance ride that they need, or whether it is a license they need for some other reason. We believe there is a principle of user pay and it is a principle in terms of ambulance service that has been in vogue for many, many years. We make no apologies for the adjustment we made. We believe it is fair and equitable, as has been told us by, as I say again, about 70 per cent of the total capacity to deliver ambulance services already in the Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is two questions behind. I will again ask the minister the question I just asked him. This increase from $40 in some cases to a $75 flat rate that has been applied to ambulances around this Province, has that increase been applied to hospital-based ambulances such as those here in the city of St. John's?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure exactly what the hon. member is getting at. I gather he is getting at the proposition that ambulances used for inter-hospital transfers do not get charged anything. To answer his question, people who use an ambulance, if they call an ambulance in St. John's, if they call an ambulance in Port aux Basques, or if they call an ambulance in Grand Falls, they will be charged a $75 fee for the use of that service. That will not be different in any part of the Province, whether it is St. John's or in a rural setting. The same principle of fairness and balance that we are noted for universally applies.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In St. John's, people who are transferred by ambulance from hospital to hospital do not pay a user fee, but in rural Newfoundland and Labrador they do pay a fee when they are transferred from hospital to hospital. Is it so then, I say to the minister, that your policy is discriminating against rural Newfoundlanders who need those ambulances services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member refers to the situation of inter- hospital transfers within the city of St. John's. There is no location in the Province within the boundaries of a town where inter-hospital transfers take place, that there is an extra charge. Within the city of St. John's, we provide services to about 40 per cent of the residents of the Province who live outside of St. John's.

They come in here for particular type high level tertiary care services. The fact of the matter is, things like MRI, we only have one in the Province and it is located at the Health Sciences Centre. Are you suggesting that we should be charging people from rural Newfoundland who come to St. John's for those services $75 for a ride from the Grace to the Health Sciences so that they can access the services that they have come in for. I gather what he is saying by inference in the question, that people who come in to St. John's for high level tertiary care services have to be moved from one institution to another to get those services, that these people should be charged $75 as though they had called from their house to come in. I think it is reprehensible of the Member for Ferryland, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, to suggest that we would charge people from rural Newfoundland simply because they have to come to this side of the overpass for services.

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

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

No, I asked the minister, will he apply the same measures to rural Newfoundlanders and urban Newfoundlanders alike when they need to avail of medical services in the area, regardless of where they live? That is what I asked the minister, can he commit to that? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I thought that the Leader of the Opposition was going to join with the rest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in congratulating the Minister of Health, at a time of fiscal restraint, for holding the line on the health care budget in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, specifically in response to the leader's question, and he clearly does not want the answer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Premier. I ask that the members to my right extend the same courtesy to him as they did to other members when answering questions.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, specifically in response to the question - clearly the Leader of the Opposition is uncomfortable at the prospect of an answer coming - specifically in answer to the question, the fact is the policy is applied equally in both urban and rural Newfoundland. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to impose another $75 fee on anybody who happens to be getting an inter-hospital transfer in the City of St. John's, whether they are from rural Newfoundland or from urban Newfoundland, he should have the courage to stand up and plainly say it. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, if we followed the budgetary advice of the Leader of the Opposition, which was that we should not take the Term 29 money, there would have been another $40 million or $50 million cut, much of it in health care. It is because of the innovative policy and planning of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health that we have maintained health care in this Province and he ought to stand up and give thanks to these ministers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we could ask this House to allow some time on the Order Paper to deal with questions by the Premier or by the government members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Premier feels so insecure with the answers by his minister he -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - is so compelled. So I ask the Premier, would he consider doing that so we can get some sensible answers for a change?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition has asked an excellent question. He is saying would we allow a special time, and we are prepared to give consent right now to allow the government to ask the Opposition what their fiscal plan is and whether they have one. Absolutely, we would say yes right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I heard a request for unanimous consent. We have given unanimous consent. We are ready to ask our questions right now about the Opposition's fiscal plan and we have agreed on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition quickly, please. To the point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, do you want to address the point of order raised by the Premier?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I contend there is no point of order and during my budget speech this afternoon I will tell him what our fiscal plan is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order but I will just remind the hon. members that Question Period is only thirty minutes and it should not be taken up by points of order. If there are points of order to be raised on Question Period our Standing Orders are quite clear that they should be raised at the end of the Question Period.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Ministerial Statement today has prompted me to ask a few questions of the Minister of Education with respect to the issue of public examinations in this Province.

As indicated, there is only a month or so left in this school year and teachers, students and parents are gearing up for their final examinations. Graduates have come to expect that their examinations will be evaluated according to consistent standards, standards that are acceptable to post-secondary institutions in this Province and, indeed, outside the Province.

With the elimination of this year's budget of the Public Exams Marking Board, which as been just announced in the Ministerial Statement, we now have to question the consistency and the integrity of the public exam marking process. My question to the minister is: What steps, if any, has this government taken to date to ensure the integrity and the standardization of our public exam evaluation, and our students? And what steps have been taken to ensure that student graduation certificates are not being called into question?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have done in the short term, in a short, concise answer to the question, is we have asked the NLTA to be reasonable in their approach, to reconsider, and to mark the examinations because there is plenty of time in the year to do it.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As again indicated earlier, teachers indicate that they were not consulted prior to government's decision that they would have to correct public exams themselves, even though it is a decision that they say violates their collective agreement and, as a result, the association has urged teachers not to do the correcting. Will the government attempt to work out an agreement with teachers and their professional association that will see them correcting the public exams that are being offered in a month's time. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will the government attempt not in several months, as is indicated in the Ministerial statement, but in the next twenty-four hours, or couple of days, to attempt to negotiate an agreement which is satisfactory to the teachers of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The NLTA has gone on record and is clear that this is an issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with their collective agreement, so I would suggest that the hon. Opposition critic for Education would check back with the NLTA. That is not a statement that they have made, because they have admitted that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the collective agreement.

This government, through the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance, and the Premier, committed to all of the unions in the Province that we would not take any unilateral actions in this Legislature, through the Budget or otherwise, that would impact upon collective agreements. This does not. The NLTA recognizes that, and it is not an issue for negotiation. We have asked the NLTA to join with us in a most reasonable request, to please mark the examinations during the school year. One month from today, I might remind the hon. member, the schools will be closed, not that the exams will be starting. They will be all over, all done, the schools will be closed, the students will have their evaluations, and they will all know whether or not they are going on to post-secondary education for the next year.

With respect to that, if we were to look at something that was in the collective agreement we most definitely would have had a conversation and a consultation and a negotiation with the NLTA. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with the collective agreement. It has to do with the government asking the NLTA to work with us to help solve a problem by taking a very minor issue in terms of some slight increase in workload for teachers that they can do in the time available to them so that we would not have to spend $650,000 to pay the teachers after school closes to come to St. John's to mark the exams when they could have agreed with us to do that during their regular work day, during their regular work year, in the next two or three weeks, and then provide a full evaluation to the students at the end of the year so that they could go ahead and make their plans for the next year for post-secondary education.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to the abolition of the marking board, I will ask the minister: Will he confirm that special examinations, known in the Province as scholarship examinations, that have been held to determine the awarding of scholarships, have now been cancelled? And will he also tell us if there is any provision to substitute for these special examinations, again known as scholarship examinations, and can he give this House a guarantee that any such substitute will be standardized and consistent amongst all schools and classrooms and will put all students in this Province on a level field of competition?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should probably invite the hon. Opposition critic to come over and have a meeting with myself and some of our officials so he would know what is really happening.

The scholarship examinations that were a part of the whole scene with the high-school graduates at this time of the year were not scheduled for this year in any event. This was the first year that the Department of Education, and the government through the Department of Education, was going to award scholarships based upon the eighteen courses of the seventy-eight courses that are at Level III in the schools now, sixty of them marked by the teachers during the school day, the school year, during their own time, eighteen examined by the government through the Department of Education and marked by an external board. This was the first year that we were going to have no separate scholarship exam but award the scholarships on the basis of the marks in the public examinations only.

So it is not a matter of cancelling the scholarship exam. There was none scheduled for this year. We were going to take a different approach. If the NLTA does not change its position in the next day or so then we will have to look at re-instituting a scholarship exam, because we are very interested in making sure that those students who do exemplify and distinguish themselves as scholars will be given every opportunity to get the money that they do deserve to help them with their post-secondary education.

So we will look at, after we hear a final answer from the NLTA, which may even come today, we will certainly look at whether or not, as I mentioned in the statement today, that we not have public examinations, and whether or not we re-institute. Because we can very quickly re-institute a scholarship exam –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the Minister of Social Services. For many years governments have been paying lip service to the plight of youth between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years old. They have been caught in the nether world of the mandate of the child welfare act and the mandate of the Ministry of Social Services. What measures has the minister initiated to address the real needs of youth between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, and will the minister be introducing legislation to include them in the child welfare act?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the Select Committee on Children's Interests for the House of Assembly my hon. colleague is very aware of some of the issues that have been raised with respect to the age group sixteen to eighteen years. We are anxiously awaiting the tabling of this report to the House in the coming weeks. In addition to this there is an ongoing project to look at issues related to children from sixteen to eighteen years of age, and when we have all the information needed we will look at then the tabling of legislation, if in fact it is what is recommended.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give us some kind of a time frame. This issue has been around for many years. It is now a reality that most of these young people are high-school students who have not finished their high-school education. They find themselves in desperate situations in many cases. Can the minister assure this House that this is a priority of her department and can she give us some kind of a time frame as to when there can be a resolution of this injustice and the inequity?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to be on record as saying children's issues are always a priority of this government, and particularly to the Department of Social Services. When we have the necessary information from the report of the Select Committee on Children's Interests, when we have had an opportunity to assess all the information that we need within our department and from the various groups, we will be putting forward the necessary legislation as soon as is able to be done.

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

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, annually it is a requirement of the Mineral Act that the minister table a report of mineral licences and mining leases issued for the preceding year. Today I am pleased to table the report of licences issued for the period April 1, 1995 to March, 1996.

AN HON. MEMBER: The thickest report ever.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, it is the thickest report ever. It is reflecting, of course, all the excitement of the last year with the Voisey's Bay discovery, where we had about a quarter of a million claims staked in the Province and a lot of mineral activity associated with it, so I am pleased to table this report.

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

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

I would like to table the report of the Labour Relations Board for 1995. The Labour Relations Board is established under provisions of the Labour Relations Act, and in addition to administering provisions of the Labour Relations Act the board is responsible for provisions of The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, The Teachers Collective Bargaining Act, The Occupational Health and Safety Act, The Interns and Residents Collective Bargaining Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have four reports to table. The first is the Annual Report of the Public Service Commission for the year 1993-'94; the second is the Annual Report of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1995. I also table herewith a list of temporary loans raised by the Province for the period 16 March 1995, when the last report was filed, to 09 May 1996, which includes Treasury Bills and which are part of our regular Treasury Bill program and bank overdrafts. That is tabled pursuant to section 49.(2) of the Financial Administration Act and, secondly, I table pursuant to section 55.(3) the amounts that government was required to pay under its guarantee programs. These involve three middle distance fleet vessels and, as well, one particular default under the Fisheries Loan Board guarantee program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS the House of Assembly has asked Parliament to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada; and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly, in doing so, has followed the amending procedure prescribed by section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and

WHEREAS enactment of a revised Term 17 is essential if the government is to implement necessary and urgently needed changes in the Province's educational system;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House respectfully ask the Members of the House of Commons and the Senate to consider the proposed amendment to Term 17 at their earliest convenience, and to decide the issue before Parliament rises for its summer recess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, that as Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador I have been deeply appreciative of the manner in which all of the parties in this Legislature have expressed their support for the approval - indeed, all members to my knowledge - of the amendment to Term 17. Indeed, I take the words of the Leader of the Opposition to heart when he said in this Chamber a week or two ago that clearly a mandate has been received - and quote him verbatim - it is time to get on with it, or get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, in that regard I welcome the support of the leader of the NDP for the passage of this motion. I seek the support of the Member for Labrador for the support of this motion, and I call upon the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed members of the Conservative Party, in the spirit which was expressed with his own words here some ten days ago - a week or ten days ago - to give their support to this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is in the interest of all of the citizens of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the interest of all of us, to put an end to the debate, to put an end to a dialogue that is divisive in the best of times and that has the risk of dividing our communities in ways that none of us wants to see. I believe it is important that, even though we in this place embrace on occasion as we all do, the spirit of partisanship, there are times to put the partisanship aside and I think this is one of those times. I say that I have seen so far, in this place, in this Chamber, as this Chamber ought to be able to reflect on occasion, a spirit of non-partisanship, determination to pull the community together and a desire to see resolution of an issue that has within it, the seeds of division.

Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to see the amendment passed in Parliament without delay. It is then the intention of the government to bring forward legislation which will reflect absolutely, faithfully, the conditions put forward, the proposition put forward, in last year's referendum. Mr. Speaker, I call upon the good will, and I believe it is here in this place, and the cooperation of all members to see that happen in the interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, without delay.

Mr. Speaker, next week I will lead a delegation to Ottawa. Next Tuesday evening and Wednesday I have invited members of all parties to be part of that delegation. I believe we have the confirmation of the attendance of the Leader of the NDP. I believe the Leader of the Conservative Party will speak to his own attendance today. I want to report to the House and report to the people of the Province that meetings have been arranged with the Prime Minister and with members of the Liberal Party, meetings have been arranged with Mr. Manning and members of the Reform Party, meetings have been arranged with Mr. Charest and members of the Conservative Party, hopefully from both Houses, both the House and Senate, and meetings are being arranged with Mr. Gautier and members of the Bloc Quebeçois. Mr. Speaker, it is a non-partisan delegation representing all sides of the Chamber which will meet and visit with all sides of the Chamber and of the Senate in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I believe if we do our work well we can contribute to the well being of the Province and we can take a measure which will restore a sense, as we need, of camaraderie progress in the reform of our educational system and put aside any further possibility for division within the community. I call upon all members, and indeed we welcome the efforts of all members, to contribute to that worthy cause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to indicate, for the record, that I do support the resolution put forth today by the Premier and also confirm that I have committed myself to travelling to Ottawa with the delegation from the Legislature to urge the early consideration and passage of the amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union. We have had our differences both in this House and in the referendum debate on the wording of the petition, on the exact provisions that ought to have been contained in that. It came to a vote in this House last fall after the referendum produced a majority result, after debate on amendments were considered and the leaders of the three parties, who were represented in the House last year, voted in favour of it, although it was not a unanimous decision.

I think the point to be made now, Mr. Speaker, is that this constitutional amendment to the Newfoundland Constitution is now out of the Province of Newfoundland and being considered by the members of Parliament in the House of Commons and Senate, that it is Newfoundland's Constitution that is being considered and Newfoundland and Labrador have decided what they want their Constitution to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I think that rather than engender on the national level any doubt about whether or not this Province has the right to amend its own Constitution, I think I would want to go to Ottawa and assure members of the House of Commons and Senate that it is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will decide what their Constitution is and not someone outside of the Province.

I would also want to assure those members of the Ontario caucus of the Liberal Party who seem to have concerns because it may affect the status of the funding for separate schools in Ontario, that after Term 17 is amended, the status of separate schools in Newfoundland and the funding for, and the ability to have a say in separate schools in Newfoundland, will be far greater and have constitutional protection which the funding for separate schools in Ontario does not now have. So it is not setting a precedent that is less than what Ontario has, in fact it will establish and provide a constitutional basis for far more than what the separate schools in Ontario have right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I see this, Mr. Speaker, as having gone well beyond the partisan differences that may exist between the various parties in this Province over the exact means by which the Constitution ought to be amended, and while we may disagree with statements made by the Minister of Education and how he is handling things right now -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thoroughly.

MR. HARRIS: Thoroughly disagree, as the Member for Baie Verte has said - that the amendment to Term 17 will allow the kind of changes to the school system that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want and voted for last September.

So I support the resolution, and perhaps, rather than having a long-winded debate on this, if there is the consent of all members, perhaps rather than having a separate debate on this tomorrow or Monday, perhaps you can pass it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We are prepared to debate this tomorrow, Monday, today, give leave for regular business to have this resolution debated here and voted on before the adjournment of the House at five today. We are entirely in agreement with that. We would like, rather than have passage of a resolution that is so important without having discussion and debate here in this House - I don't think it is appropriate.

I personally want to go on the record with my comments as I have done so many times before, and I am sure other members here want to be on the record with their comments, and that we support carrying out the wishes of the people of this Province who told the government what they wanted in Education Reform. Our Party is totally committed to fulfilling the wishes of the people of this Province as we should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

We are still in the routine proceedings.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the raising of loans by the Province;

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled: " An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act; and

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957; and

I give further and final notice that I will on tomorrow move that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority Guarantee Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: I think we have agreement, I would presume we have agreement by all parties, that the resolution that was presently introduced by the Premier that we suspend all other hours of the day and that we proceed to debate this resolution with the Premier introducing it, and we will debate it until 4:30, at which time we will call the vote, because I understand the Premier has to catch a flight at five. So at 4:30 we will call the vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Let's call it at 4:30. Will we call the vote at 4:30? Is that agreed? Then we will go fifteen minutes and fifteen minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five minutes each, if you want, to give more people a chance to speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think we will forego the Late Show, if you need and there will be plenty of time.

MR. TULK: Okay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As I understand it, the Government House Leader's suggestion is that the Notice of Motion presented by the Premier will be debated under the Orders of the Day and it will forego all the other orders. We need unanimous consent for that.

MR. TULK: I wonder if we could recess for five minutes, Your Honour, to set up a format?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed we will have a recess for five minutes to let members consider the proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question that we recessed to consider was the proposal put forward by the hon. the Government House Leader to set aside the Orders of the Day and debate the resolution put forward by the hon. the Premier.

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

MR. TULK: After consultation between the three or four different groups in the Legislature I think it has been agreed that we will speak for ten minutes if necessary, if people feel they need ten minutes, to the resolution, that it will follow the normal rules of debate, and that we will put the question at 4:30 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or whenever everybody is finished.

MR. TULK: Not later than 4:30 p.m. or whenever everybody is finished. We have agreed that because we don't want to interrupt this important debate, that the Opposition has said that they do not need the Late Show this afternoon, they will forego it because they don't want to interrupt this debate. So that at 4:30 p.m. the House will put the question and adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have unanimous consent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion. In rising to speak to the motion let my first words be words of appreciation to all members of the House - indeed, members of the House in three parties and the independent member of the House as well - for allowing this debate to go forward on this motion with practically no notice.

It would have been normal and it would have been quite ordinary to have given notice today, to have given all parties and all members more time to have examined the resolution, more time to have caucused on the resolution, to have taken advice and debated it another day. I think it speaks to the desire of all members of the House, and I think that desire reflects, if I may say so, the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the time has come to turn a page, to end a chapter in what has been a long and sometimes stormy and occasionally divisive debate on the question of education reform in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that in the context of that debate it is true that both in this Chamber and outside this Chamber, amongst the population of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at large, there have been strong disagreements with respect to this whole question of educational reform. The views held by those who have expressed them, sometimes in direct contradiction one to the other, are genuine views. The feelings are deeply felt feelings. I don't believe that any of us should cast this debate, cast this discussion, in the context of a right side of this debate or a wrong side of this debate. Feelings which have been there are deeply felt.

So the issue in putting this resolution is not to affirm one side or the other in what has been a long debate; but rather, what is being expressed here in putting this motion is a recognition that the debate is over, a recognition that notwithstanding views are held contrary to each other, the democratic process itself has been served.

We have had in this Province a long public dialogue, we have had a referendum campaign, we have had a result flowing from that referendum campaign, we have had a vote in the Legislature here on the question which has now been put before Parliament. When that vote was held indeed there were some differences then, and we respect those differences. Some members here today who voted on either side of that question, we respect the vote they cast in whichever manner it was cast, but there was resolution, too. There was a decision by the Legislature to refer an amendment to the Constitution, to Term 17, to the Parliament of Canada, and to convey a request to the Parliament of Canada that such amendment be given consideration and be given passage.

Mr. Speaker, at the time that the debate was held in the Newfoundland Legislature the leaders of all three parties in the House - the Leader of the Liberal Party, then Premier Wells, the Leader of the Conservative Party, then Ms Verge, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who is still in the House today, Mr. Harris - all voted in the affirmative for this resolution, and so gave a measure of all-party support to this resolution. I think it is instructive for all of us that even though all three party leaders had given support to the motion at that time there was, I think it is fair to say on all parties around the Province at that time, nevertheless some division on the question.

I think it is instructive that today, as we begin this debate on the resolution before us, a resolution that calls upon Parliament to act, to fulfil the request of the people and Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is instructive that the support for that action has grown sufficiently that we now have a circumstance where all the parties in the House are prepared to give unanimous consent to the motion on short notice. And it is my expectation that all of the parties in the House, and all of the members in the House, notwithstanding where we may have stood during the debate, today stand together in saying to the Parliament of Canada, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition: Get on with it. Give consideration and passage to Term 17 and the amendment that we seek.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment will subsequently be, as it ought to be, translated into legislation, and the legislation that will give effect to the amended Term 17 will come back before this Legislature. At that time, all members will have an opportunity again to see that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been faithful to the mandate that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador gave to government to proceed with education reform. At that time, as legislation is brought forward to give effect to the amended Term 17 once it is transmitted from Ottawa, all of the interested groups who want to comment in the normal legislative process will have an opportunity to come forward and comment on that legislation as it is brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter. We now have a circumstance in our Province where we are without the twenty-seven boards that we want to replace, in effect. We still have not created, and we have no legal means of giving birth to, the ten boards that shall be their successor. We are at the end of one school year, sixty, seventy, eighty days away from the beginning of yet another school year when we do not have the mechanism in place to plan and implement the program for the next school year. We have produced a Budget which has within it an assumption about savings based upon a reform that we plan to implement, but a reform that has not yet been achieved and cannot be achieved until the legal basis necessary to achieve that reform is forthcoming from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Province that is saddled with a debt that we have built up over generations of leadership, leadership that reflects all of the political stripes of the Province, and we have to pay the bill today, and we have to find the efficiencies today, and it is no longer acceptable against that backdrop that we should sustain excess bureaucracy at a time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: - when we need our dollars to go to work in the classrooms of Newfoundland and Labrador, not in the administrative rooms of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, all of those who participated in this debate over many weeks and months have said that they believe in the necessity of reform. All of those who, whatever their perspective on this discussion, participated in this debate, say it is time to bring resolution to this cause, to this issue, to this question.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat again what I said a few moments ago when I asked for and generously received from members unanimous consent to bring this debate to a conclusion today. Whatever our strong differences, and sometimes pretty powerful differences on the issues, none of us in this place want to see in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1996, our communities and our neighbours and our families divided on a question of religion. We must never allow - it is the prime responsibility of members of this place - we must never allow our public debate to ever divide along those lines, and that is why we must move now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador, with all of its problems and all of its potential, is a tremendous place in which to live, in which to raise a family, in which to build a future. Its spirit of generosity is second to none anywhere in this country. Why is it, when there is a famine, and I digress a little bit in saying this, a famine in the sub-Sahara of Africa, that the highest per capita contribution by any people anywhere in North America to the cause of famine in Africa is in Newfoundland and Labrador? It is because there is a spirit of generosity in this Province. Why is it, when the Children's Wish Foundation that the Minister of Health has been associated with reaches out to try to fulfil the expectations and the wishes and the dreams of those who have few days left amongst us, why is it that the response here is out of proportion to the size of our wallets and the contributions made anywhere else in North America? It is because this is a generous place; and the Minister of Health tells me that our contribution is ten times greater than that given elsewhere. It is because we are a generous place. It is because we understand, based on our history and based on our culture, and based on our real life experience, that if we do not pull together we cannot overcome the challenges that confront us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to pull together in this Province. We have to set aside those things that divide us. We have to have every citizen, whether they come from rural Newfoundland or urban Newfoundland, whether they come from the homes of the privileged or the homes of the poor, whether they come from a Catholic household or a Pentecostal household, or any other denomination, working together to reform and utilize the true potential of our education system, and realize the true potential of our children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let this debate today, and let this expression of the House of Assembly today, an expression of all of the members representing all of the parties, representing every district, representing every denomination, be the true voice of Newfoundland and Labrador, a voice of people who want to work together and not pull apart when the challenge confronts us to reform our education system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I just want to draw members' attention to the fact that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a former member of the House of Assembly, a former fisheries minister, the hon. Aidan Maloney.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to put forth the views of our caucus and to put on record here in the House of Assembly exactly what we intend to do in support of carrying out the wishes that the people expressed in this Province. I had an opportunity to attend school for a fair number of years, and an opportunity to teach school for twenty years. I taught people of different religions and never once in my twenty years of teaching did the word religion or the religious beliefs of an individual in the classroom ever come to the forefront. We are dealing with people who are human beings. We are all humans regardless of race, creed, or colour, and we deserve an opportunity to have the best possible education within the confines of our system and its ability to be able to deliver it. I have always believed strongly in that.

In 1983, as education critic, in February of that year, I was quoted in the media, and I have a press clipping from The Evening Telegram back in February 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1993.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thank the minister for reminding me. It seems I am a lot younger than I really think I am, I guess. I indicated at the time, when there were two denominational schools in Corner Brook, one had closed and one remained open, and they were told they had to send their kids across Corner Brook by bus to another school. And I said the government of the day had the responsibility to enforce the section of the Schools Act to give that minister the authority to be able to do that.

I said I believe in the right of parents to send their child to that neighbourhood school. It would create a more competitive school environment and it would be better. It has always been my belief, that parents should have an important choice and should be able to exercise that right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador were asked on September 5 in a referendum to endorse a process of education reform that would provide for those basic five things. I state for the record and for the House that I and my caucus endorse the will of the people on September 5 for those points that were referenced, and people understood were part of what they voted for on September 5.

They are, and I will repeat them: the establishment of interdenominational schools that are open to all children without regard to their religion; the right of all children to attend a neighbourhood school; the provision for uni-denominational schools, and the appointment of teachers to be solely based upon merit and qualifications, except in uni-denominational schools; and finally, church influence confined to religious education and pastoral care, except in uni-denominational schools. We, as a party and as a caucus, endorse those basic beliefs that the people of this Province voiced their opinion on back on September 5. Now, it has been eight-and-a-half months since the people of the Province spoke. It has been seven months since this House of Assembly approved that amendment that was presented here last October.

I want to ask the Premier of this Province a very simple question. I asked my House Leader to have something typed up and run off for the record, which he has done, and I have a copy. I ask the Premier if he will stand in his place and if he will commit to me again - and I will ask again and repeat, I will gladly accompany the Premier to Ottawa and I will gladly ask that the wishes of the people be carried out. So I ask the Premier - and he does have a copy - if he will tell me, because I am not entirely convinced that what Term 17 has presented and what the people of the Province understood they were voting on are exactly the same thing. So I ask the Premier, will he stand in his place and say yes to this - then I will accompany him and whoever else - if he will give me assurance that the following is what the people of this Province and what Term 17 means: (1) the establishment of inter-denominational schools are open to all children without regard for their religion; (2) the right of all children to attend their neighbourhood school; (3) provision for uni-denominational schools; (4) the appointment of teachers to be solely on the basis of merit and qualification, except in uni-denominational schools and; (5) church influence confined to religious education and pastoral care except in uni-denominational schools.

I will give the Premier leave to stand - if he will confirm to me that that is what is going to be delivered to the people of this Province and that is what Term 17 stood for, we will support that unanimously, the PC Party and the caucus here in this House.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have just seen the list, but I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I might want to add a few more things to this. For example, the right of parents to make the determination as to which will be a uni-denominational school or inter-denominational school. There would be some other things we might add, but if the spirit and the intent, and I believe it is, of the question of the statement by the Leader of the Opposition is to ask me whether all of us are committed to implementing exactly the program that was put before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the referendum, nothing more - and some are asking for more - and nothing less - and some are asking for less, as we all know. But if he is asking me whether that is the intent of the legislation that will follow the passage of the amendment, the answer I will gladly give the Leader of the Opposition, is yes. Now, having seen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, some of the members are asking questions across the way as I am trying to answer. Having seen the list - and the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate I have just gotten it - I would say to him, if you are asking me whether this is the total list, there might be a few other things which even the Leader of the Opposition would agree to.

One of the ones that I would insist upon, for example, would be the notion that parents - when we have registration of schools and we determine what the school shall be, it will not be the Department of Education, it will not be the Legislature, it will not be members in the House, it will not be a DEC, it will be parents who will make the determination as to what those schools ought to be in future. So, bearing in mind some of these other factors that will be part of a reform package, and the Leader of the Opposition and I can, and should I believe - and it is mandatory if we are going to serve, at the end of the day, the best interest of the Province - and I would include the Leader of the NDP and the Independent Member as well, all of us in this House have to work together. And I welcome the announcement today that you will accompany me as part of an all-party delegation representing all the people of the Province, together with the Leader of the NDP, to Ottawa next Tuesday and Wednesday. I thank you for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Provision of uni-denominational schools, the wording of this, would not limit in any way the parental choice in selecting that at all. How that would be determined? This is a general statement for provision of uni-denominational schools. If it is by parental choice or vote, how it is carried out can be carried in a variety of ways without derogating at all from what is stated here. What I want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, to be clearly sure - and I gather from what the Premier said, I think it is very clear that the Premier does; if he needs some time to give a definite - before the vote on this this afternoon to take a little time to look into it further, that is fine. We don't have a problem with that; but I certainly would like the Premier to indicate if he does agree with those five specific points, as he has in my written copy, and I have indicated into the record of the House of Assembly here, we will unanimously endorse that. I will take whatever action is necessary, including accompanying the Premier to Ottawa to meet with parties on this particular issue. So would the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: So the Premier is indicating - it is the Premier's understanding - I just want to ask the Premier, and maybe he could answer. I would like the Premier to answer those points that I mentioned here, if they are what I feel the people of the Province voted for on September 5, what they understood was to be voted for. If the Premier could confirm that those particular five points are covered in Term 17, I will accept the Premier's word on that and we will endorse it.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know neither one of us wants this moment, because I regard it as an historic moment, to be lost and turned into a partisan moment. The Leader of the Opposition uses the words: Do I understand that this is what the people voted for? The Leader of the Opposition knows - I think all members know - that one of the problems with the debate is that because of the positions taken during the debate, I am not sure, as you yourself, I think, have said, that people understood, those who voted yes or no, exactly what it was they were voting for.

But on the specific question of whether or not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Let's be frank here. Some representatives of the churches said: If this motion passes it is the end of religion in schools. Some people said: I'm for that, and voted yes. But it is not the end of religion in schools, and now we are dealing with distortions that occurred during the debate, and there are distortions the other way as well.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I think that Term 17 and the amendment to Term 17 includes all of that which he has listed, all five principles, and as I said a moment ago, may well include some other principles which I would expect the Leader of the Opposition and all members here could support. That is why I gave an assurance during my own remarks that the enabling legislation that flows from the amendment will come back to this place. I hope, if this place rises to the occasion, that that legislation, if we consult closely on it - and I give an obligation now to depart from normal practice and to consult with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party before I table the legislation. I believe the legislation when it comes here should come with the same unanimous support.

We need to end this division in our communities and in society. We need to put an end to it and we need to move forward. I ask the Leader of the Opposition for his support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I accept the Premier's word that those five points are included in Term 17, as voted upon on September 5. I would accept that. On that basis, I say to the Premier, it would have our full support, on the particular basis that that is there.

I would like to add, in terms of the Premier's offer to consult with the Opposition regarding any legislation: yes, I feel strongly that a point last year in the process, a point that I felt personally on this issue, is that we didn't have an opportunity - and I am glad the Premier is indicating today - to come to this House of Assembly and to debate the words in that resolution. On May 31 last year the House of Assembly closed. On June 1 it was announced by the Premier that there could be a referendum. The day school closed it was announced that there would be a referendum. The day that school opened there was a referendum.

I, as an elected member in this House of Assembly, and I have said it on the record before, did not have an opportunity to stand in my place and question the wording of the resolution, to get an explanation or any information pertaining to it. That is all we wanted, to have an opportunity as elected members here, to have a say and an input into fundamental things that are going to affect the future of our Province. And I felt insulted as a member of the House of Assembly not to be allowed to rise in my place in a democratically elected fashion to be able to voice my opinion on the words of the resolution. That is one of the reasons I want to be clear here today, where I didn't have the opportunity to question before in the House - it was done and over with before it came to this House - that that is what the people voted for. I am a product and a part of a democratic system and I will function and follow the wishes of a democratic system. Whether I am in the minority or whether I happen to be in the majority when a decision is rendered, it is the people who have spoken in this Province, and I will, as Leader of this Opposition, back the people of this Province and stand behind them and insure that democracy continues to rule in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this resolution, and I am particularly happy to be able to speak to the resolution after hearing the words of the Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to echo the words of the Premier, that indeed this is an historic occasion in the Province of Newfoundland in this House this afternoon, to hear the words of the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition and the indication that there will be unanimous consent to this resolution. Because I think it will, by coming from this House today, help to end the divisiveness that this debate has caused within this Province, within the city and within families, Mr. Speaker, over how to handle Educational Reform, which every single person, I believe, in this Province wants to see happen.

They may disagree about the manner of that reform; they may disagree about the degree of reform; they may disagree about what type of constitutional protections ought to remain and be in force for those who have had constitutionally protected rights in this Province. I heartily endorse the words of the Leader of the Official Opposition when he says that he felt, as a member of this House, bypassed as part of the process of presenting to the people of this Province a referendum on such an important question, that prior it going to the people, there ought to have been an opportunity in this House for the resolution to be refined, to be reflected based on the opinions of the people in this House to participate in it. I think that that is a mistake, that that is a mistake that has taken place and is passed, and now, under the new government, we have a commitment from the government, from the Premier, that the nuts and bolts of Education Reform after the passage of Term 17, will also be presented to the parties for consultation and discussion prior to presentation in this House.

I think it is important that this debate take place, although I understand that we only have a short period of time to do so, because there are a lot of people in this Province who feel betrayed by some of the statements, by some of the decisions, some of the comments that have been made emanating from government sources in the last couple of weeks and month or so. I think that this is something that has to be debated further.

I recognize the commitment that was given by the Premier here in the House today, to the Leader of the Opposition and to me personally, yesterday, that the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum held last fall will indeed be followed; and I look forward to seeing the details of that in the referendum in due course when the legislation is prepared.

I would also like to express my satisfaction that the delegation to Ottawa to help support the passage of Term 17 will, in fact, be an all-party delegation, and I hope that we are able to convince those who might have doubts that it is important that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians having decided what their Constitution will be, that the Parliament of Canada should endorse that and let us get on with it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The members of our caucus have agreed, now that the Premier has clearly stated what the intent of Term 17 is and what in fact in print it does say, and since that is consistent with what I believe myself to be the content and the purpose of Term 17 and what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador last year voted on when they voted in the affirmative by a majority - I would ask that any further debate be adjourned on this matter and that the question now be put.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the input of the Opposition House Leader and are prepared to put the question on Division now. Then, I believe, we have also agreed that at that point we would move, as soon as the question is put, that the House adjourn for the remainder of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution say, "Aye".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against, "Nay".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Education; Mr. Lush; Mr. Penney; the hon. the Minister of Social Services; Mr. Langdon; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Health; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Ms Hodder; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Wiseman; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Mr. Harris; Ms Jones.

Mr. Speaker, thirty-three ayes.

MR. SPEAKER: No nays.

I declare the resolution carried on Division.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if we need a motion to adjourn, I so move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., and at that time I guess we will hear some more good words, positive words, from the Leader of the Opposition on the Budget debate.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we agree that the proceedings should be discontinued for the afternoon. Also, in conclusion, I would like to note the historic moment. In my experience here, and in fact in my following of the parliamentary system in this Province, it has been rare that we have had unanimous consent. This shows the desire of the Legislature. It also shows, of course, the unanimous agreement of all the people who were elected to the Legislature in this particular term. I think it is a unanimous voice. I think it is a strong voice for reform, and we ask that all of our leaders of all the parties take that message strongly to Ottawa, and that they say that the people in this Province want the constitution changed, and we want to have control of it right here in our Legislature so we can determine the kind of educational system we want for our children in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.