The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, on a very happy occasion. I know this is an issue that has been referenced and acknowledged by the Premier and some of his colleagues and, indeed, certain members on this side of the House. It has to do with a particular group of young people who certainly have shown this Province very well in the recent past. I am speaking of the Holy Heart of Mary Chamber Choir.

As the member of this House, Mr. Speaker, for the District of St. John's East, which in fact is the actual location where Holy Heart of Mary School is located, we as Newfoundlanders shared with them on their very happy occasion of being recognized as the best chamber choir in the world. Recently, the Holy Heart of Mary Chamber Choir, representing not only Newfoundland but Canada as well, participated in a music festival in Vienna, Austria during early July of this year. As most of us know, I am pleased to indicate that this particular choir from Holy Heart of Mary was held to be the best chamber choir in the world, winning this particular international competition.

I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, last week, of attending the final presentation by this choir at St. Patrick's Church here in the city. At that particular time we were given an indication of the type of music which in fact led to their success, including some folk songs and spirituals. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the complete Vienna competition set was performed by this choir.

So I take pride as the member for this district and, I am sure, on behalf of all the members of this House, in joining with the choir, with the director Ms Quinn, with the school, with the city, with the Province and, indeed, the country, in sharing with this special group of young people the great award that they have attained internationally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and join with the Member for St. John's East, and may I say, join with him in speaking on behalf of all of us in his eloquent words in expressing our great pride and our appreciation of the tremendous achievement of the Holy Heart Chamber Choir and their director/producer, Susan Quinn and all of those associated with this program that has brought such great joy to all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I think has brought a measure of pride to people right across Canada.

The Holy Heart Chamber Choir was in Vienna; it is true wearing very much - if I can use the expression - the flag of Newfoundland and Labrador on their shoulders, but they were there as Canada's officially invited representative in this international competition. We are literally the best of the best, in the world, which assembled to share together the experience of their music; to share together the perfection of their craft and, Mr. Speaker, I think we sometimes let these moments slide without reflecting upon them very much, and the Member for St. John's East has done the House and the Province a favour, in raising this immediately today.

But, what a tremendous achievement - in a city that itself is famous for music, and the highest quality music, The Vienna Boys Choir and so on - that a group assembled, from young men and women from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the city of St. John's, Holy Heart, should perform in some of the same cathedrals, some of the same venues as the Vienna Boys Choir, should perform with a collection of choirs from around the world, of their peers, a similar age group, who represent the best in the world and in that kind of environment and that venue, should be judged the best in the world today. Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous achievement and one in which we can all take great pride.

I was together with many others, as the member will recall, it was a full house in St. Patrick's when they gave their final performance a little while ago and, Mr. Speaker, in this time that we all enjoy on the planet, whether our preoccupation is music or whether it is great literature, whether it is great poetry, whether it is wonderful art, at some time in our lives we always are impressed by something that moves us tremendously. We see or hear or taste something that we think is near perfect and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I know the member would agree with me, that the performance that we saw at St. Patrick's was as close to perfection as one could come on this planet when we heard the choir perform their last performance.

Mr. Speaker, over half the members of the choir will go on to other activities - some off to university, some to post-secondary institutions, some for some travel - and Ms Quinn and the parent group and support group will begin anew. And, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt they will produce yet another first-class group and another first-class effort.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I have the pleasure of receiving a little later today at my home the choir and their parents. I would like to invite the Member for St. John's East to come join me and them for a reception in their honour.

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 would like to join with the Member for St. John's East and the Premier in congratulating once again the achievement of the Holy Heart of Mary Chamber Choir. It is hard to match the superlatives of the Premier and the member for St. John's East, because indeed what we have had is a superlative performance, and a superlative show of the ability and talent that exists in this Province, and also the ability to present oneself as well. The talent is there, the love of music, the beautiful voices were all there, but it also took a terrific effort of will of the parents, the organizers and the fund-raisers to put together the trip to Vienna.

I think that all of them, in addition to the musicians themselves, the beautiful voices of the choir members and the efforts of Susan Quinn, the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador, indeed the whole of Canada, was behind them and very proud of their achievement internationally. It is just one more opportunity to reflect on the ability that we, in this Province, have when we display our talents on the world stage, that we are in fact second to none. They have reminded us of that. We should all be very proud not only of them but of ourselves as a people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Since this government without consultation dropped the dispensing fee for Social Services recipients' prescriptions to $3.50 from $6.50, and since the Minister of Health asked Social Services recipients to shop at Dominion, patient care has suffered. Is the Premier aware that a patient profile is important in prescribing and dispensing drugs? And will you reverse this ill-conceived budgetary measure that is jeopardizing care for our sick?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the first part of the hon. member's question, yes, the issue of a patient's profile is important in the aspect of monitoring, in terms of usage of prescription products, of what happens in a patient's life. All all pharmacies, as I pointed out earlier during the week to the media, are registered with the same professional body. It is my understanding and it is my assumption, and I believe it to be the case, that all pharmacies in the Province provide the same professional competent level of services, including the ability to be able to have in place, on behalf of their clients who do business with them on a prescribing or dispensing basis, the appropriate patient profile information that is appropriate to be kept and that is normally kept by pharmacists who see people on a regular basis.

As to the question of whether or not government is considering the revisiting of the dispensing fee, the answer to that, of course, is clearly, no. We have indicated in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, that the drug program, which has gone, by the way, for social services recipients from $18 million five years ago to $31 million last year, and continues to go in this direction because it is essentially an open-ended program based on demand, based on the number of people who qualify for social services cards and that sort of thing - based on that, in the budgetary process we had to make some decisions with respect to how we could control the cost of the program while at the same time ensuring that the maximum amount of money we have goes into the most important part of the whole program which is the ingredient program.

Most provinces in Canada have a co-pay but this Province decided we would not have a co-pay on the issue of prescription drugs. We decided that as a government we would calculate how much money we could pay toward a dispensing fee. We set that at $3.50. We have indicated that the marketplace will determine whether or not in one area or another, or in any instance, a co-pay will be necessary. We acknowledge that a co-pay may be part of what is happening in the industry. We will allow the industry, the free market system and the marketplace to determine if, where and when a co-pay is necessary to be charged. We do not deny that it is happening.

We have also said one other thing, that where it is necessary, and only where it is necessary, we are prepared, we are equipped, and we are able, as we have done for many years through out hospital system, to step into an emergency situation so that nobody who is on a 100 per cent government funded program will be denied prescription drugs for any reason.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is trying to create something out there that is not true. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec to my knowledge have no co-pay, five out of the remaining nine, and the minister indicated that the majority had. That isn't correct. The dispensing fee hasn't driven the cost of drugs up, I say to the minister; that isn't the reason. We have the lowest dispensing fee in the country.

I ask the Premier: There is a growing concern that your measures are going to force pharmacies to close all over this Province, thus removing access to prescription drugs not only for Social Services recipients but for anybody else who wishes to use that particular pharmacy in that particular area. There have only been five pharmacies closed in this Province in the last two years, and since the May 16 Budget, four have already closed. I ask the minister: Don't you have a responsibility to ensure that the government measures do not discriminate against people in rural areas of this Province by shutting down their only pharmacy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr Speaker, to the issue of dispensing fees, let me inform the House that there are five of the ten provinces with dispensing fees. Two of those ten provinces happen to be Manitoba, which has a $2 fee and the Ontario government this month introduced a $2 fee. Nova Scotia has a $2 prescription fee, P.E.I. has a $3 fee, I believe it is, and New Brunswick has a $4 fee. In Newfoundland we do not have a universal mandated dispensing co-pay fee. We have said simply that if a co-pay fee has to come into existence we will let the marketplace determine to what extent it comes in and where it comes in, because we know full well that in certain areas it is possible to have drugs dispensed and receive prescriptions without having to pay co-pay. We are not in a position as government of supporting the multinational chains as one would suggest over the private industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I have to say also that we are not in a circumstance, or we are not in a mind-set, where we discourage multinationals from coming in. We are open for business for all who want to come and practice their trade on a reasonable and fair basis.

The issue of a dispensing fee has never been something that has been regulated by government on any account and we will not consider the issue of getting into regulating a co-pay or the dispensing fee. The dispensing fee of $6.50 was one fee. There is another fee that gets charged of $7.90 to individuals who walk in off the street with their own plan. So the whole issue of a dispensing fee is something that the marketplace will decide for itself and take care of. We have every measure necessary in place to ensure that no person who is on a Social Services recipient drug card will ever be denied access to prescription by virtue of a co-pay. We have said that we can provide that service if necessary through our hospitals.

I have to say that I sat with my officials this morning, Mr. Speaker, and they have indicated to me that except in two places in the Province it is not an issue with the hospitals. They are not seeing anybody in addition to those whom they would normally see to look to have prescriptions filled. So I deduct from that, that the marketplace is very well taking care of the social services recipients. Whether they are having to pay the $3 or not in all circumstances I do not know but the issue is substantially decided on that basis.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is asking pharmacies to dispense drugs at below cost to help run the social program in this Province. Now, unless the minister has information to the contrary, he stated that Manitoba has a co-pay, I have information that says it does not and it charges $6.95. I have information that says Prince Edward Island has a co-pay of $2 and the minister said $3. I don't know what script the minister is reading from. I assume mine is current, I would hope it is.

There are twelve hospital pharmacies outside St. John's in this entire Province. Now, I would like to ask the Premier: How can social service recipients have access to their medication when the nearest hospital pharmacy, in some cases, is fifty to one hundred miles away, and even more in other cases?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member puts the proposition in the context that in every other situation where there is not a hospital there is a local pharmacy. The fact of the matter is, I believe, there are only 182 dispensing pharmacy situations in the Province. The many of these would be located -

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and seventy-seven.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, in that area. You are using numbers deducting what you know to probably have either come into existence or (inaudible) recently.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: The fact of the matter is, many of the pharmacies are located in urban centres; St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, these areas, and there are many, many areas of the Province which do not and probably never will have a drug store, if you like, or a pharmacy in the community. They have always had the requirement to get their prescriptions filled and that does not change because of a dispensing fee. They continue to have the need to get their drugs and if they got them at the hospital dispensary in the past they will continue to do that. If they have gone to a drug store in a larger centre, as most of them obviously have had to do, they will continue to do that. So that is a separate issue completely from the dispensing fee. The bottom line is, the dispensing fee is not causing any undue hardship beyond that those who may, by virtue of circumstance, dealing with a specific pharmacy, be asked to pay that.

Throughout the pharmaceutical industry, my information tells me, there are many local pharmacies not charging the dispensing fee or the non-mandatory co-pay that is defacto coming into existence. We simply say that the co-pay is something that may happen in certain situations, but the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that government can only afford to pay $3.50 plus an up charge for drugs that cost more than $30. Our effective co-pay, or our effective dispensing fee, is $4.25 not $3.50. If a drug is $30, if a prescription is $30 or $31, we pay $3.50 plus we pay $3.10. So it is $6.60 in that situation. If it is a $100 prescription we pay $3.50 plus $10. It is a $13.50 prescription fee in that instance. It may not cost any more to fill a $100 prescription than a $30 one. So the $3.50 is really not the total accurate figure but it is the figure that is being used for purposes, I guess, of media presentation.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister now is trying to centralize drug dispensing here in this Province - that is what he is trying to do. Now, the K-PMG, chartered accountants report indicated that the cost of $3.50 is below the cost of preparing those drugs and the minister, I am sure, is well aware of that. So he is asking them to supply it at below costs.

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Social Services. I have been informed that Social Services will cover the cost of a taxi for a social services recipient to travel to a hospital pharmacy to get their prescription filled if that person has no transportation of his own. Will the minister confirm if that is true?

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

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

Our policies dictate that we will provide transportation for medical reasons, and if those medical reasons indicate that these people have to travel to obtain their drugs, while it has not been an issue to date, it is something that we will have to consider on a case-by-case basis. Because, being able to access medical services is part of the policies that we have in place to deal with this issue.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister is saying now that the department will cover the cost of a taxi to a hospital pharmacy, waiting time and return for that taxi, but they will not pay $3 extra on a prescription - that is what I understand the minister is saying.

I would like to ask another question of the minister. We have been informed by Social Services clients that your department is actively advising them to have their prescriptions filled at Dominion or Wal-Mart. When the minister stands, would she inform this House if that statement is correct?

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

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

In response to your first question, the answer is no. What I said is that we will provide access for social assistance recipients to avail of medical services - that is what I said; and in hardship cases, there is always the opportunity to use discretion and I will continue to use that discretion.

With respect to -

MR. SULLIVAN: Advising them to shop at Dominion and Wal-Mart.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What we have been advising people to do, is to try to access their medications through pharmacies in their area which provide the cheapest rates, if that is an option to them. And certainly, with the situations outlined by the Minister of Health, that is what has been indicated.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health, as well.

My questions today, Sir, concern the elderly in this Province.

I would like to ask the minister today to provide me with three sets of figures. I would like to know, Mr. Minister, the total amount of revenue the Province collected per year in nursing-home fees when the highest fee is $4,000 a month; I would also like to know what the revenue is when the fee is $28 a month and, as well, I would like to know the revenue when the highest fee is $1,510 a month, as it was until you recently raised it?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The total cost to the health care system in the Province for the 3,046 long-term care beds we have is $154 million in total; that works out to approximately $4,000 per bed. In addition to that, the nursing homes themselves collect revenues that are somewhere in the area of, I believe, between $35 million to $39 million. At the rate of $1,510, that is the budgetary figure we have worked with over the last two or three years.

In terms of the $4,000 rate that was announced and which has now been reduced down to $2,800, we, in the budget process, projected that we would pick up about an extra $3 million in revenue, based on a $4,000 rate. By moving the universal maximum rate to a figure of only up to $2,800, we believe that figure is now down to somewhere around $1.2 million to $1.5 million; but the exact amount, of course, we will not know for sure in terms of revenue generation what it will give us, because the rate went into effect only on July 1. We have made an adjustment, as the hon. member knows, since then, so it will take us a month or two to determine exactly what the full, new and additional revenue will be from that increased rate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay, South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rather surprised to learn that we really do not know the answer. We really do not know what the cost is. I suppose, over time, we will eventually find out.

Is the Province really collecting enough in additional nursing home fees to justify the great hardship the higher fees are causing some families, even with the new provision that liquid assets should be divided as if the couple were divorced?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the rate of $1,510 which was set in 1986 and was based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Hospitals and Nursing Homes, which was conducted in 1984 was deemed to be a fair and reasonable rate that I guess, at that point in time a previous government accepted. We are simply following on the same principles put forward in that Royal Commission report to arrive at the $2,800 rate. It is a rate that only recognizes the increase in the cost of providing that care from the time that the rate was set at $1,510.

Now, to the issue of exactly how much revenue it is going to raise, the answer is simply this: It is a movement from a rate that was ten years old to a new rate today. It seems that there are about 175 to 185 people in our nursing homes who will have some ability to pay something beyond the $1,510 maximum rate - it may be $1,511, most will not be anywhere near the $2,800. But for those who have income from pensions and that sort of thing, that allows us to exclude the consideration of one's principal residence or home, that allows us to exclude the consideration of a car or a cottage or a boat or any other type of fixed assets, we take none of these things into consideration. We consider only liquid assets, which is cash in the bank and/or readily marketable securities.

In that situation, we will be able to determine within the next one or two or three months what exactly the extra revenue is. We brought into the Budget a figure of $3 million that we would get on a new higher rate of $4,000. We now predict that that revenue will fall to about $1.2 million, which will leave us with $1.8 million we will have to pick up somewhere else in our Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I find that again rather interesting, and only for its being so serious, probably rather amusing.

Again, for the Minister of Health. The minister warned us he would not reduce the ceiling fee from $4,000 a month. I am sure the minister is well aware of that. I guess, after some public pressure he decided to drop it down a bit. After a while at $4,000 a month the savings could be found elsewhere in the nursing home budget. Since he wants us to believe that the reduction to $2,800 a month is significant, which it is not, will he tell us where in the Budget he is planning the new cuts?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, announced the Budget in May, I think it was May 14. One of the things that we I believe as a government justifiably were somewhat a little bit muted but nonetheless a little bit proud and pleased about was that we were able to announce a Budget that not only showed a hold-the-line amount for health care services in the Province, but we announced an increase in our expenditure for health care in the Province from $901 million to $903.3 million. There have been no cuts to the health care budget this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: There will be no cuts to the health care budget next year. There will be no cuts to the health care budget the following year. Because we are committed to a sustainable and a health care system in the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - that will be good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I can tell the hon. member, for his information, in specific answer to his question, we will not find the $1.8 million in the nursing home budget - I never said we would. As a matter of fact, I know we won't. We will have to look elsewhere to find the $1.8 million that this adjustment will cause us.

The government is committed to ensuring that we do things on a principle that is fair. We are ready at any point to listen to reason. We have heard the representation of people in the homes as to some of the anomalies that the policy created, and we have responded to that in a fair and reasonable fashion. We will find the $1.8 million. If you have suggestions as to where we can find it elsewhere in the Budget, I will take it from the other departments and not from anywhere else in the health care budget. I can assure you that there will be more money spent in health care this year than was spent last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know what drugs the Minister of Health is on but somebody should be charged for dispensing them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. I ask the Premier if he played any part, or if he indeed was consulted by the federal minister, to bring about the negative changes to the TAGS program as announced yesterday here in St. John's by Minister Mifflin.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the Province was consulted, and I can let you know that in no way, shape or form did we agree to early retirement of the TAGS program. In fact, we recommended that it continue until 1999.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I can understand the Premier not wanting to answer the question since he was the author of the whole plan back in 1994.

Premier, you were responsible as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in May 1994 for this TAGS program, a program that was underfunded from day one. I ask the Premier if he feels it is acceptable to inflict further financial hardship on the fishermen and plant workers of this Province for a mistake that his own government made in underestimating the number of people who would take part in the program.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that the member opposite is absolutely correct. When the previous Conservative government refused to give a commitment that there would be any extension to the NCARP program which expired after two years, when in the middle of the election campaign Jean Charést came to Newfoundland and said we cannot give a commitment to any extension of the program, it is true that I interceded with others from this Province and we found $1.9 billion for the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. I confess you are right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: He did, Mr. Speaker, find $1.9 billion, half of what was in the NCARP program for half the period of time I say to the Premier.

Premier, the TAGS program has now changed from what the fishermen and fish plant workers were led to believe in 1994 and your position has also changed since then. As the Premier of this Province, will you today give your assurances to the fishermen and plant workers who have seen their jobs disappear through no fault of their own, and who today live in fear of what the future holds, I ask the Premier if he will do whatever is necessary, to use whatever resources are necessary, to make sure that this program goes to the projected date of 1999 rather than 1998 as projected yesterday by the federal minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows it is a federal program by the federal government which is totally responsible for what has happened in the fishery. It is regrettable indeed that it looks like the program will end in 1998, but we are more optimistic than that, Mr. Speaker. With the efforts that have been made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in this Province to introduce multi-species licenses and with the fact that we might see an opening of the South Coast fishery, we would like to believe that there are going to be a number of people who will not require TAGS come 1998, and that will indeed enable more people to take advantage of the program into 1999. So we are being more optimistic than the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the hon. Premier. The Newfoundland Dockyard is all but closed and the employees have still not been offered a fair severance package. Despite its major investment in the Newfoundland Dockyard, the provincial government has done very little to help negotiate a severance package for the Newfoundland Dockyard workers or to facilitate a takeover for this century-old Newfoundland industry.

Does the Premier believe that the provincial government has done all it can, and should do, to negotiate a severance package and a takeover so that we do not lose this vitally important industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the member who has just asked the question knows full well, and I think that any fair-minded individual involved with the committee that has been working on this knows full well, that not only has the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador been involved and been encouraging the takeover process, but any fair-minded person would have to acknowledge that that takeover process and the negotiation itself began after the representations that I made as the regional minister for Newfoundland in the federal cabinet of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we arranged at that time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a year ago.

PREMIER TOBIN: I would like to answer the question which your colleague asked, and I know you would like to hear the answer too.

We arranged for the former Minister of Finance for Newfoundland, Mr. Winston Baker, to be brought in as a facilitator; I think the hon. member knows that. We provided for a period of time for negotiations between the dockyard, Marine Atlantic, and the employees themselves. Mr. Speaker, I was involved in arranging an extension to that time to allow more time for this negotiation to complete itself. It is regrettable, and the member knows this, that at the end of the piece, when all the issues had been negotiated between the employees, between Marine Atlantic, with the involvement, I suppose, of the appropriate federal departments and ministers, that there has not been an agreement.

You can talk about why there is disagreement, you can talk about who should move or who should not move, that is an negotiation between two parties, but I can assure the member, and I think the member would acknowledge, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been involved, has been supportive of the process, and has wanted nothing more than to see the employees have an opportunity to continue the tradition of this Yard here in the City of St. John's, and that remains our wish. But if you are asking the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to financially commit itself to this Dockyard in addition to the one that we run in Marystown, I don't think we can do that, and I hope the member is not making that suggestion at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been determined -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I've recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's South. If other members wanted to ask questions they can rise in their place.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been determined by the Terms of Union that the Canadian government did not have to maintain the railway service in this Province any more than they had to maintain the Dockyard. In fact, the Dockyard was subject to the government Terms of Union under the same terms, and in the same terms, as the Canadian National Railway.

Will the minister acknowledge, however, that the federal government offered a much better severance package to CNR workers as well as offering hundreds of millions of dollars to the provincial government at that time? Why the double-standard, I ask the minister, first of all, and I also ask: Why at that time did the provincial government of that day fight tooth-and-nail for the railway workers when our government has not done the same thing? When is this government going to stand up and fight for Newfoundlanders?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I understand the member standing in his place and asking a question, asking whether or not a severance package today is the equivalent of a severance package of more than a decade ago, and so on. That is a member making representation, but I suggest, with great respect to the member, the representation he is making is in the wrong place. This is a negotiation - and the member knows that - between Marine Atlantic and the employees at the Dockyard. The discussion has gone on for quite a period of time. There have been several extensions. There was, I'm told, a severance offer on the table of $10.7 million. Whether or not that severance package is more generous -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) not true.

PREMIER TOBIN: I'm sorry to tell the Leader of the Opposition that is true. I know that there was a severance offer on the table of $10.7 million. If I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: If I can finish, please, the answer. There was a severance offer on the table of $10.7 million. That is what I'm informed. That offer may be less generous than some circumstances and more generous than other circumstances. That may be the case. This is a negotiation between two parties.

Unless the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which already has a shipyard of its own, and which, by the way, I remind the member opposite, has just finished a negotiation with the employees of that Shipyard where they have committed themselves to a 10 per cent productivity gain or a 10 per cent wage roll back, in order to make Marystown work, and they have made that commitment in writing, unless we are prepared to come to the table as a government and take on the ownership of a shipyard we don't own or to put cash dollars, if that is what the Opposition is recommending, into the offer at this stage, then we are not entitled - and the members opposite know this - to sit on the outside trying to negotiate this deal.

We have worked hard to make the deal a success. We support an employee takeover. We have made representations where it is appropriate. The employees themselves know that. I say to the member, his representation will be more productive and more helpful if he tries to contribute to finding a settlement rather than to scoring political points on the floor of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Facilitate The Provision Of Printing, Microfilming And Electronic Imaging To The Government Of The Province By Kodak Canada Incorporated," bill No. 19. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Accountancy Act No. 2," bill No. 20.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, at this point I believe we have an agreement in order that people would be able to distribute the bill and the two opposition parties would be able to read the bill and to become informed of what the bill says. I think we have an agreement among us that we would move first reading of both bills, just to give a notice of motion. Mr. Speaker, I move that we give first reading to Bill No. 19, "An Act to Facilitate the Provision of Printing, Microfilming and Electronic Imaging to the Government of the Province by Kodak Canada Incorporated".

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act to Facilitate the Provision of Printing, Microfilming and Electronic Imaging to the Government of the Province by Kodak Canada Incorporated." (Bill No. 19)

On motion, Bill No. 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act to Amend the Public Accountancy Act, No 2." (Bill No. 20)

On motion, Bill No. 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 5,000 Newfoundlanders who are very concerned about the dispensing of prescription drugs in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, support the position of the pharmacist in this Province. I am amazed, galled and I guess insulted that the minister has not found time in his busy schedule to probably even take this petition to look at it, to give more thought to it, to probably spend more time with the pharmaceutical association in this Province to see how these dispensing fees can be reinstated. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I am not the only one in this House who feels this way today. I speak for both sides of this House when I say that -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. FRENCH: That's a fact. Oh yes, from some of your own members, yes. Yes, Mr. Minister, from some of your own members. Some of your own members, Mr. Minister, are not too happy with you, believe me. I think it is time that the poorest of the poor - for the Minister of Social Services, I don't know how many phone calls you get, Minister, but I get lots of them; I get them at home, I get them in my office and I get them every single day of the week. I have people in my district, Mr. Speaker, and I will just go into the case of one individual in particular who has no legs and who takes sixteen different medications a month, and she has been told by the people at the Department of Social Services that if they do anything to help this lady they are fired. They are fired! I think they probably should be fired, Mr. Speaker. This person is a person who is in need and who has to live on a certain amount of money every single month.

I think that the minister should go back, and if he has not already, he should certainly read the report from the pharmaceutical association in this Province as to exactly what it does cost to produce a prescription in this Province. I sat here along with at least all the members on this side of the House and heard the minister say: no new cuts to health care. Garbage, absolute garbage, when you have everybody, I think, connected with health care, who come out, day-in and day-out, and talk about health care and how they have to cut back their budgets and so on -but, we have no new cuts to health care. This has probably been one of the biggest cuts to this Province, certainly to an industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker, when now we have the minister and officials in various departments sending people out to multi-nationals. I think that is totally wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I think it should stop. These people do not get EDGE programs or discounts or anything else, they have to go out, they have to get their business and they have to run their business.

I remember being here one day when the Minister of Health said: We can produce them for $1.99; I believe that was the figure the minister mentioned. Well, I can probably produce them for nothing if I didn't have any expenses, so it is very easy to say probably somebody can do it for a $1.99. In the case of our multi-nationals we are doing it as lost leaders - we are doing it at that and the minister has been told that. I know he has been told that; that they are doing it as lost leaders. But if we do not have any expenses, if we do not have buildings to pay for, lights to pay for, and staff to pay, then it is very easy, Mr. Speaker, to do it probably for $1.99.

The Minister of Health is well aware of the report of which I speak, which shows that it does cost something well in excess of $6.00 as a dispensing fee. I am sure he is well aware of that. I am sure he has seen the report and I am sure officials in his department have seen this.

So I ask the government today, Mr. Speaker, to go back to its drawing board, to go back, especially on the $6.50 and have a look at that - because we do have pharmacies who are now laying people off - that we go back and revisit this area and have a look to see if there is not some way that we can reinstate the $6.50 dispensing fee out of the budget of the Department of Health.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support the petition as put forward by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South.

Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example of where the government of the day have gone out and implemented changes without consultation.

I would like for the Minister of Health, when he gets up to speak, to address that, that one little word, consultation, and let us know whom he did consult and how he arrived at the figure of $3.50, for coming up with a price which the minister felt was a fair return to the pharmacists and the pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we all realize we are living in tough, financial times. Everybody agrees with that, including the pharmacists, and they, in turn, would gladly do their share to help the government come up with a solution to try to save some money as it relates to drugs dispensing. But you cannot expect the pharmacists and the drug stores of this Province to bear the whole brunt, especially the independent ones; and I suppose, Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, was when the minister of the day, the Minister of Health, went on television and said: If you want to get your prescriptions, then I suggest you go to Dominion Stores or Wal-Mart.

What an insult!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You did say it, I say to the minister, and thousands of other Newfoundlanders heard you say it. You can sit in your seat today and say you didn't say it, but you did - you did!

Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to the people who are carrying out a very, very important occupation in this Province today. A review was done for the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmaceutical Association, and from what I understand, it showed that it costs $6.46 in order to fill a prescription. That is their cost, Mr. Speaker, but somehow, the minister in his wisdom says it can be filled for $3.50. Again, I don't know how the minister came up with those figures.

I would also like to remind the minister of the human touch that is involved in operating independent drugstores, especially in rural Newfoundland today, when most of the druggists not only know the drugs they are dispensing, but they also know the clients to whom they are dispensing it. I don't know if you have ever gone down to Wal-Mart or Dominion Stores to buy a prescription, but I did. I did, just last night, to find out - knowing I was going to speak here today - and compare it with the kind of service I get at my drugstore in Musgravetown, I say to the minister.

You go in. The person who meets you at the front desk is a worker they have working there, and their job is to accept the prescription and take it to the druggist. You don't see the druggists at all, let alone have time to talk to them and confer with them. You go to my drugstore in Musgravetown, and you go to the other drugstores in my district, and you have a relationship with the druggists, with the pharmacists, where they know you and they know the other clients, the other patients, who visit them on a daily basis. They know if they should dispense 100 pills at one time, or if there is a problem there that they should only dispense ten. They also know if there is abuse, if somebody is abusing those prescriptions. All that is very common knowledge. I say to the minister it is very important knowledge as well.

When the minister compares the dispensing of drugs at Wal-Mart and Dominion Stores in a little corner that fits, I suppose, the rules and regulations of this government, and they say they can dispense it - well, they were dispensing it for $1.99. I understand now it is $3.89 that they charge.

MR. SULLIVAN: Three dollars and ninety-nine cents now.

MR. FITZGERALD: Three dollars and ninety-nine cents, I am reminded by the Member for Ferryland, Mr. Speaker. We also have to remember the other things that particular store does. They don't have to pay for snow clearing, they don't have to pay for maintenance, they don't have to pay for the rent, the floor space they use. They don't have to pay for extra heat and light. But the independent drugstores out there today have to build all this into their dispensing fee.

I must admit again that when I heard the government of the day was reducing the dispensing fee from $6.50 to $3.50 I never had a lot of sympathy for the druggist either. Because I was always of the understanding that that was above and beyond the normal mark-up that they would make for that particular drug, but I found out after that it wasn't. I surmised, I suppose, like the Minister of Health did, and formed an opinion.

I think the Minister of Health should consult with the independent pharmacists out there today. There is a solution. They have offered some solutions, and I have read them. I don't know if the minister has taken time to read them. They sound very real to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: They sound, Mr. Speaker, like a group of people who would like to work with government to solve the problems that they are experiencing and help them to try to get their financial house in order. I ask the minister to take some time out before he makes the hard-nosed approach and says: No, it will not be changed, and listen to them and make a decision based on information, make a wise decision - not go and make the irrational decision that he did in bringing about this change a few short months ago.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to remind the minister of the number of drugstores that have closed in rural Newfoundland since this policy was implemented. From what I understand, there have been four drugstores closed in the last three or four months. That is a reflection of what I think you will see happening in rural Newfoundland, because those independent drugstores will not be able to afford to remain open. They will not be able to afford to pay their staff. And it is rural Newfoundland that will suffer more than any other area if this policy is allowed to continue.

I plead with the minister to sit down with the drugstore owners, listen to them, and make your decision based on sound economic forecasts or information. Make it on facts and not perception. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad for the opportunity to take another minute or two and speak about this issue because it has been a public issue. There have been some misunderstandings, some non-factual propositions put forward here in the House today and beyond. I, on behalf of government, want to first of all say that the Government of this Province does recognize and does appreciate the role that the pharmacies in this Province provide in terms of service to the people of the Province.

The people of the Province have been well served, are being well served, and will continue to be well served by the pharmaceutical industry in this Province. Whether it is the small independent pharmacist in one's local community or whether it is the larger pharmaceutical dispensary in an urban centre, they all provide an equally valuable service. They provide a variety of services to people who need to get prescriptions filled, including not only the dispensing of the product but the monitoring of the patient profile and all these sorts of things.

Government has never said, Mr. Speaker, that we believe pharmacists can fill a prescription in every location for $3.50. What we have done by virtue of the budgetary process is decided that that is all we can contribute to the cost of the dispensing fee for social services recipients in the future. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the seniors of this Province have never had a dime paid toward their pharmaceutical dispensing fees. The seniors in this Province pay the full 100 per cent cost of the dispensing services they receive, and they have never had the benefit of even a partial co-pay in terms of dispensing services.

We were putting together a Budget this year under very difficult circumstances. We were dealing with a component of a $54 million drug program, $31 million of which was spent last year for social services recipient drug costs. That is a figure that has gone up from $18 million five years ago and is at $31 million in last year's Budget. We could not put more than the $54 million back into the program this year so we had to make some choices as to where we could find the savings to essentially offset the increase in the cost of ingredients, plus to offset the number of people who unfortunately we see and find showing up on social services lists and those who get benefits from the Department of Social Services.

I want to acknowledge also the suggestions that have been put forward by the Pharmaceutical Association. I have met with their association on many occasions and I have met with individual pharmacists, many of them over the last couple of months, and I want to make it very, very clear with respect to the suggestions that they have put forward. Most of the ideas and most of the suggestions that have been put forward in terms of saving money in the drug program have already been factored into this year's drug program Budget by the Department of Health and the government.

We have been working on some of these initiatives since as early as last September. We have just put in place some new protocols with respect to the GI drugs, the gastrointestinal drugs, and we expect to save about $800,000 on that part of the program, but we have done that in consultation with the Pharmaceutical Association, the Newfoundland Medical Association, and the School of Medicine at Memorial University, and we have developed protocols and guidelines that we think will save us some money in that area.

We are, as we speak, in the process of dealing with the cardiac drugs on the same basis, of reviewing the basis on which we will pay for certain types of drugs in that category. We are also in the process of working on the psychiatric drugs. There are initiatives that are ongoing that will, we hope, allow us to find the savings that we have already factored into this Budget. I said to the Pharmaceutical Association when we met in May, and I say to them again today, that if it were possible to find quantifiable, easily accessible, and additional savings beyond which we had factored into our drug program this year, then we would look at those savings and have an assessment made as to what extent we could apply them back to the dispensary fee, but I have to be very honest; my officials in the department have done a thorough and complete analysis. Most of the savings that have been recommended we recognize as being potentially there. Most of them we have factored into this year's budget, and the raw truth is that if we were to adjust the pharmaceutical dispensing fee one cent back from the $3.50 that we have now committed ourselves to pay this year then we would have to find the money in some other area of the health care budget. And I have to say frankly that the money is not there.

Eight million dollars of the $31 million we spent last year in the drug program for social services recipients was spent on dispensing fees, and we make no apologies for taking advantage of the marketplace on this particular issue. We do not suggest that people go anywhere in particular to get their drugs filled, but we say that we should take advantage on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province of the best price that is out there in terms of dispensing services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: And we will continue to do that in the greater interest and good of the people of the Province. We do not say that people must charge more for their fees, but we say that is all we can pay, the $3.50.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: I think -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi; I am sorry.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I sometimes make the same mistake myself.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 522 residents of St. John's who are petitioning the House of Assembly to protest the decision of the Department of Education to remove the school buses from the area of New Pennywell and Old Pennywell Roads. That decision means that the children who live in that area, as of September, 1996, will not have school buses to bring them to school.

These parents and friends of the children request the Department of Education to reconsider its intention and to allow the present school bus system to operate. They are extremely fearful of the children - and these are children from Kindergarten to Grade VIII -having to cross a total of nine lanes of traffic at the intersection of Columbus Drive and Empire Avenue. In addition, many portions of the above are not served by the St. John's Metrobus.

Mr. Speaker, these 522 residents, and thousands more who wanted to sign this petition but never had it presented to them - there are thousands of people in this city who are going to suffer as a result of the Department of Education's decision to remove existing school buses in the city of St. John's. Now, this is designed, supposedly, to save $300,000, and they have asked the Metrobuses to replace that system. Now, the Metrobus tells us that it is going to cost them $1 million in subsidy alone to provide the same service that is currently provided by the school bus system for the sum of $300,000. In addition to that, the parents of those students will have to pay $300,000 in fares in order to have the same service that is now being provided by the yellow school buses.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been brought up in this House many, many times. We all know that the Department of Education, on the issue of school busing, discriminates against people who live in St. John's. Everywhere else in the Province - Mount Pearl, Grand Falls, Labrador City - everywhere else in the Province except St. John's, the Department of Education provides school buses under certain rules, that are paid for by the Department of Education. In the city of St. John's, with a few exceptions that are now being removed, parents have to pay the cost of having their kids go back and forth to school on a Metrobus, and many parents cannot afford it.

Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting at St. Theresa's School a couple of weeks ago by their parents and friends, many of whom are in the galleries here today, and one woman who spoke quite passionately and eloquently said: This is not a Metrobus issue; this is a poverty issue. This is an issue of people who cannot afford to pay to have their children go to school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That is the issue, and these are not only people on social assistance; these are people who said they were working, and their husbands were working, and they did not have enough money to buy a school bus pass to have their kids go to school.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health was there, and he said what they were doing was making things fair for everybody in St. John's; what they were doing was taking away the unfairness by removing the school buses from these people so that they were going to be equal to everybody else in St. John's, and no one was going to have a school bus. Well, that is exactly the wrong thing to be doing. What needs to be done is the policy that is applied in the rest of the Province has to be applied in the city of St. John's, and that people who cannot - who meet the 1.8 kilometres or whatever the rule is, who have to get school buses, have them provided by the Department of Education. That rule should apply in St. John's just as it applies in Mount Pearl, Conception Bay South, Baie Verte, Roddickton or anywhere else in the Province where the children have to go to school. Mr. Speaker, this does not only affect the residents of the New Pennywell and Old Penneywell Road areas. They went to the trouble of getting together a petition over the summer months and they presented it to me. This affects people, and the five areas that are affected by this, Mr. Speaker, are Quidi Vidi, Shea Heights, Brophy Place, Virginia Park and the New Pennywell and Old Penneywell Road areas. We know, Mr. Speaker, from the socio-economic information, that these are obviously areas as well where there are people who are in a position where they cannot afford to have their kids go on the Metrobus because it costs too much money. A school bus pass, Mr. Speaker, for a child costs $20 per month and that is something that parents just cannot afford, especially if they have two or three children going to school.

So, Mr. Speaker, it has been raised in this House before. The previous Minister of Education had some sympathy for this issue and undertook, I think, a study to bring about some changes and had the officials in the department looking at it. I am afraid the results of the study have been that the current Minister of Education and his government decided that as a result of their study they are going to take away school buses from the students of St. John's and not remove the discrimination by ensuring that children in St. John's have the same ability to get a school bus to take them to school at the cost of the Department of Education as people do outside. I know the minister is going to speak to this but I do not want to hear him say that the policy has to do with where transportation is available. Availability, Mr. Speaker, in this case, has to do with the ability to pay. If people do not have the ability to pay, then their school bus is not available to them and therefore the Department of Education should step in and make sure that people have the same rights to attend school and to have a ride to school where the distances are extreme, as students do outside the city of St. John's. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know some of this is going to be alleviated when the school system changes around. With the new reforms to the school system there is going to be some reduction in school busing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: But, Mr. Speaker, the saving here is a false economy and to save $300,000 at the expense of $1 million to the Metrobus system is not saving money at all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the petition as just presented by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. I, too, was present at the public meeting held at St. Theresa's School several weeks ago and also was present at a public meeting held for parents in the Brophy Place area several weeks before that. In fact, I was a participant in an exercise a number of days ago, whereby it was clearly seen that there are significant hazards which face children, in particular, those who live in the New Penneywell Road area, who are forced to cross an eight-lane or nine-lane highway, across Pitts Memorial Drive. Mr. Speaker, it is clearly a sign that when decisions are made, decisions are made by this government without any forethought, without any consultation, without any consideration as to what is in the best interest of the young people of our Province and specifically, in this case, what is in the best interest of the young people of our city. Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue for the parents and the students who reside in the areas previously mentioned.

It was indicated by the hon. minister some while ago, that special consideration would be given to special circumstances, and that would lead any reasonable person to believe that there will be an assessment of each case, of each set of circumstances as they arise. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the situation of parents and students on Brophy Place, the situation of parents and students on Shea Heights, the situation which exists or which will exist in September of this year for parents and students in the New Pennywell Road area, will be given a second look, a second assessment, a second review; but, Mr. Speaker, to this date, that has not happened. When the minister states, as he did in the past, that there will be review for special circumstances, as I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that allows most reasonable people to believe that change may in fact take place where the circumstances warrant.

Well, I ask the minister: Why have changes not been made upon review of the circumstances which clearly speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker? These are special circumstances and the children and the parents of these areas deserve better. They deserve a service to which they are accustomed; they deserve a service which assures security and protection and fairness and lack of discrimination and equality with other students in this Province. They ask for no more, they ask for no less, and that, I think, is a humble request by the parents and the students who live in this area.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would again, in support of this petition, call upon the minister to put his money where his mouth is, and to reassess the situation as he indicated in the past that he would; to give a second look and review of the special set of circumstances which clearly exist in these areas for these children. It is better that it be done now before it is too late. School opens in a matter of weeks. The decision must be reviewed, changes must be made, there must be a reversal to this decision so that clearly what is in the best interests of our young people and their parents can be assured.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make three or four comments, I guess, with respect to the position as presented by the Member for Quidi Vidi - Signal Hill and supported by the hon. Member for St. John's East.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that what we have instituted here is a consistent application of busing policy within the boundaries of the City of St. John's, because before there were two different circumstances that prevailed. We have had it checked, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the representations made by the parents and by members on their behalf and by members in our own caucus and even in our own Cabinet who have brought this issue back to the attention of the government and asked that, because of what people are saying and because of the representations that are being made, could we check and see if, in fact, there is validity to the case, and should we, in any way, be contemplating changing the decision.

Mr. Speaker, the review of the circumstance suggests that there isn't a reason for the government to change its decision because the representations made do not have the substance. The general issue, Mr. Speaker, with respect to, is school busing in the City of St. John's treated differently from other centres in the Province, the answer is yes. The answer has been yes since school busing was instituted over thirty years ago. It was the circumstance to put it in context, Mr. Speaker, than when there was a former government here, up to 1989. In days when governments were doing things like giving raises to public servants of 12 per cent, 15 per cent and 18 per cent a year - I gladly accepted them because I was working at the time - they didn't institute any busing in the City of St. John's when governments had that kind of money.

We are in a circumstance, Mr. Speaker, where we are looking at trying to make the least offensive and the least damaging reductions because we do not have the money that we had last year and the year before. So when you have less money to spend, then you have to look at some things that you did before that you cannot continue to do. Nobody should have the understanding or be even thinking that the government of this Province is looking at instituting busing in the City of St. John's. It will not occur. It is not on the agenda. As a matter of fact, we will be looking to other centres, and if the circumstance prevailed, Mr. Speaker, where there was public transportation available in other centres like in the City of St. John's, you should expect to see from this government (inaudible), where a busing policy like in St. John's would be instituted elsewhere, not that the busing system elsewhere would be instituted in St. John's.

The history, Mr. Speaker, just briefly, is that when the former government, even before this government was elected in 1989, addressed this issue, there were objections from the City of St. John's that they did not want the government of the Province to put yellow school buses in direct competition with the Metro buses. They said they didn't want that. The policy within the city, as a matter of fact, says that unless Metrobus agrees that there should be school busing provided, the Province is not allowed to put it in there.

With respect to the neighbourhoods that were affected this time, there is no difference, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of ability to pay in many of these neighbourhoods than there are in other neighbourhoods in the city where there haven't been school buses for years. Some people legitimately will have very difficult times paying for a bus fee they are not used to paying for. In the other neighbourhoods in the City of St. John's where they have been doing that for years consistently, no one should assume that every family in all of those neighbourhoods is flush with money, because they aren't. There are families on social assistance in many other neighbourhoods in this city who have been finding a way to either pay for a bus fee, find alternate transportation to the school from family means, or walk. These are the circumstances that will now apply in all of the neighbourhoods in St. John's.

It is not that the government looked around and said: We would like to reduce this. This government, Mr. Speaker, has consistently told the people of the Province that we don't have a lot of choices. We are trying to make the least painful choices. We have heard now they want some money put back for prescriptions, they want some money put back for long-term care, want some money put back for busing. If you put all the money back then I guess we might as well all close up shop and go home. We won't have any borrowing capability, we will all be bankrupt, and we quit.

So we have made difficult choices, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: This is one of them. In review, there isn't anything that suggests there will be anything any different or any more harmful to parents and students in the neighbourhoods that will now be treated just like all of the rest of the neighbourhoods in St. John's than in other neighbourhoods. There is no adverse impact above and beyond what other people in other neighbourhoods have learned to live with.

It is an adjustment, it takes some time. We are concerned, and the families will make sure that they themselves protect the safety of their children first and foremost; because in the area of old Pennywell Road the Metrobus, Mr. Speaker, stops on the other side. If the family decides they can't afford or will not use the Metrobus and decide to have their children walk, then they have to walk across Columbus Drive to get to any school that serves the area. If they find a way to buy a bus pass or if they find alternate means of family transportation, or pooled transportation, like they do in all the other neighbourhoods of St. John's now, then they will get their students back and forth to school.

With respect to in the city and outside the city, the issue outside of St. John's is this: Students and parents and families of students are entitled to a school bus if the distance is outside 1.6 kilometres.

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

The hon. minister's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Opposition doesn't want to hear any further comment on the issue, that is fine.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess good things come to those who wait. I've been waiting to present my petition quite awhile. I guess that is further proof of the number of things out in our society that people wish to petition the government on.

I wish to present a petition to the House of Assembly on behalf of some 7,000 people, along with the petition on behalf of 5,000 people that my colleague presented, to voice opposition to the changes in prescription drug fees. As the Minister of Education just mentioned, he is suggesting that we are asking to re-instate everything, put everything back. This is not what we are asking them to do and I don't think it is what the general public is asking them to do.

There have been several prescription drugs that have been cut from the prescription drug program offered by Social Services. We haven't stood in the House and asked for those to be reversed, we are asking for the dispensing fee to be reversed. With the changes to education, educational reform, there are several areas there where they are saving millions and millions of dollars. We are not asking that they reinstate everything. We are asking that they reinstate the busing. We are being reasonable. We realize that the Provincial Government must be fiscally responsible, but the cuts are too many and too deep.

To get back to the petition that I am presenting on behalf of the social services recipients, I spoke to several people who have called and said that they have gone to Wal-Mart or Dominion to have their prescriptions filled, and have waited in line for up to two hours, and when they finally got to the counter to be served, the pharmacist said they were out of that particular drug because of the high demand of people going for the lower charges for dispensing.

There are also suggestions by the Minister of Health that people have their prescriptions filled in hospital dispensaries. I don't know if the Minister of Health has visited one of these drug dispensaries in the hospitals, but we have also heard from people that these are situated in areas of the hospital that are probably not always wholesome to go, especially for children or for family members, such as across from morgues and so on where there would be bodies lying on stretchers waiting to be admitted to the morgue. That is probably unreasonable. Furthermore, the hospital dispensaries do not carry all drugs that drugstores carry; nor do they have the staff to fulfil the demand that would be created by people going into the hospital dispensaries.

All we are asking for here is that the prescription drug dispensing fees be reinstated. The government is taking a class of people who cannot afford to pay this fee, the social services recipients and holders of drug cards, the people who are least able to afford to pay this fee, and asking that they become even more indigent, and I think that is a shame. This is a class of people who cannot afford to pay this drug dispensing fee; they cannot afford to pay Metrobus fees.

As I have mentioned, these cuts are too severe and there are far too many cuts. The recipients of social services have now been faced with several cuts, the cut of the $61 emergency fee as well as cuts, as I have mentioned earlier, to prescription drugs that are no longer covered by the government. To put upon them the burden of a $3 dispensing fee on top of all of this, when you put it all collectively together, it is just far too much for many people to handle and, in the long run, this is going to create a much larger expense to the government when these people's health decline and we have to pay more medical expenses to cover that fee.

I do not think we are being unreasonable in asking for this dispensing fee to be reinstated. I do not think we are asking too much to have school busing reinstated. We agree with some of the cuts that have been made, but there have been far too many cuts, and I am asking the House, and most especially the hon. the Premier and the Minister of Health, to reconsider. As you have made a knowledgeable decision in reconsidering the fee for seniors in nursing homes, reconsider this. Have a second look. The pharmacists have gone -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OSBORNE: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. OSBORNE: As I have said, all we are asking is that you reconsider the changes in the prescription drug dispensing fees. The pharmacists have gone - the Minister of Health has said that he has looked at their proposals on how to cut the cost of social services drug cards, or the cost to the government on behalf of the pharmacies. All we are asking is that you probably have a second look at what they have proposed, and have a second look at the dispensing fees. It is a reasonable request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

What I have heard in this Assembly today, admitted to by the Minister of Health, is nothing less than shocking. The Minister of Education stands up and says that this government is making tough choices. Now, on this issue, and specifically this issue, here is the choice that the Minister of Health and the Cabinet have made: On the one hand, they have introduced a government policy that will see small businessmen and businesswomen in this Province, crushed. On the other hand, that policy unto itself will see conglomerates like Dominion and Wal-Mart who admittedly and publicly, in their own publications, admit that they are selling at loss leader which amounts to an unfair trade practice - of which I believe the Pharmaceutical Independent Pharmacists in this Province have a legal case to pursue because it amounts to an unfair trade practice - that they are supporting that.

Here is another choice that is a result of this government's policy. The Minister of Health, two months ago, in the spring sitting of this House, indicated publicly that if people have a problem with the fee, visit Dominion, visit Wal-Mart where they can pay $1.99 fee. He may deny it now, but the reality is that he said it, and not only did he say it, Mr. Speaker, to the media and to the people of the Province, but he said it right here in this House.

The other irony, Mr. Speaker, which is unbelievable; this is unbelievable, that at the same time this policy is forcing small community drugstores to close up shop; in small communities throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the Department of Social Services is going to pick up the tab for social services recipients to travel fifty miles, sixty miles, seventy miles, to get their drugs, but, Mr. Speaker, the reality - I mean, the people in the gallery here today must be shocked at what they have heard, they have to be. What respect is there left for government when we see on the floor of the House today, the Minister of Social Services admit it, saying that they will provide transportation for people who need to travel to get drugs. If drugstores have been closed down in one community, they will foot the bill, thousands and thousands of dollars. And, on the other hand, the Minister of Health stands up and says: We will let the free market prevail. I am absolutely shocked.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to point out. The minister, in some of his commentaries back to the Leader of the Opposition's questions today, talked about what is factual.

I will give the minister leave and I am sure that all colleagues in this House today will give the minister leave right now, this very moment, to take as much time as he needs to sit down or stand up in his place and tell us where we presented today, in any aspect, in any form, what is not factual. If he can provide that, if he can stand right there today and point that out - and, Mr. Speaker, I doubt he can and he will not.

Now, the Minister of Education just referred to: We made difficult choices; if we reinstate this, if we reinstate that, then there will be no money.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is this, that five short months ago, this government stood up and campaigned on a platform of a better tomorrow; they did not say, We will make tough choices. In the Budget of May 16, they stood in this House and said: There will be no decreases in health care, there will be no decreases in social services; there will be no increases in taxes, and what happens four months later? Can we say that that has actually transpired? Can we say that that has actually happened? I would like to be able to say that to the government and congratulate them but I cannot because what has happened in truth and what has happened in reality is quite different, radically different from what this government said five months ago and what this government said in the Budget of 1996.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister one more question, if he will stand to his feet: Why did you not consult with the pharmacists in this Province? Because you did not? You cannot say that you did because you know that you did not. You were in a scramble to save money and you said you would take it off the backs - that was the decision that you and Cabinet made, that you would take it off the backs of the pharmacists. Those people whom we are talking about here today are professionals in their own right. They can save you, minister, and they can save this government millions of dollars if they were given half the chance and the opportunity to do so.

Now, I ask you today two things: If, what any one of us on this side of the House has said today is not factual, you have my leave and the leave of my colleagues to point out where it is not. And the second thing I say is: Why do you not sit down with the independent pharmacists in this Province and ask them where they can save you money? Because they can.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to take a minute or two because I have already responded to a previous petition and my comments would be about the same.

Specifically, I have sat down with the independent pharmacists on a number of occasions. I have sat down with the association that represents the full organization. I have sat down with a number of the individuals who are pharmacists in their own right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I give this commitment in the House, and I give this commitment publicly, that I will continue to work with the pharmaceutical industry to try to achieve whatever we believe amongst ourselves is reasonable in terms of measures to try to keep the drug program within the perameters of the budget that we can expend. As a matter of fact, I will be meeting with the pharmaceutical association in their annual meeting in September. They invited me the other day to be with them in September. I look forward with pleasure to sitting down with them and having a discussion.

I met with a number of individual pharmacists last week in Corner Brook and I have met with some this morning. I have to tell you that we do have -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do this morning? Tell us again.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - we have always had -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us again what you did this morning!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, would you speak to the hon. member over there and ask him -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to hear the comments made by the hon. the Minister of Health as well.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Member for Kilbride gave me leave of all the members but he is having difficulty enforcing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth! Tell the truth!

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I committed to give the Minister of Health leave if he could point out anywhere in what I said or any member said, anything on this issue was not factual. I did not give him leave unconditionally.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, and the hon. the Minister of Health was not speaking by leave. He was speaking in his allocated five-minute time for debate on petitions.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just conclude by saying that we have open lines of communication with the association that represents pharmacists. We have various committees in place that are working on a number of initiatives. We will continue to dialogue and work with them. And not only are we willing, but frankly, we need their support, their input, their co-operation. We will look forward to working collaboratively with them in the future as we have in the past to design a program ongoing for our social services recipients and our seniors that will be affordable to the Province, that will not be threatened by virtue of the cost that it continues to escalate by, and that will be fair and on balance fair to not only the dispensing industry, but also the people who are served by the programs.

We simply say no more than that we can afford to pay a certain amount for these fees. We stand by that decision. We look forward in that context to working with the industry to make improvements whereas and when necessary and appropriate.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition. I will read the prayer: We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly to voice our opposition against the changes in the prescription drug dispensing fee.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister has said today is absolutely false. He gave the impression here today that he discussed a reduction in the dispensing fee with the pharmaceutical association of this Province and the consulting, and he did not. I say to the minister, you did not. That is a wrong perception you are putting out there to the public and it is incorrect. I take great offence to things in this House that have been said.

I take effort to make sure that what I present to the best of my ability is factual. I contradicted the minister on things this morning, earlier this afternoon in the House, in Question Period, that he indicated is factual. My information says differently. The minister was asked by the Member for Kilbride if anything that I stated here today was not factual he could stand in the House and say so, and he has not done it.

I also took great pains to check on dispensing fees, in fact, what they are. I made a call today, and they are currently, today, at Wal-Mart $3.99, and today at Dominion they are $3.88, and there is a $2 extra charge if it is a compound they are dealing with, for $5.99 and $5.88 respectively.

They admit that to get a share of the market, a part of business, if you open up a new pharmacy or are a new owner, or to bring people into a store to shop for other items, it is part of a practice. But for the minister, the Premier, this government, and this Cabinet to force people to sell prescriptions at below cost is an unconscionable thing and it is not proper. Now, that is not fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have seen as many pharmacies close in this Province since this Budget as we have seen in the previous two years. My colleague, the Member for Bonavista South, talked about the relationship established between a patient, or a client, and between the pharmacist. He talked about rural areas but it happens in urban areas, too, I know that for a fact. I know people visit the pharmacists and rely very heavily on them and trust them. They are experts in that field. Doctors consult them on an ongoing basis. That is part of the practice, the doctor/patient, pharmacist/patient relationship that develops in the best interest of the patient, and for you to force people out to shop - and I heard it in the news media, I heard your clip and your voice telling people to shop around at Dominion. That is what you stated and I heard it. And that is unfair, to tell people to go out and shop around.

Are we next going to have mail-order prescriptions that are becoming in fashion in certain areas? Are we going to send them by mail and get a month's supply, or a two-month or three-month prescription? Medical conditions of people change with time. People's physiological functions change and there are different requirements for medication. The ongoing relationship with the pharmacist and with the doctor is important to maintain the appropriate health of an individual, and the minister has shown a blatant disregard, as Minister of Health, towards the welfare of people here in this Province in terms of their health care needs, not to say anything about the opportunity to provide equal services in areas, and in a fair and appropriate manner throughout this Province.

We have had four pharmacies close. I know of one particular area where there is no longer a pharmacy and they are going to have to travel. The Minister of Social Services said if their health is depending on it - that is what she said here today, and you can draw whatever conclusion you want, but I will draw the one that I think she meant, that if their health is at risk and they need it to maintain their health or to get a prescription they will cover the transportation costs, whether it is to get into a taxi here in St. John's and go in to Wall-Mart and have the taxi wait until you get the prescription filled and then go back to your home, that is basically transportation costs, or in rural areas if you have to travel. I know many pharmacists and doctors, and even more patients out there, when they go to a doctor, often before the prescription is even written it is discussed with the pharmacist. The doctor discusses with the pharmacist, the specialist in that area, as to the quantity of medication, and the type of drug that might be most effective to control that particular problem.

Now, I ask the minister to go back and revisit this. I ask him to put facts on record here in this House of Assembly, not statements that are not correct. I ask him to go back and sit down and start over again, have discussions and look at the overall welfare of people here in this Province and not discriminate in rural areas of the Province that do not have access to a pharmacy, and, more importantly, apart from regional discrimination, discrimination on individuals here on getting access to appropriate medication at a price. And if you want to talk about price, we are charging now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will not take too much time, Mr. Speaker, just very briefly.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister that we are charging less than other provinces, and unless my information is incorrect, and the minister gave information on these provinces here in the House this afternoon that was not correct. He said the majority of provinces have a co-pay, and when I indicated that five of the other nine do not, then he got back and admitted that, so he admitted upon being corrected. He said Manitoba has one. He has indicated the wrong one for Prince Edward Island, according to my information, and information compiled by a reputable chartered accounting firm has shown that our Province now is paying the least and below cost. We are asking them to dispense drugs below cost. Well, if that is not forcing pharmacies out of business that do not have the large stores around to maintain it in tough financial times it is doing a disservice to the people who are served by those particular pharmacies and it is not acceptable. I ask the Premier and his Cabinet to reconsider this and instruct the minister to sit down with these people and work out an avenue that can get reasonable savings here within the proposals put forth. We know these are tough fiscal times, that is all the reason more to consult. In fact, it was not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, that people in this Province were almost bowled over with the word consultation, almost bowled over with it every day, day after day. I will ask you to practice what you preach, to consult and to look at avenues to be able to deliver, and not on the backs of the people here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be long. I spoke earlier today on the same petition. I would just like to ask the minister if he would take the report of the committee, I think it is K-PMG - if he does not have a copy of the report I will certainly arrange for him to get one.

MR. MATTHEWS: I have a couple of them.

MR. FRENCH: Do you? Well, I think it is probably time that you read it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: - because you certainly have not read it. The other thing I would like to ask you is: you said today you again met with people of the pharmaceutical association or independent dealers - I would love to know who you met with.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the comments arising out of the petition raised by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the government's policy generally in the area of trying to maintain a sound fiscal position.

The Leader of the Opposition - everybody in the House will recall -at the time of the last Budget, made clear prior to the Budget, during the Budget and after the Budget that he believed the government had to follow a sound and responsible fiscal plan. As I recall, the Leader of the Opposition talked about reducing the deficit to zero within three years. I think that was the comment at the time.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well I am sorry, I have a copy of the - then maybe the Leader of the Opposition has changed the position of the Conservative Party as it was outlined to the people of the Province in the last election campaign. Because I have a copy of it with me and, as I understand it, the position of the party was to have a zero deficit within -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) said on Budget day (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry, within three years. I do recall -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I do recall the Leader of the Opposition made clear that he thought government had to be fiscally responsible; I do recall that. Now, I say this to the Leader of the Opposition: It is clear that no member of this House - whether the member sits on that side of the House or sits on this side of the House - wants to have to take many, not just these two that we have been talking about this afternoon, but many of the kinds of decisions that we have been taking as a government, and many of the kinds of matters that we have been -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I listened quietly and did not interrupt the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask that he give me his usual same courtesy.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, none of us enjoys dealing with any of these kinds of issues. They are not pleasant, they are not easy and they involve making choices that are not easily made, but I say to members opposite, I think, with the decisions we have taken and with the total fiscal plan that is there, the government generally is on a fiscal track that is responsible, one that will get us through several very difficult years, and will bridge us as a Province to the point where we get to the start-up of some major resource projects. I will not go into the long list of those projects. We all know what they are and where our economic circumstance begins to improve. Now, having said that, if there are ways, if there are better ways, more efficient ways, equally productive ways of finding those efficiencies, we are open to that representation.

In the case of the long-term care rates affecting those in long term care, we listened, we went through a series of consultations. The Minister of Health had a variety of meetings with various individuals, groups and associations and received representations here in the city of St. John's. We had further representations when we went to the West Coast of the Province. We considered the matter. The Minister of Health brought back a variety of options and the Minister of Health, on behalf of the government, last Friday, announced a new schedule.

With respect to the pharmacy - the issue of the rates for drug dispensing - if there are proposals, hard proposals, that can be put down that bring about hard cost savings, not theoretical savings, we would look at those. The Minister of Health has said repeatedly we would look at those but, I say to members opposite, let us have the representation; let us see the savings. But let me point out, and I would ask members opposite to reflect upon this, in the Province of P.E.I. today - P.E.I., by the way, has a budget surplus - in the Province of P.E.I. today there is a co-pay. The Province of New Brunswick has a budget surplus; there is a co-pay. The Province of Nova Scotia has a balanced budget, or a budget surplus; there is a co-pay. The Province of Ontario, which has slightly more, a tiny bit stronger fiscal capability than Newfoundland, a slightly bigger budget than Newfoundland, a tiny little bit lower unemployment rate than Newfoundland, the Province of Ontario - and, by the way, a province with a Conservative government - has a co-pay. In the Province of Manitoba there is a flexible co-pay.

Members opposite would say, `But there is no co-pay in Alberta', and they are right, and there is a billion dollar surplus in Alberta. And they would say, there is no co-pay in the Province of British Columbia. It is one of the fastest growing economies on the North American continent.

So I say to members, we are struggling with difficult circumstances. We frankly count upon the representation of members opposite on these issues, but we look for, on occasion, some constructive advice, too. Simply to stand and make noise without bringing forward constructive advice or recommendations is not good enough, and I say to the party opposite that campaigned on having a balanced budget within three years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: It is not enough to simply say, `Reverse all your spending decisions' without telling us how you would achieve savings as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has no intention of recognizing any other member until there is order in the House.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a further petition on another issue which has been of grave concern amongst ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the past several months, certainly since this present government has taken office. I refer specifically to the issue concerning Crown lands.

At a public meeting a couple of months ago, a meeting at which the Minister of Government Services and Lands was present, it was indicated at that time that the concerns of literally hundreds of ordinary Newfoundlanders who attended this meeting, and who voiced their concerns loudly in protest against decisions that were made with respect to new policies concerning Crown lands and Crown land regulations in this Province, there was a pledge by the minister similar to the indication given by the Minister of Education on the issue of busing. There was a pledge by this particular minister that the issue and the policy concerning Crown land would be reviewed.

I refer specifically to the request that was made concerning an extension of time being granted to individuals beyond the October, 1996 deadline for the payment of the freehold interest with respect to their property. It was simply recognized by those people present. They did not oppose the concept of the purchase of property. They did not oppose the concept of the purchase of a freehold interest. What they simply requested was time to do so, because $1,000 or $1,500 or $2,000 or $2,500 was simply out of reach for many of these individuals who have small cabins out on Crown leases throughout this Province and who were not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to come up with these funds within a relatively short period of time.

Last week I called the minister's office to see if there had been a decision made with respect to this simple request, that there be an extension of time granted to these hundreds of Newfoundlanders who are adversely affected by this particular policy. I wanted to find out simply, had there been a change made with respect to this. My understanding in response at that time was that no decision had been made. This is approximately a couple of months after the meeting and after the requests had been put forward. We are quickly approaching the October deadline which is the expressed cut-off date pursuant to the change in policy with respect to the purchase price of Crown grants.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition before me. It is signed by a number of Newfoundlanders who reside in various communities throughout the Province. I will give you some examples as to where: North Harbour South, Markland, Blaketown, Branch in St. Mary's Bay, Freshwater in Placentia Bay, and several in St. John's. Indeed, this is representative of many Newfoundlanders who feel affected, unjustly and unfairly in their minds, by this policy, which again is a result of poor planning, lack of vision, lack of any comprehensive plan, lack of any willingness by this government to simply sit down and discuss with people who are affected by such a policy, ways of working it out together. That is all they ask. Rather than the guillotine approach, an approach which takes into account their interests, their concerns, and hopefully, their willingness to co-operate. I would suggest, just as these people here who are affected by this Crown lands policy, they are prepared to work out a solution in recognition of difficult times. That is all they ask.

I present this petition to this hon. House this afternoon, on behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders who simply request that government review this policy. I would call upon the minister, either now or in the near future when he is in a position to do so, to give this House some indication as to when it can be expected: a) if there will be change, and b) what those changes will be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act And The Education Act," Bill No. 8.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You do not have to stand to be heard.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act And The Education Act". (Bill No. 8)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is significant that the Legislature is here in July, in the middle of the summer, to deal with this particular issue. Because of the significance, while I am not known for being lengthy in any address to the Legislature, and I will not be today, there are a couple of comments with respect to context and also with respect to the actual intent of the bill that I might like to put on the record in Hansard for public consumption both now and in the future as people continue to study and research the issue of the continuing evolution of the education system in the Province.

It is clear, and I think everybody understands, that last week the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs presented the final report of a series of hearings which it held to consider the request of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to amend Term 17 of the Canadian Constitution. I was very pleased, and the government was very pleased, to learn that the committee has recommended that the Senate approve the resolution to amend Term 17, which has already received the approval of this House of Assembly and of the House of Commons in Ottawa.

It is particularly gratifying, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate Committee concluded that the process followed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and used to generate the amendment was a fair process, and I quote from the committee report, Mr. Speaker, that states: Each of the protected minorities whose rights would be affected were afforded full opportunities to participate in the public debate leading up to this amendment, including and beginning with the hearings before the Royal Commission on Education, the referendum and the general election of 1996.

The process, Mr. Speaker, which the government of this Province has followed to reform the organization of our education system, has been long in detail and includes of course, the following: The re-organization was recommended in the first instance by a Royal Commission following extensive public debate and research in the Province. The Commission made that type of recommendation and when it handed in its report in March of 1992, over four years ago, the government, Mr. Speaker, through some three years attempted to negotiate a model for re-organization with the church leaders with some areas of success but no general conclusion of an agreement.

The question, Mr. Speaker, of amending Term 17 was the subject of public debate and a provincial referendum which was held on September 5 of 1995. As well, Mr. Speaker, a general election was held in the Province on February 22, 1996 and during that election the platform of the current government with respect to education reform was clearly stated for everyone in the Province to see. This Legislature, Mr. Speaker, on two occasions, by resolution, requested the federal Parliament to amend Term 17. The second time, on May 23, 1996 the provincial Legislature, Mr. Speaker, unanimously re-affirmed its wish to have the federal Parliament proceed with the necessary resolution to amend the Federal Constitution.

On June 3, 1996 the House of Commons, by a significant majority, Mr. Speaker, 170 to 46, voted to amend Term 17 as requested by the Province and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Interesting to note, that in that debate and in the days leading up to that debate, the request from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the forays made to the parliamentarians, the members of Parliament from across the country, were supported by all three political leaders and all three political parties in this Province, and we would like to go on the record again, Mr. Speaker, as thanking the official Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, both members of this Legislature for their unanimous support in encouraging the Parliament of Canada to take that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The Senate Committee then, finally, Mr. Speaker, and lastly on legal and constitutional affairs as I mentioned, has now recommended that the Senate pass the resolution to amend Term 17 after hearing from all parties, all interested stakeholders and again noting the unanimous support of all political parties in this particular Province. They have recommended in their majority report that the amendment to Term 17 be passed as proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador without further amendment.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it does not appear that the Senate of Canada will reconvene before, maybe as late as the end of September; nonetheless, we all understand that a new school year is quickly approaching and it is necessary for us to move on and to commence the long-awaited reforms.

The process of reform has been long and arduous and has created a sense of uncertainty amongst our students, parents, teachers and other school board administrators. We must act responsibly to remove this uncertainty and to re-establish, Mr. Speaker, a sense of stability for those who learn and teach in our schools. We must re-establish the high degree of confidence which has been the hallmark of our schools over the years.

Given the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a high level of concurrence to the creation of ten interdenominational boards and a provincial school construction board, and the fact that the amendment to Term 17 has passed in this House of Assembly, in the House of Commons and has been recommended by the Senate Committee, we have decided to proceed immediately rather than risk another year of delays.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We are confident then, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Province and educational organizations will see this as an appropriate and necessary move if we are to proceed with our much needed education reforms. Representatives of the denominations which hold rights in education under the current Term 17 and the various stakeholders in education have stated publicly that they support government's plan to create ten interdenominational school boards and a single school construction board.

In the legislation that is contained in Bill 8, Mr. Speaker, that this particular House is being asked to consider today, it provides for the following: the division of the Province into ten school districts instead of the current twenty-seven; the creation of ten interdenominational school boards consisting of eighteen members, twelve of whom shall be representatives of the denominations and six of whom shall be at-large members as provided for in the new Term 17; the authority for the minister to dissolve the existing school boards at the appropriate time; the authorities contained in Bill 8 for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for the Cabinet to appoint interim school boards which will exist until the next general election of school boards which is scheduled for the fall of 1997.

There is authority in this bill, Mr. Speaker, to establish denominational committees at each of the ten new boards. There is authority for the continuation of all existing schools as they are for the 1996-97 school year because that school year is already completely planned. There is also authority, Mr. Speaker, for the creation of a provincial school construction board which will distribute school construction funds on the basis of provincial priorities and there is also provision for the establishment of a provincial Commission Écolier francophone for the francophone population of the Province.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the majority of the people of this Province are anxious to build on an education system that is fair and equitable for each and every student. The proposed reforms will alter the rights in education which are presently held by the denominations and will move some of the rights currently exercised by the denominational authorities to the elected representatives. All schools will continue to be denominational in character and all students will continue to have the opportunity to participate in religious education, observances and celebrations at their schools.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the passage of this bill will ensure that education reform in Newfoundland and Labrador will proceed in a timely fashion. It is imperative that in these times of rapidly declining enrolment and increasingly scarce resources the current complex system with its duplication of school boards, administrative offices and schools be fundamentally redesigned for educational excellence and fiscal responsibility. We believe and contend that the people of the Province support the contention that the children of the Province deserve no less.

After full debate, Mr. Speaker, over the next couple of days in complete examination, clause by clause of the bill in Committee of the Whole, we will be asking the Legislature of the Province to approve Bill 8 so that we can get on with the beginnings of education reform in the Province.

Rather than take this time at the point of introduction of the bill, Mr. Speaker, to go through the clause by clause in detail because I believe the members have had the bill for some time in advance, at least the most recent draft version of it - there has been an examination of it - we are considering and will consider whether or not there are any necessary amendments that we should move at the committee stage when we do clause by clause examination. The principles of the bill are established, I have highlighted them in the commentary made, Mr. Speaker, and if there are necessary amendments that will make these principles more readily applicable with more proper legal language then we will indicate that to the House as we go through Committee of the Whole in detailed examination clause by clause.

We certainly, Mr. Speaker, would listen to the full participation and invite all members to participate fully in the debate even though there has been an extensive and an exhaustive debate in the Province for a number of years and would hope that at the end of the debate there could possibly again be unanimous support for this particular bill so we can move ahead with the beginnings of much needed education reform.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I introduce the bill for second reading, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to rise in support of the bill introduced by the minister for second reading, Bill No. 8, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act And The Education Act."

It is an historic day, Mr. Speaker, in that we are at the cumulation of a process which started being debated many years ago in this Province and has led to a constitutional amendment that is one of great controversy from time to time in this Province, and one that was called upon by people for many years to bring about some reform in the school system in this Province, not merely to provide for efficiencies but also for philosophical reasons because of the strong belief of so many people that we need not segregate our children by religion for the purpose of schooling.

So there are two reasons, Mr. Speaker, for this step forward. One is the greater efficiency of having schools amalgamated for the purposes of providing higher quality education to all of our children. The other reason is to provide, for philosophical reasons, a more integrated teaching for our children and not segregation by religion, except in those instances where people feel strongly enough, because of their particular religious beliefs, that they desire to have their children educated in a uni-denominational school.

Now we are not, at this point in time, into any controversy over the rules as to how the uni-denominational schools will be determined, what the rules will be for viability. That debate has been left for later, but for the present we have the implementation of the principles of the new school regime as contained in the provisions of the constitutional amendment which was recommended as being needed by the Williams Royal Commission in order to accomplish the kinds of changes that were contemplated. It has gone through the process of a referendum, and I do not praise the process of referendum in this particular instance. It was not one that was as open as it should have been. There was not sufficient room for debate prior to the wording of the referendum being presented to the people of the Province, and it was at an inopportune time, over the summer. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the results of the referendum were clear in that the majority of people supported the changes that were contained in the proposed new Term 17.

We are, at this stage, having gone through a debate in this Legislature over the wording of Term 17, some proposed amendments which were not successful, but ultimately a majority - two-thirds majority, in fact - of this Legislature supported the first round of debate on Term 17, and indeed after the election of February of 1996 a resolution received unanimous consent, or unanimous support from this House, to have the Senate of Canada, or the House of Commons, rather, in Parliament of Canada, deal quickly with the request by the government and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland to have Term 17 amended.

We have been through that process, Mr. Speaker, with a delegation from this Province, an all-party delegation of which I had the privilege and honour of participating in, to present our views to the Parliament of Canada in support of Term 17 as passed by this Legislature and the people of the Province.

Since then, Mr. Speaker, I guess the Senate has now made a recommendation from its committee to the whole of the Senate to pass the bill without amendment, but the Senate undertook a consultation process that perhaps should have gone on the summer before. It should have gone on during the referendum, or during the debate leading up to the wording of the referendum, as to whether or not the proposed term was going to have negative effects on minorities, as to whether or not it had gone far enough by way of reform. Perhaps that is the kind of consultation that should have taken place after the proposed wording was put forth. It did not, and I think that the Senate perhaps performed a useful service over the last couple of weeks, a little bit too late, but nevertheless the wording got a full airing in the Newfoundland Hotel over a period of a couple of days, widely covered by the media, with lots of participation by all of those who were interested in the process.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of the interest in the Senate in particular on this legislation had to do with this notion of minority rights. I would like to put on the record here what I did in the Senate hearings concerning that issue because I think across the country it was not widely understood that the Term 17, and the denominational school system in Newfoundland was, at the time of Confederation, quite unique in Canada. In fact, after the amendment of Term 17 and the changes to the Education Schools Act that are contained in this bill, it is still unique in Canada and, in fact, uniquely offers to the adherence of the protected denominations far more rights for their children in the school system than exist in any other province or territory of Canada.

There is no other province or territory of Canada, certainly not in the United States where they have a whole different approach, and I know of no country in the world, that gives to the protected denominations - here the Catholics, the Protestants, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Pentecostals, the Anglicans, the United Church, the Salvation Army - the protection and the right to teach, to provide for religious instruction, to adherence of their denomination in all of the schools that are publicly funded within the Province. That is a unique right, certainly in Canada and North America, perhaps in the world, and I do not think that anyone in this Legislature, or indeed anyone in this Province, should be concerned that the minority rights of people are being somehow destroyed - they may be altered; I don't doubt that - by the changes that are being made to the school system here.

I also would like to say what I said to the Senate Committee, which is that when Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949 we brought a unique system with us and did not have the same kinds of systems in place that existed in other provinces at the time of the original confederating provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. At that time the various versions of so-called section 93 rights, our Term 17, that provided for minority rights were designed to protect an obvious minority which was being overwhelmed, potentially, by a very large majority of another religion. In this case it would have been the Catholic minority in Ontario, the Protestant minority in Quebec, who had separate schools at that time funded by the public purse.

There was a grave concern in the Province of Ontario, for example, that the Catholic schools would no longer be funded because they would be overwhelmed by the public schools and by the American experience where 100 years before the Americans had established a system which forbade any public funds to be used for the purposes of advancing religion. Therefore, all American schools, Mr. Speaker, that received funding from the state had no religion whatsoever, and there was a fear that the same kind of provision would prevail in Ontario and Quebec and prevent the operation of Catholic schools in Ontario and Protestant schools in Quebec where they were, in fact, true minorities faced with a public school system.

What we had in Newfoundland was something entirely different, and the same kinds of concerns were not there. There were concerns, and as I recall the debate from history the concerns were about - and it was used by the anti-Confederate group to say that we would end up with godless schools, that there would be no religion allowed in any of the schools if we were part of Confederation. I think that the provision in Term 17 that was negotiated was designed to offset any suggestion that the results of a vote for Confederation would be to destroy the denominational system and have all public schools in Newfoundland with no teaching of religion. That was the debate that took place in 1949, and our Term 17 was not designed in my view to protect minority rights, but in fact to institutionalize or constitutionalize the status quo.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have decided that we cannot freeze forever in time the status quo of 1949, that there has to be the ability to change our system, to modernize our system, and to reflect the philosophical views of the people of today in terms of our school system that will provide for what the vast majority of the people in this Province want which is a school system which allows the teaching of religion, of all religions, in the school during school time, and provision for uni-denominational schools in certain circumstances where there are sufficient people who want to have a uni-denominational school for their children, where the parents chose that and where the numbers are sufficient to make such a school viable. Those details are yet to be worked out.

Nevertheless, we have achieved so far a substantial and important step forward in introducing a reformed school system that still protects, to a very great degree, the rights and possibilities, the rights and the privileges, of the protected denominations under the Constitution and the school system. We do have, I think, many people who are unhappy, and I think the Premier probably stated it well, that there are some people who are unhappy because the Term 17, or the bill and the legislation, does not go far enough, and there are some people unhappy because it goes too far.

Nevertheless, we have the result of a process which has involved extensive consultation and extensive participation by members of the public. Perhaps a little more participation that was necessary by the authorities but, I think, on balance and on reflection, a sincere, genuine and thorough effort had to be made to attempt to accommodate the official representatives of the denominations in a process that, if possible, would lead to the kind of system that the majority of people in this Province wanted. That was not possible and the process that was adopted through the referendum obviously went beyond what was able to be achieved by consensus.

The results of this and the consequences of this are found in the bill before us. I think it is quite appropriate, although I am not at this stage going to go through the details of it. I think it is also to be noted and noteworthy that the Province has, through this legislation and the Minister of Education, developed and instituted a commission scolaire for the francophone population of the Province. That is a historic and important step and I would say perhaps the francophone population of this Province, as well as the aboriginal population of this Province, are in effect the true minorities because it is not very long ago, and indeed in our own lifetime and that of some of our own families, that people in this Province of francophone decent were in fact punished for speaking their mother tongue in the schools of this Province.

Whether they be francophone or aboriginal languages being spoken as a method of attempting to assimilate, or to teach English language, in fact people were punished for speaking their own language, their own mother tongue in this Province. That has occurred with francophones and that has occurred with aboriginal peoples. If that is not the definition of a minority, one that is culturally oppressed, Mr. Speaker, then I do not know what is. I think the commission scolaire provision contained in this Education Act is recognition that the francophone people of this Province deserve the right not only to have schools in their mother tongue in this Province but also to have control over those schools through a commission scolaire which is to be appointed for francophone schooling in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I look forward to seeing that put into place and to be up and running.

I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the development as well - and whether this is going to take place through the auspices of the Province of Newfoundland or part of a larger negotiation with the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the First Nations, or some other method - the development of schools in this Province that are controlled by the First Nations.

We do have some examples of that in Conne River where the Micmac people have gone very far along the way of running their own schools and having their own education commission and hiring teachers and controlling their programs. I think that has made a significant difference in the attitude of the Micmac people and the Conne River people, in attitude towards schooling and towards education, in having some control over their own cultural needs and indeed their own self-esteem as people within this Province. I think one of the effects that I would look forward to in the First Nations in Labrador in particular, in developing a greater control over their own school system, is in fact an increase in the ability of the peoples of Innu and Inuit culture to have their own schools which reflect their own language and culture and their own aspirations of a people.

I think the closer we get to that, Mr. Speaker, and the more independence and the more self-determination that is accorded the Innu and Inuit peoples of this Province, particularly in Labrador, the less difficulties individual, young people will have in developing themselves into mature adults, learning from our culture but being proud of their own, and having less reason to get into serious difficulties which we have seen in some of our aboriginal communities in this Province.

I think it is of great importance, the education and the control of education. I know it is important culturally for Roman Catholics, culturally as well as religiously for Roman Catholics in this Province, it is important culturally and religiously for Pentecostals in this Province and it is important for francophones and for aboriginal people in this Province to have some control over and say in, and determination over the school system that teaches their children.

Mr. Speaker, I would end my remarks by saying that I was pleased to play a role in the process of bringing us to this point. I supported the efforts at reform throughout. I was, at one point, when government was insisting that they wanted the consensus approach, urging them forward, believing myself that consensus was not possible. Later, when government decided to act, they had stopped consulting after having consulted with the church leaders and did not consult with the people, so I opposed that process; but after the debate in this House, I supported the amended Term 17 from the fall of 1995 through to the decision in the spring of this year to urge the federal Parliament to deal with the issue quickly, and I supported the efforts of the Premier, along with the Leader of the Opposition, in Ottawa to urge the federal parliamentarians to pass the legislation and to allow this Province to get on with the reform that it had decided to undertake, and I supported, through my representations to the Senate, an effort to have the Senate pass and recommend the passage of this Term 17 without amendment.

The provisions of this bill, in principle, Mr. Speaker, are the implementation of Term 17 and provisions for the denominational system to continue in a modified form. I think it is worthy also to recognize that in the legislation, it has provided for denominational committees which may be supplemented by educational councils which are, in fact, arms of the denominations, that educational councils have considerable responsibilities under the education act to be involved with denominational committees and also to have an influence on the teacher training act and the development and administration of religious education for each denomination. So the statutory authority and the statutory provisions which implement and provide for the denominations still having a significant influence and responsibility, rights and privileges in our education system is there and contained in this act.

I support the principles contained in this act and look forward to further debate, not only on those principles but on the details of the act which may require further scrutiny and perhaps improvement by legislative amendment. I look forward to that debate over the next couple of days, or perhaps even only a day, I am not sure, it depends on how long people want to speak. But I look forward to the debate and hope that in the end, as the Minister of Education suggested, we will have a bill that has the support of all the members of this Legislature so that, at the end, the people of this Province do not have to feel there is a reason to be divided over education in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some comments in response to the introduction of the bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act And The Education Act", as read by the hon. the Minister of Education a little while ago. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I have mixed feelings and mixed emotions in rising this afternoon and making some comments in response to the introduction as given by the hon. minister earlier.

As part of the introduction, it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we have arrived at where we are today in this Legislature, after years of debate, after years of attempting to negotiate a model for reorganization, after years of public debate, a subsequent referendum, a subsequent general election, following the election of February, continued debate, and it is this history of what has transpired, Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, which in and of itself, saddens me that as a people it was impossible for us, as Newfoundlanders and as representatives of various stakeholders in education, that for whatever the reason - whether they be valid or invalid reasons - whatever the reason, that such an agreement was not possible.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it would have been my preferred position as certainly was indeed the preferred position of most members of the Opposition caucus of the day, that amendment to the Constitution be done by agreement. Unfortunately, it was not possible to resolve the varied opinions and to be able to conciliate on all differences of opinion. Therefore, the history of events, as indicated earlier - and as part of the presentation as indicated by the minister - has led to where we are this afternoon in having to be recalled at this time to deal with the bill to amend the schools act and the education act with respect to structural change and how it affects education in this Province.

However, Mr. Speaker, in having said that, although I am somewhat disappointed that it had to go this route and had to take this amount of time, I feel it is essential that first and foremost we look at what is in the best interest of the young people of this Province. And when I make that assessment of what is in the best interest of young people, I must conclude that the spirit of this legislation does that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The spirit?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The spirit of this legislation accomplishes what I feel is in the best interest of, I guess, not only the students but hopefully most, if not all, the stakeholders in education in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of lines which I think are most relevant in the introduction which was read in this House earlier today. One line states, and I quote from page 3, that: We must act responsibly to remove this uncertainty and to re-establish a sense of stability for those who learn and teach in our schools.

This line is perhaps the crux of the issue which is why, as I say, even though I have some reservation about the process and I have expressed my disappointment that it has led to the process that we have experienced over the last number of years, nevertheless, this line in this introduction, I feel, is relevant: We must act responsibly to remove this uncertainty and to re-establish a sense of stability for those who learn and teach in our schools.

When we assess what is important to stabilize the situation and status of education for those who learn and teach in our schools, it is important, to put it simply, that we get on with it; however, my caution is this - and that same sentence which I just read contains the word `uncertainty'. I sincerely hope that the legislation which is being brought forward in this House this afternoon creates certainty and not an uncertainty which is only open to further challenge and further questioning and further debate by stakeholders within our education system. Therefore, it is essential that when we get into Committee stage, if there are areas in this proposed legislation which appear to be unclear or ambiguous, or raise some legitimate concerns, it is important that we address those concerns now, and that we, in doing so, erase the uncertainty which may exist, so that we can accomplish what, in effect, the minister has indicated in his introductory statement this afternoon. So this Committee stage is an important one.

There is nothing which I will, as a member in this House, strongly oppose; however, there are questions of which I will call upon the minister for clarification. We did have the benefit of this draft legislation since Friday - not a long time, unfortunately, but we have had it for several days. We have had it long enough that there are certainly certain sections within the proposed legislation which, as I indicated, we do not strictly oppose but that we wish clarification on, and during Committee stage, I, and I am sure, my colleagues, and indeed our leader, will be calling upon the minister to address some of the areas which, in fact, may be unclear or ambiguous and may require further clarification. Those specific areas I will not address right now; I will wait for Committee stage to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why it is important that any ambiguities be erased and dealt with properly at this time is so that the very last paragraph of the hon. minister's statement can be adhered to. The hon. the minister states in the introduction, at the beginning of his last paragraph: In summary, the passage of this bill will ensure that education reform in Newfoundland and Labrador will proceed in a timely fashion. And that word `timely' is critical. Here we are, the 23rd of July, with school scheduled to open in early September. Any further delay could be fatal in all parties' efforts to get on with it and to make some attempt on an interim basis at least to reorganize education the way most people in this Province feel ought to be done in any event.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to that word `timely' because in order to allow this bill to ensure that education reform in Newfoundland will proceed in timely fashion, it is further essential that the ambiguities, the questions, be properly addressed and responded to by the minister. As I said, there is a list of concerns and questions. Again, I want to make it clear, these are not points which we oppose. They are simply questions we have, and may be readily and easily answered.

In May of this year - May 23, I believe, was the exact date - as an Opposition, we stood and supported the thrust and the spirit of education reform in this Province. The people of the Province were asked by the Provincial Government in a referendum of September 5 1995 to endorse a process of education reform that would provide for five things. These include: first, the establishment of interdenominational schools open to all children, without regard to their religion; second, the right of all children to attend their neighbourhood school; third, provision for uni-denominational schools; fourth, the appointment of teachers to be solely on the basis of merit and qualifications, except in uni-denominational schools; and fifth, church influence confined to religious education and pastoral care, except in uni-denominational schools.

It is my submission and feeling that, as I have indicated earlier, the thrust and spirit of what is being proposed today does that. However, the ambiguities, in some cases, omissions, have to be addressed to ensure that what all people in this House believe reform to be is, in fact, carried out as a consequence of this legislation without, as the hon. minister himself has indicated in his presentation, any further delay, in other words, that it will proceed in timely fashion.

In conclusion, as critic in this particular area and as a person who, prior to the referendum of 1995, was not involved in politics, simply was a concerned citizen in this Province who followed the educational debate, as a person who ran in the last election, and from time to time was questioned on my views with respect to education reform, and where I, as an individual, felt the thrust and the importance of this issue lay, I feel at peace with the fact that we must put this matter behind us. We must get on with education reform, we must accept the spirit and the thrust of reform as is found in the proposed bill.

However, we must do it, even if it means an extra hour or an extra two hours, even if it means a very difficult and arduous period of time to go through this legislation clause-by-clause. We have gone this far; I think it is essential and, in fact, it is required of us, as legislators, to make sure that we do that.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, during the Committee stage there will be a number of questions raised with respect to the various clauses in this bill and as opposed to raising those points now, I will ask my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley, if he would like to make some comments in response to the introduction as made by the hon. minister.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise - and I understand there will be one more speaker from this side of the House, the hon. Leader will be speaking for a few moments in this debate - and make a few comments. While, as has been said, we support the general thrust of the legislation, there are some concerns we have which we will be raising at the Committee stage and we do have some matters that give us some concern, particularly in certain clauses, for example: in clause No. 2, subsection (4) where it says: where regulation made under the subsection (3) conflicts with this section of the act or the Education Act, the sections or regulations shall prevail.

Mr. Speaker, we will be addressing that at the appropriate time in Committee, but we do have concern that this particular clause would have the effect, of course, of circumventing the acts of the Legislature, and the fact it may be ultra vires, in any case. We have great concerns that the regulations of the department would supersede the legislation of the House, and the minister knows that the regulations of the House are subsidiary legislation and the Education Act would have to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, on a positive note, I want to make a couple of comments. I am not at all sure that this particular act will be able to deliver what the majority of the people in this Province talked about when they talked during the referendum. I see a very close affiliation between this particular piece of legislation and the framework agreement, and that causes me some great concern; and as people know here, I have had a very strong position on this matter of education reform and have spoken on it on many occasions, both here in the House and in public as well.

I want to say on a positive note, and there are some positive notes here, that this bill does back away from the centralizing administrative system that was planned by the Wells government. In other words, when we talked about some of the initiatives that were proposed by the previous administration there was great authority given to the minister in terms of how he would control and direct the CEOs or the directors at the school board level. I see some backing away from that centralizing approach in this legislation, and I think that is good. Now we will have the school boards being able to direct and manage the system as opposed to having the minister having direct input into the day to day operations of the school boards. If we are going to have ten school boards then we should give them authority to be able to do that which they are elected to do. I see that backing away from the centralizing approach of the previous proposals to be a very positive step.

I mentioned the close affiliation and correspondence between this particular piece of legislation and the framework agreement. As I read it, all schools will start out as uni-denominational schools for the first year, and that I understand to be a reversal of the procedures that were talked about in the education proposals put forward during the Royal Commission contrary to what was put forward by the government when it put forward the proposal in Adjusting the Course, and contrary to the literature that government put out during the referendum campaign.

These change is very significant. It changes the focus and to that extend, although the minister says these proposals are interim in nature, it does I believe set a certain tone. Therefore I am afraid it will result in the preservation of more uni-denominational schools than might have otherwise been the case.

I mention as well the fact that there is a proposal here, or to me it appears that the data census for 1991 will be used to determine the number of members that each denomination will be able to elect to a school board. There is some difficulty with that in that that might not be the most current. In the proposal put forward by the government with respect to having current data, I do understand the minister proposes next year to use the 1996 Census data. Our contacts tell us that that census data might not be any more accurate than the 1991 data. So how we determine the number of people to be elected according to the classes of people is something that causes us concern, because we want to make sure that it is done fairly and that each vote of each person in this Province is equal to each other vote. In other words, we want to make sure that no one voter carries more weight than another voter. If we don't have accurate data we aren't sure that our decisions on the composition of the school boards will be accurate.

Mr. Speaker, again I would just make note here as well of the continuance of the denominational educational committees at both the school board level and at the departmental level. I thought that there was some intention to reduce the DECs. I don't know whether it is the intention in the subsequent legislation to be able to streamline, to have not as much participation by the DECs, having a double structure as what we have now, whether that will come up a little later on.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments I will leave the rest of my comments for the clause by clause analysis at the Committee level.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just briefly, because the representations made I think have indicated clearly that there is an opportunity for us, and it is a very necessary and valuable opportunity, to examine some of these issues in more detail as we go through a clause by clause analysis of the bill in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Speaker, I've made note of some of the issues raised by a couple of the speakers already. I'm sure we will avail of the time in this debate to make sure that any reference to things that are seen to be ambiguous can be clarified or amended, and some of the issues just mentioned by the last speaker can be pointed out and clarified as we go through the committee stage of clause by clause examination of the bill.

I appreciate the participation in the debate by the hon. members at this point of debate in principle. I would understand from the commentary made that again the concepts that are here likely have the unanimous consent of this particular Legislature and, Mr. Speaker, provided that we, as the government, can provide the appropriate assurances and clarifications in the committee stage that we would hope that we might be able to move fairly expeditiously through the further stages of this debate to give impact to this bill.

So it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we want to move on an interim basis. That will become clarified tomorrow as we examine some of the issues that were raised today in the committee stage and then the consultation through the fall, Mr. Speaker, and this Legislature again dealing with the impact of nature, of issues that reflect at the school level which is planned to take place for September of 1997. It is absolutely imperative that this Legislature address again matters in the education act and the schools act because otherwise the ten boards that this bill will put in place will not have the direction and the wherewithal to make the designations that are essential for the school-based reform to occur in the school year beginning in September of 1997.

So I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to an opportunity tomorrow to deal extensively with the issues that were raised today with respect to any ambiguity that members might feel arises to either clarify that for them or to point out that the actual interim measures taken here will in fact be very positive with respect to taking the first steps towards reform; then the legislation again that we will debate later in the fall or very early in the new calendar year of 1997, because it is imperative for us to give the ten new boards explicit legislative sanction, authority and direction so that they can then go the next step which is to have education reform, Mr. Speaker, manifest itself at the school level because this Bill 8 only gets us to the stage of creating and implementing reform at the school board level and does not address the next very fundamental step.

I again, Mr. Speaker, appreciate the participation in the debate and I am sure that all of us will turn our attention to a very detailed examination in Committee of the Whole at the next opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With that I move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act And The Education Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 8)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House until tomorrow I would like to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. members to be quiet so that I can hear what the Government House Leader has to say.

MR. TULK: I understand that we have agreement that tomorrow, although it is Private Members' Day, we will do government business and carry on the - I understand we have agreement from both groups and that tomorrow we intend to proceed in this fashion, first of all to do second reading on Bill No. 19 - I won't read the long title - and to do second reading on Bill No. 20, then to move into Committee to do all three bills, and then to do third reading, whenever that occurs at some time in the future, but that will be the order of business.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, July 24.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I put the motion for adjournment, it is the Chair's understanding that tomorrow, being Wednesday, there is an agreement that Private Member's Day will be waived and it will be government business.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.