Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 2 December 1997 (43rd General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 42)
1997-12-02
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December
2, 1997
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIII No. 42
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile.
MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House, if I
could just take a moment.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. RAMSAY: It is just a notice about an environmental
award for a group in the District of Burgeo and LaPoile.
AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. RAMSAY: The St. James Elementary School recently was
awarded the Earth Status. They are the first school in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador to achieve such. Earth Status is granted to schools
that complete 1,000 environmental projects. They are the sixty-seventh school in
the country to receive this award as well. It is sponsored by the Seeds Canada
Foundation. It is open to all schools across the country, and I would ask that
this hon. House send a notice of congratulations to the St. James Elementary
School in Port aux Basques, and certainly my congratulations are to the school
itself and to all of the students.
My two daughters also attend that school, and we are always
involved in helping with their environmental projects. We are very pleased with
this, and it is an honour that certainly should receive just recognition from
the House.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: I, too, on behalf of the P.C. Party on
this side of the House, would like to send our congratulations for the
prestigious award.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before we begin our routine proceedings, the
Chair would like to welcome to the House today a number of people. We have in
the Speaker's gallery, members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of
Firechiefs and Firefighters. They are Wilson Wiseman, President; Hubert Sparkes,
Executive Director; Wayne Power, Director of Region 1; Rod Clarke, Director of
Region 3; John Dinney, Director of Region 5; and Stanford Dumaresque, Director
of Region 6.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As well, seated in the gallery today, and I
want to welcome them on behalf of all members, we have thirty-eight Level II
French Immersion students from Ascension Collegiate in the District of Port de
Grave. They are accompanied by their instructors, Mr. Ed Wilding and Ms Corinne
Ellsworth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today
to mark the passing of a remarkable citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thomas
Vincent Curran passed away in Gander on Sunday, November 30, after a brief
illness.
Mr. Curran is most widely known for his dedication to the
foresters of this Province. Shortly after the beginning of World War II, at age
26, Tom Curran led more than 400 men to Scotland to serve as foresters. During
the war, more than 2,000 young Newfoundlanders followed, cutting timber to be
used as pit props for the coal mines of England. Tom Curran was the unit's
district manager. Mr. Speaker, my grandfather was amongst that group of men.
Mr. Speaker, the war ended in 1945, but Tom Curran's efforts
continued. He founded the Newfoundland Overseas Foresters Association, and
fought to have the foresters recognized for their war contribution. Mr. Curran
was instrumental in the passage of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
His book, They Also Served , documents the story of the Newfoundland and
Labrador foresters.
During the 1960s and 1970s, Mr. Curran managed the Province's
seal hunt for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Mr. Speaker, like
today, his work attracted a measure of controversy, compliments of animal rights
activists.
Throughout his life, Tom Curran showed dedication to his
beliefs and to his Province. He leaves to mourn his wife, Margaret, two sons,
four daughters, one brother and two sisters. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I offer the Curran
family our deepest sympathy.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of the official Opposition, too, I extend to his
wife, Margaret and their families our deepest sympathies. A good, Southern Shore
name, I say. Curran and his achievements are certainly well-known, as the
Premier referred to. He has made a contribution here to our Province and it is
most appropriate that the House of Assembly send our deepest sympathies on
behalf of us here today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, Minister Reid, who is
the minister responsible for fire protection in his duties as the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I am pleased to announce today that we have
authorized the expansion of the Learn Not to Burn program in all
Kindergarten to Grade II classrooms throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. A. REID: The Learn Not to Burn program, Mr.
Speaker, is an internationally recognized curriculum-based school program.
It was developed nationally in 1993 in partnership with Fire
Prevention Canada, the Canadian Tire Child Protection Foundation and the
National Fire Protection Association. It is administered provincially through
the Office of the Fire Commissioner, who is also here with us in the Speaker's
gallery today.
This program reaches school-aged children with vital life
safety information and it stresses the teaching of positive, practical fire
prevention behaviour.
The Office of the Fire Commissioner, which reports to
Minister Reid, has now appointed a full-time program co-ordinator for the
Learn Not to Burn program.
That individual is now working toward program implementation
with a steering committee comprised of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association
of Fire Chiefs and Firefighters, the Office of the Fire Commissioner and
officials of the Department of Education.
The provincial co-ordinator will be responsible primarily for
providing in-servicing for teachers throughout the Province. I have already
indicated that I would not be adverse to a school district decision to close
schools for one-half day if necessary, in order for teachers of children in
Kindergarten to Grade II, to be in-serviced on such an important initiative.
Approximately 80 Kindergarten to Grade II classes have
already been provided with curriculum packages and resource books to date and
the Learn Not to Burn program will be fully implemented in all classrooms
by the spring of 1998. At that time, the program will be in place in
approximately 300 schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Minister Reid, can relate to the
devastating losses incurred by fire each year throughout the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Since the Learn Not to Burn program was
launched, forty-seven lives have been saved across Canada, including four in
Newfoundland and Labrador in twenty-one separate incidents of fires and
emergencies.
These lives have been saved by children who participated in
the Learn Not to Burn program that they studied from Kindergarten to
Grade II. The program, Mr. Speaker, teaches children to remember twenty-five
specific behaviours of what and what not to do in the event of fire.
And remember they do.
As indicated, twenty-one incidents to date have resulted in
children saving the lives of forty-seven people, the majority of whom are
adults.
These successes have been achieved as a direct result of the
commitment on the part of many individuals and organizations. I do want to
recognize and commend the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs
and Firefighters for their considerable efforts associated with the
province-wide implementation of this program. The Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Fire Chiefs and Firefighters has lobbied long and hard for a
province-wide implementation of this program and I am sure that today's
announcement must come as a great source of satisfaction to them.
As a government, Mr. Speaker, we recognize and applaud the
Learn Not to Burn program as a primary tool to address fire safety education
in our Province. It is a user-friendly program targeted specifically towards
children who statistically comprise one of the highest percentages of death and
injury by fire.
The fire prevention education that our children will receive
through the Learn Not to Burn program will be with them for their entire
lives. The Departments of Education and Municipal and Provincial Affairs are
pleased to be associated with such a significant undertaking.
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.
On behalf of the Official Opposition in this House, we join
with the minister and we congratulate him for taking this move and expanding the
curriculum with respect to the Learn Not to Burn program.
I recently had occasion to attend upon a school in my
district, St. Pius X Elementary, where a very little girl was instrumental, as a
result of this very Learn Not to Burn program, in taking the appropriate
action to assist other adult family members and having them removed from what
could have been a very difficult situation in her home.
So, that is proof positive as I see it, that this program is
indeed working and a very effective one, and I would say to the minister, in
view of the success and in view of these very telling statistics, when we see
that forty-seven lives in this country have been saved, four in our own
Province, that perhaps there is room to have this program advance even beyond
the Grade II level and perhaps some room in the future for it to be a part of
the curriculum, perhaps in the other primary and indeed, as well, other
elementary grades.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On November 27, 1997, my colleague, the hon. Ernest McLean,
minister responsible for Labrador, announced government's plans to set up a
dedicated fund for the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway and
maintenance of ferry services in Labrador, to be known as the Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund.
Today, it is my pleasure to inform the House of my
department's plans to call early tenders for new projects funded under the
Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund for the 1998-1999 construction season in
the amount of $28 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Together with a carry-over of $8 million on
projects previously tendered, the total expenditure on the Trans-Labrador
Highway next year will be, on Phase I alone, $36 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: The projects include the continuation of
upgrading on the road between Happy Valley - Goose Bay and Labrador West and the
beginning of construction of a coastal highway between Red Bay and Cartwright.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: The start of construction on the coastal
highway is subject to the necessary environmental approvals being in place by
the start of next year's construction season. Tenders for this particular
project will not be called until the approvals are in place.
The projects to be carried out under this Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund reflect the priorities established by government
for construction of Phase I and Phase II of the Trans-Labrador Highway. On April
3, 1997, government committed to completing Phase I between Happy Valley - Goose
Bay and Labrador West in three years, and Phase II between Red Bay and
Cartwright in six years. The projects I am announcing today demonstrate that
government is committed to achieving this objective.
Mr. Speaker, tenders for three projects between Churchill
Falls and West Wilson River will be called immediately, while tenders for the
fourth project from Churchill Falls west toward Wabush, approximately forty-two
kilometres, will be called later this winter. Tenders for the project between
Cartwright and Paradise River will be called by early spring, when we expect to
have the necessary environmental approvals in place, and the pre-engineering
completed for the project.
For the information of hon. members, I have attached a list
of each project separately.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At the rate of those Ministerial Statements, Corner Brook
Pulp and Paper and Abitibi will have a market for their paper, I can tell you,
for some time to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to see the
money go into a special Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. That is the
appropriate thing to do.
Over one year ago in this House, the ministers stood, one
minister after another, just before the nickel smelter and refinery decision,
and said there would be a paved highway in Labrador in ten years. The minister
representing Labrador stood in his place last week and talked about Phase I and
Phase II.
I warned government last November that the money they got is
not going to be sufficient to do the job. Phase I between Labrador City and
Goose; Phase II between Cartwright and Red Bay, will consume all of the money
except what is needed to maintain a ferry service.
Nobody has talked about Goose Bay to Cartwright. It has not
been mentioned by this government since, because the Premier sold us out for
about $250 million too little. We do not have enough to finish the job for
Labrador, and we are still going to have to subsidize a ferry service for years
to come. That is the problem. That is the shame that people will see in a few
years to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, with HST we took a chunk of
money. We took a chunk of money on a ferry service here. We took it on the
Southwest Coast.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: We have commitments to meet in the future.
He has made short-term plans for long-term decisions, and it is going to cost us
dearly in the long term.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Cartwright -
L'Anse au Clair have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Cartwright
- L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of the people of my district, I just want to say
that I am very pleased to hear this announcement today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: When the first tenders are called and the first
construction begins, it will be a remarkable day indeed for the people of my
district; but I also look forward to the day when the minister can stand in this
House and tell me that we will have a complete Trans-Labrador Highway across
Labrador -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: - that will include the communities of St.
Lewis, of Pinsent Arm, of Norman Bay, the ones that are presently omitted under
this particular agreement.
I also ask that the minister, before be goes to tender on
this
section of highway, look at upgrading the dimensions that are outlined in
the environmental assessment at present.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS JONES: Because this is not a trunk road; it is a main
highway.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS JONES: May I have leave, please?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS JONES: That we upgrade this highway so that we can
also provide the opportunity for Cartwright to become the transshipment point
for Labrador, the transshipment to the north coast, to Baffin Island, and it has
the potential as long as it has the infrastructure and the transportation
network in place.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Premier.
Seniors have been the victims of Liberal Government
mismanagement. We have seen seniors victimized by HST, where they are now paying
from 7 per cent to 15 per cent tax on their heating bills. Just weeks ago we saw
seniors in Gander who were forced to take to the streets and beg for basic food
service. Seniors who have worked in the public service in this Province have had
no increase in their pensions for nine years and their pensions are not indexed,
I say to the Premier, leaving many of them receiving less today than if they had
received no pension at all.
Now, some seniors are receiving as little as $230 per month.
Many of them, after working fifteen to twenty years for this Province, are now
resorting to soup kitchens to make ends meet. That is a fact, I say to the
Premier. Does the Premier consider this fair treatment for our seniors?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would think that
every single member of the House of Assembly wants to see the best possible
treatment that this Province can afford for our senior citizens. But, Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition got up and gave a long speech with a long
preamble, mentioning five or six different issues and then said: `Does he
consider it fair treatment?' and sat down. Mr. Speaker, that is not a question
about a particular policy, an area of public policy, it is a political speech
and it is rhetorical.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he has something
substantive to say to the House, government is more than ready to listen to any
substantive comment he has to make or any suggestion he has to make, and would
take it under consideration in the context of the fiscal capacity of the
Province; but merely to get up and make a political speech with no particular
point to be made, Mr. Speaker, I think that senior citizens are wise enough to
understand exactly what the intention was of the hon. member.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has tried to skate around the issue here. He does
not want to face the issue head on. I say to the Premier, I will make it a
little more specific. I said seniors have not had an increase in their pensions
in nine years and their pensions are not indexed. The Premier does not have to
worry about pensions and being indexed. He does not have that problem, they
have.
I ask him now: Are you going to move to correct that
injustice that the seniors are now facing in our system, on their pensions?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, is
the Leader of the Opposition talking about the federal pension? Is that what he
is talking about?
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) Public Service Commission.
PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry; you are talking about the
public service?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I stated that in the beginning.
PREMIER TOBIN: Oh, no, you did not.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to try to help the Leader of the
Opposition, when he makes a general statement about seniors and their pensions.
I would be quite willing to have someone from the Finance department to come and
brief him, but pensions, broadly speaking, are administered by the Federal
Government and there is a federal administration in place. Now he is advising me
that he is not talking about seniors generally, he is talking about the public
service pension plan - Is that what you are talking about?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Is that what you are asking about? Well,
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will know and I would ask the Minister
of Finance to comment further, that within the pensions administered by the
Provincial Government, there are two very large outstanding liabilities; one was
on the public service pension plan, Mr. Speaker, and the other was on the
pension plan for teachers. In the case of teachers, the outstanding liability is
$1.6 billion and that fund is going to expire, unless it is corrected, in 2004.
With respect to the public service pension plan, that plan
had an unfunded liability in excess of $1 billion. The Minister of Finance, in
the last Budget, in order to ensure that public servants who retire with those
pensions can be confident they will actually receive them, actually put in place
a
schedule of payments to restore the integrity of that pension plan. We did
that because we wanted to ensure that public servants, who are now senior
citizens, who are counting on their pensions, know they are going to get it in
the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Premier had listened to the first question, he would
have found out what I said - seniors who worked in the provincial public
service. I ask him to read Hansard. He does not listen very well. Maybe I will
ask some questions that will get those same answers he gave today, which are
answers to an entirely different set of questions, unrelated to what I am
saying. I will use a reference for the Premier; I will try to simplify it as
much as possible. I spoke with a sixty-year-old man just recently, who receives
$872 a month in a provincial pension plan from this Province after working more
than twenty-five years. He will get his first Canada Pension cheque this month.
I say to the Premier, this month he will get his first Canada Pension cheque,
that is $241 a month. On a $872-per-month pension and this Province can claw
back -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to
his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Province is going to claw back 70 per cent of that $241.
I ask the Premier: Will he change the claw-back policy in the integration of
pension plans so that people who are at or below the poverty line are not
affected?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As hon. members know, and everybody else in the Province,
pensions are earned benefits. They reflect the level to which the individual
contributed.
Most people in the private sector do not have pension plans
such as government employees and as members of this House have. They have to
save from their own funds and all that they are able to get is what they
contributed. Government matches the contributions of its employees. For decades
in this Province, Mr. Speaker, the pension plans were underfunded, the teachers'
pension plan, for example, right now, the main pension plan is about 17 per cent
funded, the liability is such that it is going to run out of money in the year
2004, it will attract an eventual cost to the Province of close to $200 million
a year within about six years. On top of that, the early retirement plan that
teachers have right now is 99.5 per cent underfunded. We are currently paying
money out of the main teachers' pension plan to fund the `thirty-and-out'
option.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) public service (inaudible).
MR. DICKS: The public service pension plan is about 40
per cent funded right now and, Mr. Speaker, that is taking into account the fact
that it is integrated. Now, when people retire, they know what the circumstances
are, they know how long they have contributed, they know how long they worked,
they know how their benefits are calculated. Government, at certain points in
the past, has given gratuitous payments to increase the amount to people who are
retired.
What we have said when the issue of indexing has come up - we
have said to our collective partners of the people who bargain for the unions,
we are prepared to entertain indexing, but premiums have to reflect the cost of
indexing. So if you are prepared to bring to us a program where current
employees can contribute and can have indexing, we are prepared to look at it;
so far, we have not received a proposal.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister indicated, pension plans are earned benefits -
that is what the minister said, they are earned benefits. If they are earned
benefits under the pension plan, I ask the minister: Why are you taking back
$170 out of $241 that you would receive under Canada Pension? Why are you taking
back over 70 per cent if they are earned benefits?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member does not understand what I have said.
The public service pension plan, the amount that people
contribute to it, is calculated so that their premiums and the eventual amount
they receive reflect the cost of the plan. That is currently since 1990. Prior
to that time there was insufficient monies contributed to that.
Mr. Speaker, the point that the hon. member is missing, is
that, when an employee retires, he or she knows that when they reach the age of
sixty, there will be integration and they will not receive the full amount of
the Canada Pension Plan. For most people who get an increase, they just do not
get to keep it all. That is the way the liability to the pension plan is
calculated; employees know that; every person who works in the public service
knows it, it is part of their pension plan, they are advised of it, when they
retire they are told it. I do not see what the hon. member's problem is. It is a
matter of contractual - it is a pension that comes up in this House
periodically.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very familiar, I say, with the pension plan and have
done several case scenarios for every $10,000 increment on what is clawed back,
I say to the minister; I am quite familiar with the details of the pension plan
and I have copies if he wants to have a look at them - I will show him. But I
ask him, in light of what this government has done, in nailing seniors to the
cross on HST and numerous other areas that have been adverse to seniors, I ask
him: Would they consider - this government - not applying the claw-back
provision to people making $6,000 and $7,000 a year, $12,000 and $13,000 a year?
Will you limit the claw-back; eliminate it on those who are below the poverty
line in the Province? That is all I am asking the minister. Will you do that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: The hon. member mentions the poverty line in
the Province.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, we would have to have every person
in the Province who receives the government pension plan submit to a means test.
I am not sure everybody in the Province would want to do that. Secondly, people
have other sources of income other than their government pensions from time to
time, so we would have to take that into account. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, you
cannot give people the benefit that they have not even fully paid for. The
majority of people in this Province receiving benefits are receiving benefits
far beyond what they contributed to, so, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing we can
do. We have two pension plans which are in serious trouble; if we were to
implement the hon. member's suggestion, instead of the pension plans becoming
viable, as the public service pension plan is, it would eventually bankrupt. The
money simply is not there to pay the pension obligations we now have.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not buy that argument at all, not at all.
When HST - when Nova Scotia and New Brunswick could make
exceptions to return extra money to low-income people, and this Province said:
We cannot do it because it is a federally-administered program, the same reason
that that minister gave, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick found ways to do it. This
government can bring in any policy it wants with a social purpose to help people
in low income. It is in the powers of this government to do it. I am asking the
Premier: Will he look at it and do that for low-income people?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the
discussion back and forth, it is very clear that the Minister of Finance and
Treasury Board is quite correct. The Leader of the Opposition either does not
understand how the finances of the Province work, or he prefers, if he does
understand, to ignore the reality in an attempt to try to score some political
points here.
The reality is, in the last Budget, this Minister of Finance
and Treasury Board did bring forward special measures to assist low-income
families. This Minister of Finance and Treasury Board announced, for example,
the expansion of the school lunch program dedicated to assist all children, but
in particular those of low-income families. This Minister of Finance and
Treasury Board announced the particular credits as an offset on the HST for
low-income families. This Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has been
targeting, in a variety of ways, government programs, to the extent we have
flexibility, to assist those most in need in the Province.
Last week, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment
announced that a policy that was put in place in 1980, a policy put in place by
the predecessor Conservative government which said that anybody on social
assistance could not receive any money from the government if they were on
strike, we reversed the policy because we found it onerous on the poorest of the
poor in this society, and we changed the policy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when the health care boards,
quite rightly doing their best to live within their tight budgets, brought
forward a policy to consolidate food programs, and to take away home-cooked
meals in senior citizens' homes -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: - we took a look at what senior citizens
were saying and we changed the policy.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Premier to conclude his answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy questions
related to employment benefits, the recommendation of the Terra Nova assessment
panel. I was shocked yesterday and this morning when I received the copy from an
interview that he did, and I will quote for you. The minister said: You cannot
restrict and hold to yourself all the employment opportunities for
Newfoundlanders. He said: You just cannot do that when Canada has put forward so
much in terms of dollar values, grants, and tax revenues.
I would like to ask the minister: Is he aware, number one, of
the recommendations contained in this report? Let me read one for him and ask
him is he aware, number one and number two, what action is he taking?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that reading extracts from papers or
documents for an Oral Question Period is not permitted.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister confirm, or is the minister aware, that
recommendation number twenty of the report says that if there are any deviations
from the principle of first consideration for employment for Newfoundlanders,
that the Board insist that the proponent supply reasons to the Board so as to
confirm and outline clearly why Newfoundlanders cannot get the jobs when they
are entitled to them?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, from time to time, there are
Canadians across this country who come to this Province to make their home here,
who gain meaningful employment in certain industries. One of those industries is
the offshore. If you look at it in the context of Hibernia project, which the
hon. member was referring to yesterday, you will see quite clearly that of all
the hours that were put out there for the total construction of this project,
clearly, 46 million person-hours came to Newfoundland. Seventy-three per cent of
all of the workload that happened at that site came to this Province. Further,
if you look at the production facility that is happening out there now on the
Hibernia platform, some 700 of the 800 personnel over the total life of the
production platform come from this Province.
If you look at the two super tankers that will transport the
oil from the wellhead at Hibernia to the transshipment terminal, you will see
that 90 per cent of the cadets and employees on these vessels are
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The work that is happening at the
Transshipment terminal today, the construction jobs, 100 per cent of those jobs
are Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FUREY: We are not ashamed of our record, Mr. Speaker,
in fact we are very proud of it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride,
supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I have to
look at are the recommendations contained in this report independent and the
lack of action by this government to ensure that Newfoundlanders who are
qualified get the jobs first.
Is the minister also aware that in this report the Terra Nova
Assessment Panel specifically recommends that the Department of Education, the
government and the proponent apply a list of skills that are required, that will
be required, so as to determine that where there are shortfalls appropriate
training can take place on the one hand, so that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who are not yet, and I stress the word yet, qualified to take
advantage of those opportunities will be qualified to take advantage of those
opportunities.
Is the minister aware of that recommendation and what action
has government taken to implement it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware of it and
the Minister of Education and the minister responsible for training, the
minister of employment and other departments are working on these
recommendations. In fact, the Minister of Education announced, I think it was in
February or March of this year, $2.6 million for the Cabot College System, now
known as the College of the North Atlantic, for the petroleum programs,
specifically in drilling and a whole bunch of other areas where there were
shortages of skills. So, this came long before this recommendation.
Yes, we are aware of it. We are cataloguing opportunities and
we are making Newfoundlanders aware of it as well.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride,
supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has completely
missed the point. There has been no list supplied by the proponent to the
government or to the Department of Education with respect to the skills that do
not exist.
Let me ask him this question. Is he aware of recommendation
number eighteen, Mr. Speaker, which says that: To enforce the intent of the
principle of consideration for Newfoundlanders first. Is he aware that the board
has said, to avoid the necessity of bringing in outside personnel that the
departments and government and the proponent should move in this direction
immediately.
The independent panel, Mr. Speaker, has recommended this. Why
hasn't government taken the recommendation seriously? Why haven't they responded
to the panels recommendations publicly and why haven't they taken action to
ensure that the recommendations of this report are implemented so that people,
not only from an employment point of view, but from an industrial based point of
view, benefit from the Terra Nova Project, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the report was tabled just a
number of months ago. This report is very complex, it is very comprehensive, it
has seventy-five separate recommendations, the lions share of those
recommendations are aimed at federal agencies, at C-NOPB. C-NOPB is doing an
assessment, the federal cabinet is doing an assessment, our own government is
doing an assessment and when we have completed the assessment we will make it
public.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Finance
regarding the proposed tax on the book value of used vehicles.
In light of the ministers public statement that he has
problems with the proposed carte blanche system, which I believe is unfair,
unjust and morally wrong, once again I ask the minister to reconsider and look
at an affidavit system whereby both the purchaser and seller can sign an
affidavit, which in my mind is the lesser of two evils and when at least the
people in the Province would not have to pay tax on the money they have not
spent.
AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will look at that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: My question is for the Minister of Human
Resources and Employment.
The ministers department will pay as much as $2200 for a
clients funeral expenses, yet it will not pay $835 to top up the meagre
insurance policy that a client paid for out of his own money.
Will the minister, who said in Fridays Evening Telegram
and I quote: "We have some very difficult policies". Will that same minister
admit that she as minister has the power to change these policies, some of which
like the one I mentioned are cost negligible?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and
Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do have that authority.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West,
supplementary.
MS S. OSBORNE: No, I did not hear the answer, I am sorry.
Here we have a clear case where the foresight of a client
saved the Province almost $1400. So, I say the department's policies are not
only difficult, but down right ridiculous.
Does the minister have the power to change the policies in
her own department that are ridiculous and, in her own words, difficult? Or has
the Premier taken away her power to administer her department?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and
Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the best thing
to do is to repeat the former answer which obviously was not heard. I do have
the authority to change policies which require change in my department.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West, a
supplementary.
MS S. OSBORNE: If the minister has the power to change
the policies, why don't you let these people who don't want a state funeral, who
don't want to be buried by the government, die with dignity, and get an
insurance policy that allows them to pay for a bit of a better funeral. They did
pay for the insurance policy out of their own money, and all they are asking
instead of $2,200 is $835. Won't you ease up on this policy, especially in light
of the fact that it is actually saving the department and the provincial
Treasury money?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and
Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to one
specific case, and referring to it in a general manner as to generalize it to
extend out to a number of different cases. In this particular case it refers to
one family, one of our clients, who was in fact providing for their own
arrangements for funerals through an insurance policy.
I indicated in my comments publicly last week that the
department was reviewing and having a look at the particular circumstances of
this individual case, and that review is under way.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today
are for the Minister of Health.
Will the minister confirm that on several occasions in the
past couple of months, when the Health Sciences food service truck was broken
down, the hospital has transported food to other hospitals in the same truck
that is used to transport soiled linens and biochemical waste to and from city
hospitals?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the member across the House, as I said to his
colleague yesterday, if you have information that I require to make any
necessary changes, based on the fact that we have almost a billion dollar health
care system, I would be more than happy to take the information, as I did with
the information that the Leader of the Opposition gave to me this morning, and
pass it out to the appropriate health professionals and board to deal with it at
their level.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South, a supplementary.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister also confirm that the transportation of
food in this manner is not an isolated incident, that it has happened at least
three or four times a month for the past couple of months, and that the most
recent incident occurred just this week? How can you possibly justify this
disgusting practice, let alone convince the public that it is safe?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is important, for the record, that the minister
did not justify anything that was previously said. What the minister said was
that I would appreciate the information. I would be happy to arrange a meeting
with the Chief Executive Officer, Sister Elizabeth Davis, or other appropriate
people, for him to discuss those issues, and I would be more than happy to do
it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South, a supplementary.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister: Do you really think that the public,
who has entrusted you with the responsibility of administering the health care
system, will be pleased to hear that the government is condoning the
transportation of their hospital food in the same trucks that are carrying
biomedical waste and dirty linen? After all, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FRENCH: Don't worry about it, boy.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After all, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, there is a lot
of difference between disinfecting your toilet and washing your dishes in it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador is lucky at this time, is privileged at this time, when we are
doing our best to provide the best quality health care we can, in a time of
scarce resources, to have a dedicated, knowledgeable, health care professional
taking on the important duties of Minister of Health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is really, in my
judgement, and I think in the judgement of any fair-minded or objective
Newfoundlander, shameful to have a critic assigned -
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
PREMIER TOBIN: I would like to finish the -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: Question period, Mr. Speaker, is a time for
the Opposition to ask questions and to get answers, and this answer is
completely unrelated to the question that was asked. The Premier has on numerous
occasions abused the privileges of the House in doing so.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No point of order.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I submit that this gentleman,
with this kind of questions, which are cast in a way which is totally
irresponsible, not designed to improve the health care system, but rather is
designed like some kind of a political hijacker, does nothing to help the health
care system, does everything to call it into disrepute. I would plead with the
member -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER TOBIN: - to consider -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: - the manner in which he is carrying out
his duties. It serves nobody in this Province. It is shameful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is
for the Minister of Education. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce warned
last month that ballooning student debt, unless addressed now, poses a major
threat to our economy. The Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission in a
study just published found that more and more young people from lower-income
families are choosing to forego a post-secondary education because of
skyrocketing tuition fees and the unmanageable debt which they burden. When is
the Newfoundland government going to start taking seriously the student debt
crisis that is barring many of our young people from getting the education they
need to find jobs, and sending thousands of our debt-burdened graduates to
higher paying jobs outside our Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the
education critic asking a question about a very important topic, student
indebtedness. I appreciate the fact as well that almost a week ago now in a
private member's day, with a motion presented by my colleague the Member for
Terra Nova, that we had a full-ranging debate on this issue. In which the whole
of the House of Assembly supported initiatives that are now being acted upon by
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
For the record, I might just want to point out a couple of
the initiatives. I think everybody understands that at the federal level for
some years now, and certainly in the last year and a half, that not only at the
level of ministers of education, human resource development ministers
responsible for training in the province for post-secondary institutions, but
also at the First Ministers level, that our own Premier has brought this issue
to the forefront of the Canadian political scene, and has garnered considerable
support from many jurisdictions across the country. While they are offering a
range of different solutions as to how we should deal with it as a national
imperative with student indebtedness, that in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker, (inaudible) -
MR. H. HODDER: Point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken one
minute and twenty-five seconds already. I think it is time to get to the answer,
as required under Beauchesne 408.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No point of order.
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to
deal with the issues that were raised in the lead up to the question by the hon.
Opposition education critic.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to hear (inaudible) -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to hear
by the question itself that we all assume that the member opposite fully
supports all of the initiatives that the current government is taking with
respect to dealing with this issue.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a
quick supplementary.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Province's
unilateral attempt to address the student debt problem with its meagre remission
program has proven to be woefully inadequate. Is the minister aware, as
disclosed by the student's union at Memorial, that of the few students who think
they even have a chance of qualifying under the strict criteria and who apply,
only 290 students, Mr. Speaker. In other words, 30 per cent have qualified for
any remissions at all.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: My question, Mr. Speaker, is when is the
minister going to take some meaningful steps to address the real student debt
problem instead of opting for token measures -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: On a point of order, (inaudible) that question
took one minute and twenty-six seconds.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No point of order.
The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, back in August we
had requested the Auditor General to do a legislative audit with respect to the
review of the financial affairs of the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and
Research Foundation. I hereby table that report today. Just one other comment,
Mr. Speaker, I did contact the Minister of Health's office. I provided a copy of
this to her. I suspect that she got it. I hope she did and I table that today
for the record of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and
Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the reports of
the Income Support Division and the Family and Rehabilitative Services Division
of the Department of Human Resources and Employment for the year ended 1997.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the
Opposition House Leader just now and I would move and ask leave to put this
motion out of the Select Committee of this House, to be constituted to enquire
and to report upon the arming policy of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and
that this Select Committee comprise of the Member for Topsail, the Member for
St. John's East, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Humber East and
the Member for Conception Bay South, that this Committee be authorized to send
for persons and papers, to sit in session and out, and to sit from place to
place throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and that this Committee report to
the House by March 31, 1998.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would second the motion and
we are ready to have the vote on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I believe the hon. the Opposition House Leader asked leave
for the Government House Leader to ask leave to present a motion at this time
that he has just introduced and we do have leave to do that.
All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is asking for Order, please. The
Chair is standing and I refer hon. members to our own Standing Orders which says
that: "When a Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall walk out of or
across the House, or make any noise or disturbance." The Chair is trying to put
a question. I ask for hon. members, corporation.
All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.
Motion, carried.
Answers to Questions
For which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or my friend
from Cape St. Francis asked a question about the private sale of used vehicles
study that the department had done, so I have this here to table for hon.
members. Would you like me to detail it. I have a few particulars on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The period study was January 1 to March 31, 1996. The
valuation supplied were the 1996 June black book values. The sample was selected
from the 30th transaction (inaudible), No. 30, No. 60 and so on so it is random
to that extent. Every 30th record was examined in other words, Mr. Speaker.
The sample size was 201 of a total of 5,982 sales that were
recorded taking place in that three-month period. The reported value was
$441,897 for the 201; the average sale price declared was $2,198, the tax that
was collected was $53,028. By contrast, the black book value was $1,027,375, for
a net difference of $585,478. Roughly about 43 per cent was declared as to what
is the value according to the black book would have or should have been for a
net difference per transaction on an average of $2,913 and the tax, had it been
collected at black book values for those 201 vehicles, would have been $123,285
for a net difference from the $53,028 of $70,257
If we extrapolated those values to the full sample
population, the average for the year of taxes collected was $1,127,265 - I am
sorry, not for the year but for that period. At black book values it would have
been $2,620,801 for a net difference - or a net loss, as one might see it - of
$1,493,536, close to $1.5 million.
On a straight line extrapolation for an annual take, this
would be $6 million; however, if you bear in mind that January through March is
the slower period of the year, it is likely that sales would be higher in the
summer and fall, particularly when the new models come out, so it could be well
in excess of $6 million.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Oh, absolutely, yes. I take full cognisance of
that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I fully concur with the hon. member. In fact, there is one
particular transaction here where someone sold a 1994 Chev GM 4GC1 vehicle for
$100 and its book value was $13,500. I am sure every one of these transactions
will bear complete and absolute scrutiny when the hon. member looks at them.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members asked me to file
these. There are some interesting things here.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: By and large -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: No, I did not say that. I said that the hon.
member said it was correct, that these all are accurate.
Mr. Speaker, what the sample shows is that there is a
difference between the declared values and the values by black or red book. The
question is - and I think most people would acknowledge that there is abuse in
the system. Most fair-minded people, I would say, would probably not consider
that every transaction that you will see here represents fair value. Some of
them are close. Some people, in fact, have paid more than the red or black book
value, as the case may be, but the issue for us as a government is whether or
not it is appropriate for us to act in a way to determine that people are
submitting the appropriate amount of tax.
We are looking at various methodologies that one might use to
ensure that the transactions declared are accurate and fair and represent a true
commercial transaction.
I can go on, but I think we have other business for today.
Would you like for me to continue? There is a lot more I can say about them.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Would you really? What would members like to
learn this afternoon?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here today which seems to be
very timely seeing that the Minister of Finance was just on his feet talking
about the very petition that I have. It concerns the proposed tax on the resale
of used vehicles, that unfair, unjust, morally wrong tax that I brought up in
the House of Assembly a number of times.
I do not think it is necessary to read the petition but, of
course, there are some names on this petition from the Goulds, Kilbride, St.
Phillips, St. John's, Torbay, and what have you, of people opposing this
proposed tax on the resale of used vehicles.
Now, the minister can stand in his place over there.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I have petitions. How many do you want, my
son? Look over. Have a look. There are hundreds.
Mr. Speaker, the minister can stand in his place every day he
wants to stand in his place and rationalize. You can rationalize anything you
want to rationalize, I suppose, and the Minister of Finance is pretty good at
rationalizing, but he cannot justify, by any stretch of the imagination, in the
minds of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, that this is right and just,
to make people pay taxes on money they have not spent.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a couple of weeks ago -
last week, actually - would he reconsider this proposed tax. Last week he wasn't
clear. He got up and said that he had problems with the proposed system. I asked
him the same question today and he was quite flippant, really. He was pretty
flippant. He stood up and said, yes, he would reconsider.
Well, we are making headway, Mr. Speaker. He would consider
my proposal. So we are making headway here in this House of Assembly. Not that
often that we can make headway once the government on that side of the House
makes up their mind to do something and he actually tabled in the House today,
some information which I requested last week, to try to rationalize and to
back-up their proposal to tax people on a book value.
Now, there are all kinds of reasons why a vehicle may be sold
for less than the book value. It may have been in an accident, it may have some
problem with it, Mr. Speaker, it may be sold to a family member. There could be
any number of reasons why it would not be sold for the book value. So, for the
minister to stand in his place last week and say that all people in the Province
who are buying and selling cars are dishonest, I have trouble with that.
The proposal that I made today in the House, that is one
possibility, maybe there are many others out there that the government will look
at an affidavit system whereby the purchaser and the seller may have to sign
this affidavit. Now, to me, I even have a problem with that, Mr. Speaker,
because you are basically saying a person is guilty before they are proven
guilty, but the way I looked at it, Mr. Speaker, was the lesser of two evils.
What would the people rather do who are buying or selling a car? Would they
rather sign an affidavit saying that what they are selling the car for is the
actual value that they are selling it for or would they actually rather pay
hundreds of dollars in taxes, that is not just, Mr. Speaker.
So, I would say that the minister must be reconsidering. He
must be considering the recommendation that we made today. He agreed to it and
hopefully, some time in the future he will back-off on this - I referred to it
in the House last time, Mr. Speaker, as a rip off of the tax payer of this
Province. We see the Minister of Government Services and Lands bringing in taxes
on fees and licences and permits, being double and tripled and what have you and
now we saw - I think what the government saw here was a chance for another few
bucks to help balance the budget, Mr. Speaker, which they are doing on that side
of the House, they are mismanaging for the past number of years and grasping at
straws, every little loophole, anything they can grab a hold to, to get an extra
buck in their coffers, they are going after.
Are you speaking to this?
AN HON. MEMBER: I can.
MR. J. BYRNE: So, Mr. Speaker, on that note I just want
to say that I support the petition on behalf of the signatures on this, which I
said are from Goulds, Kilbride, Paradise, St. Phillips, St. John's, Torbay and a
few more. So, Mr. Speaker, with that I am going to sit down and urge the
government to reconsider and to come up with something which is more fair and
reasonable for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand to support the petition so capably put forward by my
colleague for Cape St. Francis.
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting when you hear the
Minister of Finance get up and read off a big report there and tell about the
value of a pick-up or the value of a car and how government got ripped off. In
essence that is what he is saying because there was a 1994 Chev that was sold
for $100, that government probably lost $1000 or $1200 on that sale. Did he ever
stop to think maybe that was the true value of that 1994 Chev.
I bought second hand cars and second hand vehicles all my
life, that is all I can afford, but Mr. Speaker, when I pay the taxes, I pay the
taxes for what I pay. Many, many times I go and I have the document witnessed.
In fact, most people do. Most people today when they go and they buy a second
hand vehicle, when they get the receipt the document is witnessed. It is either
witnessed by a Commissioner of Oaths, a Justice of the Peace or somebody who is
certainly trustworthy in their community.
For the Minister of Finance to come here and say that we
believe - because what he is saying is that he does not trust Newfoundlanders.
Newfoundlanders are ripping off the government. That is what he is saying, the
Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is saying that Newfoundlanders are
dishonest, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister of Finance should be doing is going
out and put a higher tax on premium price vehicles. Let the fellow who wants to
go out and drive his big Land Rover or his big Lincoln Continental, let him pay
thirty per cent tax on it. If he wants to buy a $1200 coat, sock it to him, but
do not go out and try to solve the problems, try to solve the economy of this
Province on the backs of the poorest in the Province, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong
and it is shameful.
So I say to government members, yes, by all means, make sure
that people bring forward a document that is real and is justified when they go
to buy a vehicle. By all means, then collect the taxes that should be paid but
don't go out and charge people taxes on what you deem as the price of a vehicle
and not its true value because that is wrong. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am presenting another petition on the housing issue from
the Voices for Justice and Housing. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the minister
stood in his place here in this House and said that the seniors who are
receiving pensions should not be in the housing when there are single parents,
who are making $10,000 or $12,000, they are the people who should be in housing.
Mr. Speaker, some of the seniors who are receiving pensions, the pensions are
not adequate enough. They too, deserve to be in housing but even more
particularly here, Mr. Speaker, is the fact of the working poor.
We have outlined, to government, an actual example of a
family of two parents and two children making approximately $20,000 a year. Out
of this, even after they receive the heating supplement from housing, they are
still paying approximately $140 per month on the budget plan for their heat and
light. They are paying for a school milk program for their children as well as
their other expenses. Mr. Speaker, with the sliding scale, the increase in rent
from 25 per cent to 30 per cent, if you calculate what these people would
receive on social services and take into account the fact that they would also
receive a medical card or a drug card from social services and the fact that
they would not have to pay rent, it would be paid for them by social services,
they would actually be better off on social services.
So my argument here, Mr. Speaker, is not only for the seniors
that would be drastically affected but for the working poor who would be
affected by the increase in the rental rate at Housing. There are cases, not
all, I will be the first one to admit that there are people in housing who are
making substantial incomes and taking away units from the people who deserve it
most but those are not the people that we are talking about here. The people we
are talking about, Mr. Speaker, are the seniors who are going to be drastically
affected by this, by the working poor who are going to be drastically affected
and by the single parents. Mr. Speaker, those are the people that we are
fighting for with this petition. Based on that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy and
proud to represent the people and to speak up for the people who have signed
these petitions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
I want to stand and support the petition put forward by my
colleague from St. John's South and to say to the minister that we commend him
for his initiatives in reviewing the whole policy. There are a lot of people out
in the community however, who have some misgivings and going through some great
anxieties. I know he is very sincere in what he is attempting to do, trying to
be fair and reasonable. However, many of the people who are in those units are
not comforted by his comments. Yesterday I know he stood in his place and said
that he is trying to do the best that he can to try to resolve the issue. We
know that there is a real need out there for social housing. We understand that.
We are not espousing that we would take our seniors who live in housing under
the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and ask them to move so that we can make
room for social housing. We say to the minister as well that when he is looking
at the policies, we should be looking at taking some greater funding and putting
into social housing so we can address some of the low income situations we have
and some of the single parents. However, that does not take away from the fact
we have a lot of people, primarily seniors, who are going trough great periods
of anxiety, who have their lifestyles in place, and are now looking at increases
when their pensions are fixed or they have very little manoeuvrability.
We say to the minister, try to address the issue as quickly
as possible and as fairly as possible. We can't condone that you would inflict
greater difficulties on seniors because we haven't found a way yet to be able to
address the social housing problems. We ask the minister if he would again try
to address the issue with sincerity that my colleague and I are trying to
communicate to him here on the floor of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the figures provided by Mr.
Osborne as it relates to a family with three children are totally incorrect. I
have to say that, because, for the record, they are incorrect. Let me give you
the figures. My hon. colleague's example shows a disposable income of $432 per
month for a family of five. Those are his figures that he passed to this House
and mentioned in this House, for a family of five. Living in Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing, the true figure for a family of five is $1,085. Not $432. I
will tell you why there is a difference.
One of the key differences is that Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing provides a heat subsidy that covers heat and hot water. The real cost
for heat and hot water is $51.75, not the $145 that the hon. gentleman
(inaudible).
MR. T. OSBORNE: That is over and above, I say to the
minister. (Inaudible).
MR. A. REID: No, it isn't over and above at all. There
are no heating costs living in social housing - Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing. How many people on social assistance, for example, are living in our
rental units? You don't even know that. You don't know that. You can't even tell
me the answer to that question, and you are arguing with me over this.
Another example of what the hon. member didn't include. In
his figures they didn't include the child's tax benefit, which allows
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing tenants, which are given to Newfoundland - you
didn't include that. That isn't included in your figure. You forgot about that.
Because you know why you forgot about it? You didn't know about it! You are
living off too much money; you are making too much money to know what a child
tax benefit is!
The key point, Mr. Speaker, is that the gross income provided
by Mr. Osborne in his is less by $604 -
MR. T. OSBORNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of
order.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague to
retract that comment. I've supplied him with an actual case, a letter written by
an individual, signed by that individual, outlining these numbers.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask him to retract that comment. It is
unacceptable.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The Chair doesn't know what comment the hon. member is
referring to. If the hon. member made some unparliamentary remark then I would
expect him to withdraw it, but I didn't hear any unparliamentary remark.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I didn't make any comment that
I will retract. I will repeat it. I told the hon. member that he didn't know
anything about the child's tax benefit because he is making too much himself,
and has been making too much himself, to even know what it means, the child's
tax benefit. If he had 150 youngsters to feed and look after, he still wouldn't
get the child's tax benefit.
MR. T. OSBORNE: (inaudible), Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South on a point of order.
MR. T. OSBORNE: My colleague on the other side of the
House said that the numbers I presented were false. I've corrected him on that.
The numbers I presented him were written in a letter signed by an individual, an
actual case that I faxed to his office, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order. There is a dispute between two
hon. members as to the allegation of facts, but certainly not a point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I will table our figures, the
exact figures, in the House. If at that point in time the hon. gentleman wants
to apologize to me, I will accept his apology.
I would like to know where the hon. gentleman, and my hon.
colleagues across the way - I think he is the only one, maybe with one
exception, who has been after me on this. He just mentioned a minute ago it
isn't the senior citizens he is worried about, it is the poor and the
underprivileged and the working poor. That is all I'm concerned about. I have a
tenant living in one of my units in St. John's, close to your district, husband
and wife team living in a social housing unit in St. John's, making $36,000 a
year.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. A. REID: Listen to what she is saying. She is saying
basically that we, as a government, should be providing social housing units to
people making $36,000 a year. That is what she said.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: Now, that is what she said.
I say to the hon. member, and I say to this hon. House, it is
the people, the low-income working poor, not the social services recipients -
they are not paying because we are paying theirs. It is the low-income working
poor with two and three - it is the single parent, the mother out there who is
living downtown in squalor, that we should get out of those particular
situations and get into social housing. That is what I say to the hon.
gentleman.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. A. REID: Please tell me what I should do. Make up
your mind. Yesterday you were complaining about the senior citizens. Today you
are telling me, forget about the senior citizens.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. A. REID: I would like to know where you are coming
from.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the House for leave to formally announce the
private member's resolution that we will be debating tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: It will be the private member's resolution
that is in the name of the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motions 2, 3, 4 and 5. I call
first reading on those motions.
MR. SPEAKER: Motions 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce the
following bills, carried:
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act And The Unified
Family Court Act". (Bill No. 45)
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act".
(Bill No. 46)
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991".
(Bill No. 47)
On motion, Bill Nos. 45, 46 and 47 read a first time, ordered
read a second time on tomorrow.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Nursing Assistants Act," carried. (Bill No. 25)
On motion, Bill No. 25 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House not adjourn
at 5:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House not
adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
All those in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye
MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.
Motion, carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1, the unity
resolution.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I thank the
House and thank the Official Opposition, and thank as well, the New Democratic
Party and the Independent Member, for leave to proceed with this debate today on
the Calgary Declaration.
Mr. Speaker, I am being invited by members opposite to
provide for a very short speech and then to move quickly, I take it, with a
short speech on the other side, perhaps several, and then a vote. Mr. Speaker,
if that is the will of the House, certainly, we, on this side, will accept that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly make reference to the Calgary
Declaration; I think that all members in the House would concur -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the hon. the Premier, asking for a consensus here on this?
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier indicated that certainly we will deal with it
expeditiously, that was the intent. We are certainly prepared to vote on it
right now, without debate, if that is expeditious enough.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the
Leader of the Opposition and thank him for his suggestion - I think it is a
worthwhile one. May I just point out to the Leader of the Opposition that if he
looks at the Motion, there is one small amendment which I would like to propose
and would hope that the Leader of the Opposition, upon consideration, would
second and that is the amendment to delete the words in the motion, reference to
article four, reference to `Canada's gift of diversity includes' - I would like
to delete the words `gift of'. There has been some debate, as the Leader of the
Opposition knows, some sense, and I think we have to respect this, by Canada's
Aboriginal peoples, that those words, while not meant to be, they may be taken
as offensive, and if those words could be amended, I move, seconded by the
Leader of the Opposition, that the question be now put.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I was not of the understanding
that it was going to be moved without any debate whatsoever. I understand the
Premier would want to say a few words and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition
and myself. I do not know if it is appropriate -
MR. J. BYRNE: Are you on a point of order there?
MR. HARRIS: I am on a point of order, yes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi
Vidi on a point of order.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I did not understand when it was suggested the question would
be put, that on such a matter as this, there would not be an opportunity for the
Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and someone else just to say a few
words. I do not think it is going to be a matter of great contention but we are
talking about the future of our country and I would certainly want to have a few
words to say as to why we are going to the trouble of even doing this.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, to the point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the
Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader had come to an agreement
that there would be a few speeches and then there would be a vote on this
motion. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding - there now appears to be a
suggestion that we go directly to a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I have concurred with that suggestion but I can
well understand that it may be more appropriate that there be short statements
by at least the Party Leaders here today, and if that is the will of the House,
I will be glad to carry on on that basis, which was the original understanding.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on
the point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I made a suggestion, the
Premier indicated dealing with it fairly expeditiously - that was his intent,
and I said I am prepared to put it to the vote and deal with it because I think
it is pretty self-evident that we all support it and if the Premier and the
Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi need time on it, certainly, I will take a
minute and have a comment on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Okay. So I understand that the Premier -
Order, please! Order, please!
It is my understanding that the motion will be debated, that
there is now an amendment before the House. We are on the amendment now, I
believe, as it stands.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, I think we should make
the three speeches, then put the amendment, and then put the main motion. I
think that would be appropriate.
MR. SPEAKER: Do we have agreement on that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MR. SPEAKER: By agreement.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise again -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: - prepared to speak in support of this
motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the Leader of
the Opposition that what is most important today in this House is to have the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Legislature of Newfoundland and
Labrador, speak with their votes in expressing an opinion on the Calgary
Declaration, but, Mr. Speaker, before we do, I and perhaps a few members would
want to say a few words.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think it is
worth noting that the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, in considering
this matter today, in considering the Calgary Declaration, as the Legislature of
the Province that is newest to Canada, will be the first Province to move this
motion and to seek, I hope, the unanimous consent of this Legislature for the
motion. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is symbolic that those of us in Newfoundland
and Labrador who are the most recent to join the great Canadian federation, to
join the great Canadian family, are the first to stand and support a motion
which we think does much to reflect the fundamental values of Canada in a way in
which a consensus around the notion of nation-building and national renewal can
be pursued.
Mr. Speaker, in speaking to today's motion, let me recognize
the superb work of a number of Canadians who I think have had to go some way to
put aside what would otherwise be regional divisions or regional differences to
find national consensus. Mr. Speaker, as you will know, having a slight partisan
bent on occasion in this House, I am not given to usually standing and singling
out, in particular, members of the Progressive Conservative Party for applause
but, Mr. Speaker, I think there are some members of that party who played a real
leadership role in this country at this time.
I want to begin by singling out the leadership that has been
shown during the course of this debate on the Calgary Declaration. The day the
declaration itself was formulated and has been shown since by the Premier of
Alberta, the hon. Ralph Klein. Mr. Speaker, Ralph Klein is Premier of a Province
that has pushed with great energy and with great conviction for constitutional
renewal and for reform in this country. Indeed, the whole concept of a Triple E
Senate, an elected Senate, an effective Senate, an equal Senate, was born very
much in the Province of Alberta. This is fundamental to many Albertans but, Mr.
Speaker, as much as many of us in this place, and indeed, many on this side of
the House, would want to see reform of the Senate as part of any constitutional
initiative; I think we recognize there is not consensus in Canada at this time,
on that subject.
Mr. Speaker, I think it speaks well of the commitment that
the people of Alberta, and indeed, the Premier of Alberta, have for Canada, that
notwithstanding the long held view of Albertans on this subject, the Calgary
Declaration finds within it a consensus document that does not provide for a
statement of principle on the future shape of the Senate, merely because Canada
is not ready at this time to deal with that question. I think it speaks to the
leadership of Premier Klein.
Mr. Speaker, I want to single out the superb work of the
Premier of Saskatchewan, the leader of the New Democratic Party, who comes at
the notion of nation-building and constitutional renewal perhaps with a slightly
different set of priorities than some of the other Premiers. Premier Romanow has
shown us a real leadership role, both in his actions in Calgary at the time of
the formulation of the declaration, his commitment to resolving and dealing with
social issues which are important to all Canadians, but in doing so, in a way
and through a process that did not compromise our capacity to reach consensus,
to reach a common statement of principles in Calgary. Indeed, Premier Romanow
has now taken over as the Chair of the Premiers' meeting this year and will, I
hope, provide the leadership to see us through a national consensus on the
Calgary Declaration.
Mr. Speaker, former Premier McKenna from New Brunswick, I
think spoke powerfully for all of Atlantic Canada, spoke powerfully for all of
the regions of this country that are disadvantaged, and found within this
Declaration an expression of the notion of the equality of Canadians and the
equality of provinces. The important principle that just because you do not
happen to come from one of the big economies in Canada - British Columbia,
Alberta, or Ontario - or from one of the big population provinces of Canada,
that nevertheless, the measure of citizenship and the meaning of citizenship is
equal in all parts of Canada, and the status of provinces, notwithstanding their
real differences, is equal in all parts of Canada.
When one looks at this resolution, I think it has found a
fair degree of consensus across Canada because it is a fundamental statement of
values. I think it is worthwhile reflecting and reviewing just briefly today
what that statement of values actually is. What are they?
"All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law.
"All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have
equality of status.
"Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion and
an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world.
"Canada's gift of diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and
citizenry drawn from all parts of the world."
Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular clause, I have
already indicated my wish to move an amendment, I hope supported by the Leader
of the Opposition, perhaps by the Leader of the NDP, to remove the words "gift
of", so it is very clear that Canada's diversity is a reality and includes our
Aboriginal people on an equal footing with all other characteristics that
reflect Canada's diversity.
The Declaration goes on:
"In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and
equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its
French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is
fundamental to the well being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and
Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of
Quebec society within Canada."
Mr. Speaker, I want to pause on that statement of principle
because I think it is important that it be clear what was meant by the nine
Premiers of Canada in coming to those words. What is clear is this: While all of
us in this country recognize there is much that makes Quebec unique - perhaps
the word could be used, `distinct' - that those things that make Quebec unique,
its language, its culture, its civil code, which are different within the
Canadian context - not exclusively different; we would say there is much that
makes Newfoundland and Labrador unique as well - while those things make Quebec
unique, and we should generously recognize those characteristics, those
characteristics in and of themselves do not bestow onto the Government of
Quebec, the Legislature of Quebec, or the people of Quebec, powers or rights or
privileges that cannot in similar circumstances be made available to any other
province of Canada.
That is why this Calgary Declaration is different, and that
is why it is important. It is generous, it is tolerant, it is celebratory in its
recognition of Quebec: its language, its culture, its civil code. But it is
clear, it is concise and it is unambiguous in making a clear declaration that
Canadians, no matter where they live, are equal, and that all provinces, no
matter what their circumstance, have an equal status.
The Declaration goes on to say:
"If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one
province, these powers must be available to all provinces."
So there is no confusion about what is meant by the Calgary
Declaration. I think it is important to note that the Declaration and all of the
public opinion polling that has been done by independent agencies has been
supported by a majority, and a very strong majority, of Canadians in every
province, including in the Province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, some poling has
shown that indeed a majority of those who voted yes for sovereignty association
in the last referendum support this declaration. Mr. Speaker, this declaration
is important because it answers the separatist cause. It answers the separatist
seductive siren song in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a big lie told in Quebec. Told,
repeated, nurtured, polished and delivered repeatedly to the people of Quebec by
the separatist party there and the lie - there is not a more gentle word I can
use, I do not use it in anger, I use it in sadness is this, it is simply that
there can never be a recognition of the reality of Quebec within the Canadian
confederation. The Calgary declaration proves that that is not so.
The further lie, Mr. Speaker, is that the only way that
Quebecers can fulfil themselves, as a people, is outside of the context of the
Canadian federation and Mr. Speaker, that is not so. Why have the people of
Quebec endorsed the Calgary declaration? Why has there been broad support for it
and why is the separatist cause today at a lower ebb then any time in the last
six or seven years? Because Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec are not asking to
be more equal than their fellow citizens of Canada. The people of Quebec are not
asking that their province have a greater status than the other provinces of
Canada. What they have been seeking is a simple affirmation of their history,
their experience, their language, so that they can feel secure within the
context of the Canadian federation. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Calgary
declaration does that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude I just point out the kind
of diversity of opinion that has found common cause with the Calgary
declaration. I mentioned a number of premiers, but let me mention as well the
support this declaration has had from the Leader of the Conservative Party in
Canada who has said of the Calgary declaration, `The most important aspect that
I have noted from this meeting is the affirmation that the equality of Canadians
and equality of the provinces as concepts are compatible with the diversity of
Canada and the recognition of the specificity of Quebec'.
The Prime Minister of Canada has said, `I am happy to see
that the premiers have demonstrated a lot of responsible leadership yesterday
moving with the principles that in my judgement are very good for Canada'.
Preston Manning, the Leader of the Reform Party has said,
`This is encouraging news to reformers and to all other Canadians who believe in
a strong, united and equal Canada'.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Daniel Johnson, the Leader of the Federalist
Forces in the province of Quebec has said: "The majority of Quebecers want to
have a demonstration that the will for change expressed in the 1995 referendum
is translated into concrete terms".
The political leaders in the rest of Canada have just said,
`Here is how we envisage change'.
Mr. Speaker, Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta has said, `I
believe in a Canada where all provinces have equal status, but a Canada that
allows Quebec to protect those things that make it such a unique part of our
national character. I don't think these two principles cancel each other out'.
Mr. Speaker, there is going to be, in 1998 in all likelihood,
another election in the province of Quebec and no matter how that election is
cast at the end of the day, what it will be is a contest between one party that
believes in a Canada without Quebec and a Quebec without Canada and a party that
believes that this country is strongest when it is united.
Mr. Speaker, in that election campaign and before that
election campaign, I believe it is important that the people of Canada, through
their legislatures, make a clear statement of principle to the people of Quebec.
It is no longer acceptable to assume that the debate about the future of our
country is a debate amongst Quebecers, for Quebec and by Quebec. It is Canada's
future that is at stake. No longer can the voice of the rest of this country in
that debate be silent. No longer can the voice of the rest of this country be
distorted or twisted or misrepresented by separatists in the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you that we in this House, and indeed
Canadians all across this country, have an obligation to respond and keep faith
with the declaration we made by our presence; and many in this House were there
in Montreal in the dying days of the last referendum campaign when the rally for
Canada was held. Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians - with no notice, with
money out of their own pockets, on their own initiative - went to Montreal to
make a statement about their commitment to Canada, and implicit in that
statement was a commitment to work towards renewal of the federation.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Calgary Declaration is a clear
statement of principles about how that renewal can be achieved, and I urge all
members of the House, in a non-partisan fashion - and indeed I congratulate my
colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the NDP, for the
non-partisan approach they have taken consistently, without exception, to this
file.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of the
House to give this motion unanimous approval today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We on this side of the House support, first of all, the
amendment (inaudible) because I guess we don't consider it a gift. We consider
it a part, a
part in the development and structure of this country, rather than
a gift. It gives the implication, I guess, that it was given to somebody. I
this country were not given any particular gift. They developed that as a part
and blended it into Canadian mosaic.
I don't intend to take up very much time at all, Mr. Speaker.
We support equality among all Canadians, regardless of where you live in this
country, and I am confident that people in every single province in this
country, including Quebec - the majority of Quebecers - want to be a part of
Canada and participate in the equality of peoples in this entire country.
Here in our Province I am sure there are many people too,
like our caucus, who support the Canadian Federation. We have been a part of it.
We have reaped certain advantages from it, and there are many other pressing
issues out there today, certainly I might add, that we need to face in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are very much aware of many of these issues today, and I
do not intend to take up any further time other than to say that we endorse this
in its totality here. We feel that it is at least symbolic, if not a little
more. It is certainly symbolic, because the real things will follow this in the
long term, but it is a gesture by people across the country, by the specific
leaders across the country, that we need to move forward now in the pursuit of
Canadian unity.
We endorse that here, my colleagues, and we certain give
approval unanimously from our caucus here.
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 welcome an opportunity to speak on this important matter
today, and I am pleased to see that the Premier has responded to the need
expressed nationally by the Aboriginal groups to see an amendment to the
section
that is open to and has been interpreted by the Aboriginal people as somehow
derogating their status to something that has been conferred by Canadians on
Aboriginal people, while the truth is probably more the opposite. So to leave
that term out, I think, is appropriate and I am glad the Premier has moved that
amendment which I support.
The issue of national unity, so-called, has been very much
alive for all of my political career. While I was campaigning for my first
attempt, which was successful, in running for political office as a Member of
Parliament for St. John's East in 1987, it was during that period of time,
during that campaign, that the Meech Lake Accord was agreed to by the
Governments of Canada, Provincial and Federal, without Quebec - or, I am sorry,
with the participation of Quebec - and at that time I believe there was a
greater consensus then than there is now with respect to the understanding of
the situation of the people of Quebec and the need for recognition outside of
Quebec of the unique nature of Quebec's place in the Confederation.
We have come a long way since then, and it has not
necessarily been positive, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the consensus that existed
around the Meech Lake Accord deteriorated. I'm not going to spend a lot of time
talking about the role of Newfoundland in that. It was something which I very
much disapproved of, having supported the Meech Lake Accord in the House of
Commons, and in fact voted on that amendment and resolution while I was there. I
did so because I believed at that time - and the Meech Lake Accord was not a
perfect document, but it represented what was presented at that time as a
workable solution to including Quebec by consent into the Constitution of Canada
so that we could move on together. I was greatly disappointed when it failed.
I know from the discussions that have taken place since the
Calgary Declaration, and I have had discussions with the other New Democratic
Party leaders across the country, including the federal leader, and the premiers
of Saskatchewan and British Columbia who, together with the Premier of
Newfoundland, participated in discussions at Calgary leading to the accord. I
know the difficulties that are faced in other provinces. I know the difficulty
that is faced in British Columbia; I know the difficulty that is faced in
Saskatchewan. Because the degree of consensus that we had in 1987 has
deteriorated.
The New Democratic Party has consistently throughout its
the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan in the early 1960s,
recognized that there could be, and many times should be recognized, that the
people of Quebec may have a distinct and unique and different way of doing
things, and that that can be recognized by the people of Canada without harm to
the Confederation.
The Party, throughout the discussions around the
Charlottetown Accord, also recognized, as do I, that the concept of what is
sometimes called asymmetrical federalism is not one that the New Democratic
Party finds abhorrent, that there are very good reasons why there may be
different arrangements in our Constitution for the people of Quebec, just as
there are different arrangements for the people of this Province. Which is why
we have our own unique Terms of Union which we are this very moment seeking to
amend through a process under the Constitution. To have recognition of different
aspects of our Constitution and of Confederation for Quebec is not something
that is abhorrent constitutionally either in theory or in practice. There are
special arrangements for the people of our Province in our Constitution.
I do see that the Calgary Declaration is the consensus of
today. I do see and I do know that it is very important at this time for the
people of Canada, through their legislatures, to underscore support for a
Confederation that includes Quebec, and attempts to include support from the
vast majority of the people of Quebec to a degree of understanding by those
outside of Quebec of the unique nature of Quebec. It is unique - and I would say
distinct but - a unique role in our federation and the unique importance of its
role with respect to the French language, French culture and French institutions
which are so much a part of life in Quebec.
Reference has been made to an entirely different legal system
based on the Quebec civil code coming out of the French tradition as opposed to
the Anglo-American, so-called, legal tradition. That in itself underscores and
underlines the unique role and the unique nature of Quebec society. I don't
think we should be blas about it and say well yes, Quebec is distinct,
Newfoundland is distinct, British Columbia is distinct and Saskatchewan is
distinct. No doubt we all have our different history and culture. Perhaps nobody
in Canada has a personality, as a people, like Newfoundlanders. The people of
Newfoundland and Labrador share a history but they also share, I think a
personality, a common cultural feeling about life and about the struggle with
the elements that we have shared.
We are talking here, with respect to Quebec, a rather
different kind of uniqueness. One that is inherent in its language, in its legal
system, which is entirely - not entirely different in their sense of justice but
entirely different in its institutional nature. Also their sense as a people
within a Northern American sea of Anglophones, for the most part and their role
to protect the French language and culture, which, in my view, Mr. Speaker, can
be best protected in a strong federation with the other Provinces of Canada.
We have seen what has happened to the French culture in the
United States of America, in Louisiana, which was once part of French Canada,
the new world for France. The French culture, French language, French
institutions in the United States have deteriorated and have been assimilated.
Yes, there are still some carry-ons, there are still some hanger-ons in the
language and in some of the traditions of the Cajun culture and perhaps more
sophisticated linguistically culture in Louisiana but for the most part, it has
been lost. It has been lost because they did not have the kind of support that
we have in this country for French language and institutions throughout the
country.
Here in Newfoundland and Labrador we have recently given
recognition to the existence of first language French schools and instruction in
Newfoundland and Labrador, a separate school board and recognition that we, as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, have a responsibility within Canada to play
our
part in supporting, institutionalizing and helping to preserve the French
language and culture here. Where in the United States, Mr. Speaker, is there
that kind of support for the French language and culture or indeed any other
support from our families. From the thousands and thousands, hundreds of
thousands if not more, of people who educate their children through French
emersion programs. We have a commitment of trying to create, as much as we can,
a respect in our children for the two cultures and for, what I would hope, Mr.
Speaker, the ability of Canadian children to grow up to be able to be familiar
with both languages and culture because it is an enriching experience for them
and I would submit, allows them to be fully Canadian.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that those who are able to speak
that - those who are unilingual, because they have the ability...
There are great advantages to being able to speak and
is a great thing to take throughout the world. It is a great opportunity for us
to promote both cultures in Canada, to recognize not in some formalistic way but
in a real way that the diversity of Canada - we have other cultures which have
come to join Canada, just as they have in the States. The Ukrainian culture,
very important out west. The Ukrainian culture, the experience of Ukrainian
immigrants in the western provinces, the German immigrants, the Eastern European
immigrants throughout Canada. Most recently, but starting at the turn of century
and before, out west, the Asian immigrants who are now part of the great
Canadian country.
All of this together is only possible if we do everything we
can to ensure that we keep our whole country together. Because if you take away
Quebec - and I don't want to give this a perfunctory support, because it might
be helpful. I think we have to be very concerned about the future of our
country. There are lots of us, and I as a New Democratic, would really want to
see a much stronger statement about the place of a social charter in our
Constitution. About the recognition of Canadian unity being dependent, to a very
large extent, on the ability we have to support one another nationally.
I supported fully the results of the Beaudoin-Dobbie
commission which proposed a social covenant to give a constitutional definition
to the rights of Canadians to basic social programs in health, education and
social assistance. The social covenant that was included in the Charlottetown
Accord which articulated the fundamental social rights of Canadian citizenship,
a very important part of our Constitution. It should be a part of our
Constitution. I remind hon. members of the unanimous resolution passed by this
House in I believe it was early 1993 or late 1992 to have included in the
Constitution of Canada the five principles of the Canada Health Act. We were
told later that the only reason it passed unanimously was because the premier of
the day was away, but nevertheless it passed unanimously in this House, support
for the five principles of the Canada Health Act to be included in the
Constitution.
They are fundamental. If they were included in the
Constitution I would venture to say that the Liberal government that followed in
Ottawa would not have been able to implement fully the Canadian Health and
Social Transfer and down load to the provinces the responsibility for health
care and post-secondary education which the provinces are having difficulty
implementing. But, Mr. Speaker, this type of social covenant is absent from the
Calgary Declaration and I accept that for the moment, because I believe, Mr.
Speaker, that we do have to make every effort at this time to send a very strong
message to the people of Quebec, and we can lay aside our partisan differences
and we can even lay aside, Mr. Speaker, some of the fundamental desires that we
have as New Democrats to have underscored and underlined and constitutionalized
basic fundamental social rights.
We can lay them aside for the moment, Mr. Speaker, in the
hope that by reaching out in this way to the people of Quebec, we will be able
to solidify the union itself so that we can then together work to improve the
social cohesion within Canada and hopefully arrive at a new consensus on issues
with respect to fundamental social rights to health, education, work and
security of the person through adequate social programs. That is something I
would like to see happen, Mr. Speaker, but that something can only happen if we
are able to secure the union and avoid the disaster that could befall the whole
nation, should we fail to ensure that we have taken every effort to include the
people of Quebec in our Confederation so that we can then together move forward
to improve our union and work together for the future.
We are at a crucial point in time, Mr. Speaker. I think they
accept the Premier's judgement of the importance of passing this resolution now
so that we can be the first Assembly to pass the resolution, so that we can be
the first to endorse the Calgary Declaration and that we can ensure the people
of Quebec that we will indeed be doing whatever we can to secure their future
participation in whatever Constitutional process that can emerge from the
consensus that exists today. I believe we have a nation worth saving, Mr.
Speaker, I believe we have a nation worth preserving; I believe we have a nation
worth improving, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that in endorsing this resolution
today, we are moving forward in allowing that to happen, encouraging that to
happen and helping to make it happen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: We are voting on the amendment -
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could -
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Before we put the question, I believe that all
of us in the House are going to vote for this resolution and I believe we would
like to have it recorded as an unanimous decision of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Against.
I declare the amendment, carried unanimously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We are now voting on the motion as amended.
All those in favour `aye'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Against.
I declare the motion as amended, carried unanimously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 11, Bill 24.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The
Transfer Of The Personal Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Montreal Trust
Company Of Canada And Montreal Trust Company To The Bank Of Nova Scotia Trust
Company" (Bill No. 24).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services
and Lands.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in the House today to briefly discuss Bill No. 24, "An
Act Respecting The Transfer Of The Personal Trusteeship And Agency Business Of
Montreal Trust Company Of Canada And Montreal Trust Company To The Bank Of Nova
Scotia Trust Company".
Mr. Speaker, this bill is necessary in order for the Bank of
Nova Scotia Trust Company to consolidate it's business with that of the Montreal
Trust Company of Canada and the Montreal Trust Company, its Quebec operations.
Essentially all personal trust business will be conducted through the Bank of
Nova Scotia Trust Company and all appropriate trust business will be conducted
through the Montreal Trust. I hope you understand that Mr. Member.
Mr. Speaker, all other provinces and territories have now
been asked to enact similar legislation and certainly the legislation has been
passed in all provinces except Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. This
legislation is similar to legislation which was passed when the Royal Trust
Corporation of Canada acquired certain - of the trust business of the Royal
Trust Company in 1978.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is necessary in order for the Bank of
Nova Scotia Trust Company to conduct their business.
Mr. Speaker, I will now sit and allow the member opposite to
have a few words on the bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to know why. After this big
long speech from the Premier, why he is leaving Quebec out of this bill?
I have been getting up recently in this House responding to
bills that the minister introduced and he usually spends three or four minutes -
he has a record today, I think it was two - but I am going to be on record
today. Any concerns that I have on this I am going to bring forward in committee
stage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Can I have leave of the House just to
make a clarification please?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I found myself in contravention of the rules of the House, I
guess, by having two Private Members Resolutions put forward on the floor of the
House of Assembly. You can only have one printed on the Order Paper.
AN HON. MEMBER: Are they identical?
MR. FITZGERALD: No, they are not identical. I say to the
Premier, in my absence yesterday my colleague put in an identical one, but I am
going to give him the credit. What I will do, if it is okay with the House, is
that I will choose the one regarding the department of agriculture, with the
problems that the farmers are having in my area and I will let the one regarding
the seal hunt go to my colleague from Baie Verte and have his debated tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we do not want the hon. gentleman
to be put in the position of having to resign from the House over such a small
break in the rules of the House, but what I find interesting, Mr. Speaker, is
that here he is, the fisheries critic, and he puts in a resolution from two
weeks ago on the seal fishery calling upon us to do the appropriate thing, which
we were going to do, and he gets out of the House and the door are not closed
behind his backside before - one of the hon. leadership contenders over there,
the Member for Baie Verte, stands up and says: I am putting in a Private Members
Resolution on the seal hunt, too, that says the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, there is a problem here that the hon. gentleman
has. Not only does he have two resolutions on the Order Paper -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: I would say to my friend from Waterford Valley,
where have you been? How come you are not protecting the Member for Bonavista
South, and letting one of his competitors put down an identical resolution on
the seal hunt?
I say it is shameful, and I say to the hon. gentleman from
Bonavista South that we are so gracious - no, we are so pleased to see that he
is so gracious - to try and keep his party together, to try and keep peace over
there - I saw him over just now having a discussion with the Opposition House
Leader - we are so pleased that he is so gracious that he wants to save his
party that we consent to taking it off and putting on his agricultural
resolution.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I presume it is the understanding of the Chair that it has
been agreed that the resolution on the seal fishery be dropped from the Order
Paper.
MR. TULK: Yes, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: His resolution, the hon. the Member for
Bonavista South.
MR. TULK: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services
and Lands, if he speaks now he will close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With no further debate necessary on this particular bill, I
will close debate on second reading.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Transfer Of The
Personal Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Montreal Trust Company Of Canada And
Montreal Trust Company To The Bank Of Nova Scotia Trust Company," read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No.
24)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 18, Bill No. 30. I
believe, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Government
Services and Lands will introduce this bill that is to establish the Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish The
Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund". (Bill No. 30)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services
and Lands.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the other day we certainly introduced this into
the House. It, I think, follows on from today's announcement of the second
year's work on the Trans-Labrador Highway Initiative. This particular bill will
certainly entrust that all of the money is spent on that particular initiative.
Mr. Speaker, the previous day when we were discussing the
initiative, the House Leader from across the way indicated to me about maps and
directions and communities, and those sorts of things that would be beneficial
to the discussion. I would certainly indicate to him that I have it all here,
all of the communities.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. McLEAN: No, your House Leader was having a problem
with it, so we decided we would provide it for him.
Mr. Speaker, this initiative will take a number of years. We
have identified the first two phases that are currently under way, with phase 1
being the Churchill to Labrador City to Happy Valley - Goose Bay portion, and
also the Cartwright to Red Bay section. As was announced today, this is already
started. This is underway.
Mr. Speaker, this particular initiative fund will allow the
whole project to be completed with an allocation of funding that is separate and
apart from the regular financing in general revenues.
I'm sure there will be more questions during the Committee
stage of this particular bill. I will not say anything further, I'm sure there
are other speakers who want to speak on this. This is introduced in second
reading.
MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I'm delighted
to have an opportunity to set the record straight on the Labrador Transportation
Initiative.
Back in November of last year three ministers stood one after
each other, on the eve of a nickel smelter and refinery announcement for
Argentia, and said there will be a paved highway in Labrador in ten years. That
was November 1996. So in the year 2006 I hope to drive over a paved highway from
L'Anse au Loup right on to Lab City - Wabush.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but I hope to be able to drive, I
said, from L'Anse au Loup. Because the ferry service crosses into Blanc Sablon
and then drives across the border. I drove there, I say to the minister. I
didn't fly in a helicopter, I drove. I rented a car from someone in southern
Labrador, not the ones that the former member used to rent from, from companies
outside southern Labrador. That is why he isn't here now. He didn't support
people in his district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The Government House Leader on a point of order.
MR. TULK: I suspect the hon. gentleman may have driven,
but I wonder if he had a van delivering chicken?
MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: That isn't a point of order, is it, Mr.
Speaker? Mr. Speaker said it isn't a point of order. No, I can tell you, I drove
it, I say to the Government House Leader, and I drove it at my own expense. Out
of my own pocket, I say, and not out of taxpayers in a helicopter, I would say
to the member!
I'm not sure how the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board
is going to add all this up. I will just do a little financial presentation of
what is going to happen in Labrador. A paved highway in Labrador by some
estimates is in the billion dollar range, not the $350 million we received on
this, so here is why we have been sold out. I haven't heard the minister for
Labrador or the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board or the Premier ever talk
about phase three.
So what are we going to do? Sixty million dollars should
finish Lab West, from Labrador City - Wabush down to Goose Bay. Sixty million
dollars should do that. About $18 million this year was spent on four, I think,
different contracts there. That has been completed. They had anticipated
spending $20 million but almost got that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are going to carry over that it
said in the statement, but also, and with another, what, $30 million, for $38
million I think his statement said today? An estimated $130 million -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I have it here; I'm quite familiar with it.
That would leave, according to what was stated by this government, it said $350
million approximately. One hundred and ninety million dollars it said was said
there to do, $60 million from Lab West - Happy Valley-Goose Bay, that $130
million to do from Cartwright down to Red Bay. That is a gravel -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, I'm just mentioning the figures to show
they don't add up. One hundred and thirty million dollars would do it. It said
it needed to maintain this fund. I agree with putting a fund separate, becau