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 cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a multicultural 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 guess the Aboriginal people and the people of the English and French language in 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 history, since in fact the coming together of the Government of Canada to create 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 blasé 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 language or culture other than that of English? We have, throughout Canada, 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 both English and French are more fully Canadian - I will go so far as to say that - those who are unilingual, because they have the ability...

There are great advantages to being able to speak and converse with both founding cultures of Canada, the English and the French. It 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, because you give up a ferry service, or try to, in Labrador, you should put the money into road. What is going to happen, hopefully there is enough money to do a gravel road from Cartwright to Red Bay. Then how are people getting from Cartwright to Happy Valley-Goose Bay - how are they getting supplies? It must go by ferry service.

Or it can come from the roads to open up to Quebec. People driving out of Labrador through Quebec, buying Quebec gas, buying food in Quebec, spending money in Quebec, when a road from Happy Valley-Goose Bay down to the Island would tie the Island portion to Labrador in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would encourage and promote Newfoundland and Labrador businesses. It would open up a link to the Island. It would bridge the gap across that Gulf. Now we are dividing it further because we sold out a pile of money. As I stand here in this House, I tell you, in ten years time we will not see -

MR. TULK: You will not be here in another ten years time.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will come in and stand up here. I challenge you to run against me and kick me out of here. I will invite you up.

MR. TULK: You are the biggest man.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not. I am not very big at all but I will challenge the Government House Leader to come up and knock me out of there if he does not want me in the House. I hope the people will not have to tell me when it is time to go. I hope I will be bright enough to know that, I say to the Government House Leader. The people of Fogo told you before, in the district. They told you they did not want you anymore and they kicked you out of the House. I hope the people of Ferryland will not have to kick me out of the House. Because when I consider myself unable to do the job, I will not be running around looking for the job, I can tell the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, they changed the district and put him back in. They changed the district and gave him a new seat again - that is what they did.

Where are we going to get the hundreds of millions to connect Goose Bay with Cartwright? Where is the money going to come from, I ask the Government House Leader? The Premier has sold us out on a chunk of money. Maybe the Finance minister, whose bill it is, or maybe the Labrador minister or the Works, Services and Transportation minister could tell me how much less we are going to spend on the ferry service for Labrador because - and I have asked questions but have not gotten answers - because we are connecting the highway from Cartwright down to Red Bay? It should be Cartwright to Red Bay and St. Louis thrown in there. I think it is Williams Harbour - no, there is another community that should be thrown in, I think, too.

Now, we do not have enough money in this pot. The government has not provided the figures. The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation could not provide it last fall here in this House, when I asked in November, how much money? He indicated, `We do not know.' They did not know how much money they needed to do the highway and they were up dealing with Ottawa for money to complete it but they did not know how much they were looking for. Can you imagine, looking for money and they do not know how much they are looking for? If we are going to eliminate the ferry service to Labrador, at least to portions of Labrador, we should have enough money to complete the highway to Labrador.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I challenge the Government House Leader to run. Get in there; make it interesting, I say.

So, Mr. Speaker, the money is woefully inadequate. I think that was a word used by my colleague today, `woefully' inadequate to do the job. Why should we sell out when we could not get sufficient money to do the job? How many people in Labrador really think they are going to see - it is not in this pot of money, but I hope we will see another pot of money. Once we alleviated and lifted the burden of responsibility for the Federal Government to maintain that ferry service, we put ourselves in the position now where they no longer have any obligation to maintain that service. And when the government find - when this transportation initiative money gets used up and you need to subsidize it and the money is not there, it is an excuse then to say, `We will give you a more inferior service than the one you are getting now. We will cut back that service further because there is not enough money in the transportation initiative.' That is what they are going to do. They are going to cut that initiative further.

It is the sad reality, that this government and this Premier, who have made a lot of short-term decisions - they have made a short-term decision on the Labrador transportation initiative, did it on HST. They took a chunk of money up front that runs out next year. They borrowed this year on Hydro's contribution next year, $65.6 million in a budget they took from Hydro in this Budget this year and are not going to have any for the portion next year. They borrowed the next calendar year, January to December, they built into this budget on Hydro's contribution to our Province - one that this government tried to sell and give away. They tried to give it away to private enterprise and regulate a monopoly that is turning $65.6 million into the coffers of this Province this year.

That is where they should be looking at getting a commitment. They should be getting a commitment. And then, they have the audacity to stand up and say: We are going to participate, to lower the emission levels in North America on a water that is flowing down to Churchill?

That should be used primarily - the Premier would not answer the question I asked - but it should be used primarily to guarantee the power and recall rights for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to develop jobs in Labrador and here on the Island part of the Province. Those are some of the short-term decisions - a chunk of money. And the people in Labrador would be pleased with the short-term. Who is not pleased to get a road in but when there is a huge gap requiring a couple of hundred million dollars to plug that hole, or $100 million or $150 million, they are not going to be happy when you cannot drive from Cartwright into Goose Bay.

Labradorians from Happy Valley, from Lab West should be able to come down to the Northern Peninsula, across the Straits of the Northern Peninsula down to their relatives here on the Island instead of having to drive to Quebec, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and the long time they spend getting there. And air transportation is expensive, I can say. I went to Labrador in May and it took $1,400 to fly to Labrador down to Goose Bay and Lab West –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Fourteen hundred dollars to fly to Labrador return is expensive. I could have gone to Florida and stayed in a hotel for a week and come back for that much money.

MR. TULK: You should have gone to Torngat Mountains.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is expensive.

I did not hear what the hon. member said but I am sure it was sensible, because he usually is. He usually speaks -

AN HON. MEMBER: He said you should have gone to Torngat Mountains.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, is it cheaper? No, it is expensive, and that is the point I am making, I say to the member. Transportation is very, very expensive, that is why we need a road link. The ferry service - I am sure everybody has read, and most people have, the article in The Globe and Mail -

MR. TULK: Has the Leader of the Opposition ever been up to Torngat Mountains?

MR. SULLIVAN: The sad reality is, no, I have not.

MR. TULK: You have not?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I have not. I have been in Southern Labrador, Happy Valley -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have not been there, I would love to attend, I had planned a trip but weather cancelled it.

MR. TULK: Oh, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Before I was in this position I had a trip planned; the weather cancelled it and we had to change.

MR. TULK: Why didn't you go up there this summer?

MR. SULLIVAN: This summer?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Because I -

MR. TULK: You (inaudible) Goose Bay now and walk around with your rich friends.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was not up in Goose Bay this summer.

MR. TULK: You were up in May.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was not up there this summer. Summer starts in June, Minister. You know, you have to get with it here, June 22. The Government House Leader does not know if it is summer or winter; he does not know if it is Spring or Fall. No wonder we are in trouble here in the Province, he does not even know the seasons, not to say the time - no wonder we have problems.

MR. TULK: You were up there (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I was up there in early May. In fact, I was up there in early May, I must say. I had commitments there and went up –

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) rich friends.

MR. SULLIVAN: I went up to try to help out the Member for Labrador West to get to the Tobacco tax changed.

MR. TULK: Oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and finally they did it, I say; I embarrassed them into getting a change to help, and to help Southern Labrador too. Only for my going up and supporting it, we would not have it today.

All the thank-you letters I got from the people up in that area, I am sure they are far more than the ones he received. They know we fought for the rights of the people in Labrador West and Southern Labrador. There should be opportunities to level playing fields, for people trying to do business and survive here, in our Province. You have to look at those things. The people living in Labrador know as well as anybody the hardships that are being encountered. And in the instance at Black Tickle - I am sure you have read in The Globe and Mail. It is a very sad situation when people today are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not at all, it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not at all, I say to the Government House Leader. The realities are out there, there are human cases out there. I mean, we have lost an identification with humans; we are not operating on a human level anymore. There are policies that are ignorant to the human problems that exist out there and that is a sad reality, I say.

This bill here, I support having a separate fund, it should be used there, but the problem that I have, we sold out and there is not nearly enough to finish it. It is going to open up Labrador to Quebec and we are not going to have Labradorians in the Labrador part of our Province coming down the peninsula utilizing businesses and bringing business down through Southern Labrador, it will be going in the other direction. That is why it is important that the road should be there from Goose Bay, to Cartwright, and there is not enough money in the pot to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will challenge the Minister for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation that way, too, and I am sure I will beat him. It will not last one round.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would ask that Works, Services and Transportation provide the estimates that their department is providing on the cost of doing a gravel road, and you will find it just does not add up. There is a $12-million-a-year subsidy going into the Labrador ferry service, and it has to be maintained because there will always have to be a ferry service to Northern Labrador. Certain other parts are going to be maintained for a long time. The money is not in this particular deal to do it, and that is the sad part of it. It is a short-term decision that is going to compromise the ability of our being able to do the job in the long term because we sold out for a chunk of money now to appease to a certain extent -maybe to quickly appease Labradorians because they have been ignored and neglected by this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak on Bill 30, and I can say it is long overdue. However, prior to speaking on the bill, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that he mentioned Happy Valley - Goose Bay, he mentioned Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, he mentioned Labrador West, but the hon. member forgot to mention Torngat Mountains. I invite you to come into my riding while you are still Leader of the Opposition and I will show you God's country.

Mr. Speaker, I served on many committees in Labrador, including the Town Council in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and we fought long and hard for the Trans-Labrador Highway. I am glad to see that this government took the initiative to bring in a bill to make sure that the funds will be spent where they are needed most of all.

I know the feeling that the member for my sister-riding, which I refer to as Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, feels, knowing that next year there is going to be work carried out in her riding, and for the first time they will see the benefits of a road.

Mr. Speaker, my riding will never have a road - or, I should say, a Trans-Labrador Highway - in the foreseeable future; and, after all of the gravel and pavement is done, it will be the only riding in the Province that will be solely dependent upon water transportation. There is a lot of jockeying going on with different ridings as to where the port of call should be for the marine service. I know the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair wants it, Goose Bay wants it, but I can tell this House, this government, and this minister, that the people in the riding of Torngat Mountains will have a say where that port of call will be.

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. people in this House that I will certainly bring the views and the message from the people in my riding as to what should be done with the water transportation.

Mr. Speaker, `The Love Boat', as she is referred to, The Northern Ranger, is brought on by Marine Atlantic, and people in my riding depend upon the tourists who come in there, to sell their crafts. Now, it is very difficult when The Northern Ranger arrives in Hopedale on her way north at 4:00 in the morning, and on her way south she arrives at 12:00 midnight. This is a practice that has gone on far too long, and I certainly will bring that issue up with this government when they implement the new system.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the greatest thing of all is that the people in Labrador, for the first time, are seeing a commitment by government where we are willing to build a road. I guess, in response to the Leader of the Opposition about pavement, first of all, you have to have a gravel road and you put the pavement on top of that. So I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House will fight for that.

I want to compliment my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, who was the government member on this side of the House who, along with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, sat down and formed a committee and worked out the deal with Ottawa. The hours that my colleagues spent there certainly have proven to be very fruitful, and I compliment them on that.

Mr. Speaker, I guess to see the Trans-Labrador Highway finally becoming a reality is something that we have all talked about and we have all wished for. I guess I am happy to say that finally this government is the government that took the initiative to negotiate a deal and has now brought in the bill to preserve the funds there that will be used for transportation services in Labrador.

MR. TULK: And only in Labrador.

MR. ANDERSEN: And only in Labrador and if I had it my way it might be only in Torngat Mountains.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. ANDERSEN: But Mr. Speaker, I –

MR. TULK: Why don't you tell them about the job you have done over in Rigolet in terms of employment and all of that.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the government for such a bill. I fully support it and I am sure I speak on behalf of all the people in Labrador and we look forward to the day when the road will be completed and better service brought into the riding of Torngat Mountains.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the Government House Leader wants to have his say, so -

MR. TULK: No, no, I want you to tell them about Rigolet.

MR. ANDERSEN: - so, with that Mr. Speaker, I will save that for another day and I will sit down and be quiet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to talk about Bill No. 30. The bill that is designed to set up the fund for the monies that were negotiated with the Government of Canada on behalf of this Province to build the Trans-Labrador Highway and to carry on with the marine assets necessary to provide transportation links to the people in Coastal Labrador.

I must say you know, that the reality is, we did somewhat a deal that was similar to what PEI did. They converted marine assets into a fixed link. What we did was converted marine assets and got a cash settlement up front from the Government of Canada to build a road that will connect Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and will connect the people on the lower coast in the Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair district to ensure that most of the communities in Labrador, save those on the north coast, will have a connection to the outside world through a transportation link, the highway that will be built.

I recall my father, in 1966, signed his first petition to build the Trans-Labrador Highway. I grew up in Labrador West. It was for many, many years a joke, you would get a sneer, you certainly would not get anyone to say that at some point in time in the future that we would have a road that we would drive on like any other citizen of Canada.

The people in Labrador were never asking how to get out of this Province. They are asking how to get in. There are many who will consider the amount of funds that were put into this transportation initiative as being insufficient and probably throughout time it will prove that we will need a great deal more funds to provide the kind of transportation link that all of us think is normal in Canada today, that includes pavement.

But Mr. Speaker, I recall travelling throughout Labrador trying to build consensus before we began negotiating. We went to the communities and asked them how it is that we should go to Ottawa and try to negotiate funds for a highway. We did put pavement into that proposal because that is what the people of Labrador wanted. We tried to negotiate the very best, but Mr. Speaker, we are in a circumstance where we have this block of cash, would the Opposition say that we should just have walked away from it and left no funds to develop transportation links in Labrador? Of course that would not be a reasonable thing to do. What is reasonable is to build on what we have achieved to date. What we have achieved to date is unsurpassed in this Province, unsurpassed in terms of trying to develop infrastructure within Labrador, that people in that region of our Province need and deserve.

The people in Coastal Labrador committed to giving up marine service, changing marine service that was being paid for by the Government of Canada, that was being undertaken by Marine Atlantic, allowed us to take charge of that service to serve their needs in the future, to meet or exceed their transportation needs in the water network and at the same time convert funds to building a highway.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very innovative and creative way in a time of tight fiscal positions of any government, to see cash diverted into a major transportation infrastructure development.

I wrote the hon. Minister Brassard, the minister of transport for Quebec, some time ago, asking them to commit significant funds to Highway 389 which connects Labrador West to Baie-Comeau. They themselves in their letter referred to me that they are going to go to Ottawa to try to get some funds to build that section of a highway to a level that meets safety standards and meets the needs of the travelling motoring public.

This whole deal, this transportation initiative in Labrador, was a consensus building. I recall the night the Premier had called every mayor in Labrador, had them on the speaker phone. There wasn't one mayor in Labrador, not one person on that telephone, who had something negative to say about this particular initiative. This was the ultimate in consensus building. Because I believe through the process which the previous Minister of Works, Services and Transportation had undertaken, and the Premier, and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, to ensure that this deal came to fruition, the people in Labrador who I spoke to, who I know, appreciated that.

Yes, there are other things that we need to achieve, but because there is more yet to achieve that doesn't mean we should somehow say that that which we have already achieved is anything less than we thought it would be. I recall dealing with this initiative over the years. I can tell you that the numbers that were on the table in previous sets of negotiations and discussions with the Government of Canada were significantly less than what we achieved in this particular arrangement. I'm sure, I believe, there are still bureaucrats in Ottawa who are probably scratching their heads trying to figure out how we achieved the level of funding through this agreement that we did.

This is a good agreement, but more importantly it is an agreement that is needed to meet the continuing development of Labrador. Especially on the South Coast, where this particular highway will be their connection to new economic activity that can create new jobs and new opportunity for the people that the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair represents. The fact of the matter is that this is a significant milestone in the development of this Province and our region, and I don't see any shame in it.

What I do see is great pride in saying that we in this time in our development were able to achieve something to benefit this generation and generations yet to come. The reality is that Bill 30 is important to us, and it was always important. I remember at the very beginning of these discussions we talked about the need to have a separate fund, so that the dollars that were coming for the transportation initiative in Labrador weren't put into the black hole of government revenues. They were in fact put into a separate fund, and this fund ensured that they would be spent for the purpose in which they were intended to be spent in, and that is transportation initiatives, whether it is roads or marine assets, in Labrador.

Yes, we have work yet to do. This is not of course a perfect agreement. There are still challenges we must meet, but there are challenges in all programs and all negotiations. The reality is that no negotiation I have ever been aware of has completely done the total job with every potential requirement covered off. We are going to have to continue working on ensuring that there will be future dollars negotiated for marine and road transportation requirements in Labrador. There is no secret in that. But this particular fund that we will vote on will ensure that those dollars that we already negotiated will be spent in transportation initiatives in Labrador. More importantly, I'm sure that this fund will be there for other dollars. If we are able to negotiate them in the future from the Government of Canada, they will be diverted to that fund too.

I'm very proud, and I want to commend the ministers for this particular bill. I also want to commend the Premier for having taken up this charge, and having made great in-roads in Ottawa to ensure that these funds came to us. We can now use them to build a road throughout Labrador again, as I said, save the North Coast, that we so desperately need. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I support this bill entirely.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to rise today and have a few words on Bill 30.

Obviously when the announcement came on the Trans-Labrador Highway, it was quite welcome news for the people in my district. I guess it is hard to relate to when you have a group of communities in Labrador, who for twenty years have been lobbying for a highway, for a road connection between communities and hearing the announcement over the last ten years of new road development and paved highways across this island has been quite frustrating for the people in my district.

Unfortunately, we are going to get a highway that is not going to be up to the class of the expectations that we had wanted but nevertheless, it is going to be a route that is going to improve the transportation needs of the people of my district and the transportation needs of the communities. It is very frustrating when you live in a region in total isolation - the Member for Torngat can certainly relate to all of this - and you are trying to diversify. You are trying to build new industries but you don't have the transportation links to be able to do that.

Just this year we invested quite a bit of money in forestry in my district to try and diversify, to bring new industry around. I remember a particular area in Charlottetown where a business was getting off the ground and getting into this industry. They had gotten their allowable cuts from the department, they had their business up and running but just as they were able to go they were stopped because they had no way to transport. They had markets, they had capital, they had everything they needed but they could not expand into that sector because they had no way to get the wood out. So now that is an idea of a business that is on hold until this initiative can be fulfilled.

Obviously the highway is not going to take in all the communities of Labrador or all the communities in my district. There are still a lot that are going to be left out. Those communities need to have proper transportation, a system maintained for them in order for them to continue to operate as communities. I think particularly in terms of Williams Harbour and Black Tickle, communities that are located on islands where people have no other way to get off only through marine services or through small airports.

As the member of the Opposition was saying earlier, the cost of flying in and out of Labrador is phenomenal and I guess the members from Labrador know all too well what it costs us to get back and forth to our districts, to be able to serve them. Well the people who live there contend with this on a daily basis, whether it is seeking medical attention, whether they are going out for educational purposes or just trying to run a business from a community there, it is very, very expensive.

So we have to be able to maintain services for those communities, proper marine services, proper air services that are affordable. I think in terms of communities like Pinsent Arm and St. Lewis who have, although small communities, stabilized their population and have very much stabilized their economy in terms of developing an industry and creating employment. They are not included in this announcement on the highway, and they should be. They are on the main land. They can be connected for a reasonable amount of money, and I think that has to be considered and looked at, and every thing possible will be made to connect all of these communities that can be connected to this highway.

I want to talk about Normans Bay, a small community in my district. There are only about sixty or seventy people who live in this community, and in 1997 they are still lobbying to have a road built around their community. They are not part of this transportation initiative; and it is frustrating when you live in a small community like this and you try to carve out a living there for yourself, and you are still tripping over the rocks and trees, and walking a foot path to get from one community to the other because there are no roads, there is no local road in the community. These are things that have to be addressed when addressing the transportation initiative for Labrador.

The marine service sector certainly is a service that still has to be maintained and operated not only for the communities in my district that are not going to have a road, but primarily for the benefit of the communities in the District of Torngat Mountains. These people, I know and understand, are totally dependent upon the system, and the frustrations that they deal with year after year in trying to operate communities, operate businesses, with a system like Marine Atlantic is presently providing. But I have to do one thing. I have to commend the present Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I don't see him in the House right now, but when the Province took over the marine services this year in Labrador, and it was transferred from the federal government to the provincial government, it was the first time that people in Labrador were given an opportunity to be able to consult, to feed information as to how they want to see their marine services operated, and I commend him for doing that. Now we are awaiting the report, and I have to say that I hope that the Province will take on a new scope and a new way of operating marine services in Labrador, and not in the way it has been done in the past.

When you live in a community, whether it be in Hopedale or whether it be in Pinsent Arm, and you have a product that you have to ship to a market, and you are waiting ten to fifteen days before you get a vessel into your community to get it out, it is not doing anything to entice business opportunity or development for these communities. It is making them stagnant; it is putting them behind.

In Pinsent Arm, for example, we have anchorage ports - actually, I have three or four anchorage ports in my district - where Marine Atlantic boats cannot even tie up to wharves. They go in, and they anchor about thirty or forty minutes out the bay. You have to put all of your containers aboard a small speed boat or a small twenty-two foot vessel and take it out and have it lifted on board these ships and this is the way that people do business where I live. So I hope that we can improve on those marine services with the money that is in this agreement. Expand on the infrastructure, give those communities that are dependent, the ones in Torngat Mountains, the communities at Pinsents Arm, Normans Bay and Black Tickle, give them the infrastructure and the services to be able to compete and build industries.

Mr. Speaker, I guess for the people of my district this is quite a very important and documented time in our history. There is a lot of optimism about a highway coming, about a road connection. For a lot of us, it is still hard to imagine the way that our way of life will change, our way of communicating, our way of dealing with one another, but I think in light of all that, we also look at the impacts and the benefits that it is going to bring to us. It is going to help us build these new industries, it is going to help us build the tourism industry which has such a lucrative potential in Labrador and it will give us the infrastructure and the transportation to be able to do that.

But I think in all of this, Mr. Speaker, there is an important group of people in my district who have to be considered, and they are the Metis. They are the aboriginal peoples of my district and right now, they are having I guess, some difficulties in adjusting to this kind or type of development and initiative throughout the district, and as part of the environmental assessment that looks at this project, that determines the impacts and the benefits on people for eternity with this development, they are important players and they should be given the opportunity to sit at the table, to help develop the Terms of Reference for this project and to ensure for the people of the district, that this project proceeds in an environmental and friendly manner that is acceptable to every one.

I am just going to conclude my statements by saying that I am pleased that the government has decided to put this money into a special initiative fund for the highway development through Labrador and maybe, with some of the interest we are going to accumulate on this fund, we can look at expanding the Trans-Labrador Highway into some of the communities that were not originally included in the agreement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After all of the speakers have spoken and indicated their ideas on this particular bill, I'm sure we will have more time in Committee stage to discuss the other issues that might be in here that are of interest. I now close debate on second reading of Bill 30.

On motion, a bill "An Act To Establish The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 30)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 10, Bill 21.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code." (Bill No. 21)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Human Rights Code to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The bill would also amend the act to exclude its application to a pension plan provision that is in compliance with a requirement for registration under the Income Tax Act.

As hon. members will know, Mr. Speaker, Judge Leo Barry, in a ruling some months ago, read in sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination in our Human Rights Code. So, what this bill will do today is bring our code in line with Justice Barry's ruling. The code will be amended by adding immediately after section 5 the following, which will be section 5.1 A provision of this act shall not apply to the expression of a limitation, specification, exclusion, denial or preference based on a prohibited ground of discrimination in a pension plan where that discrimination is the result of compliance with a requirement for registration of that plan or the Income Tax Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we would be quite willing to include the sexual orientation as a prohibited ground into our pension funds. However, the Income Tax Act (Canada) does not allow that at this time, and we would not want to have our plan decertified. However, the bill is worded in such a way that should the federal government change the Income Tax Act, then we will automatically recognize sexual orientation as a prohibited ground, even for the pension plan. We will not have to come back to this House, it will be already done. That is the only reason we are excluding the pension, Mr. Speaker.

Subsection 6(1), sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the act are amended by adding immediately after the word and comma "sex," wherever it occurs, the word and comma "sexual orientation," will occur in our Human Rights Code.

I would strongly urge the members of the House to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today just to make a few comments with respect to Bill 21, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code." It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time this matter has been addressed by this House. What we are doing, in dealing with this legislation at this time, we are joining another seven Canadian provinces and the federal government itself in amending the human rights legislation, either federally or the province in question, by simply adding the words "sexual orientation".

There are eight sections that deal specifically, Mr. Speaker, with discrimination. They are: The right of the public to services under section 6; the right to occupy commercial and dwelling units under section 7; the right, as an occupant, to be free of harassment under section 8; the right to be free of discrimination in employment under section 9; the right to be free of harassment in an establishment under section 12; the right to be free of discrimination in publications, and the functions and concerns of the Human Rights Commission, under sections 18 and 19.

As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. We are now catching up, I guess, with the vast majority of other Canadians and other Canadian provinces. We must realize, at this particular time in society, that discrimination of any kind is simply unacceptable. I share in the wording of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province and I support the passage of an Act To Amend the Human Rights Code of this Province, by simply adding sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have a chance to speak on this legislation which, as was just indicated, is long overdue in this House. It has been many years since my predecessor in St. John's East, before I was elected in 1990, first proposed an amendment to the Human Rights Code that would have the effect of including sexual orientation as a prohibited ground in the Human Rights Code.

For many years, Mr. Speaker, the previous ministers responsible for the Human Rights Code had protested that it was not necessary, that is was covered, that the courts were interpreting it in a certain way, in any event, that they didn't need to amend this, they didn't need to give recognition to the obligation of societies and governments to prohibit the kind of discrimination that has been taking place in this Province against people, against gays and lesbians; discrimination that was tolerated by the legislation, Mr. Speaker. There were some valiant efforts by individuals to seek redress, quite painful personal experiences.

I will speak to one: That of the case of Brian Nolan, who had to go to extraordinary effort to fight back against discriminatory remarks made to him in an arrest by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary several years ago. He was very courageous, Mr. Speaker, in pursuing the matter because it was at no small cost to his privacy and to the challenges that faced him throughout the litigation. But he persevered, Mr. Speaker, and brought great public attention to the fact that discrimination did indeed exist, not only in society generally but, in this case, within the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. That case, I suppose, may have been the one that brought the government to its senses in recognizing that the time had come to bring about some change.

It was not without difficulty, Mr. Speaker. Even last spring, when there was a great deal of effort by individuals outside the House, and some drafts of changes being passed around for consideration, it was impossible at that time to get the government to bring in something as straightforward and as obviously necessary as this. There were too many qualifications being proposed. There were too many suggestions by government or government lawyers that they should qualify it by giving the government, the Cabinet, the right to make exclusions. Mr. Speaker, it was not going to be supported in this House if they had brought it in, because it was not an unequivocal inclusion of "sexual orientation as a prohibited ground."

I want to say that I am pleased that the minister has brought in what is, at this time, a non-controversial piece of legislation that quite simply includes "sexual orientation as a prohibited ground" in the forms of discrimination that are covered by the act. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because only certain, specific types of activities are, in fact, covered under our Human Rights Code: discrimination in housing; discrimination in employment; discrimination in public services.

There are certain exceptions there that I think are unacceptable. We are not talking, at this point, about an overall review of the Human Rights Code. We are talking about ensuring that this Human Rights Code, and any Human Rights Code in the future in this Province, will include "sexual orientation as a prohibited ground." The time has come, Mr. Speaker, to get beyond the homophobia that exists in our society, and recognize that regardless of one's personal views, or one's personal sexuality, that to tolerate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is no longer acceptable, legally, socially or morally; and we have recognized that here in this act. Because not only is discrimination prohibited by this act, but also what are called discriminatory publications. It will be a lot more difficult, Mr. Speaker, for those who wish to, to engage in gay bashing in print, to engage in gay bashing in disseminating anti-gay literature or anti-gay types of diatribes, Mr. Speaker, whether they be in newspaper, pamphlets or otherwise.

I think this is a step that is progressive, that is necessary, that is long overdue. The one qualification that is there in relation to the Income Tax Act, I think I understand that. I believe that those who I have talked to in the gay and lesbian community accept that this limitation is a reasonable one. It is reasonable because it is temporary. It is reasonable because everyone understands that the legal process has already been engaged, which will probably result in this legislation being overturned. I think we all understand the legal difficulty that the government would be placed in with respect to the government pension plans and other pension plans if this limitation was not placed there. It is one that has its own built-in sunset clause, Mr. Speaker. There is a built-in sunset clause in the clause itself which will see it die a natural death once the requirement of compliance to the Income Tax of Canada for registration has been changed, which I suspect it will be, either by the Supreme Court of Canada or, if not, hopefully by the Government of Canada.

We had promises a long time ago, Mr. Speaker. For example, the former federal Minister of Justice, John Crosbie, when he was Minister of Justice, promised us, back in 1984 or 1985, to bring in an amendment to the Canadian Rights Code. It was not done until last year or the year before by Allan Rock in the House of Commons. We are following that, and I would hope that the House of Commons will fix the Income Tax Act and further eliminate the possibility of discrimination at that level.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt there will be some questions of interpretation. No doubt there will be some refinement of this through the courts, as to what exactly is expected as a result of that. That is perhaps where it should be on a case by case basis. I hope that every effort will be made by government to review any other legislation or practices that would have the effect of discriminating against individuals on the basis or sexual orientation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say I support the bill. I am very pleased that the minister has finally brought this in and that it is not now a matter of controversy in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just be a moment, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak to Bill 21 amending the Human Rights Act. This amendment is long overdue and it is nice to see that our Legislature is catching up with the '90s. It is nice to see that harassment of gays and lesbians will now result in fines, injunctions and other orders, and offer protection to those who wish to avoid harassment and feel they have been done wrong by. It is my pleasure to support his bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for the contribution they have made to this debate. I would like to say, though, before I move second reading, that I am indeed pleased to have had the privilege of introducing this resolution. I personally have never been the butt of discrimination, and I wouldn't think that anyone in this House has ever been discriminated against, knowingly anyway. I came close to seeing what discrimination was once, many years ago when I was studying in Halifax. A very close friend of mine was a Presbyterian clergyman from Ghana. The man must have been probably in his fifties. He was black, he was from Ghana. He came to study at the same institution that I was attending. He was a very kind, compassionate human being.

He would come to me and ask for advice and ask questions about various things. He came to me one day and he said: Chris, do I smell? I mean, the man was very clean over his personal hygiene and no, he didn't smell. I said: No, you don't. Why do you ask? Now, remember, the man was new to Canada, in from a foreign country, in Nova Scotia in Canada. I said: Why do you ask? He said: I got on the bus this morning and sat next to a woman in the front seat. When I sat, she got up and moved to another seat. Hon. members of the House, I knew just what it was; he had been exposed to discrimination. I didn't have the heart to tell him what it was.

No human being, whether he is black, white, red, homosexual, gay, lesbian, no matter race, religion, no human being should be discriminated against. Now, we cannot legislate that, we can't legislate morality, but we can make it illegal, and that is exactly what this amendment to the Human Rights Code is doing today.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see that this bill - and I assume it is going to go through unanimously. Therefore, Sir, I move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 21)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we had intended to go on until 6:15 p.m. because we needed some time to get through some bills in the House, we needed some time for debate, but co-operation has been so good in the House today, and everybody has been (inaudible) - we have passed an act on national unity and three or four other bills. There is a tremendous spirit here. We even agreed to let the Opposition withdraw an embarrassing second motion that was down. Mr. Speaker, given that kind of co-operation, that kind of harmonious spirit, I would move that this House adjourn until tomorrow at two o'clock.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at two o'clock in the afternoon.