Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was friend.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Liberal MP for Burin—St. George's (Newfoundland & Labrador)

Lost his last election, in 1997, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Late Stephen Neary June 13th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I thank my fine friend from Joliette for his sentiments on our friend Steve Neary. I would say Steve Neary and he are similar sorts.

Yes, Steve Neary died in his sleep Friday morning, two weeks short of 71. At least that is what his birth certificate would indicate. But he was much younger, probably 25 or 30, if we judge by the steel trap which was his mind.

As a fighter, Steve was an eternal terrible two. He knew what he wanted and he was single-minded in going after it, and he got it.

That he made the transition so tranquilly from this world to the Parliament of heaven will seem, to some, to be at odds with how he lived. To many, including me before I knew him, Steve's life was a tornado, a turbulent affair. There never seemed to be a time when he was not at odds with someone. Always, there was a battle to be won, a cause to be championed, a case to be argued. And argue he did, and fight and scratch.

Newfoundland is so much the better for his having fought, our people the richer and the institution of Parliament and public debate so much the healthier because of Steve.

But Steve had another side which few saw because he hid it so well. The centrepiece of Steve's life was not turmoil, but purpose. As a result, Steve was actually very much at peace with the world. He always knew what he wanted for himself and he got it. What he wanted for his family, he got it. What he wanted for his people, he got it. He loved to call his people, the "the ragged-arsed artillery".

His family was his pride and joy. If you knew Mary, Pierre and the girls, Andrea, Stephanie and Monique, you would know why. His wife Mary was his pit stop. She kept him on the ground and she recharged his batteries. If you were too big for your boots, Steve could fix that in ten seconds. It takes Mary about five seconds.

Steve knew what he did not like and the top of that list of dislikes were people who took themselves too seriously. Equally, Steve knew precisely what he liked and topping that list was loyalty. He practised what he preached.

During Joey Smallwood's retirement years, when he was abandoned by every ungrateful wretch that he had plucked from anonymity during his premiership, it was Steve who stood by him and carried the torch.

When I first went into politics provincially, Steve was one of my mentors. His straight talk and his uncanny ability to get right to the heart of an issue with lightning speed and humour made me an early convert to his brand of politics.

After his retirement from politics, he came here and did me the honour of being on my staff for two years in 1989 and 1990. What two marvellous years they were. It was a marvellous doctoral degree for me sitting at his feet and having him around.

It is Thursday, six full days since Steve's promotion to that other place. If heaven was not unionized, it is now. If heaven did not have an opposition, it has one now. The word was out, heaven needed an ombudsman. We sent Steve.

I sat with Steve two weeks ago outside his home. He did not reminisce and drool and paw about past glories. He was too busy talking about what had to be done, wrongs to be righted, causes to be fought. The fire was still in his belly.

That is the legacy Steve leaves us. That is why Steve did not simply pass from the scene. Oh, no. He has only taken his seat in that other parliament for which we are all running. Yes, we have lost a friend. We have gained so much from that friend that we will continue to benefit from it for many years to come.

My sympathies to each member of his family, all of whom he is very proud. There is not only Mary, the girls and Pierre, but also the extended family, the grandchild, the brothers, the sisters and the nieces and nephews.

The Late Steve Neary June 11th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, when former Liberal leader Steve Neary died in his sleep last Friday, Newfoundland lost a renowned native son, the poor and the downtrodden lost their most passionate champion, and I lost a close friend.

Steve Neary gave a lifetime to public service. As a labour leader and then as a politician he quickly earned a deserved reputation as a populist and a communicator.

When I first went into politics Steve was one of my mentors. His straight talk, his uncanny ability to get right to the heart of an issue with lightning speed and his disdain for people who take themselves too seriously made me an early convert to his brand of politics.

Steve's unblinking courage, his stubborn persistence, his unwavering loyalty and his non-stop love of life will be his legacy to us.

Steve, we miss you already.

Constitution Amendment June 3rd, 1996

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Broadview-Greenwood for his question. I have to say to him that I liked it better when he was here over my left shoulder and I could consult with him more often, however, I am happy to see him in the House.

I do not think the member disagrees with my phrase that who pays the piper should call the tune, that is to say the taxpayers, not the legislators. The legislators are only there on behalf of the people of Newfoundland. When I mentioned the person paying the piper, I meant the people of the province, the electorate, generally. They have spoken on the issue. They spoke in a referendum on it. They spoke in the February 22 election. Mr. Tobin made it clear in his platform that he would proceed with educational reform. There is no question about the province as a whole.

If the member wants to know if I am being politically safe on this one, a majority of the people in my riding voted in the referendum for this change. Quite apart from that, I did not get into what was politically safe. In my speech I got into what I felt was the right thing to do.

To respond more directly to the hon. member's question, under this system, under the proposed amendment, what has happened in Newfoundland for two and one-half centuries will continue. There will be a partnership on the program issue. Some of the program content does not have much requirement in terms of value systems. I am not sure how one can teach math with a religious bias, for example. The churches have always had and will continue to have under this amendment a partnership role with the legislature, with the Government of Newfoundland in terms of program which is pretty clear in the amendment. It says so very clearly.

Constitution Amendment June 3rd, 1996

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate to say a few words on a issue that is dear to my heart. By way of parading my credentials, I should inform the House that before coming here I was actively involved in education. I was a school principal and a school superintendent.

During the 1969 reorganization of education in the province which permitted the coming together of the integrated group, the Presbyterian, Salvation Army, Anglican and United, I was the president of the provincial teachers' organization and in that capacity I was actively involved in the negotiations which culminated in the 1969 Newfoundland schools act. Therefore, I have some familiarity with the issues which are at play here.

I should also tell the House that in the Newfoundland referendum last September I voted no. It is not that I am opposed to reform of the educational process, I voted no because I had some concerns about how the question was put. I felt that it ought to have been put to each of the seven classes which would be affected by the change so we would know whether each of the classes, by majority, had opted to give up their rights pursuant to Term 17. That was not done and that was my reason for voting no.

I am very supportive of the need for educational reform. I could tell the House many horror stories on the subject from personal, firsthand experience, which points to the urgency of what the Newfoundland government is trying to do in reforming the education system.

Quite apart from the current economic bind in which every government finds itself, even in earlier times we saw some horrendous wastes of money in the name of denominational education. There were cases in which if one denomination received money for school construction, a constitutional obligation required the government to give a proportionate amount to the other denominations, whether they had a need for it or not. Newfoundland, in particular, could not afford that kind of duplication of expenditures.

As I only have 10 minutes I want to stay as close as I can to the issue which we are debating today.

I have had much correspondence on this issue from people throughout the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have heard the concerns of the many in Newfoundland who are opposed to the constitutional change. These concerns are based on the premise that the proposed change is a backward step, is a move away from a Christian education system. Those concerns, I believe, are honestly held. I not only respect them, I happen to be in complete sympathy with those concerns.

Unfortunately, those concerns have been fueled and reinforced by misinformation and rhetoric in the province that the provincial government's real agenda is the creation of a God-less, secularized school system. I do not share that view. A fair reading of the amendment before us today will show that the church's role in education will continue and will be constitutionally protected.

The issue here is who will run the schools. That is really the only issue in so far as Newfoundland is concerned. I respect that some of my colleagues have other concerns about minority rights, language rights and aboriginal rights, which are matters that the Minister of Justice has addressed. I will stay with the issue that I know best as it relates to Newfoundland.

I repeat that the issue, in my view, is who will run the schools. I thought the United Church of Newfoundland, one of the affected classes in so far as this amendment is concerned, put it very well a couple of weeks ago, on May 17, in a new release which read:

We have frequently and formally indicated our willingness to relinquish all administrative control of education in favour of a system in which the churches would retain solely the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances.

This is a statement from the United Church but I think it could be echoed by some of the other denominations involved in this endeavour. That statement puts it very well.

This exercise is not about secularizing the system. Indeed on reading the amendment it is very clear on that particular point that all seven churches will continue to have rights and will be able to exercise those rights. To that extent the amendment is once again enshrining and continuing the constitutional protection afforded those churches in 1949 when Newfoundland joined Canada.

The real issue is who will run the schools. I have always believed that when we are spending public money whether it be on education, health, road construction or whatever, there ought to be a system of direct accountability to the people who pay the bills. It is the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador who pay the education bills, not the churches. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador pay the bills.

I do not have to explain the system of accountability. We have the same system. We are part of the British parliamentary system as is Newfoundland. The system is simple: A group of people is elected; a government is formed; it brings in a budget and it has to get that budget sustained in the House of assembly of that province. Part of that budget is the education expenditure, how the money will be disbursed to improve the education in that province.

Given our tradition in this House, and in Newfoundland as well, it is absolutely axiomatic that the people who pay the piper should call the tune. The electors of the province ought to have the final say as to the disbursement of funds for education. That is what the amendment is all about. It takes the governance, the running of the schools, out of the hands of the churches as provided in the current term 17 prior to the proposed amendment. It takes the governance out of the hands of the churches and puts it into the hands of government. I believe that is where it belongs.

I made reference earlier that I could tell some horror stories on this issue. Most of them would have to do with that particular issue, that when it came down to a government wanting to exercise its judgment and accountability to the people on issues relating to education expenditure in Newfoundland, its hands were always tied because there was a constitutional provision which prevented it from doing that.

This amendment will do two things, both of which are positive. It will put the governance of Newfoundland schools into the hands of the elected which is where it belongs in the first place. I could go through a long history lesson going back to 1723 when the churches established the first schools and why it did not evolve that way. In the late 1880s when it was enshrined in legislation the die was cast. The evolution had been such that no politicians worth their salt would rush in and change what was a working system.

The system has not been working as well in recent times. I only have 10 minutes. If I had two or three hours I could spend a fair amount of it talking about the contribution the churches have made to education in Newfoundland. That is not what this debate is about. This issue does not have anything to do with railroading or denigrating the churches. That is not the issue.

I am a product of that system. The precursor of the integrated system in Newfoundland was the so-called amalgamated system. My elementary years were spent in the amalgamated system. My final year of high school was in the Salvation Army system. I taught and was a principal in a Salvation Army school. I was a principal in an amalgamated school and in a new integrated school. In terms of education and career, I am a product of that system. I could wax long and hard about the contribution the system has made.

That brings me to my second point. This amendment does two things. It puts the governance of the schools into the hands of the government, the people of the province, which is where it belongs. The other is it continues the church involvement, which has made such a marvellous contribution to education and the enshrinement and promotion of values in Newfoundland over two and one-half centuries.

Financial Administration Act May 17th, 1996

My friend from St. Albert asks if we listen to them. I am going to pass the buck right back to him. He, together with others-and I do not see any of them in the House-including his friend from Calgary Centre, are on the public accounts committee. The gentleman from Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans is the chairman, my friend from London West is on the committee and my friend from Kent is a member of the public accounts committee. I believe those are the only members of the public accounts committee in the Chamber right now. These are the people who must take the pieces of paper that come here and follow them up, as we did in the Newfoundland house.

If there is a smoking gun, if there is some lack of accountability they are the people who, having a good relationship with the auditor general, will see that these matters are ferreted out.

Financial Administration Act May 17th, 1996

Exactly. Novocain can do some wonderful things to you.

There was a situation in the Newfoundland house in which the auditor was reporting every year. He reported on a particular set of events in the Department of Public Works. We on the committee kept asking enough questions, kept probing enough that we found the smoking gun. A job which the fire commissioner after a fire at the fisheries college estimated to cost $35,000 to fix wound up costing $576,000.

The interesting coincidence was that despite the fact the Tory government at the time had made much of its new public tender legislation in which no amount over $10,000 would be awarded without tender, the government had found a way to give out $576,000 without tender. It was simple the way the government did it. There were some accountants on staff. They always awarded an amount less than $10,000. They got around the act with over 60

work orders. What was even more interesting was that all the work orders had gone to the same firm.

The public accounts committee and I as the chairman did enough probing that we got to the root of that one. The result was the following: a public inquiry into the spending practices of the Department of Public Works in Newfoundland; the resignation of the two ministers who had been in the portfolio during the period under investigation; and criminal charges laid in which an individual was convicted of fraud and sentenced to a prison term of three years as I remember.

I cite this example to show that if we are going to have accountability in this Chamber, it is not enough to dicker, to change, to amend, to perfect the rules. We have to fix the part that is broken. We have to see to it that the public accounts committee and the members on that committee, including my friend from St. Albert, do the necessary probing.

Before we get to that, before we begin to point fingers, we have to ask ourselves whether the public accounts committee and the House have the tools to do the job. In other words, is there something else that is broken that needs fixing. That is the allegation, the premise in the motion of my friend from St. Albert.

The hon. member wants the agencies and departments of government to bring specific responses to this House. Let us look at what the case is right now and has been the case under the Financial Administration Act for many years. The case is that when the auditor general reports, each department, each agency of government or as the act says, the government itself, is required within 150 days to give a specific response on the criticism in the auditor general's report and what that department or agency is doing about it.

There is another point. In 1994 we amended the Financial Administration Act to allow the auditor general to make more than one report to Parliament a year. Before that he made only one report a year. Since the auditor general has had the legislative authority or permission to report more often than once a year he has done so. In 1995, the year after the change in the act came in, he reported three times. In 1996 he can be expected to do likewise.

My point is that the tools are there. The auditor general reports quite frequently but his report, and I gave the example of the Newfoundland House of Assembly, in itself is not enough. We can swamp this place with paper and reports and we do.

Financial Administration Act May 17th, 1996

It is a good idea. My friend from New Westminster-Burnaby says that it is a good idea and he is right again.

I had a marvellous speech here, somewhere. It was beautifully typed, marvellously prepared but I cannot seem to find it. Let me see what I can do. I know the essence of what the member has in mind.

I am a great believer in the dictum that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We should first look at what is behind the motion. Knowing the member for St. Albert as I do, I am not suggesting there is anything nefarious or suspicious behind it. He must have had a reason. He is a member of the public accounts committee and has been for a couple of years. For most of that time he has been his party's spokesman on these matters. Before coming here my good friend was an accountant. He has a specific interest in and knowledge of these matters.

Accountants are people who, when they are sent a Christmas card, before they check the signature, they flip to the back of the card to see how much it cost. Accountants are particular people. They are very meticulous. They watch the buck. We need some accountant parliamentarians. We have one such person in the member for St. Albert, a good accountant-parliamentarian.

One would expect that there would be a good motion from him and we were not disappointed. He says that departments ought to be required to table their responses to the auditor general's report. As I said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The corollary to that is if something is broken, only fix the broken part.

I am not an accountant. I must apologize for that. The fact that I am not an accountant has gotten me into all kinds of problems over the years. I am a parliamentarian. I used to wear another hat too. In the Newfoundland House of Assembly from 1975 to 1979, I had the honour of being the chairman of the public accounts committee. After coming here, I was briefly the chairman of the public accounts committee of this House as well. I want to talk about an incident during my experience with the public accounts committee in Newfoundland.

I have to apologize to all concerned because the dentist got at me and said he wanted to stitch up the inside of both sides of my face. If I am mumbling more than usual today, it is partly because I-

Financial Administration Act May 17th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the motion of my friend from St. Albert would have us introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act to require all departments and agencies to table in the House a specific response to the auditor general's report.

Petitions May 17th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 50 or so of my constituents from communities including Grand Beach, Grand Bank, Fortune and Salt Pond. The petition has to do with the merchant navy.

The petitioners call on Parliament to consider the advisability of extending benefits or compensation to veterans of the wartime merchant navy equal to that enjoyed by veterans of Canada's World War II armed services.

I have much pleasure in presenting this petition and ask that it be referred to the appropriate department.

Employment Insurance Act May 6th, 1996

Madam Speaker, I too want to say a few words on Bill C-12.

I want to support the legislation as I did earlier in this House because I believe the time has come for a change in the legislation. The past system was not working, not doing the job it was intended to do and just was not good enough. The system had served its purpose fairly well over the years but the time had come where it had outgrown itself and it was time for a basic structural change. I am not the only one who believes that of course. We are told that fully four out of five Canadians believe that the existing system is not working and needs to be fixed.

The legislation, initially introduced last December by the now Minister of Foreign Affairs, is meant to address the calls of four out of five Canadians for a structural change in the system. The

legislation is also meant to make the system more workable, affordable, modern and more functional.

I want to talk particularly about the impact of the changes on seasonal workers because I proudly represent the constituency of Burin-St. George's. This riding has a number of industries which by their very nature are seasonal, for example, logging, fishing, mineral extraction, construction. The overwhelming majority of my constituents earn their living from seasonal work activity.

The downturn in the fishery of course has not helped the situation. When I first came to Parliament I would stand in the House and brag that my riding had the same unemployment rate as Alberta at the time, which was about 4 per cent. The disaster in the groundfishery has changed all of that, of course. The unemployment rate in Burin-St. George's is the highest anywhere in Canada. It is 35 per cent, to the degree that it can be measured at all. Therefore, members will understand my particular emphasis today on how the bill will impact seasonal workers.

I believe that many seasonal workers will find the new employment insurance program to be a big improvement over the old UI program. One of the most important changes is the shift to calculating eligibility through hours of work, not weeks, which was the old, arbitrary method. Many people in seasonal industries work long hours when the work is there, far beyond the normal work week of 35 or 40 hours. People in those industries tend to work much more than 40 hours when work is available.

More workers in seasonal industries will qualify. Some will qualify sooner because of the extra hours I have just mentioned. Many will get benefits for a longer period. These are some of the good features of the legislation.

This change alone will bring benefits to 45,000 workers in seasonal industries who are now shut out of the system. It will add about three weeks more benefits for an additional 270,000 workers. I are talking about people like construction workers, fishery and forestry workers. They can all put in more than 50 hours a week. Under UI they never received credit for those additional hours of work. Now they will because the eligibility is based on the number of hours worked.

The new system will benefit workers in a a number of other ways. However, the benefits of the program are fairly well known and I believe I have an obligation to focus on some of the concerns which my constituents and I have had with the legislation.

As good a piece of legislation as it is, it was never carved in stone, as the former minister said. I want to give credit to the new minister for the efforts which he has made and for the success he has had in bringing improvements to what was a fairly good piece of legislation in the first place, but needed some wrinkles taken out. Through the amendments, of which the minister is supportive, which we will be dealing with in the next day or so in the House, it is a much better piece of legislation now than when it was introduced in December.

For example, I had real concerns about the intensity rule. That rule would penalize people who, through no fault of their own, could not find enough work on a continuing basis and, therefore, would have more recourse to drawing benefits than would other people in other parts of the country. I felt from the beginning that was wrong. I still believe it is wrong.

The amendments which are being proposed will largely address that rule, particularly for the person who draws less than $26,000. However, I still say that the principle is wrong. It is a principle that I cannot support, when two people who engage in the same work activity at the same rate are paid different rates of benefits. I have had difficulty with it from the beginning. I could not support it then and I cannot support it now.

What I can support is the marvellous progress that has been made to address the needs of the low income worker, the worker who earns less than $26,000. Without taking the House through the details, members will be aware that marvellous strides have been made to address the situation of the low income earner.

I had concerns about the so-called divisor method. I am delighted that the amendments address that issue. My people and I have felt from the beginning that their benefits ought to be based on weeks worked, not on some arbitrary divisor which factored in weeks that they did not work, for example.

I had some concerns about the eligibility rules as they affect new entrants. I had some concerns about the clawback of benefits. I believe these matters are being addressed, explained and understood better by people who will be directly affected.

The impact on seasonal workers in my riding and in Newfoundland will be good. It will be a positive impact. They will be better off in a number of ways than they were before. There are particular pockets of people it would have impacted adversely but I believe the amendments that will be put before the House will deal largely with those issues. For that reason I am very pleased to give my support to the principle of the bill and to the various provisions in it.

However, as I said and will continue to say and act accordingly, I cannot support the principle that says we pay people who earn at the same rate different benefits on the basis that they accessed the employment system more frequently over the previous five years. I will not dwell on that at length. I believe everyone in the House and outside the House knows my feelings on that issue.

The Minister of Human Resources Development and the standing committee deserve a lot of credit for the improvements they have made to the initial legislation. As a result it is a much better bill, one which will benefit my constituents and others throughout the country.