Todd Russell

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs has refused to acknowledge that an apology is as important as any other component of the residential school compensation package. He says an apology is not necessary because the government was trying to educate first nation Inuit and Métis children.

This is an insult to the survivors. The injustice, the indignity and the hurt the survivors endured is inexcusable. The Conservative government must act honourably and issue a formal apology.

When will he learn that, in his own words, it is not just about the money?

[Transportation between the Island of Newfoundland and Mainland Canada, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by my colleague from St. John's East. As we all know, he has recently announced his retirement from politics. With last Monday's budget, I guess we all know why. It was a litany of broken promises on the part of the Conservative government to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I also add that I have great respect for him. I congratulate him on his long public life and his service to the people of the province and the people of the country. I sincerely wish him and his family the very best in his retirement years.

I am somewhat disappointed with the intent of the motion. It has focused on Marine Atlantic and Marine Atlantic only, and the still fantastic idea of a fixed link. It is solely concerned with the island portion of the province.

It might be hard for the member to remember at times, but our province is not just an island. Most of the province is part of mainland Canada, Labrador. Marine Atlantic is an important part of the transportation picture, but we must look at the whole picture.

My friend from St. John's East has talked about how the province is dependent on Marine Atlantic. In fact, if there is a transportation link more than any other that would unite the province with the rest of Canada and reduce that dependence, it is the Trans-Labrador Highway. Completing it will take vision. It requires the province to commit to the project and unconditionally. Labrador deserves more than 50¢ dollars. It requires cooperation with our neighbours in Quebec. Some people do not like that, but there is no good reason to get upset.

Labradorians know that prosperity requires modern transportation links west with Quebec and the rest of Canada as well as south with Newfoundland. It should also mean that the Conservative government honour its promises to Labrador.

In 2005 byelection the current Minister of National Defence promised, among other broken promises, a Conservative government would share the cost of the Trans-Labrador Highway on a 60:40 basis. During the last election, the Prime Minister himself said in a letter to Premier Williams, “A Conservative government will support a cost shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway”. Premier Williams praised this supposed commitment at the time. One wonders what he thinks of it now.

As our own regional minister once wisely advised, “Whatever deal you make, get it in writing”, which might be funny if it was not so serious.

Here we have written Tory commitments on the Trans-Labrador Highway. My Tory opponents in the past two elections should thank the voters. Imagine if they had won, they would have to get up and defend the broken promises of the Conservatives to Labrador.

Just like this motion, the budget on the past Monday is silent on the Trans-Labrador Highway. Not only is it silent, the government plays games with the issue. In question period the finance minister said that money was available for infrastructure. What he did not say is that the Conservative government offered nothing. Perhaps the finance minister did not read his own budget before deciding to support it. He should read, specifically at page 165, where he promises:

A Building Canada Fund, with spending allocated among provinces and territories on an equal per capita basis. This will support investments in the core national highway system...

There are two things wrong with that.

First, the formula is per capita. That is great for provinces that have more population than roads. However, in Newfoundland and Labrador, with 1.6% of the Canadian population, we have 6.5% of the national highway system. If highways funding is allocated per capita, we get short changed.

Second, the finance minister's build Canada fund does nothing to build Labrador. It refers to core national highways. The Trans-Labrador Highway is part of the national highway system, but as a northern remote route, not a core route. If the finance minister misspoke, I would ask him to set the record straight, or the transport minister or somebody to set the record straight.

Labrador alone, with the Trans-Labrador Highway, accounts for 20% of Canada's northern remote highways. That category also includes route 389 in Quebec which links Baie Comeau to Labrador City. It includes other northern roads: the Dempster and Klondike in Yukon; the Mackenzie Highway and Ingraham Trail in NWT; the 37 in northern B.C.; the 58 in Alberta's Peace country; the Canam Highway in northern Saskatchewan; the Flin Flon highway in Manitoba; and the Radisson Highway to James Bay, Quebec.

These are important northern routes just like the Trans-Labrador Highway.

What do the territories and the provincial north get out of this budget? A goose egg. There is no dedicated funding for northern and remote highways.

The finance minister also boasts of his $25 million in infrastructure funds for each province and territory. I wonder what his provincial colleagues think of this. They want $15 million per year for the Trans-Labrador Highway alone. That is on top of everything else they want the federal government to cost share.

Nor are we the only province looking for federal highways money. My colleague from St. John's knows full well, for example, that the fixed link makes no economic sense unless Quebec completes route 138 along the north shore. Right now, there is a 350 kilometre gap between Natashquan and Old Fort Bay. Route 138 would provide yet another route to and from Labrador and Newfoundland.

Many of my constituents look forward to this project, just as they look forward to the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. The combined route would form a belt linking Labrador and Quebec, creating a tourism route and providing transportation alternatives.

Quebec is looking for federal funding of $100 million for this particular fixed link, but just as with the Trans-Labrador Highway, the Tory budget is a bitter disappointment for anyone who was counting on federal cash.

There is something else that the finance minister said yesterday that I must contradict. He accused Liberals of ignoring infrastructure for 13 years when we were in government. Respectfully, this is wrong and it is a disservice to the proud record of the previous two Liberal MPs for Labrador.

Labradorians remember that it was their Liberal member, now Senator Rompkey, who secured federal funding for the reconstruction of the Labrador Straits Highway in the 1970s and 1980s. They remember he provided funding in 1983 that built the highway from Labrador City to Churchill Falls and many of the bridges between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Churchill Falls.

Especially they remember the $340 million Labrador transportation initiative fund, one of the proudest achievements of my predecessor in this place, Mr. O'Brien. That fund paid for upgrading of phase one of the Trans-Labrador Highway, the construction of phase two from the Straits to Cartwright, the branch roads to St. Lewis, Charlottetown and Pinsent's Arm, and has even been used to build phase three.

Despite the efforts of some in the provincial government to rewrite history, it was and remains federal funding. Not one cent of that fund came from the province. In fact, it is the provincial share of Labrador highway funding which has always been and remains inadequate.

Despite what members opposite have said, it was not just federal but Liberal federal funding which has paid for 90% of the Trans-Labrador Highway so far. Indeed, the last time the Tories were in power, they sold us out. In the Crosbie-Peckford roads for rails deal, Labrador got a measly $8 million out of over $800 million. We have nothing to learn from the Tories about commitments to Labrador.

Many of us in Labrador are getting impatient with the Conservative minority government. We no longer wonder when the Conservatives' Labrador highway promise will be kept. We wonder whether they will keep it at all.

Mayor Letto of Labrador City, who was my worthy opponent two years ago, has expressed his frustration. So has Mayor Leo Abbass of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Our provincial minister, Mr. Hickey, said last year that we would have a cost shared deal by the end of October, by the start of November, by Christmas, by the end of the year. To his credit, he never specified the year. He even said at one time that he had a signed deal on his desk, but federal officials said they were still waiting for the provincial proposal.

On March 11, Minister Hickey told VOCM Radio that the federal transport minister “looked across the table, he said it is done, you can go back and tell your people that we're committed to this project”. Those are his words. Some commitment. It is not in the budget.

We cannot drive on a commitment. We cannot build a highway with promises.

In either case, I would like to know what the province is seeking from the federal government.

The Prime Minister promised a cost sharing agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway, all of it, not part of it. If the province settles for anything less, especially if the province settles for a chip seal for the Labrador West-Goose Bay segment, leaving the rest of Labrador for a later date, then I will be very disappointed in both Tory governments.

A promise is a promise and a deal is a deal.

When my friend from St. John's East filed his motion in October, he had no idea he would be betrayed in February. How does this motion square with the fact that they have hiked ferry rates, they have put a fuel surcharge in place and they are going to reduce the crossings across the gulf?

My friend from St. John's East should pressure his colleagues to stop stalling and keep their promises on Marine Atlantic, on the Trans-Labrador Highway and on other infrastructure projects for Labrador and the province.

I would only say that the province wins when Labrador wins.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying about the three Conservative members for St. John's East, St. John's South—Mount Pearl and Avalon. They say that they are not standing up for their province. They are turning their backs on the province. They are basically defending a broken commitment and promise by the Prime Minister of Canada. They say that they should have a bit of backbone, that they should stand up for their province and not turn their backs on their people, the ones who elected them. They should not be duplicitous and hypocritical. Two years ago they said one thing and two years later they have done another thing just because they are on a different side of the House.

The people back home are saying that they should defeat the budget and stand with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not like my characterization in my speech then he does not like the truth. I will repeat time and time again that the Prime Minister gave in writing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an explicit promise and he did not live up to that promise. It was a matter of deceit. As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said back in 2004, it was a snow job on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The premier knows that. Everybody in the province understands that it was a snow job.

There are over $13 billion in surplus and the Conservatives say that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be happy with nothing. They call that fairness when it comes to what they characterize as the fiscal imbalance. There should have been something for everybody and there was not. When it came to the offshore accords, when it came to this non-exclusion or the exclusion of non-renewable natural resources, the Prime Minister did not live up to his word to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is it fair to say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they either choose between nothing or less than nothing when it comes to something new in this budget?

When we look at what the Prime Minister promised in writing on six different occasions, he did not live up to it. If that is the truth, and that is the truth, then I am sorry that the hon. member feels a little uncomfortable about it. The truth is that the Prime Minister broke his promise, not only to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but to the people of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak against this divisive minority Conservative budget. I say divisive knowing that the Tories themselves are divided on its merits, especially when it comes to their successful efforts to create a fiscal imbalance in Canada.

This weekend a Conservative candidate in a Newfoundland riding, Ms. Cynthia Downey, washed her hands of the Conservative Prime Minister, her own leader, in no uncertain terms. Not only will she not run again, she says that she feels “very betrayed because...I spent...weeks saying that”--the current Prime Minister--”was the person who would work best for Newfoundland and Labrador....this gentleman has not done what he said he was going to do”. She said that the Conservative Prime Minister, whom she campaigned for last time, has got feet of clay.

There are so many things that could be said about the shameful flip-flop by the Conservative government. The only thing is most of them have been said before.

For instance, “It is so nice not to have to drag a prime minister kicking and screaming to fulfill a promise to our province”. That was Premier Danny Williams speaking not so long ago about the current Prime Minister and, by implication, insulting the former Liberal prime minister. I wonder whether Danny Williams would say the same thing now.

In a speech to the Empire Club of Canada in February 2005 Premier Williams said that the prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, “lived up to his commitment. I applaud the Prime Minister for keeping his promise”. It was a Liberal promise made and a Liberal promise kept. Contrast that with what Premier Williams now says about the current Prime Minister and his duplicity and broken promises.

Here is another line said by another Conservative: “What we need is fairness. We certainly do not need another snow job”. That was said by the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. A snow job is just what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador got. It is also what the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Saskatchewan got. It was a blizzard of deceit. What about this statement:

This deal must be outside the equalization process. This deal must confirm that 100% of the revenues go to Newfoundland and Labrador. This deal must not be subject to clawback. This is what was promised and this is what must be delivered.

That is a statement by the same minister again in a press release dated October 18, 2004. I wonder, does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today feel the same way?

I will mention this statement:

The two MPs reiterated that the Prime Minister's promise of 100% of offshore revenues, with no Equalization clawback, is a promise to which they intend to hold the...government, today, next week and in the weeks to come--until the promise is honoured in deed, as well as in word.

The two MPs who iterated that are, once again, the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the member for St. John's East.

Our regional minister had another line for the press after his motion was voted on back on November 16, 2004: “This vote was either you're for us, or you're against us”. Perhaps it is time for him to decide who he was for, who he was against.

How about this statement: “I'm really surprised that”--he--“would sell out our province on billions of dollars”. He said that they have gone back on their word and that it is okay to share in poverty but not in prosperity.

That was said by the minister's colleague, former provincial finance minister Loyola Sullivan, who now is in patronage heaven in DFO. He was talking about our former regional minister, Mr. Efford, in the Transcontinental newspapers in November 2004.

There is this one: “We cannot be assured of obtaining 100% of the net revenues from offshore...unless the Conservative Party has made these solid written commitments, wins this election and becomes the Government of Canada”. That was said by former Conservative cabinet minister John Crosbie writing in The Western Star in June 2004. How naive. We had a written commitment. Look at what it was worth. It was not worth the paper it was written on.

The Conservatives opposite vilified and demonized hon. members on this side of the House throughout 2004 and 2005 and now they find themselves defending their own broken promises. We kept our promise on the Atlantic accord.

Premier Williams recognizes that the former prime minister, the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, kept his word and he also recognizes that the Conservatives have not kept theirs. It was a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken.

All three Conservative members from our province have disappointed us on this issue. They have turned their backs on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The member for Avalon, for example, wrote, “no province will be adversely affected”, to which the premier responded:

It basically doesn't give the clear and unequivocal support that I asked for....That letter could have been a lot stronger.

I have in front of me the Prime Minister's letter of January 4, 2006. It contains his promise concerning equalization. It is one of six occasions where he made the same promise in writing, the same broken promise. It would be one thing if this were the only Conservative broken promise to our province and to my riding of Labrador, but it is just one of many.

The Prime Minister also said:

A Conservative government would support extending custodial management...to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap--

Now the fisheries minister is NAFO's best friend and NAFO is his best friend. He says everything is fine beyond the 200 mile limit. It was a Tory promise made and a Tory promise broken.

The Prime Minister wrote, “We support...in principle” a loan guarantee for the development of the Lower Churchill. I noticed that the Prime Minister recently announced financial aid for hydro development in Manitoba, for which I am pleased for the people of Manitoba, but anyone who was counting on federal money for hydro projects in Labrador is sorely disappointed. It is a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken.

The Prime Minister wrote:

--an effort must be made to ensure that there is a fair distribution of the federal government presence across the country.

According to the most recent Statistics Canada data, there were fewer federal employees in our province after the Tories took power than there were the year before. Again, it is another Conservative promise made and another Conservative promise broken.

The Prime Minister promised a Conservative government would support a cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. What was in the Tory budget? There was no money for the Trans-Labrador Highway, not a cent. There are infrastructures, like the building Canada fund, but the Trans-Labrador Highway is not eligible. Thanks for nothing, I say to the Conservatives, literally. It is a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken.

The Prime Minister wrote that a Conservative government will:

Station a new Rapid Reaction Army Battalion...at CFB Goose Bay.

Station a new long range Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Squadron at CFB Goose Bay....maintain a foreign military training program at 5 Wing Goose Bay and actively encourage increased allied flying training operations at 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Four Tory promises made and four Tory promises broken; goose eggs for Goose Bay.

This one is a gem: “A Conservative government would live up to and respect its constitutional responsibilities” for Marine Atlantic. The constitutional responsibility is to maintain a service to Port aux Basques in accordance with the traffic offering. What did the Conservatives announce last month? They announced Marine Atlantic fare hikes, fuel surcharges, and hints that they will reduce services, and there is nothing in this budget. It is a Tory promise made and a Tory promise broken.

The Prime Minister wrote:

A Conservative government would develop infrastructure programs which will allow provinces to address their unique needs and requirements.

What is in the budget? There are infrastructure programs that go nowhere near far enough and which certainly do not allow us to address our needs or requirements, especially in Labrador. It was a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken.

And of course, there is the granddaddy of them all, where the Prime Minister wrote:

We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula--

It was a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken. My Liberal colleagues from Nova Scotia have made that very point forcefully in the last number of days.

No one on this side believes that the Conservatives kept their promise. No one in the provincial government believes it. No one in our media believes it. The only ones are the Conservatives over there, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, the money bunny, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who are hiding behind their buddies on the front benches, deflecting questions on how they have betrayed their own people, the very people who elected them. The members for St. John's East, Avalon, South Shore and Cumberland—Colchester are the only ones who believe they have kept their word. They might be fooling themselves but they are not fooling anyone else and they do not deserve a second chance to entice the people again with promises they have no intention of keeping.

On behalf of the people of Labrador, I will vote against this budget.

[March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his words, but they ring hollow.

The first commitment made to Goose Bay by the Conservative Party was actually made in a 2005 byelection and was reiterated in the 2006 general election. The Conservatives promised 650 troops in Goose Bay. We have not seen a pair of boots on the ground. We have not seen a soldier show up in a year and a half. The Conservatives promised an unmanned aerial vehicle squadron. They are saying now that is going to Bagotville, Greenwood, or somewhere else, but certainly not Goose Bay.

The people have been patient. The people have even given the defence minister the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. The people's patience is running out. The people do not believe the promises of the government.

We want to see something concrete. Could the parliamentary secretary please tell the people of Goose Bay that something concrete is going to happen?

[March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on November 24, I questioned the government about its election commitments to Labrador, especially regarding transportation, the base and so forth.

In particular, I asked about funding which our former Liberal government reserved for a new airport terminal at Goose Bay, Labrador's air hub. This funding of $9 million was part of the Goose Bay package which the Liberal government had announced exactly one year earlier on November 24, 2005. Sad to say, it is supposedly the only piece of that package which has survived the Tory cuts.

We as a government also committed $25 million for threat emitters, a significant enhancement to the Goose Bay training range. Where is that money now?

We committed to a night conventional strike exercise, which was cancelled by the current Conservative Minister of National Defence last year.

We approved permanently stationing a Canadian Coast Guard ship, the former J.E. Bernier, in Labrador waters, based at Goose Bay. That project, worth $96 million, was scrapped by our own Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last fall, the ship was sold off by Crown Assets.

So much for federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We approved a $20 million Goose Bay diversification fund, administered by ACOA. That funding was cut by the ACOA minister, or Kevin MacAdam, whoever is in charge over there.

We approved $9 million for the airport terminal. The money is supposedly still there. ACOA says it is still available, but Transport Canada cannot find it. One would have to ask if they have checked under couch cushions to see if they can find that money. What is the holdup? Why is it not being spent to overhaul or replace one of the most outdated, inadequate airport terminals in the country?

The people of Labrador were almost tricked with a bait and switch in the last election.

The Tories promised federal cost-shared funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway, funding that has now failed to appear in two consecutive Conservative budgets.

Goose Bay was promised a rapid reaction battalion and an unmanned aerial vehicle squadron. It was promised boots on the ground.

The current Minister of National Defence has spent the past year backtracking and watering down his so-called commitments.

In any event, the Tories have failed to put the government's money where their political mouth is. The budget of last Monday contains nothing for Goose Bay.

The Conservatives promised to keep military flight training in Goose Bay. They promised no decline in base employment. They promised vigorous marketing efforts. What happened to those promises?

In short, we have seen the Tories scuttle every positive thing that our former Liberal government put forward for Goose Bay and for Labrador generally. In return, we have been given a litany of promises that the Conservatives have no intention of keeping. Even if they wanted to, there is no money in the budget to keep them.

As a wise person once told me, they are “writing cheques with their mouth that they can't cash”.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to confirm whether there is funding for the airport. Where are the troops? Where are the dollars for roads? Where are the promises that they made to the people of Labrador, and specifically to the people of Goose Bay?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Health a question about his patient wait times guarantee.

I come from a northern riding that is remote and rural. People must travel extensive distances to even get to a hospital. Sometimes the expense runs to $2,000 or $3,000 one way to get to a hospital. Many times we do not have specialists or health professionals to deal with the needs of various patients and the various conditions they are afflicted with.

This is a very serious question. How does this patient wait times guarantee help a person in the small community of Black Tickle on the south coast of Labrador? I do not see anything in the budget that will help that particular person get better health care. Could he answer that, please?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the member for Avalon would get up in the House and defend a broken promise, that he would defend a shaft that was given to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, and that he would defend a knife in the back of the premier and a knife in the back of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He had the gall only a few years ago to criticize the Liberals who lived up to a promise, and now he defends his own government that broke a promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He talks about a deal that will last till 2020 when the Finance Minister just said a few minutes ago that it will be there till 2012, and then take it or leave it and then it is over. Take it or leave it and then there will be no more benefits for anybody in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He talks about how we are going to move ahead: Lower Churchill, a big goose egg, we already said that; Trans-Labrador Highway, a big goose egg. The Prime Minister says to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, “You can have one big goose egg or a bigger goose egg”. That is all he said to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Any member who would get up in the House and defend a broken promise would believe that black is white. They would believe that cats are dogs. They would believe that war is peace. The only ones who believe that in the House are the Conservatives across the way.

I say to him, stand up for his people. Will he stand up for his people tonight and vote for the motion as put before the House by my hon. friend from Bonavista? Will he vote in favour of the motion and declare his loyalties? Either he is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador or against the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and his vote will determine that tonight. I ask him.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote to implement the Kelowna accord.

Since cancelling the accord, the Conservative Prime Minister and Minister of Indian Affairs have ignored the ugly reality and desperation of aboriginal poverty. When faced with damning facts like the number of children in care, 27,000 of them, the minister has the gall to put the blame on first nations, Métis and Inuit families. When faced with calls to address the poverty gap by implementing the Kelowna accord, the government denies it ever existed and says it never promised anything.

The Kelowna accord does exist. It is a viable, workable plan to help first nations, Métis and Inuit address poverty and third world conditions. It is a disgrace that the government continues to put partisan politics ahead of an opportunity to make poverty history for aboriginal communities.

I say to the Conservatives that if they have any decency, any shred of honour and any compassion whatsoever, they must abide by the will of Parliament and implement the Kelowna accord.