June 10

June 10, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 14

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Topsail - Paradise, Stephenville - Port au Port, Conception Bay East - Bell Island, Terra Nova and Placentia - St. Mary's.

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to extend my congratulations to 13-year-old Gavin Baggs of Paradise as being this year's Easter Seals Newfoundland and Labrador Ambassador.

Gavin was born with a rare birth defect. It was unknown if Gavin would walk; however, he has overcome all odds. At the age of five, Gavin started playing para ice hockey with Easter Seals and then wheelchair basketball and swimming two years later. There he quickly progressed and began playing with the Avalon Sled Dogs, the Wheelchair Sports Association and swimming with the Mount Pearl Marlins.

Gavin was fortunate to play with the Newfoundland and Labrador wheelchair basketball team that went to the Canada Games in 2019; the youngest player to ever play at the Canada Games wheelchair basketball and the youngest ever to score a basket in that tournament.

Gavin wanted to give back to Easter Seals and began to volunteer as a para ice hockey coach. He wants to let others know that you can achieve anything you put your mind to, regardless of having challenges or difficulties and encourages others to put their names forward to be next year's ambassador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all to join me in congratulating Gavin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Gold medallist, Katarina Roxon, is headed off, once again, to represent Canada at the Paralympic Games in Tokyo, Japan this August.

This will be Katarina's fourth time representing our country at these games. Katarina, born to immigrant parents, Leonard and Lisa Roxon of Kippens, became involved in the sport of swimming at five years old because her parents thought it was an essential skills she should have. Well, investing in those swimming lessons was the beginnings of a world-class, gold medallist.

Katarina is a three-time Paralympian having represented Canada in Beijing in 2008. At the age of 15, she was the youngest member of the team; London in 2012 and Rio in 2016. In Rio, she won a gold medal in the 100-metre breaststroke.

In recognition of her gold medal performance, the government renamed the Trans-Canada Highway Route 490 as Katarina Roxon Way.

Katarina's accomplishments extend far beyond the pool. In 2018, Katarina was appointed to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. She is the recipient of the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal and was included in the 2016 Most Influential Women List.

We are so proud of Katarina. I ask all Members to wish her much success at the Tokyo games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I acknowledge a lifelong educator, volunteer and promoter of our province's heritage and history through her decades of work with the museum movement of Newfoundland and Labrador. I speak of my constituent Teresita McCarthy or Teddy as she is affectionately known.

For decades she has been a driving force in the province for the establishment and promotion of museums in all corners of our province.

Teddy was recently selected by the Canadian Museums Association as the 2021 recipient of the Distinguished Service Award which honours individuals in the museum industry for their significant contribution to the local, provincial, and national museum movement.

In the course of Teddy's 30 years of involvement, she served as president of the Museum Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and was a founding member of the Bell Island Heritage Society. She has been active at the national level serving on countless boards, committees and conferences that were instrumental in promoting this country's history.

I ask all Members to join me in thanking Teresita McCarthy for her dedication in preserving and promoting our culture and history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during these unprecedented times, outdoor activities were highly recommended and in my District of Terra Nova there are many beautiful trails.

There is one such trail that is being built by a family, friends and a group of volunteers, and is being developed as a community memorial. This is to honour Donna Vardy. Donna's Way, the Long Pond Memorial Walking Trail and Picnic Area, affectionately known as Nanna's trail by her grandchildren.

For many years Donna talked about a trail or memorial for Random Island. Her husband Dave, upon Donna's passing, acted on her wish. With a few phone calls and no real plan in place, family and friends made this happen. This trail is 3.9 kilometres in Robinson's Bight on Random Island and is open year-round.

Donna was a member of the ground search and rescue for Clarenville chapter, the Random West Volunteer Fire Department, the Clarenville SPCA and a dedicated leader in the surrounding communities.

I would like us all to honour Donna as a volunteer that went over and above daily. A lady that lived life to the fullest and left memories for her family and community to enjoy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Society of United Fishermen was founded in 1862 by Reverend George Gardiner, a Church of England clergyman. On April 9, 1931, Goodwill Lodge number 84 in Dildo, Trinity Bay, was established.

The society was originally formed to help fishermen, their families and anyone in need. Originally, financial assistance would be provided by the society. The need for this type of assistance has largely been replaced by modern social benefits.

Now, the focus of the society has shifted to supporting registered charities. It is the only fraternal benefit society of its type that has its roots in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The lodge in Dildo is comprised of members from Blaketown to Heart's Delight.

The lodge has spearheaded many significant projects over the years. Most notably, a heated outdoor swimming pool and an interpretation centre. The SUF also originally initiated and planned the annual Dildo Days celebrations, which have grown over the years, attracting visitors by the hundreds.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity as the Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Placentia - St. Mary's, to congratulate the Dildo Society of United Fishermen on their 90th anniversary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I am very pleased to acknowledge the induction of Mr. Derek Hogan – no relation – as a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Widely considered to be the premier professional organization for lawyers, the American College of Trial Lawyers is composed of the best trial lawyers in Canada and the United States. Fellowship in the college is extended by invitation only after extensive vetting to trial lawyers who have been marked by the highest of standards of ethical conduct, professionalism, civility and collegiality.

A 30-year veteran of the Legal Aid Commission, Mr. Hogan is one of the most respected lawyers in the province and has been instrumental in bringing about major changes to the justice system. In 1995, Hogan appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada arguing his client's Charter rights were breached by a weekend stay in custody. Days after his win, Provincial Court instituted weekend court.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Mr. Hogan. He is a shining example of the great expertise within the Legal Aid Commission, our public service and the legal profession.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to offer sincere congratulations to Mr. Derek Hogan on his induction as a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, which is a prestigious, well-known organization for lawyers.

We have amazing, talented, diligent, hard-working legal professionals within our Legal Aid Commission. There is a misconception that Legal Aid lawyers may be less capable than their private sector counterparts. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's truly a misconception, Mr. Hogan is proof of this. He is evidence of the high-calibre legal professionals in the public system. He is an excellent legal professional with impressive credentials; he is also a role model to many new and young lawyers who enter the profession.

Mr. Speaker, of particular note is his dedication as a criminal lawyer for most of his career at Legal Aid. That is important because he has been committed and dedicated to ensuring that all individuals in our criminal justice system have the right to counsel; a right, which is so important, and a fundamental right guaranteed in our Charter.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Mr. Hogan. We, in the Official Opposition, wish to thank him for his over 30 years of dedication and service to Legal Aid and to the people of this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We also would like to congratulate Mr. Hogan on his induction as a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. This award demonstrates the high calibre of people working as a part of our Legal Aid contingent. That is why we take this moment to acknowledge the tireless devotion of all of those at Legal Aid to their work.

It is a valuable public service they offer. Without it, justice would be out of reach for people lacking the means to defend themselves in court. That is why we ask the government to think long, hard and seriously before adopting the recommendation of the Greene report to reduce funding to Legal Aid by 2 per cent and consider the impact of this move on those for whom justice or access to justice would be further reduced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity today to announce the 2021 recipients of the Water Operator of the Year Awards, which recognize the outstanding dedication of community drinking water system operators.

This year's recipient of the Small System Operator of the Year Award is Henry Jacque with the Makkovik Inuit Community Government. Mr. Jacque is a 29-year employee and a Class II Water Distribution Certified Operator.

The Operator of the Year for 2021 is Wayne Bishop with the Town of Paradise. Mr. Bishop has been with the town for 11 years and is a Class II Water Distribution Operator and a Class III Waste Water Collection Certified Operator.

Both of these individuals were recognized in their nominations for their tireless dedication to their professions and communities.

Mr. Speaker, we are making significant progress in improving drinking water quality and have reached some significant milestones. For example, the number of long-term boil-water advisories that have been in place for more than five years has reached an all-time low. The number of communities with a certified operator, the number of certified operators and the number of certificates awarded to water-system operators in any given year has reached an all-time high.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of the House of Assembly to join me in extending our appreciation to Mr. Jacque and Mr. Bishop, and the many system operators who play a central role in the delivery of water services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I join the minister in recognizing the recipients of the Water Operator of the Year Awards. The small system operator of the year has been presented to someone I know well: Henry Jacque of my hometown in Makkovik. Henry is a seasoned professional in my community, and I'm delighted that all of his hard work and dedication to his community is recognized with this award.

I also wish to congratulate Wayne Bishop of the Town of Paradise for receiving the Operator of the Year Award. You provide a vital service and this award recognizes your tremendous dedication.

The hard work of our public servants is critical to ensuring our communities have safe and reliable drinking water. They deserve our praise and recognition, and I humbly thank them for their service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Our caucus would like to congratulate Mr. Jacque and Mr. Bishop for receiving these awards. We also thank them, as well as their talented and dedicated colleagues, for their work to ensure that the people of this province have safe, reliable and secure access to one of the most basic and fundamental services a government can provide.

Ready access to water is a human right. That's why we are disturbed by the fact that 189 communities are currently on boil-water advisories. We call government to work harder and to reduce that number to zero.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today's news is disappointing to say the least. Government should be keeping oil production in the province and growing our industry, not watching it die.

Is the Premier willing to admit that today's news is his failure?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I will say is this: The province has been at the table with the Terra Nova partners to try to strike a deal. We have what is, I think in anyone's estimation, a good offer on the table.

I'm frankly not willing to roll the dice with a massive equity investment in oil firms that continue to make money. If the Member opposite doesn't realize the risk with equity investments, perhaps he should look to Alberta and his cousin in Alberta right now who's suffering from the result of a failed gamble on an equity investment in a pipeline, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Where is the federal government in this process? Have you spoken with the prime minister this morning about the loss to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke with Minister O'Regan this morning; I've been speaking with Minister LeBlanc to inform them of what's happened with respect to the Terra Nova project and our position. They are still supportive of oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador, as are we.

We recognize the value of this asset, the value of oil and gas in our province. The oil is not going anywhere. We need to just make sure that it's the right deal for the people of this province so that we can get the best return, and not necessarily the oil companies, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister said he can't go it at all costs. We know that government's offer was valued at over half a billion dollars.

I ask the Premier: What is the value of what the partners in this project need to ensure this goes ahead?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the equity ask is just far too much for our province right now in this particular moment in time. We have $500 million of value on the table for oil companies that still generate profits. We're in a terrible fiscal situation right here right now in our province. We don't have the capacity. I'm not prepared to roll the dice on the future of this province, Mr. Speaker. These are the hard decisions that sometimes we have to make, but it's not a gamble I'm prepared to take.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Well, Mr. Speaker, we need to see the analysis. We found in the past that this administration doesn't break down exactly the impact on people in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those workers and those companies who benefit from the oil industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: If the Terra Nova does not resume production, how much will the province lose in future revenues?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I will point out to the Member that there has been no shortage of analysis been done on this project. I can guarantee you that we will share the province's position at the right time. But I would point that out that we are currently still under various NDAs as it relates to this. We're still hopeful that a deal can be achieved.

We have not said we are not supportive; we have just said here is a significant financial offer to put on the table for the remaining partners in this project, all multinational, billion-dollar companies. We're just not prepared to take a gamble. The risk versus reward was too high for us as it related to the equity investment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the minister that the conversation we've had over the last number of weeks when we asked questions about what was happening in this deal was always about: it couldn't be done in the public. Well, it's now in the public. You've taken 1:15 in the afternoon before the House opens to actually kibosh this whole deal by preventing the companies from being confident that this can go forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Premier: Can you tell this House what the full economic impact of this devastating blow to the offshore oil and gas sector is for our province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll remind the Member opposite that oil is still there. It can still be developed. I don't think this government, at this particular moment in Newfoundland and Labrador's history, should be meddling in private business at this level, Mr. Speaker. This would be an incredible ask for a Treasury that's already strapped. We've seen the decisions that we're going to have to take moving into the future.

Right now, those oil companies continue to turn profits. Last quarter alone, one of those operators made $361 million in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore. I think we don't have the Treasury capacity to fulfil what they're requiring to move forward and I'm not willing to take a gamble.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But I would hope the Premier would let the world know that Newfoundland and Labrador is open for business; it's the only way we're going to get out of our economic challenges.

The Premier and the minister say that they did everything they could to keep the Terra Nova here, but given the jobs impact, transparency is important.

Will the Premier and minister immediately make public in this House all the records they have relating to these lobby efforts of all the project's partners, right now?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Just to point to the preamble of the Member opposite first. I would suggest that a $500-million offer certainly signals that this province is open to oil and gas. I would remind the Member that it wasn't that long ago we were out on the platform of Hibernia looking at the ways that we could help them to continue to thrive in our offshore. The Member himself knows that.

To the question, what I would say, as I said earlier, we are still subject to non-disclosure agreements. I guarantee you everything will be put out there, but right now I am not going to risk a lawsuit just to satisfy the Member's needs.

What I will say is that when this is all said and done, all the information is here. In fact, I look forward to a debate on this issue in the very near future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will remind the minister, too, that we do support the oil industry; we want to see the evidence. Talk means nothing if action is not taken. We see a lack of action in this situation right here.

You want to talk about a debate?

I ask the Premier: Will he agree to an emergency debate starting immediately in this House of Assembly?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we're all supportive of oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it has to be done correctly. It has to be done prudently. It has to be done with the maximum returns for the people of this province.

I ask the Member opposite: Would he support such a massive equity stake in an oil –?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER A. FUREY: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

PREMIER A. FUREY: We're prepared to debate it, Mr. Speaker. That is going to be advanced, as I understand, in the near future. We will have an open, honest discussion across the floor, because this is incredibly important with respect to the future of the province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do agree with one point that the Premier said: It's extremely important. That's why it's so important. We can't wait four or five days to have a debate of how we solve this issue, or how we ensure the oil industry flourishes in Newfoundland and Labrador and those individuals who rely on this for their income know that there's some light at the end of the tunnel, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Is June 15 still the deadline for partners to find a solution?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely, I think June 15 is the deadline that's been put forward by the partners in this project, certainly not by the government. It's not a deadline we put forward. What I would also point out to the Member is that these dates have been very fluid in the past.

There are two things the Member has not addressed at all yet in his questions that I do think are pertinent to this. One: The deal is not dead. We have a huge offer there. That relates to the second part: Why have you not called on these multinational companies to come to the table for the benefit of us and our workers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, we were waiting, as the minister was always saying that he didn't want to negotiate in public and did not want to share information with us. Well, do you know what? We're asking now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Will you table government's analysis on its offer for equity into the Terra Nova Project, and why was it considered to be too risky?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are multitudes of factors. Information, I would point out to the Member, will be forthcoming. There will be no shortage of information, contrary to some of the megaproject debates that I've been involved in in this House of Assembly, I can guarantee you that. They will guide us going forward, the lessons from the past.

What I would say is that equity stakes are different in every single project. In the past, sometimes the equity stake has been right at the beginning as a partner coming in; whereas in this case, it's coming in later on, taking on full risk for a field where 85 per cent of the field has already been depleted.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the minister it's probably a little too late to close the barn door.

Today's news it devastating to the offshore oil industry. Is the Premier worried about the domino effect in the offshore industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as the Member opposite knows, we're fully supportive of oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That oil is still in the ground. It's incumbent upon us and incumbent upon them, frankly, to make sure that we get the best value for that oil and gas for the people of the province. We are still supportive of oil and gas and we'll continue to be supportive of oil and gas. It's incredibly important for the future of this province and we're operating to achieve those goals, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oil in the ground doesn't pay a thousand workers' mortgages in Newfoundland and Labrador and keep their families fed and safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Why did government pre-empt the operators and make this announcement today without them?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's certainly not a case of pre-empting; it's a case of the offer as it stands has been put there and has been communicated on multiple occasions, and we feel that we are at an impasse as it relates to this aspect of the deal.

What I would point out – again, this obviously is not a great story to be talking about today, but I could talk about what's going on at Hibernia and I could be talking about what's going on at Bay du Nord. But there's one thing we won't do, we're not going to do as the Members opposite would do, which is a deal at all costs and any costs and that's not going to benefit this province in the long run.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Local media has reported that Suncor and Husky Energy were willing to increase their ownerships in the field. Given they also have stakes in the West White Rose Project, has the Premier asked if they are willing to transfer the money they had budgeted for Terra Nova to the West White Rose Project?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would point out that it is still too early for that, given the fact that we are hoping this deal will still happen. We are asking the partners, these seven oil companies, to come together to bridge the gap and use the funding that we have put there to make this possible.

What I will say is that we'll work on anything that we can, but I would point out something that's very important: Terra Nova and West Rose are two separate, independent business cases and they will be based on profitability. I would point out that when we started working on this, oil was at $40 a barrel. Today, it is over $72 a barrel, yet we still maintain the same support that we did back then.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the pre-empted announcement this afternoon, we're hearing already from the oil industry that they're not very hopeful there will be a deal here, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, so plans have to be made. I'm already hearing from people that their families are distraught about today's news and what it means to them.

What is the Premier doing to ensure that they have a future in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we're incredibly empathetic to the workers impacted and their families by the delay in Terra Nova. As the minister suggested, this deal isn't dead. We're just not going to be involved in equity at this point as a government. There's still $500 million on the table, of value, from the provincial government. I think that's a very healthy offer.

We are very hopeful that those partners can sort out their private interests and come to a conclusion that advances this Terra Nova Project. If that's not the case, we will be there for the hard-working women and men of the oil industry who are impacted directly by this Terra Nova Project, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Well, on that note, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier – with today's devastating news about the Terra Nova FPSO, many workers will be left wondering about their future.

I ask the Premier: Will he ensure that a proportion of the $175 million set aside for the Terra Nova will now be used to support employment of those who counted on the Terra Nova for jobs?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We want them to advance this project, Mr. Speaker. So this, again, is not the fact – the deal is not dead, it's just that we are not involved in equity at this particular moment in time, nor should we be, Mr. Speaker.

If, again, the deal does not go ahead and Terra Nova does not advance to an asset life extension, we will be there for the women and men who have been displaced from that opportunity of work. We will use the proceeds available to us to ensure –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER A. FUREY: – that they have other opportunities and they're protected here in the province, Mr. Speaker, whether it's in the oil and gas industry or beyond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Education, I ask: Did the government approve the hiring of the president at MUN? Yes or no?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Board of Regents, Mr. Speaker, negotiated the contract and the terms of the contract with the president. The LGIC signs off on the individual, not the contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: I guess my question should be – if that's the case, then maybe I'll ask the minister: Why didn't they ask for details?

If something comes to Cabinet, it shouldn't be rubber-stamped; you should ask the questions. That's what Cabinet is there for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: It's meant to be rubber-stamped, it's meant to ask the questions. We wouldn't be out $500,000 on what I consider to be very lavish spending.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, it's no different than when Dr. Kachanoski was hired in 2010 or 2014. In fact, I requested copies, which are publicly available, of his contract. The conditions in his contract are almost identical to the conditions in the contract for the current president.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

On June 1, I asked the minister about details of the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

B. PETTEN: Two wrongs don't make a right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: I'll throw it back again. On June 1, I asked the minister about details of the president of MUN's contract and he said he would look into it. Then, yesterday, I asked the question again. The minister said he would look into it.

I ask the minister: Why didn't you look into this very important issue when I first raised it in the House?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I guess two wrongs don't make a right. But I do remember when the Member said that he had information. I did ask him to send that information over. I'm still waiting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2017, the former Finance minister said: “We can't simply just ask and hope” ABCs “deliver. We need to ensure we get our spending under control. This legislation will be brought in.”

Unfortunately, Minister, it was not brought in. Today, or just recently in the Budget Speech, the current Minister of Finance alluded to a similar promise.

I ask the minister: Will she take action to get spending under control at ABCs, particularly, what we've just heard about from MUN.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed an important topic for the finances of the province. I think the Member should be reassured that the Budget Speech does also talk about an accountability framework that will be brought in for not just core government, but all agencies, boards, commissions, Crown corporations and anyone who receives money from the public purse.

I think the Member opposite should take comfort in the fact that we are now bringing more Crown corporations to within government so that we can have even advanced control. I think he should take comfort in the fact that we also talked about, in the Budget Speech, changes to the legislation for Memorial University and changing the financial arrangements with Memorial University.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, we'll take comfort when the actual legislation is before us in the House.

I would also like to ask: Has the minister considered the Public Accounts Committee as the agency to be used, instead of setting up another accounting agency for accountability?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Member opposite is aware of the role and responsibilities of the Public Accounts Committee. They have a very fulsome and important role within the organization, within government and they can exercise their duties under that responsibility.

We are talking about day-to-day operational activities. That's why it would be in the Treasury Board Secretariat, so that we will have not only continuous improvement, not only program evaluation, but also that accountability framework.

I'm sure we will hear from the Public Accounts Committee as to their view on how we maintain the Public Accounts of this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to it.

Today, Western Health is opening a testing clinic in Piccadilly, days after the English School District said in a letter to the parents and guardians there's an expectation that all students will be in attendance, unless they have been asked by Public Health to stay home. It went on further to tell them that all individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID, and their contacts, have been notified.

Well, today, as I just said, there's a new testing clinic set up in Piccadilly. The province has spent millions for online learning, but the school board has done nothing to accommodate students in my district.

I ask the minister: Will he direct the school board to offer alternate education and learning opportunities for those students who are not able to attend school because their parents aren't comfortable or are nervous about it, or they simply can't go because they're in isolation?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that schools in the area were closed for operational reasons, Mr. Speaker; in other words, because teachers were doing contact tracing for teachers and so on. I am not going to direct the chief medical officer of Health, or Public Health; I think they've guided us well.

This province has done exceptionally well, compared to other jurisdictions, based on the guidance of the chief medical officer of Health. If the chief medical officer of Health said that schools are safe to be open, then I have to trust that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would simply ask that the school board is responsible for the operation of the education system. I have asked that you provide educational opportunities for the students; I didn't say anything about closing schools. We have online learning. Let's take advantage of it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the NLESD does a good job with continuum of learning plans for any students who are not able to attend school. It's funny, because I've taken questions from the opposite side when we did the blended learning model that all children should be in school; we took questions saying that we should be going to online learning.

Mr. Speaker, no matter which process you take, there are people that will complain about that process. The best place for the children, when the chief medical officer of Health says it's safe to be in class, is in class for the learning there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a sad day, indeed, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, people in the District of Harbour Main, who are deeply impacted by the lack of transparency and the failure of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, with regard to transparency, the Premier's Greene report said: One way to improve it is to refine the current lobbyist legislation, and that the current Lobbyist Registration Act should be reviewed.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Who will be conducting this review and when will it start?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker.

That will be reported in due time.

I do want to let all the Members of the House know, and members of the public, that there was a report issued yesterday – or it arrived on my desk the day before yesterday – from former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division David Orsborn with regard to proposed recommendations and revisions to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act in this province. This government will take all those recommendations in his almost-600-page report and review them diligently to make sure that access to government information is strengthened and streamlined as we move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Greene report also said that “People need to see which special interest groups are lobbying their politicians and what those groups are requesting.”

Just after the election, the media uncovered that the other Liberal premier was lobbied by a former Liberal prime minister to store nuclear waste in Labrador.

I ask the minister: When will new lobbyist legislation be introduced in this House?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the question.

The preamble to the question was a reference to what was in the Greene report. As has been said publicly and as has been said in the House, the Greene report is a list of recommendations to this government and not every one is going to be adopted wholesale. We're still continuing to review the Greene report. Anything in there that we think will serve the people of this province, we will implement in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Greene report had something very important to say about transparency, which hopefully the government will adopt. The Greene report also said that “Improving transparency will, at least, minimize questions of undue influence.”

Now, that we know this government will be looking at selling assets, as Moya Greene recommended, I ask the minister: Will new lobbyist and ethics legislation be introduced in this House before this government plans on selling or privatizing any major assets or services, to ensure that there is no undue influence?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for the question.

Again, it's easy to answer a question twice in a row.

As I've said, the Greene report has recommendations provided to this government by a high-calibre team, under Moya Greene's leadership. We look forward to continue to review that report and anything in there that we feel is going to strengthen the accountability and transparency of this government the Department of Justice and Public Safety will certainly implement and bring in any necessary legislation to the floor to debate in this House so the public can see and everyone in the Opposition can have their say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, you don't know. I'd like to say it's a sad day here –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: – in the District of Ferryland, as well, for my residents and also for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, recent media reports on a rogue investor advisor who defrauded six elderly clients out of third-quarters of a million dollars has sent shock waves through the industry. However, while the individual will face sanction by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, who oversees the profession, they have no power to enforce any penalties or sanctions. Newfoundland is the only province that has not given the regulator any power.

Mr. Speaker, why is the government not protecting individuals?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's a very important question and we do have a range of financial services legislation to protect residents of the province. I can't speak to a specific investigation, but anything that was prosecuted, for example, would have been as a result of the current legislation.

If you look at the Order Paper, we do have a Securities Act upcoming where we're going to deal with improving the responsibilities for IIROC and other financial services institutions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. O'DRISCOLL: (Inaudible.)

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't blame you.

Mr. Speaker, the Third Party recognizes the potential impacts that the announcement today regarding the Terra Nova FPSO has on workers across this province. The announcement could potentially, certainly, have an impact on every corner of our province. This causes tremendous concern for the workers who were told by successive governments that their futures were secured.

I ask the minister: What is government prepared to do to ensure that these hard-working people in our province are not the ones who suffer because of what is now an uncertain future?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly happy to answer this question and talk about the workers who, I can guarantee you, have been top of mind during this entire process.

I would point out the irony of the NDP asking this question about them when they have never supported this industry at any point during the conversation ever. It's a fine time to show up now when you didn't do anything before.

Now, I will point out the main thing that the Members don't get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

A. PARSONS: There is $500 million on the table. That is not a small amount.

Now, I know the Members opposite may give up on this but we're still hopeful that these multinational, billion-dollar companies will bridge the gap as it relates to equity, take the support that we've offered and come to a positive conclusion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly remind the minister that the NDP, the Third Party, has always been about workers; about making sure that with any industry that's facing turndown that they are protected and looked after – period.

Mr. Speaker, the Keystone pipeline project commissioned by Alberta's government that was all in on oil has been cancelled. The Terra Nova FPSO is one of three large oil projects that are facing an uncertain future. This is a harbinger of what is to come in this industry; we must accept this to a degree.

I ask the Premier: What does he have to say to the electorate who are now realizing the reality of the oil industry they are now facing is tremendously uncertain in the future?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Premier letting me answer this.

The irony here is in the first question we're talking about workers. In the second question, they tell us not to invest in projects that support workers. I'm finding it extremely difficult to understand where the Member is going because you can't have one without the other.

Now, we have offered tremendous support to these operators to make this work. But we've also indicated that there's a responsibility that comes with us to make the best investment. That is why we are not willing to throw our future away when it comes to these deals. We've obviously shown that. But we're obviously willing to look at the analysis and take the proper precautions and put the proper risk versus reward here. We have done that. We're hopeful that these companies will come to a deal that helps this entire province and its workers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister has a poor understanding of irony. I'm certainly willing to sit down and do some one-on-one tutoring with him.

It's not about investing. The question had nothing to do with investing, at all. Please don't put words –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Ask your question, please.

J. DINN: Yes, thank you.

I ask the minister not to put words in my mouth.

Mr. Speaker, for decades the Auditor General has been calling on government to divest from oil and gas. As a province, the government has continually ignored this recommendation.

I ask the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology: Are we now finally going to accept the global movement and invest more deeply in a green and sustainable economy?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I have no intentions to put words in the mouth of the Member opposite. That's clearly not what I want to do. What I remind him is that they have contrary positions.

Yesterday, they asked about Muskrat; the day before they said don't ask about Muskrat. Their first question, they say we should support the workers; the second question, they say no, we should not support these workers. I can't figure out where they're trying to go.

What I can say is that obviously there is a transition happening. There is no doubt, we've embraced it. I will tell you that organizations like Noia and the operators themselves have embraced it. We see a bright future for things like wind, for things like hydrogen; for green energy. We will invest in that and we'll take advantage of the federal funds.

At the same time, we have a bright future for oil and gas in this province. We have huge reserves that are still there. We just need these companies to realize that we are not going to give it away.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

B. WARR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to the motion of referral of May 31, 2021, and in accordance with Standing Order 72, the Resource Committee met on five occasions: May 31, June 1, 3, 8 and 9 of 2021.

The Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and pursuant to Standing Order 75(2), have directed me to report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture; the Department of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills; the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology; the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation; and the Department of Environment and Climate Change, and recommend that the report be concurred in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Further reports by Standing and Select Committees?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

P. PIKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to the motion of referral of May 31, 2021, and in accordance with Standing Order 72, the Government Services Committee met on three occasions: June 4, 7 and 10, 2021.

The Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and pursuant to Standing Order 75(2), have directed me to report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of Consolidated Fund Service; the Department of Digital Government and Service NL; the Department of Finance; the Public Procurement Agency; the Public Service Commission; and the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, and recommend that the report be concurred in.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Any further presenting reports by Standing or Select Committees?

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with section 12 of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, I hereby table the annual performance report for 2020 for WorkplaceNL.

SPEAKER: Any further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice, and by leave, to move the following motion: Notwithstanding Standing Order 9 that this House meet for a debate regarding the Terra Nova FPSO on Monday, June 14 at 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

SPEAKER: Is leave granted?

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: I would like to respond to that motion to move that this debate on the FPSO start immediately as opposed to Monday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I take it that leave is not granted. I ask is leave granted for –?

B. PETTEN: Is leave granted for mine?

SPEAKER: For Monday.

The motion was that he asked to debate on Monday and asked for leave.

B. PETTEN: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: We have to deal with this issue first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: You can't amend it. You either agree with leave or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: So you agree to give leave?

Leave is granted.

B. PETTEN: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: You can do the motion after regular proceedings. Once we get into Orders of the Day, then you can your motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: We have to deal with the initial motion first.

B. PETTEN: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Yes.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, that's (inaudible).

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

B. PETTEN: I move, notwithstanding Standing Order 9, that the House debate regarding the Terra Nova FPSO start today – start immediately. It cannot wait.

SPEAKER: This House do recess for a few minutes to review the request.

Recess

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The notice of motion made by the Member for Conception Bay South is not in order. There is a process to dispense of the ordinary business of the House in circumstances such as these, which is outlined in Standing Order 36.

Leave was requested by the Government House Leader when he gave his notice of motion. Leave was granted; therefore, the motion before the House is the motion by the Government House Leader. I will now call for debate on that motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We see the urgency of this matter and we want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to have what briefings that can be availed of early next week or even into tomorrow. So, Mr. Speaker, that will be our motion, that this House do sit on Monday morning to debate this urgent matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do agree that this is very important. We, on this side of the House, know the importance of this and the effect it has had on the province, on every one of our districts and the people who work in our districts. I have a lot in my own district that is affected by this.

I get the fact that Monday is coming and they're going to have a debate: I'm fine. But we really feel the importance of this is here and now. Where we're to right now, today. We did make a motion in order – or out of order; I guess that's the House rules. We feel strongly that something of this importance to be put off until Monday – there is no better time than the present. We strongly believe the government needs to reconsider and start the debate now, because the longer you wait, every day that goes by that's extra days of stress.

We had a private Member's resolution yesterday on the mental health that the pandemic has caused. Unfortunately, this may be another result of the pandemic and the world oil markets. It's a combination of things, but the pandemic plays into it. What those workers in this province feel today with that news conference – and at 1:15, I might add, which was 15 minutes before this House opened, that we became aware. It wasn't a long time for anyone to get their heads around it and to come into this House and to properly give – even Question Period. Now, I give credit to the leader for doing so.

We feel strongly that here and now is the time to do it for that reason. I mean, we can go into a number of reasons, but I won't waste any more time at it. I believe that right now the time should be spent debating this motion, here and now, today. The Terra Nova FPSO is too important to the province to be putting it off for days down the road while workers are home sitting down wondering what the future has. One minute too long is not good enough for these people, Mr. Speaker, or those communities.

I call upon the government to make the motion to sit today and to continue on tonight. We're here as long as you want to be here.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of points on this Mr. Speaker. This is obviously disappointing news, to say the very least, and it is a huge issue for our province and it's a huge issue for the workers. I totally agree. On a personal level, I would have no issue – and I know that's not the motion; it's neither one of the motions, really. But if someone could provide me with some sort of a briefing and so on of whatever details could be available. If we suspended the House right now and we could have a briefing and come back to debate it tonight, personally, I'd be okay with that. But to simply have a debate right now, at this moment, with no information, I don't think we would be doing justice to the issue.

I'm not making a motion here of my own, because it won't be in order either. But, again, I really believe we need the briefing and the information and, as I said, on a personal level, if we did it right now, had a briefing and then we debated it tonight, I'd be fine with that. I'd be fine with debating it tomorrow morning, but I need the briefing first.

So I just wanted to make that point.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my understanding from the department that those briefings are being arranged as soon as possible. Obviously, the department is busy. There are still negotiations here. This is not something that is a dead deal. We still have a half a billion dollars on the table as an offer. These are important jobs and that's why we have a half a billion dollars on the table. If you think about it, that's a considerable offer to these companies from this province and there's work being done.

So, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member opposite, before our debate on Monday there will be an opportunity for a full briefing for Members opposite.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it very hard to believe that these briefings aren't already done. There was a decision made, there was a press conference at 1:15 this afternoon, 15 minutes before we came into the House of Assembly. Was this decision, again, made with a lack of information? Is it another case of something that we didn't know? It's a fair question.

At the end of the day, there are thousands – it's not just the 900 men and women that work offshore directly, it's the people that work indirectly that are affected by this, and we want to put it off to the eve of a deadline instead of trying to find a solution three or four days prior to and trying to help find a solution. Something I'll add, and that this Premier has added time and time again, is that we need to collaborate and work together. Let's wait until the last minute so there's no time. We need to debate this motion today, Mr. Speaker, not Monday, and government should be prepared to give us a briefing right now.

SPEAKER: Are there any other speakers to the motion?

The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course we have to respect the opinion of the Chair on the motions, which ones are in order and not in order. I understand the urgency across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for all of the workers and I'm sure every Member in this House of Assembly right now is concerned about the workers and their families.

It is a situation, Mr. Speaker, where I feel that if we were going to debate it now, fine, but I've been through a lot of this and I go back to Voisey's Bay, I go back to Muskrat Falls and I go back to them all. Before I would get involved with the – seriously, we could stand here, I could stand here and talk about it politically, but to get involved with it, I feel that we do need a briefing. I feel that, the government, if they're offering a briefing that I would partake in that briefing, because it's so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we're going to debate this on Monday, I notice the motion says 9 o'clock, so we should have a briefing either before 9 o'clock or delay it and open it at 10 o'clock and have a briefing at 9 o'clock for some way to have a briefing in this House.

Even with the briefing, I am confident, being involved in some negotiations before, that there's a certain amount of information that you can't divulge anyway. You can't divulge it, but divulge the best and the most that you can to help us with an informed decision.

If the government is wiling to commit to a briefing on Monday, to give us the proper information so we can have a really informed debate and offer some great discussions, I'm fine with that. We can't rush the decision and we can't rush the information that we're going to get. If the information is available in a briefing sense, let's have it. As the minister said and the Government House Leader said, this is still going. I understand where the Opposition are speaking from also, that it's so important to all the people. I know a couple of them and their districts are very much impacted by all of this.

I just wanted to put it on the record that if we're going to have a debate, we should have a briefing and get all the information that we can to all the Members before this debate in the House of Assembly.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Any other speakers to the motion?

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's really not the best of a choice either way you look at it. If we debate it today, we're doing so probably without some information. If we do it on Monday, I think, as my colleague behind me said, it's going to be on the eve of the decision. I guess, if I'm looking at it, I still need to have the information in front of me to have that fulsome debate, even if that's tomorrow.

I'm just thinking if, indeed, this proceeds on Monday or we have a briefing on Monday, maybe – I don't know; it's probably out of our hands – the deadline could be pushed back. I don't know if it can or not. Otherwise, if the debate on Monday is just a matter of formality or pro forma, it offers little.

Certainly, I do want to have a debate on this. I think it's important we have it, but I'm cognizant of what my colleagues have said here. There are people, yes, who are going to be going through a stressful time over this weekend. I think we need to have an informed debate here. If that means doing it earlier, I would certainly support that, but it has to be one that's done with the information in front of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Any further speakers to the motion?

All those in favour of the motion, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Any further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm, again, going to present a petition on behalf of the people of Humber - Bay of Islands and the Corner Brook area concerning the previous election in 2021.

Mr. Speaker, the petition calls upon the government to have an investigation into the last election.

I've noted before on the Committee – and I've asked people and I'm getting a lot of responses to it – that there's no one on this Committee from the West Coast – no one. From the west of the Baie Verte turnoff, there's no one on this Committee to express their views and pass on the frustrations that were felt during the election. I said before, Mr. Speaker, if there was no one on that Committee from St. John's, what an uproar; if there was no one on that Committee from Labrador, what an uproar. But there's no one on it from the West Coast of the province.

I'm asking the people from the West Coast that if you have any concerns, which a lot have already expressed, during the election, after the election and since I started presenting the petitions, keep sending them to me. I will assure the people on the West Coast that they will be given to the Committee. I am more than confident, Mr. Speaker. I know the Opposition themselves will be on the Committee. I know that they received a lot of the same concerns that we had. They had a lot of concerns expressed. They felt the frustration and they felt, on many occasions, the act wasn't followed and a lot of people's right to vote was denied. I'm sure they're going to keep the government accountable for that in the Committee.

I'm still amazed – I said it before and I'll say it again – I'm still amazed why the Commissioner for Legislative Standards is not brought before this House to have a discussion and inform this House what happened during the previous election in 2021. I am just astonished that an Officer of the House of Assembly is not in front of us explaining his actions and why the Premier, at the time, said that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards could run an election during a pandemic. We've seen the outcome of that.

This is why sometimes I think the House of Assembly in itself is not doing their own duties and our responsibilities to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but that's for another time.

I will keep presenting petitions. I made a commitment twice a week and I will follow up on that commitment to keep raising this issue, Mr. Speaker, so we can make improvements for the next election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here and I'll just read it out first.

The reason for this petition, Mr. Speaker. The former mill property and Grand Falls House were appropriated by the government after the Abitibi mill closed in Grand Falls-Windsor.

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to turn over the former mill property and Grand Falls House to the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, where the people of the community feel it belongs.

Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for quite some time now through a couple of different ministers. I had a great chat with a few people about it again this morning, but it's not moving fast enough.

In a time of fiscal restraint, I understand that some decisions are going to be hard and can't be made; this doesn't cost the province a penny – not a penny – except the paperwork it's written on, to pass this back over to the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, but the benefits that could come out of this for my district and, in that envelope, the province itself are phenomenal.

The plan that Grand Falls-Windsor have for the old mill property is a green scenic area with some parkways, just a beautiful space. Right now it's just a parking lot. It's just a crumbled parking lot that's cleared off. It's not right. We feel as though it should be passed back over to the people of Grand Falls-Windsor where it belongs. There is no purpose to hold on to it. We need to get it passed over, as well as Grand Falls House.

If you've ever been in there. It's absolutely beautiful. It can be used as a great tourist attraction.

Again, I call on the minister. I would love a response from the minister about where they are with negotiations when it comes to passing it over to the town. Hopefully, they're ongoing. Hopefully, it's resolved soon so we can move on with this and the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor can get back what it rightfully owned in the first place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I presented this petition in the last sitting. It reads as follows: Several abandoned buildings in unincorporated areas or LSDs pose a significant health and safety hazard to local residents and tourists, including collapsed or collapsing dwellings. Others are dens for rodents. These abandoned buildings also undermine the tourism and development potential of many picturesque communities in the District of Bonavista, which is heavily reliant on this industry for economic growth.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring forward legislation that acts on the removal of these collapsed or dilapidated structures.

I present this petition, Mr. Speaker, and it's one that was presented before that we had discussed. The District of Bonavista is big on tourism, as you know, and I would think it's very significant for the economic coffers and revenues of our province.

We would like to build on the tourism. I'm sure with our state of financial affairs that our province has there are industries like tourism and the fishery that we ought to be focusing on in order to grow our revenues from these sources.

We have areas, like in Knights Cove, Trinity East, and Newmans Cove to name three of the 58 communities in the District of Bonavista, that have these dilapidated structures. We want to gather more and collect more from tourism. I think it would be in the province's interest to make sure that these collapsed and abandoned structures are removed so that they're no longer an unacceptable sight for the many tourists that travel in the District of Bonavista.

I read the Estimates in 2019, the, then, Minister Mitchelmore, talked about how tourism was enhanced in the District of Bonavista when they paved roads that went to tourist attractive sites. He complimented and said what a great investment it was.

I would say in the short time remaining, Mr. Speaker, that an investment into these dilapidated and rundown structures by the province will bode well and better present the District of Bonavista. I will certainly always help those that are in these communities as well.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it's always a privilege to speak in this House of Assembly on behalf of the Exploits District.

Mr. Speaker, only last night I got a call from one of the oil workers myself who wanted to know what would be his future with regard to the oil industry, and today just to hear that news. I was looking forward to going home this weekend, but to go home to see that person to try to explain to him or put some hope in his mind that things will be okay. Hopefully, they will. Hopefully, we can get this straightened out and, hopefully, we can carry on.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on a brighter note, it's still good to talk about the Exploits District. Right now, I'd like to acknowledge the volunteers of the district. We have a great volunteer core in the Exploits District. A lot of the clubs, especially during COVID, some people did come on hard times with regard to the amount of work they could find. They needed extra help with regard to food. They needed extra help with regard to clothing. Sometimes even some worse cases, I know there were a couple of fires that people had to reach out to with regrouping, clothing, bedding, household goods, that sort of stuff.

Hats off to the volunteers in our district, Mr. Speaker. The Lions Clubs, fire departments, the Knights of Columbus, Kinsmen Club, seniors organizations and church groups. They all band together it seems like in the past year and you could reach out to them. Even though those clubs fell on hard times themselves, it was still great to be able – because I did reach out to them a couple of times, different departments there, different clubs, to say I have a family down the road, I have a family in this community wondering if you can help them out. They won't reach out to you because they have that sense of pride that they don't want to reach out and feel intimidated that they have to ask. B'y, those clubs would jump on board and say, yeah, we'll help you, b'y. Let us know. They'd be down with hampers or, like I said, bedding. Anything at all to help out. Mr. Speaker, I'd certainly like to thank the volunteer groups in our district.

Speaking of the church groups, I'd just like to acknowledge right now that the Anglican parish of Bishop's Falls is celebrating its 100 anniversary this weekend. They're going to be having their opening ceremonies this weekend. I'm glad to be home to join them in that. It's a milestone, no doubt about it. I'd like to congratulate the clergy and parishioners of the St. Andrew's Anglican Church on such a milestone.

Mr. Speaker, also the Max Simms camp in Bishop's Falls. When you're talking about the volunteer groups, Lion Max Simms camp, the help that they provide without government assistance. It's at a cost of $1 million a year, just to operate the Max Simms camp. It provides assistance to groups with disabilities, especially the blind and autistic. I know this, Mr. Speaker, because I'm a member of the Bishop's Falls Lions Club. I'm very proud to be a Lion.

They do great work. The work that they do, Mr. Speaker, those people, I've seen the camp for the blind. You'd have to be there to really appreciate it. They keep their monies. They look forward to every year to going back to the camp just for that week or two weeks – whatever they can get. I hope COVID don't interfere with their plans; it really interfered last year. I know they're looking forward to getting back.

Mr. Speaker, the Max Simms camp is a great, great facility. If anybody would like to go out and visit that someday, I'd certainly be more than welcome to take you up there for a tour, just to get an acknowledgement of it.

Mr. Speaker, front-line workers, another group that certainly, in our district, excelled during COVID. They had their worries as well as anyone else. Your front-line workers: your store attendants, nurses, anyone on the front lines, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to acknowledge those people in our district, at this time, for the work that they did during COVID.

Boys and Girls Clubs: another great facility in the Exploits District. The Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, they have great programs. They do great work for youth. It's amazing. They are usually there from probably five years old, up to 22 years old. Especially this time now, Mr. Speaker, with COVID, I know we talked about mental health and I know the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans mentioned yesterday about youth, how he dealt with the youth in regard to mental health. Those Boys and Girls Clubs, the programs that they can provide to help with the youth in the area, it gives them a feeling of belonging. It gets them out into the communities.

There is one in Botwood and there's one in Norris Arm. The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, there is one in Buchans, actually. Those Boys and Girls Clubs, they're well underfunded, I'll tell you that, because the monies that they need to operate, the programs that they provide, the interaction with regard to schooling. They're not in school most of the times now; they're home. If they can interact with people of their own age – in regard to Boys and Girls Clubs, too, when we're talking of mental health – they can share their views and they can relate to one another. Mr. Speaker, the Boys and Girls Clubs, I can't stress it enough, the work that they've been doing.

Actually, it was only, I think, what, a couple of weeks ago I did a Member statement on Shealah Hart of Northern Arm. She was recently chosen by BGC Canada as one of this year's Regional Youth of the Year. It is amazing work to see those young people doing that, Mr. Speaker.

Shealah, she's been with the BGC – they've changed the name from Boys and Girls Clubs. They went with BGC and it's hard to get used to. She's been a volunteer now, Mr. Speaker, for 13 years and she has served on numerous capacities at a local and national level with the BGC. That's a big accolade for a youth. It really is. I'm very proud to speak on youths. Even though she's enrolled in MUN, she will continue to work with the BGC on a local level and on a provincial level to foster and support other youths.

That will tell you the activities. Sometimes we look down on the youths. I'm sure we've all said it, like: Oh, look at that group coming down the road. What are they up to? If we supported programs like this in our communities, we would know that the youths in our communities are doing good things. I've seen them with cold plates. The Boys and Girls Club deliver cold plates to the seniors in the community, Mr. Speaker. That's great to see that happening and we need more of that to get our youths involved. Get involved in society. Get involved in themselves. Let them relate and let them be free in our communities. Not only do they excel from it; we excel from it, too, because to see them do those things, it's rejuvenating, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I will touch on the health care in our district as well. I can't leave it alone, because health care has really taken a toll in our district. I'll start with the lab services of Grand Falls-Windsor. Our regional hospital at Grand Falls-Windsor, that's where our biggest hospital is.

Mr. Speaker, the lab testing hub for Gander, which was announced for Gander and moved to Gander, has caused a lot of friction between the towns. For starters, the lab services in Grand Falls-Windsor, the lab itself, was big enough to be the testing hub. It was before. There was no reason to move it to Gander. The minister himself, he will come on and say: B'y, there's nothing happening to the lab services in Grand Falls-Windsor. There are no services being cut. Everything remains the same.

Yet during the election again, 2021, they made a lot of promises out our way. They really did. During the election of 2021, I can remember the candidates, even on the NTV news, saying we will review the decision. Mr. Speaker, if things are okay, if there are no changes, would somebody explain to me what are they reviewing? What would it be? It's beyond me; I don't know. But it seems to be that the testing hub is moving.

I don't know who endorsed those candidates to say those things. There was a big announcement from one of the candidates that the 24-hour emergency service in Botwood was going to be open. Then the other candidates announced that we're going to review the situations. I don't know who endorsed those announcements, Mr. Speaker. If it was the Liberal Party, the Liberal government, well, they should come clean on all that and let's get it done. Let's do the reviews on the lab services. Let's open the 24-hour emergency service in Botwood.

I can't see the candidates just coming out themselves and just saying it: B'y, maybe I'll get elected. I can't see the Liberals at the time doing this just to say: B'y, if we do this, we'll knock out the PC candidates and we'll get those seats.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. FORSEY: Is that's what's on here? I'm amazed with it. I really, really am. I'm really amazed with it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the lab services, Grand Falls-Windsor hospital itself, right now, they're the hub for seven satellite hubs in Central Newfoundland. They range from Harbour Breton, Baie Verte, Springdale, up to Grand Falls-Windsor – Buchans and out as far as Lewisporte – Botwood, of course. That's seven satellite hubs all in Central West. That's seven that have to go to Grand Falls-Windsor for testing.

They're going to bypass Grand Falls-Windsor hospital and go on to Gander, and then wait until those tests are done and then send them back again. Transportation alone just doesn't make sense when the Gander hospital only has two satellite hubs. The geography of it just doesn't make sense, and just for, basically, the minister to be able to service his own District of Gander.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, again I mention the 24-hour emergency service in Botwood, the stress it's creating on the emergency service in Grand Falls-Windsor because now they can't go to the emergency service in Botwood. They have to go to the emergency in Grand Falls-Windsor. It's creating more waiting times for the patients, doctors. More stress on the doctors. More stress on the nurses. The nurses right now, you'll hear them on the news. They're all stressed out. They're worked to death. You're going to have to try to span out the workloads and make it easier in one capacity or the other. Mr. Speaker, by opening the 24-hour emergency service, it would take the stress off Grand Falls-Windsor and have the people more content back in Botwood.

Also right now, Mr. Speaker, the CEO of Central Health is still in New Brunswick. She's been in New Brunswick ever since last June. She resigned last June. As far as I know, there's no recruitment to get the CEO back on site. We only just went through a COVID influx in Central Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, and our CEO is up in New Brunswick.

Mr. Speaker, there is some great attention that needs to be done with regard to health care in the Central area, and doctors, again, are another thing that the residents in our area – we have a shortage of doctors, Mr. Speaker. I did touch on it here yesterday, but I'm getting lots of calls from people that can't find doctors; they have to make long travels.

I know that's not just in my area, Mr. Speaker, it's in every area in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you're taking about seniors to go see specialists, and most of the time it is in St. John's at the Health Sciences Centre, they have to come out here and they have to travel long just to drive out, Mr. Speaker. Then they have to get rooms because they can't drive back. Seniors need more time – it seems like they take their time more – not like some young ones, they rush out and probably rush back again on the same day. Seniors need more time and they need to be rested so they come out, and it costs them more, Mr. Speaker, just to be able to see a doctor. We need to put more emphasis on the doctors.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there's also some other work that needs to be done in the Exploits District. I did touch on it the other day; the roads are another part of the Exploits District that needs attention, Mr. Speaker. I'm getting it all down around the areas. In the past two years, we haven't had any roadwork done in our district. The potholes, the pavement is gone in places, and it takes time for the maintenance –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. FORSEY: Yeah, Mr. Speaker, the minister do remind me that he don't know where Exploits is, because he did tell me one day that the Sir Robert Bond Bridge ran across the Humber River. So that'll tell you where the Liberals think Exploits is: they don't even know.

Thank you for that reminder, Minister, I appreciate that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. FORSEY: Yes, probably you should come in. I'll show you around one of those days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. FORSEY: I wouldn't have reminded me of that.

Anyway, that's some issues in our district, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to have addressed. I'm sure we have them all over.

Again, the lab services, the 24-hour emergency service and the doctors, that is immediate, primary health care that we need in Central, in the Exploits District and a part of Grand Falls. Some of my district runs to Grand Falls-Windsor and probably overlaps with Grand Falls-Windsor into the Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans area, probably. Actually, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor is my constituent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. FORSEY: See, when I tell you I get calls, I get calls. No doubt about it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure whenever I get a chance here in this House to get up. I know everybody hears me say: B'y, I wish he'd shut up about the 24-hour emergency service; I wish he'd lay off about the lab services in Grand Falls-Windsor; I wish he'd lay off about something else. B'y, is there anything good out there? Yeah, there is. But I just can't help it, Mr. Speaker, because these are the issues that are brought to me and my obligation is to bring them back to the House of Assembly.

As long as those issues and concerns are being brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly bring them to the House of Assembly and I'll be more than proud and pleased to do so. It's an honour to represent the people of the Exploits District.

With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you for your time and I'll get to speak another day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the time to speak today.

I don't know when the briefing is going to be for Terra Nova, but I personally don't need it. That's something that is very dear and close to my heart. I'm just going to speak for a moment, not from a political point of view, I'm not going to speak on behalf of the government and I'm not even going to speak on behalf of the Opposition, I'm going to speak on behalf of the workers that are facing a very hard day today, or possibly coming – hopefully not. Hopefully, something gets worked out. What those people and those families have to carry into the weekend now is unsurmountable. It's not going to be a good weekend for them and their families. So I'm going to take a moment and talk about that.

Mr. Speaker, on February 15, 2019, I walked off an oil rig for the last time after 17 years of – enjoyed every single minute of it. I enjoyed the oil and gas. It has a future in our country, on our globe and especially in our province. When I walked off that rig on February 15, 2019, I walked off with the same pair of boots that I wore for a couple of years, throwing chain, throwing tongs, climbing the rig, drilling for oil 1,000 metres a day. I loved every minute of it. I miss the people I worked with and I miss the rig. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I still wear the boots; I have them on today just to remind myself.

Every now and again people don't notice but they're the most comfortable things I ever put on my feet. I carry them with me as I represent the blue-collar workers of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'll continue to represent the blue-collar workers of Newfoundland and Labrador. They're not forgotten about, but until you walk a mile in somebody's shoes –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: – you don't really see what they're going through.

I'm going to speak for them for a little bit here now. Again, what they have to face now the weekend, and that's why we wanted to debate sooner than later. Again, just to give them some relief. Who knows? I've seen some squirrely things happen in oil and gas; some very squirrely things happen when it comes to deals in oil and gas.

When you catch the person's ear at a certain moment, that really counts, it can change their mind when it comes to deals. You wouldn't believe the humanity in some people. I just wonder for a second, if we had this debate today or this evening and something was brought up, brought forth – a piece of information that really touched somebody in a certain way on the higher end of things, we'll call it – maybe that could potentially impact the deal deadline coming Tuesday.

We're talking about Monday, that's four days away. That's lost time. That's lost time: 96 hours.

People are going to lose their jobs, potentially, and it's going to be very difficult. That's very concerning. But what concerns me just the same is the amount of people, possibly, that are going to have to put their boots on like I have now, get on a plane, take their family and move away. That's going to hurt our population growth.

I've always said it: Immigration is very important to Newfoundland and Labrador, but immigration is one thing. My God, if we can't even keep our own people here now, how much is that going to impact us moving forward? It's going to impact us huge.

The message that we have is: It's a dark day, it is; it is for the Terra Nova and the families that work on it.

I want to bring everybody's attention to something for a moment. I'm mind-boggled; I'm absolutely mind-boggled. Again, I don't run off facts and figures; I run off pure emotion. Those who know me, know that's exactly what I run off, and that's why I came home to do this job.

We have the federal Natural Resources minister from Newfoundland and Labrador. I remember when he was appointed that everybody was excited because we thought we were going to see some benefit from it. We are not seeing any benefit from it. We truly are not. I'm not here to play politics or throw anybody under a bus, but when we have the Natural Resources minister for Canada living in our backyard and we can't get anything from Ottawa –besides what we've gotten and it's greatly appreciated – to further this deal, that's very concerning to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.

For those people out there who say: You know what? It's COVID; it's the same everywhere else. No, it's not. If anybody wants me to table text messages from my phone, I'm more than happy to do it. I got a call last week to go back to work. Drilling is happening. People are drilling for oil. At $72 a barrel, that's a sweet spot. It truly is. Ninety bucks a barrel, you know she's going to bust soon; $40 or $50 a barrel, not worth drilling; $72 a barrel, bring it on. That's exactly what investors are looking for. So how we can't move this forward, it's very, very concerning.

I'm sure there's a lot of work going into it. There's not one person in here that wants to see that fail, but we need more information. We want to see exactly what's happening, we truly do, because there's a lot of stuff we don't know on this side and we would like to know because maybe we do have something to add. I worked in the industry and I've been in on some deals back out West. I've helped facilitate many, many things. I know this is on a much of a bigger scale.

It's crazy to think that Quebec is still getting $13 billion a year in equalization. Yes, it's from two pots, but we are Newfoundland and Labrador with a population of, what, 525,000 people and more natural resources per person than I can ever imagine on the planet, and we aren't seeing the actual benefit that we should be seeing. That is very concerning to myself.

When we talk about a community benefits agreement. Everybody is going to say to me, and I've heard it lots of times: Well, you went out West to work. Of course I did. Well, what about their community benefits agreement? They've had them. They've had them for 20 years. I guarantee you, when oil bottomed out at $40 a barrel, I was one of the first people to be sent home. I live with that and I totally accepted that. Of course I did. They want to keep their own people out there at the time working. Less LOAs and less money they have to put in to getting us out there again. I 100 per cent agreed with it. When I got sent home, as hard as it was on myself and my family, I agreed with it and I could see where they're coming from.

We need a community benefits agreement here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Over two years now I've been asking about it and over two years I've been told it's something that's in progress. Well, in progress doesn't do a whole lot for those people that are sat at home without jobs.

S. COADY: (Inaudible.)

C. TIBBS: Sorry?

S. COADY: We have benefits agreements for oil.

C. TIBBS: Yes, for oil and gas. But for other places in Newfoundland and Labrador.

For instance, the Grand Falls-Windsor long-term health care centre. Again, people from out of province coming in during a pandemic. We couldn't get people home, our own citizens, to go to a funeral and whatnot. I understand the safety of it and I don't disagree with the safety of it. But shouldn't that safety be implemented for everybody? There should not have been one worker come from out of this province into this province to do work. Especially during a pandemic. I'll stand out on that limb all day long and anybody can call me out on it all day long. I really don't care. But I'll always pick up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What we're going to see if this falls through, it's going to be some dark days for some families out there. I'll just give you some prime examples of what my family has gone through. Because 17 years, we all know oil and gas, it goes up and it goes down. I've been just about ready to drill a hole and they've told me: No, we're shutting down, that's it. It's been crazy. What you feel when you make plans with your family and whatnot. It certainly disrupts a lot of things.

What these families have to go through now when it comes to finances, for instance. The finances are going to be top of order: how they're going to pay their mortgage, their car payments, their fuel and groceries. Of course, groceries have gone up and fuel is skyrocketing right now. Again, people in this province are just surviving; we're not living. I'll say it, and I've said it before every time I've spoken these past two weeks, I'll never point a finger. I won't do it. I won't. Unless it's warranted. But what people have to go through in this province right now, it's absolutely fundamentally horrible, because they are truly surviving, a lot of people. It's not right that we work 40, 50 or 60 hours a week just to survive, just to hopefully walk out with a bag of groceries and feed your family at the end of the week. It's what people put up with. Now, these families, the uncertainty that they face is absolutely – it's horrendous.

I'll disclose something right here, right now. You can ask for the record if you want. My last year drilling I made $176,000. Great money. It was fantastic money. I took a huge pay cut to come down here and take this job on. I didn't take it on for the politics. Personally, I don't like the politics in politics. I really don't. What I do like is how all of us stand up for our constituents and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's not just my constituents. I'd stand up for the Minister of Finance's constituents tomorrow because they're fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

What they have to go through now, the Members for Terra Nova and Harbour Main – lots of people within that area. My area isn't greatly affected, but it will be affected in the long run. What they have to face now – and they truly care – it's absolutely horrendous and I know what they have to face. They have to face families coming to them now asking: Well, what do I do about this? What do I do about that? These families, they're going to go through quite a bit. Again, I remember coming home on dark years, you know, 2010 hit us pretty hard, 2011 oil bottomed out around then and as well 2009. It was a horrible year. Coming home, I just talk about – you know what, I've got a very strong wife. Rotational workers they have very strong wives and husbands as they go away to work. I have a very, very strong wife. But it takes a toll on your marriage, it takes toll on your relationship with your kids and it takes a mental toll on everything.

Those men and women now what they have to go through. We just talked about our PMR yesterday. What they are about to go through, it's unspeakable. They have to look at their kids now and say they can't get into certain summer programs because now we have to struggle and financially watch what we're doing and just survive. They're in survival mode. They have to tell their kids they can't have anything. I remember coming home and having to say to my kids: Sorry, but we can't afford to do that right now. For a man or a woman, or a mom or a dad, that's a lot to take on. To go from one lifestyle where you're enjoying life and now off to this.

I just plead that we find a solution for these people so they don't go away, because it's easy to go away. Right now, Western Canada, she's starting to boom again. She is. Precision Drilling, 299, God bless all of the workers on that rig. I got a call to go back to it, like I said, last week. I miss it every single day. I miss being covered in oil, dirt, sweat and everything else. By God, who knows, maybe one day I'll go back to it. Hopefully not. Hopefully I have a place here and I continue to stay here and stand for the blue-collar workers and the workers throughout my district because they need a voice for them. They do.

Sometimes we sit in here, we get caught up in the politics of it all and we get caught up with the high-level stuff. Sometimes we need Members like myself. I'm not out to do any great things; I probably never will. But what I will do is I'll speak on behalf of the people that I am very comfortable sitting in the trenches with. Those people that put on their workboots every single day and get out and give it their all, and send every cent back home to their family. When they see their family have sports, when they see their wife can go do something nice for herself or their husband can do something nice for himself, that's all they want. That's all that ever put a smile on my face. I'm the most non-materialistic person on the planet, I can guarantee you. I need very little. But when I see my community and my family doing well, that's all I ever needed.

But I know now the people, the families that are affected by the possible shutdown, close up of this today or Tuesday, they're going to feel exactly what I have felt in the past and I know it. I'm sure everybody in here has struggled at one time or another when they came up through, but for those blue-collar workers – and I don't know who's done it, who's not done it – I tell you they're some of the backbone of our province. What they do every single day with the safety concerns they have, the dangers that they face – I mean, I've watched some horrific accidents on oil rigs too. What they go through is a lot to take on, but to keep them working, to get them back to work, we need to do everything we possibly can. I know that I'll do everything I possibly can and hopefully there are other projects to happen.

Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas – we could be a hub. We really could be a hub for this industry. I know Alberta, Saskatchewan, BC; they're a hub in Western Canada. We could be a hub in Eastern Canada. And to find out that, you know what, we have a possible billion barrels out in that basin right now, it's fantastic to hear and hopefully to have access to it.

I heard the Premier say it's still in the ground; it's not going anywhere. I've heard that all throughout Western Canada over the past 17 years too. It hasn't gone anywhere for a million years, it's not going anywhere soon: it's not a good thing. It's not a good thing because the goal is – and we have to say it like it is – to transition to a greener economy. I am 100 per cent on board with that.

I have two small kids; hopefully they're going to have small kids growing up. When they grow up, I hope that climate change isn't even a word at that time because they don't have to worry about it. I hope it's not a big issue at all because I hope they don't have to worry about it. I hope that is the way the world is at that time, but that's then and this is now.

That oil that's in the ground, we need to utilize it now as best we can before it's redundant, before we don't need it anymore. I don't know how long it's going to be: 20 years possibly, maybe 100 years. Nobody really knows how long this is going to come on. All it's going to take is one invention or a thought or an idea to really put oil and gas and keep it in the ground forever and ever. It's coming and I welcome the day that it comes, but it's not today. So we need to ensure that the oil – it's in the ground, it's not going anywhere: again, it's not a good thing. We need to avail of that now, as soon as we can, get it streamlined, back on board. Hopefully something happens down the road, but right now that is of little comfort to the families that are affected.

I know everybody here feels it, but until you have the job instability or insecurity of not knowing what tomorrow is going to bring, like those families have now – and, again, I lived it for a long, long time, my family lived it and I know lots and lots of families that live it as well. The insecurity of that is – it is very disturbing to your family and it causes so many problems.

When it comes to mental health, that's one of the biggest things. Again, I'm just going to speak from experience. I was a driller on an oil rig. You're too tough to have bad days. Trust me, on these rigs it doesn't matter. There's no calling in sick. There's no taking a mental health day, like there should be, but there's not. I guarantee you that. Do they try to follow their best practices? No.

When you were there for your 30 days – I spent up to 50 days straight on a rig; you were there for your 50 days and you had to suck it up and go with it. It's not the way the world should be, but it's the way that industry is. It's one of the toughest industries on the planet. I've drilled in minus 56 and I've drilled in plus 45, and I tell you what, it's one of the toughest jobs on the planet. My hat goes off to all of those who are in our oil and gas sector, including their families that put up with that lifestyle as well.

We talked about the community benefits agreement. When people say to me, you were out West for quite some time, I realize that, but I wasn't out there because they were welcoming us. Yes, they loved having us there because they knew we were the hardest working people in Canada. I wasn't there because they asked me to come out; I was there because there was a shortage of workers in Western Canada.

That's where people get it mixed up a little bit when they try to call me out and say you've gone out to Western Canada. Yes, I did and they were great people, but it was because they had a shortage of workers. I pray for the day that we have a shortage of workers here in Newfoundland and Labrador, too, and we have to fill those spots as well, but that's not today either.

We talk about the workers now that could possibly lose their jobs. The spinoffs that are in this province are unrenowned. That's going to be less cars bought, less houses bought, less groceries bought and that's going to trickle across the Island like you would not believe. If we lose one family – just one family – that's a loss to this province. We don't want to lose any families in this province. That can be a huge loss. When you extrapolate that, you destroy an industry.

Let me tell you something, the federal government, I'm not going to say they're out to destroy the industry because it's revenue. It would be pretty silly to say that they're out to destroy the industry, but they're not doing it any favours, I can guarantee you that. I've seen it through Western Canada. They might put some money on the table, which is appreciated – for anybody to say it's not appreciated, you'd be wrong – but I don't see anybody bending over backwards for Newfoundland and Labrador from Ottawa. I haven't seen it for quite some time now. I've seen it for Quebec and I've seen it for other provinces. You go out to the West there and they're not very popular out there as well.

We have to try to find a happy medium to get everybody back to work, but at the same time keep the Newfoundland and Labrador coffers stable. I understand that and I understand there is a lot of pressure there, that we don't have a lot of money to be giving out. That's okay. I totally understand that. But where is Ottawa?

We are the 10th province of Canada and we keep getting kicked around, kicked around and kicked around. I feel it every single time. I always feel it. I felt it out West, too. Unless you're Quebec or Ontario – especially Quebec, who's getting this $13 billion a year. It still blows my mind. It's 2024, I know that it comes up again, but it's degrading. It truly is. I don't know what the number would be to put on the table to get this deal done, but I'm sure that Ottawa could find something to come down here, a Natural Resources minister to come down here and say what do we need to get this done, to keep Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working?

Industry is one thing, yes, and oil and gas is great, fantastic; it's something we have to hold on to. When you get down to the crux of it, Mr. Speaker, it's the people. It's the men and women that put on these workboots every single day to go out and do their job that they may not have come next week. You'll find these workboots at St. John's airport, Gander airport or out in Deer Lake and they'll be gone. Once that happens and we get a certain amount of people leave the province – not an influx, but an out-migration – I guarantee you, we are going to be in a lot of trouble and it's coming.

We need to pull together and have our debate. Hopefully somebody catches it; hopefully somebody makes a decision. I know that I'll always speak for the blue-collar workers and oil and gas workers right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

God bless you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move that we now adjourn debate on Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The motion is that we do adjourn debate.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider the Estimates of the Legislature and the Executive Council.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to discuss the Estimates of the Legislature and the Executive Council.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

The Estimates of the Legislature will be voted first. I'll ask the Clerk to call the subheads.

CLERK (Barnes): The Legislature, 1.1.01 through 7.1.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 to 7.1.01 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 7.1.01 carried.

CLERK: The total.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, Legislature, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Legislature carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Legislature carried without amendment.

CHAIR: We shall now consider the Estimates of the Executive Council. I understand that the House Leaders and a representative of the unaffiliated Members have met and agreed on an approach to considering the Estimates of the Executive Council.

Estimates will be considered by subheads and there are four in this order: 3.1.01 to 3.1.06 is Treasury Board Secretariat; 1.1.01 is Lieutenant-Governor's Establishment; 2.1.01 to 2.8.03 is the Office of the Executive Council; and 4.1.01 to 4.5.05 is the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Just a little housekeeping, time will be allocated in 10-minute blocks. A Member can ask as many questions as they wish during their 10-minute allocation. The responsible minister will respond with this allocation, as is the practice in Standing Committee meetings. The style will be back and forth. Members may use multiple 10-minute blocks as long as there's an intervening speaker.

I will prioritize for recognition of the Official Opposition critics, followed by Third Party critics, followed by the unaffiliated Members. When there are no further questions for the subhead, the vote for that subhead will be called. When all subheads have been considered, the totals will be voted.

Seeing no objections, I will now ask the Clerk to call the first subhead.

CLERK: Treasury Board Secretariat, 3.1.01 through 3.1.06 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 3.1.01 to 3.1.06 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off with some general questions.

The Budget Speech talks about the establishment of a House Committee, quote, “to review financial statements, budgets, and the annual reports of Crown corporations and organizations.” Again, I think I asked this earlier today: Has there been any thought to accomplishing this through the Public Accounts Committee?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we begin, may I just also say a couple of words on what Estimates we're looking at. This is the Office of the Executive Council. I want to thank them for their hard work and efforts. I don't want to take up too much of the Member opposite's time, but I did want to thank them for their efforts and for the work that they do on behalf of the province. They also manage relations with Ottawa, so it's a very important part of government. Perhaps, when I get into each section of it, I can say what they do.

Just on the point that the Member opposite is asking, the view here is we wanted to make sure that the Estimates – and I'll use that term – of all the important agencies, boards and commissions, the Crown corporations, are brought before the House of Assembly. This is a means and mechanism of doing this.

Yes, you could perhaps put it under the responsibilities of an existing Committee; we felt it best to have another Committee set up because, of course, the work that is done by the Public Accounts Committee is extensive. We wanted to have an opportunity to have another Standing Committee of this House of Assembly where more Members can be involved, different Members can be involved and you can bring in various entities to have them go through their Estimates.

We think it's very important, Mr. Chair, that we actually get to the granular level of everybody's expenditures, all those that take huge amounts of money from the public purse.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I totally agree with the concept, for sure, and I also echo the comments about the Executive Council and staff and the work they do.

The PERT report recommended major changes to government, but there is a no-layoff clause in the collective agreements. I was wondering: How do these two items work together or conflict with each other?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think it's very important that we recognize that the PERT report – the Premier's Economic Recovery Team – did an extensive amount of work. I want to again thank the members of that team who volunteered their time.

I do want to say, Mr. Chair, that we are currently doing communications and consultations with the people of the province to determine which pieces of the report we want to implement and how we want to implement them.

Yes, we have a no-layoff clause in our current collective agreements. As I said to the Member opposite on multiple occasions, there are over 500 vacancies within government. We are looking for good people; we need good people. What we're considering is that people can be accommodated if they are moved around or they want to move around government.

I don't see there is a conflict at this point, first and foremost, because we are still consulting on the Greene report; second of all because we do need good people in the provincial government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Chair, I am aware that discussions about the long-term work from home and the return to workplace are ongoing. Could you please provide some detail on that?

CHAIR: Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

This is very important, the work from home. There is a lot of work being done right now to try and accommodate people as we are moving through COVID, Mr. Chair. We are also considering how do we ensure people who wish to continue to work from home are accommodated; what positions can be accommodated. We also want to speak with union leadership, the labour unions, to make sure we're considering all the various factions.

That work is ongoing, Mr. Chair, and we're expecting it to take a couple of more weeks, but we are looking at plans that allow those who wish to work from home and those that can be accommodated to work from home and any workplace policies that are required because of same, that we have a good solid policy. We will be speaking to labour leadership to make sure that we're considering everything as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What is the attrition plan which government is now following and is there a multi-year forecast by department which you can provide?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

Yes, there is an attrition plan within government, it is at 0.5 per cent. It has been there, again, same as last year. We do have a schedule, of course, for each department. Of course, that would have been reviewed during Estimates process, but if you want an accumulative list, I'm sure we could provide it.

We did increase the requirements of agencies, boards and commissions, so Crown corporations to 1 per cent. That is because we've seen there is a lot of potential within Crown corporations. So 1 per cent of those that retire will need to be acclimatized to a change in what they're doing.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given the significant number of employees that have reached the age of retirement, is there any consideration being given to allowing employees to retire early without having their pension penalized, which could help speed-up the attrition process?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will say that we are expecting or the eligibility for retirement is about 24 per cent in the next five years. So it's a tremendous number of people within government. We understand the impact that could have on the operations of government.

There is at this point no consideration for an early retirement package. That's not to say that there wouldn't be one in the future. I'm just saying there is not one under consideration at this point in time. As I said, we have vacancies within government. We know that there will be more. There are more vacancies to come because of people retiring.

At this point in time, it's not under consideration. That's not to say it won't be in the future.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under section 3.1.01, the Office of the President of Treasury Board, under Salaries, I note that the budget for salaries has increased from $56,000 to $186,400. I was looking for an explanation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make sure I'm getting it right.

Yes, that is because, of course, I'm now having the dual responsibility of the Minister of Finance as well as President of Treasury Board. That is now a dual responsibility. That is for two positions, one being what I'll call secretarial support or administrative support and the other being an executive support person to help manage the affairs of that office. It's up a little bit, but still not significantly when you consider that that is now part of my mandate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Under section 3.1.02, Executive Support, again in Salaries, despite a salary savings last year of $102,200, the salary budget is being increased to $1.9 million. Can you please explain why and probably give us an overview of the types of positions that are contained in that one?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

Yes, we were down last year by about $100,000 because of vacancies. You'll see that throughout Estimates that sometimes there are delays in filling positions. It might be a specialist position or whatever. Sometime there's a little bit of a delay to fill them.

We are now back up to complement and we are actually adding another assistant deputy minister for program evaluation and accountability. You'll have seen that in the budget where we talked about how importance continuous improvement program evaluation and accountability frameworks are. We're adding an ADM responsible for that. That's why it's up slightly, to accommodate that position, plus the salary increases from this year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Is it possible to get the overview of which positions are contained there or to be provided with a listing?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Certainly. That's the secretary to Treasury Board, four ADMs in Executive and about 20 positions overall. The $1.9 million includes Treasury Board support staff and admin support as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Under the revenue section, there is a Revenue – Provincial. Can you please give an overview of where this revenue comes from and what accounts for the increase in revenue received last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is pensioner mail cost recoveries. When mail is sent out to pensioners, the department is recouped for that. That's Provident10 pension payroll recoveries. When mail goes out, it is then recouped from Provident10 so that those mailing costs are recovered.

CHAIR: I remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker – or Mr. Chair.

S. COADY: I know. I get it wrong, too.

J. DINN: I had to look where the mace was.

I just want to pick up on a question that my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port raised. It had to do with the attrition plan.

Minister, you referenced the fact that there's a 0.5 per cent determined and a 1 per cent for Crown corporations, if I heard you correctly. I'm just wondering how that number is arrived at. I'm looking at this in terms of the zero-based budgeting process that I was first introduced to, I guess, here when I was first elected. We have attrition. We also now have the possibility of looking at, according to the Budget Speech, balanced budget legislation.

I'm just wondering: In determining attrition rates, how is that 0.5 or that 1 per cent arrived at?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

0.5 per cent, so half a per cent, is a very low number when you consider that across government, in some departments, it doesn't even register; it's kind of absorbed in their salary envelopes. We look at the salary envelop and consider how much that would be. For example, if you have a salary envelope overall in your division or department – let's just say it's a million dollars – then 0.5 per cent of that is then taken because of attrition.

You might get those savings because of the way you were recruiting for positions or that you're changing some of the positions as you move forward with the way in which you're delivering services. It is to assist us with understanding that we need to pare back within government and how do we do that in a way that departments can manage their own affairs.

It's kind of looked at as being not too onerous for departments to make sure that they have the skills and the people they require, but they are still responsive and reflective of the need to cut back in certain areas. It's not overly onerous for departments to consider, but it is something that they need to keep in view during the year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Here's where I'm going with this, too, because I noticed, looking in your office, that you have a secretary and then Executive Support. This is not be a criticism of employees for you, because I would look at to do the job there are people that are going to have to be hired; otherwise, services, in some way, shape or form, are going to be impacted.

I understand the salary envelope, and I think you used a term when you looked at – a phrase – that those who were left would have to be acclimatized to change in the way they're doing things. You've got that, but we also have zero-based budgeting, which, as I understood, it is building the budget from the ground up and looking at exactly what you need. I would assume, in other words, that a department doing zero-based budgeting is keeping it to the bare bones: Here are the services we provide; here is what we're going to need to do it. Now we're layering on top the attrition piece, like we have to find attrition savings.

I'll give you this example I've used a few times at Holy Heart, where I taught. When I first went there, there were three secretaries. Two years later, there were two, not because there was a reduction in the population or anything like that, but we were down to two. What that did mean is that things that the secretaries had done, such as photocopying exams and getting them ready, now fell to the teachers and other people to do. In other words, that took away from other duties that we would be doing as teachers. It didn't suck up free time; it just meant we had less time to do elsewhere.

My concern is that if it's attrition about: Look, do we need the position anymore? If the service is no longer provided, do you need that person? That's fair enough. But if it's about, well, we're going to find that savings. That means the work has now been divvied up and there are extra demands on the employees left, and that has an impact, I think.

Now, at the department level, it may not be on the front-line services, but it's going to trickle down in some way, shape or form. That's my concern with this. This is what I've been struggling with throughout this process as to the combination. I'm wondering, in our rush to find the savings, if we're going to inadvertently do more damage than good.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Member for that discourse and for his thinking on this. I understand where he's coming from.

I think that's why giving departments maximum latitude – so not saying to a department where or how you have to make these savings, but giving them the latitude of saying you need to find within your salary envelope 0.5 in attrition, 0.5 of a per cent, so half a per cent – gives them the maximum flexibility. You also have to recognize that if there are pressures within a department, sometimes a department will come to Treasury Board to ask for additional resources.

It is to allow maximum opportunity to manage the affairs of the department from the minister as well as the deputy minister, so giving them that flexibility, but also for understanding that if there is a certain program that needs additional supports, they do have that latitude to come through Treasury Board to have that discussion. Lots of times you have movement and rearrangement within the way you manage the affairs of a department because of differing pressures or differing ways in which you deliver service.

I would say we also have to recognize that there is more technology being used. There are changes to job functions and changes to the way you deliver services, and so you want to give that flexibility so they can make sure they're delivering the best services possible and giving them that flexibility.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you.

I take the point. My issue with it at times, too, when we use the term we have to cut red tape and waste, well, red tape for one person is actually protections for another person. When people talk about the waste in government or we have too many public servants, then you need to show me why, because I might subscribe to that until I call up a service and I find I can't get through and then, all of a sudden, I'm going to be complaining about something else. I take your point: 0.5 is not much, but it's still putting in there the whole notion of attrition and I'm always curious as to how we decide that.

When I was with the NLTA, we had a print plant and now it's a huge digital photocopier. Obviously, the person we need, if we need anyone, won't be the person who deals with the press; we no longer needed it. There's no use hiring a person on with those skills. But if we're still doing copying and we're still sending out pamphlets, booklets and so on and so forth, we're still going to need someone there. There's a difference. If we retired and we're going to farm out our printing then we don't need the person; that's where I'm going with that. It's not so much a specific question as a general observation.

With regard to 3.1.03, Secretariat Operations, there was a decrease in salaries last year. I'm assuming that had to do – it can't be with the 27th pay period or anything like that, would it?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

You're talking about – just so I'm clear – 3.1.03 and we went from $17 million to $15 million?

J. DINN: Yes.

S. COADY: That is really due to vacancies and challenges in filling positions. There's a lot of movement in this area due to that these are entry-level positions. There's a lot of movement of people, you know, they come in to government in these positions and then move on throughout their career. So there's a lot of movement.

It is undergoing some reorganization. We anticipate to fill the positions and that's why it's back up to $17 million. It is because, by its very nature, a lot of people enter in government and then they find other positions they like within government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to Professional Services and Purchased Services, what would these lines be used for and the decrease last year in the actuals?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

This is an interesting one: actuarial and consulting services for arbitrations and pension administration maintenance. The savings are due to reduced requirements in this particular area because of the timing and scheduling of arbitrations is fluid. We do have a couple of arbitrations from the previous year that was paid for in '21-'22, but it is that ebb and flow of arbitrations.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I remind the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of, I guess, general questions, comments and so on.

On the attrition plan, I just want to sort of pick up where my colleague from St. John's Centre was talking about this. I get the point he's making, I do. I think maybe we see the world a little differently in that regard, or perhaps not. I don't know. But the reality of it is we've been having year-over-year deficits and we have a huge debt that we have to tackle. We have to decrease the expense side of the balance sheet. There's no doubt about it. The reality of it is, like it or not, whether we want to say it out loud or not, much of that is associated to salaries and benefits. That's the reality, it just is.

I'm certainly not advocating for laying people off – absolutely not. Hauling the rug out from underneath people's feet and families – definitely not. I would never support that, and I say that upfront. But by the same token, we need to look at where we can find efficiencies throughout the system and it's going to mean not a loss in jobs, but a loss in positions. There's a difference, because I've heard some questions about: Oh, there's nobody losing their job. Which is good to hear, but the reality of it is that there will be positions lost. It's inevitable. If you're going to combine the back office functions of the four health authorities into one, there are going to be positions lost. If it's not going to save us any money then what's the point of doing it to begin with? So I think it's important to put that out there.

Everybody can't work for the government. Government's role – as I see it at least – is to provide services to the people. That's what government is there for. Sort of the by-product of making that happen is jobs, because in order to provide services someone has to provide them. It's kind of the by-product of it and it's obviously a positive thing for a lot of people, communities and so on. But, at the end of the day, the government's role is not to directly employ everybody that needs a job. That's the reality.

As long as we're going to do it, Minister, through attrition and so on and do it properly, and we're going to bear in mind – as my colleague from St. John's Centre has said – what the impacts are going to be throughout the system, so if it's done properly, done methodically then I think it needs to be done, and I would certainly support it.

When we're talking attrition – here's the other point, though. Whether it be attrition or whatever you want to call it, reduction of positions, one thing I don't agree with and I've never agreed with – and governments have done it in the past and so on. I don't like this idea of saying to every department, every division: You have to save X per cent. You need to cut your budget by 5, 10 or 15 per cent, whatever it is. Nor do I necessarily agree with everybody needs to reduce the number of positions by a certain percentage.

There may be certain divisions where we can't reduce it at all; we're at the bare bones. Maybe in division A, we don't reduce it all, but in B, we're going to reduce it twice as much as the target so that it all balances out, because in division B there's lots of room to do it in other ways and more efficiently and so on. This whole idea of a set number for everybody, I think that has to be flexible, looking at the bigger picture that there are going to be some areas where you can make changes and some areas where you simply can't in order to provide essential services. I just wanted to make that point.

The other thing, which I found, I'm going to say, offensive – I'm sure a lot of public employees did – in the PERT report was this whole notion about deal with the unions, and if you can't get an agreement, just legislate it anyway. It was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. I don't know why she put that in the report in that way.

I just want to ask the minister, does this government have any intention – I'm not bargaining here, negotiating before negotiations start. Can employees at least have some comfort in knowing that we're going to follow the collective agreement process and that there's no intention here on rolling back people's salaries and so on, because that was kind of the impression that was given. Can the minister give some assurances in that regard that that's not the plan?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much for the question.

Regarding the Premier's Economic Recovery Team, that is out for consultation and there is a process for consultation. We're listening to what the public has to say. I will say to the Member opposite: You can rest assured that we'll be following the – my apologies, my brain just went. We will be following the collective agreement process and we have not had any discussions at this point.

Next year is when the agreements are completed – I think in March of '22 – and we will be following a collective agreement process as time gets closer to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Minister, again, without negotiating in advance and so on, can people be given at least some comfort in knowing that government is not going to be going to the table looking to go rolling back people's salaries? Because I've heard from a number of public servants who are afraid of that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: The collective bargaining direction at this point has not been set. Again, respectfully, I would not comment on anything at this point.

That's not to say there would or would not be. All I'm saying to you at this point in time is: (1) we're going to listen to what the public has to say on the Premier's Economic Recovery Team report; (2) we're going to follow a collective bargaining process and we have a great deal of respect for that process; and (3) there has been no discussion at this point as to how we're going to move forward, so I can't offer any comment at this point.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The balanced budget legislation recommendation, which I think I heard government say – I think it was in the budget that you said you were going to bring it in. I'm assuming, obviously, you can't bring it in next year and say we're going to have a balanced budget because we're even predicting that we're not. So I'm assuming that when you meet your target and we finally have a balanced budget, whether it be in two, three or four years' time, whatever the projection is, at that point in time that's when the balanced budget legislation would kick in. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What the government has done is signalled the intent towards balanced budgets. We think it's very important for Newfoundland and Labrador actually to show the intent that we are moving towards balanced budgets. Notwithstanding, of course, that there are going to be things impacting that along the way: What happens if we have another COVID? What happens if there's a significant impact to the coffers of the government? When we bring in that legislation I'm sure we'll be debating it fully and refining it.

Mr. Chair, what we have pointed out in this budget is given the forecast over the next five years, where we see things going in the next five years. As you can see, we will not get to balanced budgets until, really, the fifth year and thereafter. So, of course, anything that we do in the meantime will be in that vein of understanding that we in that process.

I will say as well, Mr. Chair, we did place in the budget commentary – this was in the Budget Speech – around a future fund. Let's say, for example, after analysis, review, discussion and consultation through the PERT report process we decide that we want to sell a particular asset or we want to sell a piece of a particular asset. We would take that money and put it toward the future fund that could go to pay down debt or help us improving our economy.

We have signalled a couple of things there. How important it is to take some of the monies that we get within government to make sure that we pay down our debt. I think it's a direction that this government has set. We are going to really focus on balanced budgets; we're going to focus on paying down our debt. That will give some flexibility to the people of the province as we move forward.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you for that, Minister.

My next question is around the ABCs and dealing with the ABCs. Obviously, I'm 1,000 per cent in support of that, given the fact that it's something I've been raising in this House of Assembly for quite some time. I thank government for listening on that.

I know my colleague from Stephenville there was talking about bringing it to Public Accounts. I'm glad it's going to be a separate process. Certainly, what I had envisioned would be similar to what we see in Estimates. I'm hoping that's kind of how it would go.

The question to this, Minister, is: Where it's going to be a new Committee – it's not going to be our standard House Committee – can you give some assurances in developing this process like we're doing here today, independent Members will have a part in it, unlike what we see in the Management Commission and in the one I just referenced?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I will give kudos to the Member opposite. I think that you've made a very compelling case to put this Committee forward and that's exactly what we've done. I thank him for his process over the last number of years. We've listened intently. We will be bringing forward a Committee that will be seized with looking at – I would like to have the Committee really delve into all the Crown corporations or as many Crown corporations as it appropriate. To delve into their spending patterns, their budgets and their plans overall.

I would think that we would welcome the House of Assembly review and support. We'll certainly take that into consideration when we're developing the Committee and bringing it forward to this House.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I remind the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's been talk in a lot of Estimates about vacant positions throughout government. I'm wondering: Is there a listing of vacant positions that we can get as of a particular time? I know it changes, but even if we had it as of today or yesterday or whenever. Is there a complete list that we can get?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I believe when we had the Public Service Commission before the Estimates Committee – and for the people that are tuning in, I am responsible for the Public Service Commission. When we were here, we had the commissioners here and I believe the commissioner undertook that to bring that forward as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To follow up on that, is there also a list we could get of new positions that are being added to the government departments this year. I heard you speak about a couple of new positions being added here, a new ADM and some additional supports. Can we get a total of all of the new positions that are being added to government departments in this fiscal year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I don't know if they are classified differently, so allow me to go back to the Public Service Commission to determine if they have that readily available as to whether they're existing positions or new positions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I noticed under section 3.1.03, under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there was an expenditure of $148,700. I'm just wondering what that was.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

That was for laptops, to ensure that our members of the department could work from home effectively and efficiently. That was where that purchase came from.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Again, under the same section, 3.1.03, under 02, Revenue – Provincial, can you please explain how this revenue is generated and what explains the variance in what was received last year versus anticipated?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Yes, thank you very much.

Again, that goes to pension costs so the lower amount was because it reflects a decrease in revenue due to a lower pension cost resulting in lower recoveries. The revenue side of things is payment services provided to pensioner payroll and teachers' payroll – so again that reimbursement of costs – salary and operating recovery from the pooled pension funds and group insurance plan recoveries from the group insurance plan fund.

So we basically outlay because of mailing or because of human resources, salaries, operating and then we are reimbursed in the department.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Under 3.1.04, Government Personnel Costs, under Salaries, last year $56 million was budgeted. Can you provide some information about how much was transferred out and spent in other departments?

This year $41 million is budgeted, so, again, I'm wondering how the number was calculated.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Certainly.

I'm going to refer to, if I may, the Member opposite, because he has had this question and this is around Appendix II. I will talk a little bit about Appendix II, because that's where this is showing up under Executive Support. In Appendix II under Executive Support, you'll see that figure that you had asked for previously.

Let me get that figure for you, Mr. Chair. It's now $96 million. Last year I think it was $111,233,000.

What that's comprised of is two things. It's comprised of the salaries of the Executive Council, but it also has what I'm going to call, for lack of a better word, a contingency effect. That's where we place a pool of money that we can have in case of contractual or what I'm going to call any kind of collective bargaining changes. It will be disbursed then to departments. You would see them in department salaries.

Last year, if you want to take a look, it was $111,233,000 in total. $56,997,000, if you're still following me on the salary line, was actually restated in the original budget. You'll see that it was revised to zero. It was a drop balance of $40 million. The difference in that was $16.7 million. There was a portion of that, $13.2 million, went to Justice and Public Safety, and that was for some negotiations that went on there. Health and Community Services was again for another stipend that they required for collective bargaining contractual changes.

In this particular budget, we're allocating $41,257,000 for that particular type of contingency.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Okay.

Under the Revenue – Provincial, again there was a significant drop in the revenue that was anticipated from $325,000 down to $93,000. Just wondering what that one is.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

That's government personnel costs from the pool pension fund, NLMF and the sinking funds. It also includes miscellaneous prior year recoveries from other departments.

CHAIR: The Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Under section 3.1.05, Financial Assistance, Current, Grants and Subsidies, could you please provide a breakdown of any money which was spent, including any which was transferred out to other departments or agencies, boards or commissions?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Okay.

Grants and Subsidies transfers: This funding is a pool of funds for business opportunities, financial support and required initiatives to meet objectives. Funding is held centrally and transferred to applicable departments, as you've indicated. Transfers of $8.17 million occurred. The Legislature, for the general election, received $5.58 million; Executive Council received monies there. I think it was some monies for advisory services around Muskrat Falls's issues. A small stipend for the Premier's Economic Recovery Team of $35,000 and $18,452 was dropped.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: How much did you say was for the Executive advisory services?

S. COADY: $2.5 million.

T. WAKEHAM: Okay, $2.5 million.

S. COADY: That's for the financial and legal and that type of thing.

T. WAKEHAM: The rest of it was dropped?

S. COADY: Yes.

T. WAKEHAM: Okay.

Under 3.1.06, Revenue – Provincial: Can you please outline the revenue lines there? Where is the revenue expected to come from and why wasn't there anything collected last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Certainly.

This is around the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. As you know, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper has a $110-million loan disbursed. Due to COVID, there was no repayment on that, but that was due to COVID. That's what it is for. That's where the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper loan sits.

T. WAKEHAM: So there was no payment on the loan last year?

S. COADY: Correct.

T. WAKEHAM: Was that something you guys had agreed to with –?

S. COADY: COVID-related.

T. WAKEHAM: Okay.

When you talked about the JPS and the Health money from personnel costs, what exactly was that used for?

S. COADY: I'm sorry, can you – oh, okay. Sorry, you're going back to the other –

T. WAKEHAM: Yes, just backwards for a second.

S. COADY: Let me just turn the page and go back.

It was for payments for the RNC, I think I said. Yes, remember there was a settlement done for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. That's reflective of collective bargaining and the contractual services. Then under Health and Community Services, it was a salary increase for ambulance operators.

T. WAKEHAM: Okay, great.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

S. COADY: I will provide you a copy of my book at the end of this. I know you're going to ask me.

T. WAKEHAM: Yeah, I was going to ask you; now I don't have to.

S. COADY: Now you don't have to.

T. WAKEHAM: I'm pretty well running out of time, but the one thing I would add about the whole attrition plan: As I said, the current age to retire right now is 58 and there are a significant number of employees in ABCs and government who have the years of service, but do not have the chronological age. So the idea of opening up a period of window for allowing people to leave the public service with their pensions would certainly help speed-up some of the attrition. And, potentially, if you want to make it expanded, you could actually even open it up even more so that at the end of the day you actually have jobs being created as well by people applying. It doesn't always have to be about simply eliminating jobs.

S. COADY: I think the only thing that I would say to the Member opposite is we also have to be cognizant of not losing too much corporate knowledge as well. So we want to make sure we do this in an effective way.

T. WAKEHAM: I understand.

That's all the questions I have.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a quick question with regard to the vacancies, I've noticed that in a number of departments, and there seems to be quite a few across when – I don't have a number at hand right now, but in the Estimates there seems to be quite a few.

Is this a long-term problem, COVID-related, or is it also possibly related to the fact that if indeed we are looking at attrition or we're increasing the workload, that it could also make it more difficult for the departments to get their work done in hiring? I understand there might also be collective agreement issues and so on and so forth. But I'm just curious, to pick up on what I was saying the last time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

There is no slowdown in trying to attract people into the civil service. There is quite a lot of movement within the civil service. You've heard the number of people that are retiring. It's just, I think, we're seeing the baby-boomer generation move through. The last I looked it was over 500 vacancies. It's more to do with positions moving around. People who come in, they come in entry level and then they decide that they want to follow a different career projection or there are other opportunities within government. That causes a knock-on effect.

So you see this tremendous movement within government of people coming in – and this is good for them – they move in their careers, they advance in their careers, then we're out recruiting at the same time.

It is one thing that I think we're all seeing across the economy, though, there are lots of jobs without people and there are a lot of people without jobs. So we're got to understand in the mix that we're continuously recruiting within government because people move. People move from the public service to the private sector and back and forth. We're going to look at how we can better enhance our recruitment to make sure we're getting great people into government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: With regard to laptops, I'm just wondering: When did people start working from home? When did that begin? I'm looking at when laptops were then ordered, and how many? I don't know if you have the total number for the whole government, all departments, or just yours.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

It was really around COVID time last year when people had to stay at home and they were starting to work from home; when more and more people were working from home that the purchases of more laptops, improved laptops began. So March of 2020 is when we first started to have the impact.

But we were upgrading laptops as well to ensure maximum functioning and maximum flexibility of that. So you've seen that right across government. We're continuing to upgrade, and you've seen some purchases coming through because, of course, you're seeing the projected revised budget from 2020-2021.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I guess, obviously, there was a certain time crunch. When were people outfitted with laptops to do that work? I realize that some were upgraded and some were probably new.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are lots of laptops within government, but when you had your entire civil service working from home, obviously, we had to buy additional laptops to make sure that they were functioning and there was greater efficiency for people who could work from home. We wanted to make sure of that.

Really starting in March of 2020, there was a real push to increase the number of laptops, to improve the laptop capability. So I would say within the last year there have been a tremendous number of laptops either purchased or redeployed within government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I have no issue with the purchase of laptops; totally behind it to get the job done. I'm just wondering, if they started in March 2020, were people fully outfitted with them – those who needed them – by let's say, two months, three months or a year later down the road, or no way of knowing that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's no way for me to know. That would be a departmental concern. But I can tell you from the Department of Finance, department of Treasury Board as was required, they received their laptops or received their upgrades. If that was required, they got them as quickly as we possibly could get them to them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

P. DINN: 3.1.04, is it possible to have a breakdown for the Employee Benefits figures to see what percentage of money is currently spent on which type of benefits? Whether you do that now or later, it's no problem.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Under Employee Benefits, that is block funding for estimated employer costs for Employment Insurance, $9.2 million; Canada Pension Plan – do you want the numbers or what they are for?

J. DINN: If you have the numbers that would be fine.

S. COADY: Yeah, I do.

Canada Pension Plan, $25.4 million; Group Medical Life, $2 million – I'm going to give you a copy of my notes afterwards.

J. DINN: Good.

S. COADY: Group Medical Health, $28.8 million; and the Post-Secondary Education Tax of $11.8 million. Employment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan, Group Medical Life, Group Medical Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax, it gives you the numbers in the binder when you receive it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you.

I'll leave with this last question then: With regard to the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, the MHA pension plan and the Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan, how well are these pensions currently funded?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: There's an unfunded liability, I just don't have it off the top of my head. I can get it for you. I just don't have it here with me.

All pension plans, not just some of them, but all pension plans have been doing relatively well in these years because of the returns in the marketplace right now. But there is still an unfunded liability for those, as there are for the other Provident10, as well as teachers.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: I'm not jumping ahead of you, Chair, my apologies.

Are these plans – they're owned by the provincial government I take it?

S. COADY: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. I'll put my earpiece in – a lot of noise.

J. DINN: Are these plans then owned by and managed by the provincial government?

S. COADY: The Uniformed Services Pension Plan?

J. DINN: And the MHA and the Provincial Court.

S. COADY: Yeah, that's all part of that same plan. Yes, it is.

J. DINN: Okay.

With that, Chair, thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure I have questions. I've raised several of these points during various Estimates – suggestions to departments about revenue generating. I'm not sure if it's appropriate right now. I look to the minister.

S. COADY: I certainly welcome any questions or opportunities you have.

P. TRIMPER: Okay, just to enter in for the record, it's one that you and I actually spoke about a few weeks ago during a Zoom conference. I'm back to it and I've been talking a little bit to my colleague from Bonavista about the aspect of Crown lands, escalating lumber prices and an opportunity that we could potentially pursue as a government in terms of increasing our stumpage royalty rates on trees that we are allowing to be cut.

We have them set right now at a relatively low rate, compared with what's going on in the market. If you look to Alberta in particular as a jurisdiction, they've just increased their stumpage royalty rates. No effect on the end customer because really what's happening, it's the middleman – middle woman, middle person – the processor that's actually seeing this opportunity to make phenomenal profits.

I've started to do a bit of a jurisdictional scan myself. I don't have the resources to look at each jurisdiction, but I can tell you Alberta has done this successfully. It's a lost opportunity right now. There's a lot of demand for building supplies. A lot of the questions I'm seeing during Oral Questions are relating to what could we do to reduce the cost. Frankly, there's not much, but we could take advantage without hurting the consumer.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I'll certainly take that back. I know officials are listening to this afternoon, and I'm sure that they have written that down to do a jurisdictional scan to see what more revenues we could take in.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you.

With that, Mr. Chair, that's it for this section. I look forward to other opportunities.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Is the House ready for the question?

P. LANE: Mr. Chair –

CHAIR: I'm sorry.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Mr. Chair, I thought we were just going in order. Am I to assume that my colleague from Stephenville doesn't have any questions? If he does, it would be his turn. If he's not, then I –

CHAIR: Do you have further questions?

P. LANE: I have further questions.

CHAIR: Okay.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for the delay but I thought it was going to the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port; I didn't realize he was done. I just have a couple of questions I wanted to ask.

Minister, we know in the budget – well, in the PERT report originally, and then a lot of it transferred to the Budget Speech at least – you've talked about, for example, doing a review of Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, Nalcor, the back-office functions of the hospital boards, the school board and Marble Mountain. There is a whole bunch of things here that's in the Budget Speech, if you will, and when we vote on the budget – of course, really from my perspective, we are voting on the numbers that are in this book, not about future plans, per se. I think we need to deal with those on an individual basis when they come.

I'm just wondering when it comes to those particular issues, obviously, there may be some – like with Nalcor, as an example. Whatever the decision is on Nalcor and whether that be combined with OilCo and Newfoundland Hydro, and whether some of it go into the department, whatever it's going to be, whatever it is going to be called and so on – I don't think it should be called Nalcor anymore, I will say that, because of the stigma associated to it.

Whatever you call it and whatever it looks like, that would probably require some legislative change, I would think, which means it would come before this House of Assembly to debate. If we're looking at things – again, the combining of the health care authorities back offices or the school board and stuff. My point and my question is some of this may or may not require coming before this House to debate because there may or may not be legislative implications.

The assurance I'm looking for, if you can give one, given the enormity of these decisions – these are significant changes, I'll call it that. Even if it doesn't require a legislative change, per se, that would absolutely require it coming before this House of Assembly, could we as Members on the Opposition have some assurances that before the minister or the Cabinet, whatever, just goes ahead behind the scenes and says: Oh we can do all this through regulation, policy, and make huge changes to things, can there be, if not in this House of Assembly, some sort of a process set up where we're going to have that debate, that discussion, that heads-up before you just go ahead and start making wholesale changes to the way government agencies, commissions and core government looks. I know that's a mouthful but –

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much and thank you for the comments.

I will say that you're absolutely right; in some instances, it would come before in legislation. Some are just the organization of departments or government, just the organization of the way services are delivered.

We're held to account every day here in the House in Question Period. We're held to account by the Opposition on a regular basis, so I think that regular process would still apply. I'm not sure what further process – you have availability of information and availability of ministers on an ongoing basis.

We can have a discussion afterwards of what further things you may wish to have, but the organization of the way government delivers a service is just that. I'm not quite sure what you would need further, but I'm certainly always open to your consideration and thought process for sure.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: I think the point I'm trying to make – and I'm trying to put it into words here but I'm hoping you're getting the drift. The point I'm making –

AN HON. MEMBER: Stuck for words (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: No, I'm never stuck for words. Trying to find the right one sometimes is a challenge, though.

If you were going to reorganize the health care authorities or a significant piece on that, that would be a significant undertaking. That probably wouldn't require coming to the House and bringing in a piece of legislation. Maybe it would but I'm just saying maybe it would not.

I'm not talking about now you're going to go to an office and say we're going to – government, all the time, when they come in they change names of departments and they move a few people around here and there. I'm not talking about that. But if we're going to be making significant changes to things, significant decisions on things, then whether they require going to the House because of legislation or not, I just feel, in the spirit of us working together, we should all have – whether it be a Committee or whatever – an opportunity to have input to say here's what we're looking at doing; here are the implications; here's what it's going to look like; any thoughts on it, any suggestions and so on.

I'm just speaking for myself; I really am committed to getting behind a lot of these things that I really think need to be done. I truly am. I'm prepared to take a few political knocks, if necessary, to do it and to do it right. If there are major changes made in government – and, again, I'm saying significant issues – I, for one, am not prepared to simply rubber-stamp it and say, oh, yes, I agree with all that, if there was no opportunity for input and understanding of exactly what was done, why it was done and the implications behind it.

I know we have Question Period, but there's a reason why it's called Question Period, and not answer period, as we all know as well.

That meaningful input would be important to me as one Member in this House.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

I think we could have further conversations of what further you may need.

I will say this: What we've signalled and what we've said we're going to do is take back-office functions, so instead of there being four payroll divisions, there would be one payroll divisions; instead of being four Finance departments, there would be one Finance department.

I think what the Member opposite is really referring to is how we deliver health care in the province, which is a little different than what we're talking about. How we deliver health care is under review from the Health Accord. Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat Parfrey are undertaking what I think is a very good, solid process. I'm sure the Member opposite has had conversations with them, so you have that ability to have that influence in the early stages of that.

Whether we have four payroll departments, I don't think that would be a major decision, but I'm certainly open to speaking to the Member further to find ways and means of satisfying what he's referring to.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Minister, and we will have the conversation sidebar at another time.

I guess there would be implications even in that example that you gave with combining those four years. It would be like, okay, well, what is it going to mean in terms of positions lost? Where will they be? For example, if there's somebody who's in Western Health – I'll just say for argument sake – performing a function, are we going to say everything is moving to St. John's; we're shutting the rest down? Or are we going to say it's all going to be in Western, all going to be in Central or people are going to be able to work wherever they're to?

My point is, Minister, there are going to be implications when you make significant changes like that and all I'm saying is having an opportunity to consult with Members on this side of the House as well so we understand what the implications maybe and an opportunity for some feedback and input. That's all I'm asking for, I don't think it's an unreasonable request.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Certainly, I know all Members are listening intently today and all ministers in particular who may have an impact in this area are certainly listening today for consultation and for discussion as we move forward.

P. LANE: Thank you, I appreciate it. That's all I ask. It was a roundabout way of asking, I guess.

My final question and I'm done: Because, really, it's the Cabinet who sets the Committees and so on – the government does – there was one Committee that we had in place in the last Legislature, which was the Democratic Reform Committee. That was in place, everybody here – most people who were here anyway would know, there was equal representation from all the parties and there was an independent Member. We met on a number of occasions and we had sort of taken the bigger issue of democratic reform but we had decided upon one step at a time. We were about to move forward with engageNL; engageNL has a presentation and everything all ready to go, as far as I know, on looking at campaign financing, as an example, and to engage in a public process. That was about to happen until the election got called.

Now, I know you have a Committee looking at the election itself or election legislation but that's a separate thing altogether. I'm asking: Does the government intend on reinstating the Democratic Reform Committee, given the fact that there's already been work done, everyone, pretty much, that was on the Committee are still here now; we could move forward next week and carry on as we were?

CHAIR: I remind the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.

P. LANE: Do I get an answer?

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

Shall 3.1.01 to 3.1.06 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Carried.

On motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.1.06 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

S. CROCKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again, presently, by leave.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House do now recess until 6 p.m.

SPEAKER: This House do now recess until 6 p.m.

June 10, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 14A

The House resumed at 6 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank everybody for their punctuality; it is 6 right on the dot.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider the Estimates of the Executive Council.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now considering the Estimates of the Lieutenant-Governor's Establishment and that's subheading 1.1.01.

CLERK (Barnes): The Lieutenant-Governor's Establishment, 1.1.01.

CHAIR: I now turn to the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to be back. This year first time asking questions on Estimates, which is relatively new for me, because after 11 years of chairing – five years of the Committees and then Estimates for two and three departments sometimes – it's a welcome rest, but now I'm looking forward to a few questions tonight and getting some answers.

Just a couple of quick things under 1.1.01, Government House. Last year, the Salaries went over by a little over $36,000. Can you just explain what that was for?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's great to have you back, to my hon. colleague. I will say that the Cabinet Secretariat supports the Premier and the work of Cabinet and its Committees, as well as the effective operation of departments and agencies. I want to thank them for their efforts and the contribution that they make.

1.1.01 is Government House; we're on Salaries. There was a slight overrun in that category due to some step increases and temporary positions. There are 15 positions overall: 10 permanent, two temporary and three contractual. The contractual was moved in and some step increases.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Perfect. I thank the minister for that. That clarifies that.

My only other question under that subhead is the planned budget increase of $30,000. Can you explain what that would be used for?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: The planned budget increase? I'm sorry; I'm not quite following.

D. BRAZIL: There's a planned budget increase – Purchased Services. Sorry, I didn't clarify.

S. COADY: Oh, Purchased Services.

D. BRAZIL: Purchased Services, yeah.

S. COADY: Yeah.

D. BRAZIL: From $42,500 to $72,500.

S. COADY: Yes, thank you very much. Now I understand. It's under Purchased Services.

That is related to costs for the bravery awards. As you can appreciate, every few years you have to replenish the medals and the trophies. So we've moved money from another activity into this activity to fund that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That it for me for 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

The Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have no questions. They've been answered.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Any further questions from the floor?

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: I'll ask the Clerk to call the next heading.

CLERK: Office of the Executive Council, 2.1.01 through 2.8.03 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 2.1.01 through 2.8.03 carry?

First of all, did the minister want to speak first before we started questions? No, okay.

I'll start right off with the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under 2.1.01, Premier's Office, Salaries: Last year, Salaries went up by $47,000. Could you explain that, please?

S. COADY: Certainly. It was an overrun, mainly due to a retirement and related costs. I can say even the budget from 2019-20 is still within that same general category: $1.505 million to $1.548 million. It is still within the same general category. Where the increase was is due to a retirement and related costs.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Perfect. Thank you, Minister.

Also, under Purchased Services, when you get a chance could you just provide us with the breakdown of all the invoices consolidated under the Purchased services. It doesn't have to be a breakdown now, but if you could share what they were with us in the future.

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I'm certainly happy to do that. We'll give you that breakdown. The Purchased Services in general were below the required amount. It's only $14,900, but happy to get that description for you.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you again to the minister.

Under 2.2.01, Executive Support, the Salaries last year went above budget by $1,184,500. Can you please explain why? Were there new positions included or were some transfers from other areas?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Certainly. This is 2.2.01, right? Executive Support?

Allow me to say that it was predominantly retirement. $1 million of that was retirement. We had a number of people who retired from Cabinet Secretariat with long-standing annual leave and severance costs.

There was $213,000 related to the Premier's Economic Recovery Team. There will be a number of categories where the Premier's Economic Recovery Team shows up here, so I'll be happy to speak to them as we move through. Just so you have it, predominantly I think it was almost $1 million from the three retirements that I talked about and there was $213,000 related to the Premier's Economic Recovery Team.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Yeah, under Professional Services, last year $2.6 million was spent. Could you please outline what this was for?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Certainly. Happy to do so.

There was approximately $2.5 million – almost $2.6 million – that was for legal and financial services and support related to Muskrat Falls. You would have seen that moved from Treasury Board into this expenditure allocation, but that was all related to Muskrat Falls.

There was some small amount for the Premier's Economic Recovery Team. Let me just look at what that was so that – I have it here under Professional Services. It's easier to pull out this one. I'll be happy to provide this. Under Purchased Services, there was a small amount of money for things like printers, some shredding services and editing and copying services that were required for the Premier's Economic Recovery Team.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you.

I appreciate that. I think you did offer to give us a copy of the expenditures relevant to that. As part of that, too, what type of approval process was used for the PERT itself to spend money?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I'm just going to allow my officials to come back to me on that. When you say what approval process, are you meaning …?

D. BRAZIL: Was it purchase orders? Was it in advance?

S. COADY: Oh, it would have been the same process as within government. But allow me to get a proper answer for you and I'll be right with you.

D. BRAZIL: Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Under 2.3.01, Communications Branch, Salaries last year: Salaries went over budget by $136,000. Can you just outline what that was for?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

Certainly, I do have an answer already. It's all of the normal purchasing rules applied to government. That means purchase orders and the government procurement rules applied, so, as I said, all of the normal processes within government.

The $136,000 reflects contractual positions. Really, that was focused on the social media expansion. That is now absorbed into the actual original budget. A lot more is being put towards, obviously, social media, as we move forward; we needed some external expertise to assist us with that.

From a communications perspective, you can appreciate with COVID there was a requirement for more social media. A lot of information was going out through social media so we brought in some contractual expertise. That's why you had an increase last year, but now it's absorbed into the original budget.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: I thank the minister for that answer. Under Professional Services, can you outline the variance in this line item here? Can you also provide a detailed breakdown of the $111,400 that was spent, where the money was spent, in which firm and for which projects or campaigns?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Certainly. So that's the $111,000 – just let me look here. It's really because of lower cost for marketing and related services than anticipated. This is not an unusual drop balance. It depends, because you have to budget for particular campaigns and things that may have come up. So there's a fairly significant drop balance here.

A couple of ones that are of note that we did do was a COVID marketing campaign aimed at 18 to 35 year olds. We did hire an agency. Obviously, we wanted to get the message out to 18 to 35 year olds. They had a campaign. I can tell you it didn't target me as a demographic because I wasn't even aware of it. There is also in that – news services are under that Professional Service, as well as research writing. So, again, a lot of it was COVID-related under that Professional Services.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Yeah, I thank the minister. I'm just curious to see: Was that additional monies from the COVID fund?

S. COADY: No.

D. BRAZIL: That would've been the normal Purchased Services or Professional Services within the line? Okay, got it.

S. COADY: Correct.

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Correct, because if you look at the original budget, it was $288,000 and the department spent $111,000. It was actually below what they had anticipated because they didn't have to do as many different types of campaigns.

But for that particular Professional Service was that particular – I wanted to draw your attention to that marketing campaign for 18 to 35 year olds, as well as some news services and research writing. So we're below what we anticipated spending, but it was important money to have there.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: I appreciate that. If you could outline under Purchased Services the same process there, the variance and then what programs were covered, please.

S. COADY: Yeah, happy to do so.

The original budget was $228,000 and we actually spent $50,000. We're well under on Purchased Services. It's mostly lower costs for marketing and other related work.

Sometimes you need to have money in case you need a marketing campaign or anything done. There was some flu campaign collateral done out of that $50,000. There was a small media buy. I think a lot of that would've been the audio-visual. You can appreciate there was so much need for audio-visual, as well as media subscriptions.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under 2.3.02, Public Engagement, can you outline the efforts of the division to gather as much feedback on the possibility of the PERT report?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Well, certainly. As you can appreciate, the PERT report is in this year's budget, so I wouldn't speak to what was revised from last year's budget. I can tell you there's very much a significant requirement today for ensuring that we have proper consultations for PERT. If you give me two seconds, I can look up the total number of people that have already been engaged.

We're also doing town halls and we're also doing stakeholder engagement. There is a significant amount of effort towards ensuring that we have a very robust consultation process. There are already 1,200 people, through engageNL, who have participated to date.

I will also say, because there has been some confusion, that the public does not need to register to complete the survey at all. They do not need to register to complete the survey. Only stakeholders do, so that we could have that stakeholder interaction. The public doesn't need to do that. There are multiple ways. You can do it through your email at engageNL@gov.nl.ca. You can also do it through the 1-800; 1-833-607-2639 is the phone number. We're trying to encourage people to engage as much as possible.

Allow me to tell you that we had a tremendous – we had 39 engagement and consultation projects in 2021. We've completed 19 with a scoping on 11 and five are in production. A very significant effort to ensure that we have as many people as possible interacting with government and giving us their advice.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to 2.2.01 – and I know this has been put on hold – with regard to the review on the provincial emblem, when can we expect to see results for this?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: The provincial emblem?

J. DINN: I guess coat of arms.

S. COADY: Oh, okay. I would have to defer to my colleague for Municipal Affairs, actually, to determine where that process is. I'll endeavour to get the information and present it to you. How's that?

J. DINN: No problem.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: I was just wondering when we can expect to see the results on the review of the provincial emblem. I know that's been postponed.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL: Very soon. I know that's not the answer you were looking for but …

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: That beats I don't know or anything else. Very soon is good. I'll take that.

K. HOWELL: (Inaudible.)

J. DINN: That's even better again.

2.3.02, Public Engagement: The minister was just taking us through some of the projects. I'm wondering if it's possible to have how many have submitted contributions to engageNL in the past year.

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: There have been 2,210 participants through the engagement sessions, in person, virtually or online in the last year. That's the 2021 fiscal year. As I just indicated to our colleague, there have been 1,200 already through engageNL for the PERT report. Last year, it was 2,210 participants in 2021 and, this year, it's already 1,200 just on that one particular engagement.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of the 2,210 last year, how many were in person and online? My apologies if you've already answered that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: I'm terribly sorry; I don't have a breakdown, but I'll certainly ask engageNL to provide it to us.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: The same thing for PERT too, if that's possible to have that breakdown as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Thank you.

PERT would all be online. Because, of course, with COVID – we have to maintain the rules around COVID – I would think that last year it was mostly online as well. But as I said, we're trying to have multiple channels so people if they don't have a computer, if they want to mail in their information, if they want to phone in their information, their responses, they can certainly do that as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you.

That's where I was going with that, Minister, with regard to PERT. There is that option. Online is one thing but even those who are comfortable with online, especially if you have to fill in a little box and the text and there's a limit on it, I'm hoping you are looking at all venues and avenues.

I'm just wondering: Will it follow then the process that the Health Accord NL has found? They have a pretty robust process in terms of doing a What We Heard document. They're taking some deliberate consultation processes. I'm wondering if it's your intention to follow that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

Through Public Engagement, they have outlined a pretty robust process. As I said, multiple channels of ways in which you can provide your information either online, through telephone, through mail, through email. There are also consultations, town halls underway. I think from June 15 to 17 there is going to be a virtual town hall. Then, of course, they'll be holding stakeholder sessions as well.

EngageNL normally does an incredible job, I think, of pulling together the information and having it available. That is the process. It might be slightly different than what the Health Accord is undertaking, but the Health Accord is doing their own consultations. I just present to you what the Government of NL is doing through Public Engagement.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Under 2.3.01, I noticed there with regard to the Communications Branch, it talks about government-wide communications activities. I think when you are looking at – they explain in the budget line, the communications process – one thing in every department so far there is Transportation and Communications. I'm assuming in just about every department there is a person or team of people dedicated to communications.

With that in mind, what's the purpose of this? Is this about coordinating the different departments for communication purposes?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Thank you.

Yes, most departments have one communications person. Some because of size may have two. This is more coordination of the Executive Council, coordination across all agencies, all government, making sure the management of the communications vehicles including news releases, media advisories, public advisories, setting up various different communications vehicles for the Premier. For example, there were 140 virtual press conferences in the last year due to COVID – 140 of them.

Certainly they are very, very busy, small team. I think there are 13 permanent positions, some contractual and some temporary, for a total of 19 or 20 people. They are, I can tell you, very, very busy. This is really providing counsel and support to the Premier and to Cabinet and then working across all of government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you.

Just to go back for a minute to PERT, the engageNL, with regard to the questions and that, who would have been responsible for developing those and I guess –?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

You're talking about the online process? It would have come through engagement through engageNL, through the Public Engagement team.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: But if I may just provide a more fulsome answer: If people want to go outside of those questions, they're certainly able to do so. They can, as I said, mail, call, email or if they're using the online service they can certainly put more information on there. It doesn't necessarily have to fall into the category.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Back to communications, just out of curiosity, I think it said there are 19 or 20 people in this branch. Across government, all departments, do you have an idea of just how many communications people we're looking at?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: I can check with officials and see if I can get a full listing, but I wouldn't have that off the top of my head.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you.

2.3.03, Policy, Planning and Coordination: Is it possible to have an update on the work and activities of PolicyNL. Has this initiative been successful in what it's done? Gathered information, borne fruit, as it were, in terms of policy proposals submitted and integrated into public policy?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: Unfortunately, I'm not familiar robustly enough with PolicyNL. I can tell you that this particular division, Policy, Planning and Coordination, is the coordination and administration of policy, planning and strategic support for the division, the Executive Council. They work closely with the Public Engagement unit to monitor public engagement. This is where you'd also see expenditures for the Premier's Youth Council.

I'm not quite sure what the direction of your question is.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: I'll follow up on that. So it goes to support the various – as it says there (inaudible) talks about the implementation of requirements of transparency. Should we be concerned that when I look at that that the budget line for this, Salaries, is so – well, actually so limited – much smaller than let's say the Communications Branch and the Public Engagement piece? I'm just wondering if that says something about priorities.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: No, I don't think it says anything about priorities. I think it says that this particular section is under Public Engagement, and they work hand in hand. This is where the funding for the Premier's Youth Council is. Plans and reports are developed, actually, within departments and agencies, and this is where Executive Council supports the policy capacity across all of the provincial government. So it's a central review that occurs at this particular group.

So in a department, for example, you would develop your plans and reports, and this would be the central group to which it is referred. Then they coordinate across government and do the central review. These are the same numbers as has been in past; there's been no change in this.

Under Transportation and Communications is where you'd find the Youth Council. It's coordinating for policy and planning across government.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under Public Engagement, Minister, I just have a quick clarification. Will the division be sending out surveys on specific recommendations or just relying on the citizens to generally respond on the PERT?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: There is kind of what I am going to call an engagement document online. It does prompt a few questions online. It's certainly encouraging. Then, of course, when we get into the town halls there will be another process of trying to gain – to look at information that is contained in the document. It is a pretty robust process but people could go outside of that. If they wanted to talk about anything in particular, they certainly may.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Fair enough. I appreciate that.

Under 2.3.03, Policy, Planning and Coordination: In Estimates last year we talked about how this division of Executive Council did some work on shared services. How did the work of the division feed into some of the recommendations of the PERT report and the actions announced in this year's budget?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Shared services division is now within the operations of Digital Government and OCIO – I'm just trying to remember the name: Digital Government and Service Newfoundland and Labrador. The responsibility for shared services is there because, of course, the interaction on digitalization. There has been some great work done on this to help facilitate us moving toward a more coordinated integrated Corporate Services.

Some work has been done and has been implemented on shared services; for example, for procurement. Procurement under the health boards is now being coordinated out of Grand Falls. There's been some work that's been done; they've been working very readily towards this. We are just taking that next step.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

In previous years, there was a pot of money in Executive Council that went to grants for youth organizations, which in a previous life was one of my responsibilities, one of the budget lines. I don't seem to find the funding line anywhere in the Estimates this year. Has it been moved to another department? If so, where?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

I'm asking officials now to determine that. It's moved to CCSD. See how fast it is? It's moved to CCSD

D. BRAZIL: I appreciate that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Under 2.4.01, Financial Administration, Salaries: Could you please outline each and every position which is contained in this Salaries line item, the main heading?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Under Financial Administration, 2.4.01?

D. BRAZIL: Yeah.

S. COADY: There are 10 positions: six permanent positions, three temporary and one contractual. Fairly stable. This is where they coordinate the financial services across Executive Council, including Treasury Board, Labrador Affairs, Women and Gender Equality and OCIO. They coordinate the financial administration. There is a slight increase this year because of salary increases.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

Revenues: Just curious, the $15,800 under Revenue - Provincial, what was that generated from?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

The $15,800 is really miscellaneous revenue. I actually asked for a bit of detail over that. That's basically if you had an overpayment in your salary, if you had a travel payment and you needed to reimburse it. If there are miscellaneous recoveries, that's where it would fall. We had to have a heading for that and that's where it would fall. It's just a generalized catchment across the division.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Under 2.5.01, Executive Support, Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, Salaries last year went over budget by $171,000. Can you outline what that was for?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Yes, we had to have some additional work from trade negotiations as we had multiple international discussions. There was some CETA work that was being done and Canada-US work that was being done. The work is now being absorbed in the original budget.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

Purchased Services: Could you provide a detailed listing of what services are purchased and included in that heading?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I just got some more information on that. It was also an unfunded position that was no longer required. I'm just trying to find if I have all the breakdown on – I don't seem to have it in my hands. Allow me a moment to see if I can get you the detail on the Purchased Services and a full description of that.

You can ask me another question while I just see if I can find something really quick.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under Grants and Subsidies, I believe the funding is for the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. Could you provide some details about the work of the secretariat?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Okay, I'm going to get you the information for Purchased Services, because I can't seem to put my hand on the full description. I'll certainly get that for you. You're asking right now on the Grants and Subsidies, the $35,000?

D. BRAZIL: Yeah.

S. COADY: That is the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. I'm just getting a detailed response for you. It'll be here with me in two seconds.

D. BRAZIL: Okay, not a problem.

S. COADY: It is the Council of the Federation and the council – and the CAP membership fees, is what it is. It provides support to all intergovernmental.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you.

Under 2.5.02, Intergovernmental Affairs, Salaries: Last year, the Salaries were a savings of $111,000. Could you please outline was there any position that was vacated or were they just people off at that particular time?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you.

We're actively recruiting for two positions in that area. That's why you'll see the original budget is back again. There have been some salary changes – the removal of the 27th pay period, of course – but we're looking to get to full complement. They're actively recruiting for two positions in the Intergovernmental Affairs area.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under Professional Services, there was an overrun of $73,000 of the $188,000. Can we get an outline of why the overrun. Also, if you could provide an outline of the detailed list of what the $188,000 went for, please.

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Certainly. I'll be happy to do that.

We had a higher than anticipated legal cost with trade policy. As you can appreciate, we had a specialized legal firm that provided trade advice. Also, last year, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was chair of the Council of the Federation, and also chair of the cannabis subcommittee. That was where the funding is, so it's basically trade legal expenses.

CHAIR: The Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the minister for that answer.

The last question I have in that heading there, Grants and Subsidies: Can you provide an explanation of where the grant money goes for under the accounts and the variance there? I notice there is $3,000 unspent.

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: That reflects savings due to a lower than anticipated cost for the Internal Trade Secretariat fees. That's why the $3,000. The Grants and Subsidies is Newfoundland and Labrador's contribution to the Internal Trade Secretariat of $5,900, but the costs were down in 2020-21 due to COVID so there was lower than anticipated fees for the Internal Trade Secretariat.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister, as we have a tag team going on our side of it, and my colleagues who are better qualified to ask in some of the other headings will take it from there. I want to thank the minister for sharing the information and any particular piece of information that we may have requested, if you could share that with us down the road I would appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to 2.3.03, how many staff are covered by the Salaries?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: 2.3.03, there are six positions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: And they are all filled at this point in time?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: That is what I understand; there was some saving last year due to vacancies. They are also kind of looking at a reorganization of the way that Policy, Planning division is undertaken. I think that there is going to be some change and some movement around in that particular division, but there are six positions accounted for.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: So just to clarify, these six people would be responsible for coordinating across all departments?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: That is correct. The Policy, Planning and Coordination unit works very closely with Public Engagement unit to monitor both public engagement activities and develop options for process improvement. They also assist departments in integrating engagement results in the decision-making. It also looks at, as I said before, the coordination of the strategic plans and so forth within government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you.

And 2.3.02, how many staff would be covered under those Salaries?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Sorry, I just have to find it in my book. We're rapid fire here today. The Salaries of $877,500, there are 12 positions in that division.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our Public Engagement and Policy, Planning and Coordination, are they housed in the same area or are they two separate and distinct bodies?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: No, they're housed all under Cabinet Secretariat.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Okay, but they would be two separate, distinct bodies then, I take it, right?

S. COADY: I think they –

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: – interact with one another. I'll certainly ask my official for that information.

J. DINN: Okay.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

S. COADY: Oh, excuse me, I've just got it.

CHAIR: I'm just trying to keep – Broadcast –

S. COADY: It's just very rapid-fire.

CHAIR: We're trying to help out Broadcast here. They're pretty quick on the draw here.

J. DINN: I think they're pretty good. By the tally light, they know who's speaking.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: If I may, they're in the same space and under the same administration. I do have the answer on the communications people across government. Across government there are 24, with six in the Communications Branch within Executive Council.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: So 24 in total, and six are within the Communications Branch here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thirty total, correct.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thirty total.

I have an idea where I'm going with this, but I'll save it for another time.

AN HON. MEMBER: No time like the present.

J. DINN: If someone's going to say no time like the present I'm quite willing to move right ahead, but I'm just saying. Trust me.

Okay, I will move ahead, 2.5.01, Purchased Services. They would be used for what, Minister?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: The Purchased Services as I said, under 2.5.01, is memberships to support the Council of the Federation Secretariat. There's also the Council of Atlantic Premiers, as well as the New England governors and East Coast premiers.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you. I don't know who to thank anymore.

Are there any new efforts – I'm not sure if this fits under the 2.5.01, but I'll ask it – in the works to build on existing relationships with Indigenous governments and organizations, or would that be better asked somewhere else?

S. COADY: Thank you very much for the question.

May I suggest that the department responsible for Indigenous Affairs, that would be the best department to ask that policy question.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Okay.

Under 2.5.02, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island asked a number of questions I was going to ask. However, is there any work currently being done to lobby the federal government for changes related to the equalization formula? I know we've talked about this ad nauseam at times but nevertheless.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: The short answer is yes. I can tell you in the Department of Finance as well as, I'm sure, in Intergovernmental Affairs there is always ongoing discussion with the Department of Finance as well as with the prime minister's office. There are many discussions with the federal government on this issue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: If it's okay, I will add to that. The program doesn't come up for review until 2024. As you know, they run in five-year cycles. It is a federal government program so they set the parameters, but we are lobbying, discussing and talking to the federal government about changes that would assist Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under 2.6.02 –

S. COADY: 2.6?

J. DINN: Yes, 2.6.02.

S. COADY: That's in the next section, though.

J. DINN: Okay, I thought we were doing all of section 2.

S. COADY: I understood the Clerk called to 2.5.02. You're going to go on to the next section because that is Indigenous.

CLERK: Yes, the subhead is all under Office of the Executive Council.

CHAIR: It was called.

CLERK: So all he has to ask then is who is the responsible for it.

S. COADY: Okay, great. Thank you.

Then I will turn it to my colleague.

J. DINN: Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

J. DINN: Then I'll go back to the other one.

2.5.01: Are there any new efforts to build on –

CHAIR: Excuse me, were you seeking an answer or …?

J. DINN: The question I was asking before was about building on existing relations with Indigenous governments. I'm going back to that question.

CHAIR: Okay, she's here. She's ready to answer.

J. DINN: Good.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I wasn't following my colleague in Estimates. Can I ask the –?

J. DINN: Gladly.

L. DEMPSTER: Can you repeat the question again?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: The Chair is having a hard time keeping up with us.

CHAIR: No, he's not, no. He's doing just fine.

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

J. DINN: Are there any new efforts in the works to build on existing relations with Indigenous governments and organizations?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to say that I think we have a number of things in play to build on our positive relations with Indigenous governments, one being open communication. As most folks in the House here have heard me say a number of times, every single week, myself and the Premier meet with Indigenous leadership. I would say that's historic. I doubt that's ever been done before.

Just today, Mr. Chair, $4.2 million was in the budget to advance the Inquiry into the Treatment, Experiences and Outcomes. It was a commitment that was made back in 2017 by this Liberal government. Today, we saw the announcement of the commissioners for that inquiry. That's just one of numerous things that are ongoing as we continue on this road to reconciliation, working very closely with our Indigenous leadership in this province.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under 2.6.02, this is probably a multi-department question, but we can ask it here. If the minister can provide the information, great.

Is it possible to provide us with an update on the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: That one is not as simple or clear to answer, Mr. Chair.

Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, we're working closely with my colleague in Justice and Public Safety and my colleague in Women and Gender Equality. There are regular meetings that happen with our counterparts in Ottawa. We've been part of federal-provincial-territorial meetings, looking to our counterparts as each province puts together their plan and then it rolls up into the federal plan.

I can tell you, as a provincial government, we're certainly committed to continuing on the road to reconciliation.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Now the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for the Minister of Finance. They're general questions, not line by lines; I'll let my colleagues take care of that.

I'm just wondering, you were asked about the equalization. I understand that's happening in 2024. Whether we agree with it or not – and most of us don't, I would say – it is what it is until 2024, seemingly. I don't think they're going to open it up earlier. But just because we're not in receipt of equalization doesn't mean there are not other things that the federal government could and should be doing to assist us. I'm not saying they haven't done anything, because we've seen money that's come through COVID and even for the oil and gas, that one-time fund.

Has the government approached Ottawa on Terra Nova, in terms of potentially taking some kind of an equity stake or something? We were prepared to take 15 per cent. I know it might be a different department to some degree but it's still the government, it's still the Cabinet, it's still Intergovernmental Affairs, I would suggest. Were there any discussions or are there any discussions about the feds getting involved in Terra Nova to try to salvage it?

CHAIR: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I can tell you that almost daily there are discussions. I did hear in Question Period today that the Premier has had discussions with Minister O'Regan today. I can tell you when I was minister of Natural Resources there were ongoing discussions for support from the federal government, specifically around oil and gas. We've requested that on many, many occasions for their involvement. That's how the $320 million came into being.

As you have indicated, all of us would like to – I think every person in the province would appreciate receiving equalization. We do know, and I have reported to this House, about 22 per cent of the revenues of the provincial government currently come from the federal government. That represents about $1.9 billion. If you go back to the times when we did receive equalization, back to 2007-2008, about 25 per cent of our revenues, I think it was $1.78 billion.

I do know that the operators have been in touch with the federal government as well, themselves, directly. In addition to whatever the province would have had conversation with the federal government, I know some of the operators have also had conversations with the federal government.

CHAIR: The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you.

I appreciate the answer, Minister. Again, I was sort of thinking specifically about Terra Nova. Given the impact it's going to have and today's announcement, is there any intent to have further discussions or – I know you say we've reached out to Minister O'Regan. Well, what's his answer? Is he going to do anything for the Terra Nova Project or has he said he's not going to do anything for the Terra Nova Project? Are you able to give us some insight into that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much for the question.

I think the question would be better directed to the minister responsible for the oil and gas industry or the Premier himself. They did have a discussion today; I heard that in Question Period, as did you. I wouldn't want to speak out of turn about anything that I would know, but I do know that a very regular and a very sincere effort has been made to present the federal government with the requirements of this province with regard to oil and gas and how important it is to this province.

CHAIR: The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Minister.

I'll certainly, when I get the opportunity, be asking about that. As has been pointed out by my colleagues over on this side, the minister responsible for the oil and gas industry is a Newfoundlander – the federal minister. I would have hoped that we would have seen more involvement by Ottawa. It's very disappointing that we haven't seen that yet.

Minister, on the working-from-home policy that we were kind of forced into, I guess, to a great degree because of COVID-19, I see it as an opportunity. I think the government has sort of indicated it as well. I think there could be opportunity there to save money. Having employees working from home decreases the need for office space and so on. There could be other savings accrued as well.

I'm just wondering, has there been any kind of analysis done as to what savings, if any, could be achieved by having as many employees as possible working from home?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you for the question.

We're in the process of doing the policy work around the work from home: talking to labour, talking to the officials within the various departments and determining who can work from home, how we can unravel it, looking at the lessons learned through COVID, doing assessment of how we can accommodate and facilitate how many people will want to take it up on that. Until we have that understanding, I think this is a multi-phase. First of all, we have to get the policy and prepare for the policy, make sure that we have the right balance here for people who wish to work from home versus those that would wish to work within the building.

Then, once we have that in place, I would think that we'll do a full analysis and scope as to what kind of savings there might be in terms of office space and perhaps shedding some of the leasehold space and bringing them in within government. That would be, I would anticipate, even sometime this year being able to do that analysis.

First, we have to speak with labour, we have to speak with the individuals and determine who and how they can work from home. Then, we'll see if people will need some time to adjust, to determine if they'll need an office here or do they share an office here when they go back and forth between home.

There's a fair amount of work to be done before we get to that stage, but I will say – and I mentioned in the House recently – I understand that we've been able to relinquish about 20,000 square feet, and that's saving about $5 million a year. If we can do the same, that would be outstanding to assist the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with being able to balance their budget.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Minister.

I absolutely agree 100 per cent. I certainly encourage government to continue going down that road. It is a way we can save some more money and so on.

Minister, just wondering on that sort of same vein of COVID-19, one of the other things that sort of happened as a result of that is that a lot of meetings and so on being done via Zoom. Now, I understand and I'll be the first one to say that I don't think we can go on for the rest of our lives having every single discussion, every single meeting that would be had over Zoom. There are advantages; there are also some disadvantages.

I think sometimes it can easily be done and would be appropriate and there are other times I think you need that face-to-face interaction depending on the circumstance, the situation and what you're doing. But I do think there, again, is an opportunity when it relates to employees travelling and so on, especially for meetings on, I'll say, somewhat minor issues that could easily be done on Zoom.

In a post-pandemic world, I guess, is it government's intent to utilize Zoom and other technology as much as possible to eliminate some of the travel and so on that would otherwise occur, thus saving taxpayers money once again?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I think absolutely. I think the world has now adjusted to doing more online, more types of Zoom meetings. We use Zoom but it could be Webex, which the House of Assembly would use, or it could be any of the other platforms as well.

I think there would be an attempt to ensure that we do as much online as possible through connectivity. But I think you did make an important point that we don't want to forget that creating relationships is also important. I would think that there will be a balance here and I think it will save government money over time. We spend millions of dollars across all of government, tens of millions of dollars across government, in transportation and travel. I think there will be additional savings there as we move forward, there's no doubt. I think we will be encouraging people, where possible, to utilize these online platforms.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Minister.

I'm glad to see we're on the same page on that one as well.

I guess the last question I have, given I never got an answer in the in the last round: The Democratic Reform Committee, is it happening? Yes or no –

CHAIR: I'll let you finish. Please finish.

P. LANE: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I would have to refer to the House Leader for the answer to that question. I don't know what Committees may be able to be presented. It would be better directed to the House Leader and I'll certainly take it up with him for you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Back to the Official Opposition.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm starting off with the heading 2.6.01.

First off, I would like to say the level of comfort is not the best here. I'm froze, and I notice my counterpart is over there with her flashlight trying to read. So either we're getting old or they're trying to get rid of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hours, yeah.

L. EVANS: Right. Yes, the hours.

So 2.6.01, Minister's Office, I note that this is a new subheading. Can you please outline how the budgeted amounts have been determined?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, I had several emails wondering why my flashlight was on, but even with trifocals it's hard to see here this late at night and it is quite cold. Nonetheless, we persevere and do the people's work with the Estimates process.

As my colleague just asked, this is a new office that was created and shared between Labrador Affairs Secretariat and Indigenous Affairs. I believe she asked for a breakdown – I'm not sure I'm following – but, basically, in the Minister's Office there is salary for three positions; there's a budget there for Transportation and Communications; some money for Supplies, Purchased Services; and just $500 there for Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you.

2.6.02, just looking at the line there for Salaries. Last year there was a Salaries savings of $100,700; could you please outline what positions were vacant and how this impacted operations?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: So that was savings due to vacancies. It was one position that was vacant, but I'm not aware that there has been any impact on operations as a result of that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Okay.

Before I move on, I'm just wondering which position was vacant.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: I believe it was a senior analyst position.

I'm going to look to put in my earbud because the Member speaks low, so I can hear her well.

L. EVANS: Just moving on to Grants and Subsidies.

CHAIR: Still with the minister to respond.

L. DEMPSTER: It's not working, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Did you hear the question, Minister?

L. DEMPSTER: Okay, we're in business.

CHAIR: Back to the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Okay, so you can hear me.

Just looking at the Grants and Subsidies, the Grants and Subsidies line item is being decreased to $604,800. Could you please outline why? I also note that not all last year's grant funding was awarded. Would you be able to please outline why as well?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Certainly.

You will see, I say to the hon. Member, that last year there was $200,000 that was set aside for an Indigenous project. That didn't happen and the money was took out and back into Treasury, but there was also $115,000 that was added for Torngat boards.

I'll also say to the Member that we set some money aside to go to a bid process for a statue. If you see my mandate letter, you'll see some of that included. We were not able to get the expression of interest done before the fiscal year ran out so that's why you're seeing a little bit of a difference there, but we're certainly committed to still doing that. You'll be seeing some more details on that very soon.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Last year, there was extra money added for Indigenous projects. In Estimates, we had lengthy conversations and it was said that these projects would be carried out in accordance with the wishes of Indigenous leadership; $200,000 was set aside for these projects. How much of the $200,000 was spent and on what projects were these spent?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Mr. Chair, that was what I just spoke to: $200,000 had been set aside. We sort of parked that there. We weren't sure how much the statue would cost, but we were unable to get that done before the fiscal year ran out. We are still committed and that process is still moving forward. We will find the money as we continue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Yeah, so you're talking about the statue. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

What work was done to support the upcoming apology to the Newfoundland and Labrador residential school survivors and the families that were impacted? Is there a timeline for such an apology? Are there any funds set aside to support such an apology?

CHAIR: The Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Mr. Chair, back to the Member's earlier question on the savings position. I understand it was a senior negotiator that had retired and there wasn't any impact in operations.

Regarding the apology, I say to the Member we're certainly still committed to carrying out the apology to residential school survivors. The recent findings in BC have certainly reminded us again of a terrible, painful history and the need to continue on the road to reconciliation.

In March of 2020, when our province's first Public Health state of emergency was declared, the Indigenous communities, as the Member would be very aware of – for safety reasons, things were halted. It did not proceed. As we now get our vaccine rates up to, I think, soon to be 75 per cent, we will resume talks and we will go into those communities.

What that looks like and when, will be done in very close consultation with the Indigenous leaders, certainly working closely with them and following their wishes. As a government, we're certainly committed to carrying out the apologies.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you for that answer.

Along the lines with what my fellow colleague with the Third Party was asking about, is there any money in this budget to implement the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

CHAIR: The Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Mr. Chair, I had flashbacks when the Third Party asked me about it because I remember standing out front with my colleague's predecessor at that time, MHA Edmunds, when the 94 Calls to Action came out. That was a very powerful, emotional day as well.

Since that time, we have been working, where possible, with our federal counterparts. In 2018, a table was sent on all calls for input. Since that time, we are considering the input and working on an updated table and analyzing feedback, Mr. Chair, in 2019. I know we say it all the time, but it is a fact that COVID, the pandemic, certainly slowed down some of this progress.

I'd be remiss if I didn't add that some of these Calls to Action lie in other departments as well. As the Member would be familiar, some of these would rest with CSSD, where we have child welfare housed in that shop. One of the things, I guess, we could point to in 2018 was the new Children, Youth and Families Act that was brought into the House and put into action in June '19, once regulations were sorted and carried out. A number of other things could be like the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Some of the calls rest in Health, Education, et cetera.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: I was just wondering, is there any money set aside in this budget to implement any of the calls? I know you discussed the work that's being done, but is there any money in this budget that's going to be dedicated across the board in your department or CSSD's department that would actually implement some of the specific calls that are outlined in the Truth and Reconciliation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I alluded to earlier, some of these calls sit across a number of departments. I can't speak to what CSSD is carrying out or what's happening in Health or Education, but I can speak to things like – there are a whole host of things that were in this budget for Labrador in particular that would fall under some of what the Truth and Reconciliation is calling for. Things, Mr. Chair, like the $4.8 million toward the completion of a mental health unit right there in Labrador. Myself and Mr. Chair were at that site last Saturday morning.

The $4.2 million to advance the Inquiry into the Treatment, Experiences and Outcomes of Innu children in care. It's almost $8 million that we are spending in Labrador to prevent homelessness through the Supportive Living Program. There are a whole host of things that I would say fit within some of these Calls to Action, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: My time is expired.

CHAIR: Oh, thank you.

Looking for a speaker from – she's a very honest Member for Torngat Mountains.

Looking to the Third Party, do we have a speaker there?

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

J. DINN: Yes. 2.6.02, under Indigenous Affairs: Minister, the Nunatsiavut Government and the NunatuKavut Community Council have both expressed a desire to be involved in the ongoing methylmercury monitoring process in the Lake Melville region. Has government taken any steps to help integrate these communities into the process?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Mr. Chair, the whole methylmercury is housed in another department. I'm not sure that it would be fair for me to attempt to speak to what is happening right now with that. We could endeavour to get some answers for the hon. Member.

J. DINN: Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, it's a priority to ensure the health of local residents is protected. Thank you, the hon. Member for the question. The terms of reference are out there and released. We're working in partnership with the Indigenous organizations.

We've just sent a letter to our federal counterparts requesting a representative from the federal government to sit on this group. I expect in the coming period of time, hopefully very short, we'll be able to announce those memberships.

Thank you for the question.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Under 2.7.02, Labrador Affairs, does the department plan to reopen the Labrador Affairs office in Labrador West?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank my hon. colleague for that question.

I can tell you that Labrador West is very important to us. There are a lot of good things happening in Labrador West and we're very, very committed.

There's a reason why we call Labrador the Big Land. Our population is spread over a very large land mass, from L'Anse au Clair in the south to Nain in the north. We have a hub office situated in your district, Mr. Chair, in Lake Melville. The staff there work very hard to provide a service right across Labrador. It is unfortunate; we would love to have a suboffice maybe in every district in Labrador, but in these fiscal times that's just not able to happen.

We do provide regular outreach. The staff on the ground proactively reach out to the leadership in Wabush and Labrador City and, myself, the door is open and we do calls, et cetera. We go there fairly regularly and we do our best to keep them engaged.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: So to be clear, there are no plans to reopen the office and that the current set-up – you're keeping in touch with the people in that area, but there is no plan to reopen the actual physical office in that area.

CHAIR: The Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: I'm not aware of any discussion, Mr. Chair, that has happened about reopening the office to date. Every day we come in and we have discussion in this House about the $2-billion deficit that we're facing, that we're grappling with, as we try to provide services to the people of the province. As we have moved since the pandemic in March of '20 and moved more into a virtual world, many of the meetings that we are having across the province and with our counterparts across other provinces and territories is certainly virtual and we've been doing some of that with other areas outside of where the Labrador Affairs office is housed in Lake Melville, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to 2.7.02, Grants and Subsidies, would the minister be able to tell us about the $500,000 increase in this year's Estimate?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Mr. Chair, that really excites me to talk about the $500,000 in Grants and Subsidies because, as somebody born and raised on the Coast, we had our first Labrador Winter Games in 1983 and '23 will be the 40th year. Every three years the games are held in Labrador. They're very steep, very rich in our culture and our heritage.

They were scheduled again for March of '22, but due to COVID I sat down with the board in Goose Bay, I believe it was last Friday or Saturday and they decided, in the interest of needing time to properly plan, et cetera, that the games would be postponed until March 2023. But if there's one thing that brings Labradorians together and galvanizes us is the Labrador Winter Games.

I invite the hon. Member to put us in your calendar. Come to Labrador in March of '23 and participate in the Labrador Winter Games.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Minister, maybe I will.

I have been up to Labrador in the dead of winter and it's the only time I've seen ice build up on the inside of a double-pane glass.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DINN: No, no salmon fishing in winter.

Under 2.8, Women and Gender Equality, is it possible, Minister – what actions are being taken to advance pay equity?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just give me a moment now. It was pay equity?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Pay equity.

I just have to bring up my – okay, here we go. Just one moment, bear with me. There we go.

I'll simply read what I have here. These are notes prepared by the staff, of course, and I will say I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the staff tonight. Of course, we don't get the luxury of a true Estimates session to have our officials and staff here, so I certainly will try my very best and so I ask you all to bear with me.

On the International Women's Day, as we know, it was stated here in the House on March 8, 2017, government supported a private Member's motion to start the process to explore potential ways to achieve pay equity in Newfoundland and Labrador. A pay equity interdepartmental committee consisting of membership from the Treasury Board Secretariat; Immigration, Population Growth and Skills; Justice and Public Safety; and Labour was established to undertake research on the feasibility of such legislation in both the public and private spheres. While this committee is coordinated by the Office of Women and Gender Equality, the development and the drafting of any subsequent legislation would fall under the responsibility of other departments.

What I can say, I guess in ad lib, is that it's something that we certainly are committed to do within the fiscal reality of what we can do to implement ways on how we can advance this project.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to the interdepartmental committee and looking into this, when – and I think you mentioned we're looking at the feasibility of such legislation and committed to work within the fiscal reality, if I heard it correctly. When can we expect, I guess, some direction on this as to where we are going with it?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just recently there's been extensive work done by staff in the Office of Women and Gender Equality. We had some briefings recently with prospective ministers. It's something that's ongoing. As I said in the House earlier this week, it's something that has been talked about for decades, back as far as the cod moratorium in the '90s and, of course, we all know back – and I'll use a quote – when our province was flushed with cash, it was visited then as well. But it's still on the table.

Again, we are committed to exploring and doing everything that we can. As I said, there have been recent briefings, there are ongoing conversations. When we have any further updates I will be happy to inform this hon. House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the concern there is that it has been talked about for decades. All I can tell you is that we're going to have to move a little bit faster because we talk about the fiscal envelope and the fiscal realities; I would just say that pay equity is a fiscal reality for those who live it.

What I'd be looking for is something more concrete, in terms of are we going to have, by the fall, for example, some further direction as to where we're going, as opposed to when updates are available.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the concern. I think we all share this concern. I think every Member in this hon. House knows the importance of gender equity and pay equity, but I'd be telling you a lie if I said something otherwise that we have something. All I can is the work that has been done. It's a priority. We're certainly committed to doing everything that we can within our fiscal reality. That is the honourable truth.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Technical difficulties.)

But then I've also heard my colleague from St. John's Centre talk about the fact: Oh, teachers' pension, they have a surplus. I know that former Premier Tom Marshall, at the time, before he left, they reformed the pension plans and it was all put under Provident10 and so on. There was a deal reached with the unions and everything else.

So I was of the impression, and perhaps wrongly so, that when all that happened, that kind of took care of the pension issues. I was also under the impression, again, listening to my colleague from St. John's Centre, he's saying teachers have a surplus. So which is it? Are there liabilities or aren't there liabilities? We will start with the Teachers' Pension, as an example. Is there a surplus or a liability?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

It's a very important question. I will say to you that that's a Department of Finance question. I don't have officials with me to help with the answer, so if I don't give you a fulsome-enough answer, I can certainly refer to them.

I will tell you that under the summary financial statements, notes to the consolidated financial statements, you will see a Teachers' Pension Plan as an unfunded liability related to that plan of $1.759 billion. For the Public Service Pension Plan, it's $2.445 billion. That shows on our consolidated financial statements as being an unfunded liability related to those.

I'll explain it this way: When the discussions around the change of direction for the pensions were untaken, there was a liability that was taken by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. While the funds may be doing well in the markets today, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador still has on its books a promissory note for this amount of money.

It still reflects on the consolidated financial statements that we have an unfunded liability. If the promissory note were called, we'd have to pay that money toward those plans. I'll say that and I'm happy to provide the summary of financial statement to the Member opposite of those two plans.

Then, as you may have heard, there is also the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, which is the pension plan for Uniformed Services as well as for MHAs. That carries an unfunded liability as well.

CHAIR (Warr): The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Minister, for that.

I would appreciate getting that information, because you're kind of getting some mixed messages and so on. Sometimes it can get pretty confusing. I would like to see those numbers and, as you say, that summary to sort of get a sense – go ahead.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

If I may, I'll just add a little bit of colour. We're happy to do a briefing with you on this because it is a very important matter.

Based on that change in pension plans back in 2014 – and you'll perhaps recall this – every April 1 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the next 30 years, has to make a $300-million payment. We're on the hook for the next 30 years of a $300-million payment every single year. That was based on the plan changes back in 2014.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Minister, I really do appreciate that because, like I say, some of this stuff you're getting mixed messages and it can be confusing. I didn't realize that and I'm sure there are a lot of people in the province who didn't realize that we're paying $300 million a year –

S. COADY: For 30 years.

P. LANE: – for 30 years.

Now, of course, the other side of that is that it was an agreement that was made in good faith. I think it was made based on the fact that, certainly, I know constituents of mine at the time who had worked for government pointed out – and rightfully so – that governments of the past had taken pension money and spent it on roads and other projects. Then there were a whole bunch of people that were added to the pension plan who never did pay into the pension plan.

There were a lot of reasons why the pensions got in the mess they were in that, arguably, was not the fault of the employees themselves. I guess as part of that deal they were trying to make things right. Nonetheless, we do carry that liability and I didn't realize that – I thought that once the pensions all came together I thought we made some sort of one-time contribution to get everything on an even keel and then we would be self-sustaining. I'm hearing that's not the case, which I did not realize.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Just to go back to the summary of financial statements, I'd be happy to provide you a copy of the notes of the consolidated financial statements. Net unfunded liability for 2020 was $4.889 billion. Even though we have made some gains in the market of late for the Teachers' Pension Plan – for all plans, really – there still is this unfunded liability on the books of Newfoundland and Labrador to which we make that payment for the next 30 years.

CHAIR: The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: I would imagine it would have to be quite a few gains to make up that amount so that we wouldn't have to pay that $300 million a year, every year.

Mr. Chair, this is just for section 2. This is not Government House; this is not included here, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: No. That's going to be a separate one.

CHAIR: Government House has already been approved.

P. LANE: Oh, was it? Oh, okay.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, any further questions?

P. LANE: I have no more questions then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I'd be happy to meet with you at any time tonight to go over any questions you may have on that Estimate. I'd be happy to meet with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I leave Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, I just want to mention that I did ask some questions on methylmercury, but it was last night in the Estimates for Environment and Climate Change. I really appreciate the minister being available here to answer again. I also appreciate seeing the Minister of CSSD stay as well to make himself available and the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

Anyway, just moving on now to the Labrador Affairs Secretariat, 2.7.01, Executive Support, looking at the Salaries –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

L. EVANS: Looking at the Salaries, there's a decrease of $163,000 there. I'm assuming the position has either moved or become vacant. I was just wondering if you would be able to give an accounting of that and what other positions remain with the department.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Member for the question.

There are several thing that are happening in that one little salary pot. You might have heard running right through Estimates in various departments that last year we had the 27 pay periods, so the removal of the 27th pay period, $18,000 – she's right; there was a reprofile to balance salary. That was the executive director position. There was actually $8,600 there in salary increases.

Staffing complement, Mr. Chair, in the department: We have a total of 13 positions. I know the next question is going to be what vacancies do you have. Our staffing complement is 13. We have 11 filled. We are down right now one analyst that we are in the middle of recruiting.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: I'm just wondering, in terms of positions, the Labrador Affairs staff, where are they located? Are they all in Goose Bay or are they spread out throughout the region?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: No, that's right. The staffing complement is housed in the Labrador Affairs Secretariat office in Goose Bay. The communications staff for Labrador Affairs and Indigenous Affairs is housed in Goose Bay as well.

CHAIR: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you.

The Budget Speech noted there were monies allocated this year for the feasibility study on the new Nain airstrip. I was just wondering: What's the timeline for the completion of the feasibility study? Do you have a timeline for the actual final completion of the Nain airstrip?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: I'm going to start and then I may turn to my colleague in Transportation and Infrastructure to finish that.

I will say to my hon. colleague we were pretty excited in this fiscal climate to find the funding to come up with $3.5 million towards a prefeasibility. It was last November, I believe, that myself and the Premier were in Nain and sat down with Nunatsiavut and AngajukKâk leadership in the community and were reminded again, afresh, of the necessity for that airport being able to operate beyond daylight hours. I do hope, Mr. Chair, that my hon. colleague will be supporting the budget when she sees these wonderful benefits that are there for Labrador. This is a great start.

Regarding the timeline of when that's starting and rolling out, I'm going to look to my colleague in Transportation and Infrastructure to answer that part.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: If I can ask, I think the Member was asking about the prefeasibility study and the time frames around that. Is that what you're asking?

L. EVANS: I was asking the timeline for the start of the feasibility study and the completion of the feasibility study. Also, do you have a timeline for the actual completion of the construction of the Nain airstrip?

E. LOVELESS: Well, the prefeasibility study is going to determine the steps for the construction process, which I don't have. I chatted with a group from Labrador on the prefeasibility, but in terms of the time frames I don't have that in terms of a completion right now. The prefeasibility study will be beginning soon.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: I think this is the perfect time to actually ask this: For the new Nain airstrip, $6 million, $3 million from the provincial government, is it actually going to be a feasibility study or is it a prefeasibility study?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Well, actually it's $3.5 million from two levels of government. It is a prefeasibility study.

L. EVANS: So what we have is a prefeasibility study, and after the prefeasibility study is done, then will there need to be a second step of a feasibility study or will they go right into construction?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: I don't have the answer to that question at this time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Okay.

Also, too, the $200,000 that was put in last year's budget for the prefeasibility study for the road to the North Coast, do you have a timeline for the start and finish of this prefeasibility study?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: I think you just asked that a couple of questions back. I think you did.

L. EVANS: No, I didn't. This is for the road because –

E. LOVELESS: A $200,000 prefeasibility study is what you asked before in terms of time frame, correct?

L. EVANS: No.

The first question I asked was about the actual Nain airstrip. The reason why I'm actually very concerned right now is everybody is calling it a prefeasibility study for the Nain airstrip, and it was my understanding that the feasibility study was actually going to be done, which is why it was actually scheduled for two years and why it was costed at $6 million-plus. That's for the Nain airstrip.

The other thing I was talking about was the prefeasibility study for the road to the North Coast that was already approved in last year's budget, which is a totally separate thing. Now, if you want to give us the road within two years, that would be fine. Like I said, I'll take what I can get. You're not going to get it for $200,000; I know that.

I was just wondering: When are you going to start the prefeasibility study for the road that was approved last year? Now another budget has gone by and maybe next year we'll get to talk about it again, but then that will be two budgets ago. I just want to make sure that money is spent and things progress.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Well, what the Member is asking for is precise timelines and I'll attempt to get that for her.

L. EVANS: Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Member for Torngat Mountains for passing the torch on so I can continue with Women and Gender Equality.

2.8.01, under Minister's Office. Minister, under Salaries, could you please outline whose salaries are included here?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague.

I'm just going to give an outline on the background of Salaries, what we have here.

Salaries for 2020, there were savings in Salaries in the 2020-2021 fiscal year. One administrative position in the office is vacant and has been for some time. There are five policy staff: three senior policy and program development specialists and two senior policy, planning and research analysts. Last year, we saw three senior policy and program specialists all take leave for various lengths of time. To fill these duties, the senior policy, planning and research analysts were moved into those roles on an acting basis.

COVID-19 and the extended writ period made filling a senior policy analyst role on a temporary basis more difficult, but one position was filled for a period of time before that person could move to another job within government. As well, funding for the intimate partner violence, that falls under the RNC, but I think I'll just defer now back to you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you for that information, Minister.

Under Minister's Office, continuing, for the last two years in Estimates we spoke about hosting a women's leadership conference in Labrador. Could you please provide an update on this?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again to my hon. colleague.

Yes, an update now on the leadership event in Labrador. The Office of Women and Gender Equality held three successful women's leadership events across the province – St. John's, Corner Brook and Marystown, just for your background. Women's equality-seeking organizations in both Stephenville and Labrador have expressly requested similar events to be held in their regions. The onset of COVID-19, as we all know, has led to travel and gathering restrictions across the province at varying points over the course of the past year and a half. These restrictions, Mr. Chair, have impacted the office's planning of events in any region of the province at this time.

That's where we are there for that. That's the update there for that one.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Minister.

Are you planning on hosting a women's leadership conference at all in the present year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague.

An update on that, of course, obviously we are taking the guidance of the chief medical officer of health regarding the travel gatherings. Once it's safe to do so, to host large events, we will revisit the idea of hosting women's leadership events in areas identified, should the events continue to meet the needs of the women and women's equality-seeking organizations.

I would certainly like to say yes off the cuff. It's something, certainly, I'm interested in doing. Again, we will take all those considerations into consideration before moving forward.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Minister, can you provide an update on the intimate partner violence prevention program, please?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again to my colleague.

The intimate partner violence program: The Office of Women and Gender Equality provides a combined total of $434,100 in funding per annum to the RNC and RCMP to allow for an enhanced collaborative, coordinated and consistent province-wide law enforcement response to the intimate partner violence. Funding for one police officer and a crime analyst at each police service is dedicated to provide guidance and oversight on intimate partner violence investigations.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Minister.

Has the intimate partner violence prevention program seen an increase in activity during COVID-19?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again to my colleague.

I think I would have to consult maybe with my colleague, as well, from Justice and Public Safety on that. As we know, there was a need for a Domestic Violence Help Line – as we're all aware, of course – which was implemented. We know that there has been uptake on that. We know it's been successful in getting help where it's needed across our province. That number which I'm happy to say or proud to say that it is available for text option as well as calling. That number is 1-888-709-7090. Any further updates, I can defer to my staff and provide you with that information.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Minister, we would appreciate perhaps an update on whether there have been increases. That would be helpful.

Minister, can you provide an update on the Indigenous Women's conference? Was this held virtually?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Just one moment; bear with me now. What was it, the Indigenous Women's Gathering?

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Women's conference, yes.

P. PARSONS: Is that right?

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: The conference, yes.

P. PARSONS: Just one moment now.

Did I give you this answer already for the past 13 years? No, I don't think I have, have I?

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: No.

P. PARSONS: For the past 13 years the office, Women and Gender Equality, has provided funding for the provincial Indigenous Women's Gathering. Pending approval of budget 2021-2022, we'll provide a total of $25,000 to support this year's gathering.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So was there a conference held virtually?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Because of COVID restrictions, I don't think there was. To be certain, I will defer back to staff. In consultation with my colleague for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, we don't think so, given the COVID restrictions. Just to be certain, we do have staff, of course, that are actually watching from the office. They are taking notes, so anything that we can't provide here we will provide for you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Last year in Estimates the minister noted that the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program was working very well on the Avalon and that expansion into the West Coast and then Labrador was being considered. Any progress on this?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again to my colleague.

This is a very important priority that we heard in the House this past week. I'm happy to say that in Budget 2020 $425,000 was allocated to the office. We do know that that commitment has been reinforced again and, yes, we do know that it is working currently in Stephenville, Corner Brook and St. John's.

We all heard, of course, and learned about the story that the cases in Labrador are four times the national average in Labrador alone. We know, and working in consultation with my colleague from Health and Community Services, the money has been allocated through this Department of Women and Gender Equality to Health and Community Services. It is my understanding, of course, that that work has begun to extend those very needed services in those regions, in particular in Labrador and Central Health.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: That is great to hear. Thank you.

Last year in Estimates we spoke about Gender-based Analysis Plus training. Could you please provide an update on the training? Is training offered to agencies, boards and commissions in addition to the core public service?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, another very important priority that I am happy to talk about. The GBA+, as we know, the Premier has made that mandatory across every department in Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. That would include every extension of government with regard to boards and agencies.

I am happy to say that staff in the Department of Women and Gender Equality, they are very passionate about this and very elaborate about this. I am happy to say that training is offered to every department. Every public servant can avail of this.

Yes, it is mandatory and every policy, program, everything produced by Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will have a mandatory GBA+ lens. I want to reiterate that anybody who wants training, that certainly can be made available. By all means, contact the department and the staff there are happy to do what they can.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

That is also great to hear.

Under subhead 2.8.02, Women and Gender Equality, under Salaries, could you please explain the variance in the Salaries line item? Last year there was a salary savings of $169,800 and this year the budget is being increased to $1 million. I am wondering if you could please give an account of that, please.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: I would ask if the Member could repeat the first part of the question; I didn't hear that.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Sure.

P. PARSONS: And what subheading was that exactly?

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: That's under 2.8.02, Women and Gender Equality, under Salaries. Could you please explain the variance in the Salaries line item? Last year we saw salary savings of $169,800 and this year the budget is being increased to over $1 million. If you could please give us an explanation for that.

P. PARSONS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Reflections in saving due to vacancies and COVID-19 also played a role in that. Just to be safe, I am going to defer to staff to get you the specifics on that. I can assure the hon. Member that nothing fishy or underhanded happened but, just to be safe, we will get those specific details for you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, I appreciate that.

I believe I am out of time.

CHAIR: Oh, sorry. I remind the hon. Member that her speaking time has expired.

Thank you.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was so close, so close, and I have just a few other questions, but now I really have to go and talk about pensions. I'm going to say this right now just so that there are some facts on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DINN: No, no. This is a response. I'm not looking for answers. I have the answers.

You can blame it on the MHA for Mount Pearl - Southlands if you want, but it's a good question.

In my entire teaching career, 32 years, the fixed-in pension was always the biggest issue. In 2006, I think it was, the Atlantic Accord money was put into the Teachers' Pension Plan. That was almost $2 billion into the pension plan. Keep in mind, the plan was owned by government at that time. In 2008, with the stock market crash, that brought the plan almost up – a full fund was wiped out, namely because the asset mix hadn't changed. It wasn't derisked.

By the time I got to be president – and what I know about math is probably why I ended up teaching English and why I think God created calculators. I took it upon myself to get schooled. That was the year we decided we were moving to joint sponsorship. Keep in mind, up until joint sponsorship, government owned all liability – and I'm only going to focus on the Teachers' Pension Plan – at that time. There was a significant risk if we're going to move forward, but we moved forward. That was a significant change for us.

I should point out that the $2-billion Atlantic Accord money, teachers gave up and made huge concessions on sick leave at that time – huge. It's affected young teachers since. We got nothing for it in the long run, I guess.

When we began the process, government had reached out at the time, and it was with the PC administration. Just so you know, we had access to the government actuaries. We paid for their service, but the government at the time was good enough; we were going to have it so we were dealing with the same set of facts. We had our own consultant, Robert Blais, who was the top pension expert in the country. Look him up.

At that time, here was the issue, and I need to point this out: If government had converted our plan to a defined contribution plan at that time, government would still have been responsible or liable for all teachers who had retired up to that point, which was about $1.89 billion, something like that, I think, or a little bit less than that. I forget the exact number.

Keep in mind that all retired teachers – this is the problem: How do you take care of the responsibilities to retired teachers at that time? Part of the deal was that government assumed responsibility for the unfunded liability for retired teachers. If nothing had been changed, that liability is still on the books. That's where the promissory note comes in. It's nothing to do with how the money was spent before that. That had already been settled. This had to do about making sure that those retired teachers were looked after.

Now, we could have said let's do up a brand new plan for all new teachers going forward and let government take care of the retired, or we roll it into one plan. But we still had to find a way to make sure the plan was viable and that the retired teachers at that point, who had no way of making any changes to their income, were looked after.

The promissory note is like a bond. The TPPC, the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation, held it as an asset I guess, like anyone who purchases a government bond. It's a liability on the government books, but for the plan itself, it was about taking care of the retired teachers. Teachers made significant contributions again. They're paying something like 11.35 per cent on premiums matched by government. They're paying higher service costs.

They also took reduced benefits. They went from a best of five to a best of eight and there were concessions made on deferred salaries. All future liabilities are to be shared by both government and teachers. The plan is at 115 per cent funded. It's at the stage where once it hits 120 it will trigger a review, in which case they're either looking at increasing benefits or reducing premiums.

It's a complicated process, one that I had to explain to teachers at the time. We did our very best to make sure that they understood it because it's not as easy as it looks. Be clear: The pension plan is doing well. The liability, that $130 million that's paid for 30 years, had to do with the retired teachers at the time. Even if the plan hadn't been changed and we'd gone to defined contribution, it would still have been on the books and still the liability of government to this day.

All I can suggest is that in any discussion on this that we also include representatives from the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation. It's run by a board of experts right now, half of which are appointed by government and half of which are appointed by the NLTA. I would point out that the government's members are appointed by the Independent Appointments Commission – chosen. The NLTA engaged in the same process. There is no political interference in this. That's the best I can say on the pensions. Just make sure that you bring the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation in on it. With that, Mr. Chair, here ended the lesson on pensions. So much for that.

Now, with the 2:52 minutes that I have left, to section 2.8, Women and Gender Equality. Since the minister was kind enough to provide me with some more information as to the apparent discrepancy in Grants and Subsidies – this may not be in the book, but I'm just curious here. It does say that there is some – I understand there is some $293,000 in savings in '20-'21.

If I understand it correctly, the '20-'21 Salaries savings was based on the following: two employees on maternity leave and one employee on personal leave. Were they replaced? If they were on leave, were there people – because it's showing a savings in Salaries. How is that calculated?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you.

I think this will answer my other colleague's question as well, which I actually did state at the beginning. For Salaries 2020: There were savings in Salaries for the 2020-21 fiscal year. One administrative position in the office is vacant and has been for some time.

There are five policy staff: three senior policy and program development specialists and two senior policy, planning and research analysts. Last year, we saw the three senior policy and program specialists all take leave for varying lengths of time. To fill the duties, the senior policy, planning and research analysts were moved into those roles on an acting basis.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: What happened to the files that these three staff then would have been responsible for? Would they have been advanced, the work that they were responsible for?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said, to fill these duties the senior policy, planning and research analysts were moved into these roles on an acting basis. Just to further explain, COVID and the extended writ period made filling the senior policy analyst role on a temporary basis more difficult, but one position was filled for a period of time before that person moved on to another job within government.

CHAIR: I remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to focus on a difficult subject. There's just been a statement issued by the 12th council of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It's a video statement just sent to me and I suspect my colleagues in Labrador have received it. They're pretty frustrated in that community.

Yesterday, I raised a question and I'll just remind the Members the question that I raised. I was speaking about how Happy Valley-Goose Bay is struggling, and frankly now overwhelmed, with the increasing numbers of individuals dealing with addictions and other mental health issues who are moving about the community without shelter and camping in the wooded areas of town. Their lives are at risk, as are the residents of the community who are frustrated and afraid. There have been many moves to provide support; however, the challenges remain.

I asked government for an update from what I believed was still happening, which was the senior officials working group that was searching for solutions. The Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs responded back. She informed me that the group is no longer in place – that was the first I'd heard of that – spoke about some of the efforts that are in place and then also spoke about her recent meeting with the community.

Minister, what I would say to you is in Labrador we are a rainbow of political representation. You are our representative in Cabinet. That's where these key decisions are being made. This council in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is calling on the Premier tonight in the most strong, committed and emotional fashion as I've ever seen. We are a divided group in Labrador.

As you said a few minutes ago, the Labrador Winter Games has always been the true catalyst to pull us all together to support Labrador, but unfortunately political fortunes have us separated. That's not, I would suggest, my intent nor my colleagues' from Labrador West or from Torngat Mountains; we are here to support Labrador and its people, number one. That is our priority.

I guess I'm asking you, Minister, if – and as I said on the weekend, I'm looking for a fresh start. For problems like this that are so complicated, I feel we really need to pull together and work this out. We have to get this right. I think the party politics have to go to the side and we have to tackle these very difficult problems.

I'll just put that thought out there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to respond to that. I did just see the statement.

I want to say to my hon. colleague, the Member for Lake Melville, he mentioned party politics; this has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I mentioned yesterday in this House: When you are supporting individuals who are homeless or transiently homeless, you're dealing with many, many things. The situation is very, very complex. There are no quick fixes, but a coordinated approach is under way.

As I mentioned to the Member, there was a working group that was in place, but members themselves said it's ineffective. Then there was a community action group put together. Over the last number of months there have been many, many things that have happened that were not happening a year ago. When we would meet at larger tables in Lake Melville – usually the meetings were – folks were asking for outreach workers. There are now a total, Mr. Chair, of three outreach workers doing different things.

The town has been engaged on this issue. I know in the past, when leadership in the community have come in and met with the minister of Justice – not the current one, the previous one – and asked for more enforcement, that's not always the answer when you're dealing with those individuals with complex issues. We were really pleased that the establishment of a mobile crisis response team by the health authority and the RCMP was put in place.

I did see the statement tonight from the town; I think we all have a role to play here with this vulnerable population, the town, the provincial and the federal governments.

I'll also say, Mr. Chair, that to my knowledge, the town have not reached out in recent weeks or months to request a meeting with the minister for Labrador Affairs. I know in a previous life, the premier was the minister for Labrador. This particular Premier is not the minister for Labrador, and I know they've been reaching out to him again and again. To my knowledge, they've not reached out to me.

I'm happy to sit down with the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay anytime they reach out. I believe I've done so anytime they've reached out in the past. We believe that the community is critical in seeking long-term solutions. We look forward to continuing a partnership with the community.

I know the Hub have moved to a 24-hour service there. Even with 24 hours they're full. My latest information that I got tells me that the Labrador Friendship Centre is considering intake of displaced individuals to alleviate pressures from the Housing Hub.

So no easy solutions, but a number of things – we're going to continue to have a presence there with that vulnerable population.

I did see in the statement tonight, Mr. Chair, that it looks like the town themselves are taking a number of actions upon themselves. Hopefully, that will all help with a positive response as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: I guess what I struggle with, we're here in the Legislature and doing the work of the province and our responsibilities and the pleas from home from people who are worried, from people who are battling with addictions and really in a very dangerous place. I think right now what the problem is, is that we don't have a good cohesive group. I just think what of my office could bring to the table. I think what some of the other offices in Labrador at the provincial level could bring to the table; we're not involved.

I guess, again, I will say, I'm here on this floor right now and I'm offering my office, and I'm sure my colleagues would readily do the same. As you say, it's very complicated. We have a lot of people afraid, worried, upset and at risk. I just hope we can figure this out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Mr. Chair, I say to the hon. Member, it's not a new problem, when he says things have changed in Labrador and we now have to work together. We have been working together on this issue, all MHAs, I think, in Labrador. It's not new, it's very challenging. I remind the Member again that the town has been engaged on the issue for months.

I had a town councillor that reached out to me some time ago and wanted to be a part of the group. We made sure when I was, then, the minister responsible for Housing that the councillor with the Town of Happy Valley was placed on that committee and accepted there so the town would have a direct link between the community action committee and to report back to the Town of Happy Valley.

I would also say to my colleague – very respectfully, we're going here late into the night and we're tired – if he has any solutions my door is open to sit down with you and to hear them, and I say that sincerely.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: I appreciate that, my friend, the minister, who I have known and worked with for some time, but the closest access I have to your staff is the washroom in that building that I'm in; that's as close as I can get to your team. I'm trying, but the walls are up.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Just to reiterate, Mr. Chair, I said to my hon. colleague I am happy to sit down with him anytime he reaches out and wants to bring some solutions – propose some solutions to work with me for the betterment of the district he represents on this very complex issue. My door is open and I am very happy to sit down with him as we focus on an approach to try and find ourselves in a better place than we are today.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to return back to subhead 2.8.02, Women and Gender Equality, under Professional Services, Minister, in 2021, $270,000 was budgeted but only $128,500 was used. Could you please give some information on this line item, including an outline of how the $128,500 was spent, please?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I'm on the right line, what I have here is it reflects the savings due to reduced travel, which is due to COVID. It reflects the increase related to the reversal of the prior year funding for one-time COVID grant initiative – maybe, I think.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Holyrood.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Holyrood?

CHAIR: Harbour Main, sorry.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

CHAIR: Same district.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: That's close. Thank you.

Minister, under Purchased Services, can you please explain where $36,300 in savings was found last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I have here is it reflects savings due to reduced requirements. Again, a lot of this is due to the COVID restrictions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Additionally, this year the budget is planned to increase to $337,000. Could you please outline what is being planned under this expenditure?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: I'm just getting some updates now from staff, Mr. Chair, if you can bear with me. This is saying here the RCMP Professional Services. I'm not sure if that's right. Could you just repeat the question again, I'll ask the Member.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Sure, yes.

This year the budget is planned to increase to $337,000. Could you please outline what is being planned under this expenditure? That's under Purchased Services.

P. PARSONS: It's not clear to me here in the binder. I will defer and get that for you from staff.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Sure.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: That would be great. I appreciate that, Minister.

Under Grants and Subsidies, could you please outline how the $3 million was allocated last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: For Grants and Subsidies, for Budget 2021 we'll see the following: $80,000 staying in the Grants line to show an increase in miscellaneous grants available through the Office of Women and Gender Equality. $70,000 has been moved to the Salaries line to help increase capacity in the office. $225,000 moved to Purchased Services for continued expansion of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program. $50,000 moved to Purchased Services for work related to the Premier's Roundtable on Gender Equity and Daughters of the Vote.

As well, in April 2020, during the initial COVID lockdown, the office issued grants of $30,000 each to Thrive and the St. John's Status of Women to provide direct supports to sex workers who were not able to access other supports during the pandemic. This was a one-time funding and has been removed from the Grants and Subsidies line for Budget 2021.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: This year you're saying the grant amount is being decreased to $2.8 million. If you could just clarify again why that is happening.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Just bear with me here.

It's not clear to me here based on what staff is telling me, so, again, I apologize but, Mr. Chair, this is my very first time doing this. We will certainly get the information for you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality for your co-operation and your willingness to answer my questions tonight.

Thank you. That concludes my questions for the subheads.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to go back to where I left off with regard to the staff. This is an issue I've brought up in a few other areas. As I understand it, the work – the three people who were on leave – was redistributed to others. I've talked about this in other departments in terms of attrition. I know this is not attrition in this case, but it still means that the workload has increased for certain people here.

I use the example at Holy Heart, where I taught, again: Three secretaries reduced to two. The same work had to be done, but it got redistributed, in this case, to the teachers in the school and certain other things weren't done. When it came to, for example, whether it was copying the exams, it now fell to the teachers, which meant that they had less time to do other things such as helping students and so on and so forth.

Here's my concern: I guess in this situation, when we're looking at, especially in some cases, vulnerable populations, how did this not impact the work of this portfolio? That's my concern, that if you're not filling the positions and if the work is redistributed, how could it not but impact the work of that portfolio?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: To my understanding, Mr. Chair, it hasn't impacted negatively at all – to my understanding. Again, I can get more details to you, but from my understanding, it hasn't negatively impacted the office or the staff at all.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: If that's the case, then do we need the three staff?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Well, Mr. Chair, what I will say, and also what's being confirmed to me now from staff, there is no negative impact with work with our community.

I would say absolutely, yes, we certainly do need the staff. I would say we even need more. I'm very proud that the Premier has made this a stand-alone portfolio once again facing issues for women and gender equality all around. As you can appreciate at the scope of the department, the mandate has expanded. Not just for the status of women, but for gender-diverse individuals as well. The mandate has actually expanded.

Again, just to say to the Member, as we talked about last week, there have been no cuts, but I would always argue that more resources to advance women, vulnerable populations and marginalized groups are needed. Would the Member disagree with that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: I totally agree with that, Chair. No issue with that at all, and that's my point, too, with it. If the salary is down, it is making the work harder for those who are left behind. I can't see in any other way that it would negatively impact. So, to me, yes, put more there. No issue with that. You'll never get me arguing for cutting less staff. In this case if it didn't impact it, then do we need it? I would suggest it did impact.

I'm reading from the sheet now that the minister gave me earlier – I think it was yesterday. Again, I'm going to go to Grants and Subsidies. As I understand this breakdown, there is $425,000 and the minister used the term “rightsizing” in this to reflect the intended expenditures. Because my issue is with the fact that Grants and Subsidies, if you look at the budget line there from $3,239,900 down to $2,834,900 it would suggest by the numbers that there has been a drop of $405,000.

Now, if I'm looking at this, what I've got here is that actually – I'm assuming here this is what – and I'm trying to make some sense out of it because just in how it's redistributed is confusing. Salaries, an extra $70,000 allocated to the new policy analyst position, I would take it that that did not come out of the Grants and Subsidies line.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: The Grants and Subsidies line, it certainly was cloudy. As we talked about, again, that seems to be a bit of a bone of contention, I guess, this past week. That said, though, yes, it certainly was confusing for me, not just the hon. Member.

Again, just to reiterate, for Budget 2020, the $425,000 was allocated to the Office of Women and Gender Equality, and it was from a promise that the Premier made to increase the capacity for the office. The additional funding was earmarked for projects, such as the expansion of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program, the Premier's Roundtable on Gender Equity, our work on women in leadership and additional grant opportunities, as well as staff funding. Because the allocation of the funding was a late addition it was placed in the Grants line for Budget 2020. This year, the funding has been relocated to the budget line where it was more appropriately aligned.

For Budget 2021, we'll see the following: $80,000 staying in the Grants line to show an increase in miscellaneous grants available through the Office of Women and Gender Equality; $70,000 has been moved to the Salaries line to help increase capacity in the office; $225,000 moved to Purchased Services for the continued expansion of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program; $50,000 moved to Purchased Services for work related to the Premier's Roundtable on Gender Equity and Daughters of the Vote, which I'm happy to say will be happening this coming fall.

I will encourage, of course, all young women and gender-diverse individuals to certainly partake in that. We'll be certainly extending and doing what we can to get the word out to get as much uptake on that as possible.

As well, in April 2020, during the initial COVID lockdown, the office issued two grants of $30,000 each to THRIVE and St. John's Status of Women to provide direct supports to sex workers who were not able to access other supports during the pandemic. This is a one-time funding and has been removed from the Grants and Subsidies line for Budget 2021.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

J. DINN: So just to clarify and make sure I'm understanding it; you may have just said it there and I just want to make sure that I heard it correctly. The $70,000 that went into salaries did indeed come from the Grants and Subsidies line. I thought that's what you seem to imply there. I want to make sure I heard that correctly.

P. PARSONS: It came out of the $425,000.

J. DINN: But it did not come from the Grants and Subsidies, correct?

P. PARSONS: I'm going to get that confirmed by staff, just to be accurate. I don't want to mislead, unintentionally.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you.

Just to look at what you've got listed here then with the Operating Accounts, Purchased Services, that this money it comes to $275,000, I think. That's $225,000 for the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program, $25,000 for the Premier's Roundtable on Gender Equity and $25,000 for Daughters of the Vote. That was rightsized from the Grants and Subsidies line.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Yes, it came from the Grants and Subsidies line.

J. DINN: Okay.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: But another $80,000 was put back into it. I think you have here Grants and Subsidy, $80,000 for miscellaneous grants for community organizations.

P. PARSONS: Yes.

J. DINN: With that, even last year, there was $3,095,300 – that was the actuals for the Grants and we see that it has declined again. So what you're telling me is that none of the groups that would have had grants or subsidies received less, nor were there any groups that didn't receive anything?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, to the hon. Member. I want to reiterate that nothing has been cut from our budgets. Nothing has been decreased from groups or community partners. There were absolutely no funding cuts and what I am seeing too is the $80,000 stayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

P. PARSONS: Maybe you can clarify this. Would it be possible to have the organization that receives grants and subsidies up to this year, maybe two or three years back as well? Then I can better ask that question or understand what is going on with it.

With that, Chair, thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall 2.1.01 to 2.8.03 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.8.03 carried.

CHAIR: Can I have the Clerk call the next set of subheads, please.

CLERK: Office of the Chief Information Officer, 4.1.01 through 4.1.05 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 4.1.01 through 4.1.05 inclusive carry?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to let you know I'm in a different seat here.

CHAIR: I noticed.

L. O'DRISCOLL: For the people that need to recognize that, thank you.

I just have a couple of questions. One question to start off: In Estimates for Transportation and Infrastructure, we were told that the Wi-Fi at the government buildings falls under OCIO. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is absolutely correct. I'm very pleased to be here tonight to speak about OCIO. I have a few introductory remarks to make, if that is okay with the Chair.

The OCIO is a very important part of provincial government, in my opinion. It supports IT, information management and functions of core government and agencies, boards and commissions and entities. We provide essentially all IT for the provincial government, the RNC, the Provincial Courts, the Supreme Courts and the Public Procurement Agency.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: Yes, they do a lot of work.

The OCIO also supports – obviously, we do have the Digital Government mandate as well. This could be anything from Wi-Fi, as the Member asks; infrastructure, like desktop support; all the technology, the laptops, desktops; backup of all government data. Our provincial government, just a fun fact, we have close to one petabyte, which is a billion megabytes, of government data. That's a lot of data we have, and manage and store and maintain.

We provide day-to-day support of over 600 departmental applications, software programs, which I'm desperately trying to reduce. We have 600 government systems here, which is too many, but that's what we have right now and we support.

We have 308 employees, both permanent and temporary. There are a lot of staff that work very hard to keep all of our devices powered and working and connected to the Internet and all that kind of stuff.

The OCIO handles more than 120,000 departmental requests every year. That could be anything from a change to a service or a program or a password reset. They also do a portfolio of projects. In any given time, we have between 40 and 50 projects going on with various departments. Some are funded from within OCIO; some are funded from the federal government. Some are partnered with other provinces. We have a range of IT projects that we undertake with members of our provincial government.

Our Estimates structure, it has been unchanged in the last five years.

I'll talk about the different areas of the OCIO. We have Corporate Services and Projects, which is current and capital, responsible for all new IT project work for all departments and agencies under the OCIO Corporate Services. We have another division, Application and Information Management Services, responsible for support and maintenance of the 600 applications that are used across government. Then we have the very important Operations and Security area, responsible for the data centres, the technology infrastructure – so all the laptops, network servers – and protection and security. A big piece is security.

Like I mentioned, when we get into it, I'll speak a bit more about this. Just to give you some context, we have over 160 pieces of software that we have to renew every year, so there are a lot of, kind of, software things. When you look at Supplies in our budget, Supplies really includes software. It's not pens and paper. Well, it probably includes pens and paper as well, but we're talking about software that we buy for all the provincial government and all the courts and the RNC and everyone, so a range of things. I look forward to going into detail with you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister, for those opening remarks.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm aware of many line items and budget items in OCIO will change as projects are finished and moved to the next stage. Could you please give an overview of the major projects that are ongoing at OCIO currently?

S. STOODLEY: Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

I'd be happy to give the Member a list of all the projects. We have 28 active projects at this moment in time. Many we work with are on hold, for example, if a department is not ready to execute on something. Just to give you an idea here, there's a shared apprenticeship management system project that's ongoing. We're working with the other Atlantic provinces on that.

Our digital government and MyGovNL portal, we would consider that a project with a project team. Obviously, that's one that's delivering lot of value of taxpayers, I would argue. It's one of my favourite projects.

Another one I really like is the AMANDA program. We've essentially invested in a software program that's going to allow us to put all ticketing and licensing applications online. This includes, if you're a mortgage broker and you apply for a mortgage broker license and you have to submit paperwork every year, they'll be able to do all that online. Right now, it's a paper-based process.

Those are just a few highlights of my favourite ongoing projects, but I'd be happy to give the Member a complete list.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you for that, and hopefully we'll get a list. Certainly appreciate that.

One other question I had: Why don't we have free public Wi-Fi at all government buildings?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you to the hon. Member across the way.

That's not something that I've thought about, honestly. If you're interested in a guest Wi-Fi account, I know the House of Assembly provides five days' worth of access.

As an MHA, if you would like a guest Wi-Fi account, I have one for my – we can give you one with a longer –

L. O'DRISCOLL: No, an MHA doesn't have to worry.

S. STOODLEY: No, for another device, for example.

There are guest Wi-Fi accounts that are given to people. Given our financial situation and our limited budget, maintaining another Wi-Fi infrastructure that doesn't have a username and password associated with it would have, I would argue, significant cost and effort associated with it. I do understand that our current Wi-Fi is quite old. The hardware is quite old and needs investment. I would argue that now is not the time to expand services in that department and that we need to refresh the hardware that we currently have as our next priority for Wi-Fi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you so much for that.

Just go under subheading 4.1.01, under Salaries. Could you please outline any vacancies which gave the savings in the previous fiscal year, and how did that impact operations?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The $214,000 savings is due to attrition, employee turnover and HR timing filling these vacancies. A lot of the IT roles that we hire are difficult to fill. Sometimes positions are vacant a bit more than we'd like, but I think you'll find that a factor across all of our departments. We do find that other government entities, even, they pay more than we do, for example. Sometimes we see –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

S. STOODLEY: – IT experts leaving OCIO to go to a job at Nalcor that pays higher.

It is a tricky situation, but we have a strong, hard-working IT team I'm very proud of. It's just delays in hiring.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Under Supplies, last year the budget for Supplies was $920,700, and less than one-third, $244,200, was spent. Can you explain that variance?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

As I mentioned in my opening, Supplies for OCIO is mostly software. In this particular instance this is related to the apprenticeship management system project that I alluded. This is a project that's shared across Atlantic provinces. There's a delay in that project because of COVID. As a result, we had planned on spending a lot more on that project this past year, but because of that delay, because of the Atlantic Canadian nature of that project, it's pushed out a bit.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Under Professional Services. Could you please outline the Professional Services that were purchased last year and how does the $1.5 million break down?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Sure. Thank you very much for the question.

When we talk about Professional Services for OCIO, a lot of that that is contractors. In many instances we can't hire a full-time employee with a particular skill set, so we end up using, for example, one of the local IT consulting companies and they give us a resource that's more expensive. In some cases we absolutely have to have that kind of skill set. The Professional Services is made up of those types of skills.

That would also be aligned with what projects we're doing. We might need a different skill set. For example, our government mainframe, you need COBOL development skills and no one graduating from school now has those type of skills. They're quite rare, so we need specialized consultants to help us with that. The range in Professional Services funding, I guess, just goes along with the different project mix and different skill sets that we need at a particular point in time from a local consulting company.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you for that.

Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, can you explain the $312,600 in spending?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The extra money under Property, Furnishings and Equipment is for new laptops for COVID-19. OCIO purchased 70 new laptops for staff to work from home, and when we talk about the RNC funding as well, we also pay for all the laptops that the RNC use. The technology that they have in their cars, they're special laptops essentially and they're about $5,000 each and we also purchased an additional 20 of those. The increase is primarily made up of the 70 new laptops and the 20 new RNC laptops and then also a few other legacy system modernization costs.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you.

Under section 4.1.02, under Salaries. Salaries are expected to increase to $8.45 million. I'm just wondering why.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The increase would be as a result of the government pay increase, and that's the issue I mentioned earlier about employee turnover and delays in hiring. I also, I guess, just want to give a bit more context: Moving forward, we have a $32,000 decrease from attrition, a $309,000 decrease for the 27th pay period that I know was common across all departments and then $452,000 is the salary increase.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: I just wonder one other thing: What major RFPs does OCIO have on the market currently?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: I'll have to get a list for the Member. I only know of one off the top of my head and that's one that I think was mentioned in our Estimates this morning, looking at if there are other options to handle our mainframe because the technology is quite old. We have gone out to see if there are any other options that the private market can bring forward.

I might have an answer in a minute; the experts are sending me some stuff, but that's the one off the top of my head. I'll return and give the Member the additional information.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Perfect.

Still under subsection 4.1.02, Supplies last year went over budget by $17,500. Can you explain that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I mentioned Supplies is primarily software. But again as a result of COVID-19, we had to buy more webcams and headsets. We had to buy more Webex accounts. You know we all use Webex. The OCIO had to pay for all those accounts, as well as there are certain licences that people needed in order to work from home on their laptops. We had extra funding for that as well.

I just have the answer about the RFIs for the previous question. The mainframe one I mentioned. There's a campsite reservation system replacement currently out, RFI. Then a managed security service, that is out but not yet awarded. I can speak more about that if anyone likes.

CHAIR: I remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.

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

J. DINN: I'm going to keep mine simple on this one because I've learned, with most of the Purchased Services, it somehow relates to laptops and so on and so forth. I'm just curious – and I'm going to use one catch-all for all of them.

With regard to Professional Services – I know you've already touched on some. In 4.1.01 to 4.1.04, especially when I'm looking at – well, actually Professional Services in just about all, with the exception of maybe Operations and Security, where Purchased Services has increased. Minister, if you could give me just an overview of generally what we're looking at, because that's a significant purchase when you look at outside help where we're not going in-house.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure – I'm just going to see with my team, if they have anything to add.

J. DINN: You can give me a listing specifically – later on, you might have that there. But overall what we getting from outside that we're not getting in-house. If it can't be done now, we can do it – it's a lot of money.

CHAIR: Go ahead, Minister.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I'll touch on that. Purchased Services isn't just outside contractors, but that is a significant portion of it. For projects – like the OCIO does a lot of one-time projects and we need a certain skill set. It might only be for six months, four months or 13 months, so we need a specific developer with that skill set for eight months. It doesn't necessarily always make sense to go out and hire someone with those skills because we only need them for eight months. That's kind of, on a project-by-project basis, why it makes sense to get contractors.

We also get them if, for example, we are unable to hire a cybersecurity expert at the rate that the provincial government would pay a cybersecurity expert. We've tackled that in other ways, which I can speak about, but that's kind of one example.

I'll also, I guess, speak to some other Purchased Services. If we look under, for example, 4.1.02, Purchased Services, that includes training as well. We obviously have a lot of IT software, and those programs require training. For example, that's Oracle financial database training; the HPRM workflow training, so the financial services software that we use, the IT training around that for staff. It makes a range of things.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Sorry, Chair.

When it comes to the IT training, trust me, I get that totally. This would be an outside agency or an organization doing it, or would there be an in-house – and I'm going back to my school days; there was always a teacher or two who were the IT experts, I guess. That's where I'm going.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: I'll just use this from my past life experience in terms of IT training, not necessarily from my – I'm not intimately involved in the OCIO training.

Generally, for example, if you're using a specialized piece of software and you need to be trained on that, there might only be three people that need to be trained in it once every four years, for example. There would be an expert at that company that would come and you would probably do virtual training, because it's highly specialized. We're not talking about how to use Excel; we're talking about a piece of software that maybe is used in five other provinces in Canada. I guess it's quite rare and not something that we would be training hundreds and hundreds of people on.

I also just want to add, though, to Purchased Services, because I guess you asked overall. If I move on to, for example, 4.1.03, Purchased Services also includes our mainframe and data centre contract costs. We run a data centre for provincial government, NLCHI, RNC, so we have a lot of costs around that. Maintenance for some of those major infrastructure things. Then, also, our cybersecurity contract that is out currently for RFI.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: The only thing I'll close with, I am just wondering when we talk about the government budget – and I'm not just referring to the minister's department here now. When you go through the budget lines, there is an awful lot of money that goes out in Purchased Services that really is nothing to do with the public servants, more or less, but it money that is going out to other organizations.

Just looking here, maybe it is just a small department and technology is extremely expensive, but I am just curious: Has there ever been a cost-benefit analysis done of hiring someone in-house who could be responsible for all departments to do that training? I don't know if it is the same for all other departments, but I am just curious: Has any analysis of that been done as to whether it would be cheaper to have one person in-house?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: I'm not sure that analysis has been done but from my general knowledge of IT systems, for example, in a lot of instances it is not appropriate for someone internally to do this training. For example, Cisco – I'm familiar with this because someone in my immediate family works with a lot of networking equipment. Cisco is a provider of networking equipment. To get training at Cisco, it is thousands of dollars and you have to get trained by a Cisco expert and then you get a certification and that gives you permission to work on the Cisco-branded equipment.

There might be two staff that have to do three weeks worth of Cisco training, just using Cisco as an example. I don't even know if we use Cisco here in the provincial government. It is usually very specific, highly specialized to that software, and it also provides a qualification. You get a certificate that you could move from business to business with.

As we have 600 applications, which are way too many, I'm not sure if it would be feasible to have training teams – there wouldn't be enough time for them to keep up on everything.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm done, in more ways than one.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A couple of questions. First of all, I just want to say, Mr. Chair, that I appreciate the minister's enthusiasm and it is nice to see. I hope her colleagues are watching. A couple of questions here, very briefly.

I'm just wondering, Minister, over the past year have there been any issues at OCIO that have occurred as it relates to security threats, hacking or anything like that? If something like that were to happen, is that something that is automatically reported to the Privacy Commissioner's office? How would that work?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess there are a few points I'll touch on there because I think that's a very big question. There are attacks on our network and on any big institution's network all day and every day – thousands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: It happens a lot, yes.

I'm not a cybersecurity expert, but when you look at the range of the different types of attacks, there's automated, a computer in a faraway country is trying to infiltrate our network. Then there are the emails that I'm sure you get and many of my colleagues get that look like they're from Sarah Stoodley, but they're not really from Sarah Stoodley. They say: Oh, can you call me? Are you there? I need you to do something really quickly. So that's more of the social engineering cyberattack where they're getting me to do something. That happens a lot.

We also have a lot of people sending the provincial government spam email and a big part of that would be malicious. Just to give you some context – I know we all get some spam emails – the provincial government blocks 88 per cent of the emails. Eighty-eight per cent of the emails don't even get in the system. That's how much junk, spam and malicious emails. For example, just last week I got an email that was malicious and that the team ran some analysis. They determined this is a potential threat and so they removed it from everyone's email inbox, because they have that power.

I am aware of some potential security issues. I'm not sure it's appropriate to announce them in a public setting because that also could – I won't say issues, but there have been different kinds of attempts and I wouldn't want to talk about those publicly in a public forum. There has not been any kind of breaches, or data losses or anything like that.

What else can I say? Oh, so my team tells me that Newfoundland and Labrador has the best scorecard out of the provinces over the last four reports. We also have an agreement with the federal government to share cybersecurity information and information about attacks. If we get an attack, then we take that aggregate information and we share it with the federal government. They share that across the provinces so that we can all try to protect each other.

It is a big risk, though. I believe the government of Nunatsiavut fell victim to quite a significant attack a few years ago. I'm not sure what the outcome was, but I think they had to rebuild everything from scratch. It is a significant risk, one that we mitigate as much as we can. There's kind of a multi-faceted way.

A new thing I'll just talk about that we've done recently: Because, for example, we're unable to hire a cybersecurity expert at the rates that the provincial government would pay, we have this RFI for a managed cybersecurity service. It's kind of a new model where we're paying someone, I believe, a few hundred thousand dollars over a few years. I'm not sure about the contractual sensitivity, so I don't want to be too specific there.

They essentially put some stuff on our networks that monitor everything for malicious activity. We're trying to derisk as much as possible, but it is a reasonable threat. It keeps some of our teams up at night.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you for that very extensive answer, Minister.

One part that you didn't mention that I asked, so I'll ask this part again: What interaction would there be between OCIO and the Privacy Commissioner? Given the fact that the Privacy Commissioner obviously has a role to make sure that public information is protected, I would think that there would be some interaction there where he would get some kinds of reports or assurances or something – whatever it is. Or if there is a potential breach, he is notified that he understands that OCIO is indeed protecting the public's information.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to correct something I just said. I said Nunatsiavut Government; it was the Nunavut government. Apologies for that. It was my mistake.

In terms of the Member's question about the Privacy Commissioner, I guess the OCIO would have its own privacy controls in place. It would do its own privacy analysis on different levels of projects. My team are telling me that whenever there is a breach or a potential breach, they would engage the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Every time there's a new system or a new piece of technology is released that's resident-facing, they do a privacy impact assessment with the Privacy Commissioner.

For example, MyGovNL. Everything that is available to the public has been vetted and discussed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. My understanding is there are no outstanding concerns or anything. I did meet with the Privacy Commissioner from that perspective just before Christmas. I believe they have an excellent working relationship.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you for that, Minister.

I guess my final question: Are there any plans that you're able to share in terms of any potential expansion of OCIO? As an example, in the Budget Speech they're talking about basically getting rid of the English School District. We're talking about consolidation of backroom office functions with health care authorities. We're talking about some sort of a reorganization of Nalcor.

You just said, I think, in answer to maybe one of our colleagues – I'm not sure; I heard you mention it at some point – that sometimes it's hard for us to keep employees because they go somewhere like Nalcor where they're making more money, paying people more. Is there any bigger plan, if you will, to try to bring more, whether it be ABCs and so on, under the auspices of OCIO as opposed to where they currently exist?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we look at the things announced in the budget – for example, the NLESD – I haven't had a discussion yet with the teams, but my expectation would be that the IT portion would come in to OCIO. NLCHI, I think, is a bit different; they have a lot of specialized skills. For example, if you work in NLCHI, the OCIO certainly would be doing the desktop support and setting up your laptop and your cellphone. Yes, while OCIO will have to expand, as we take on more organizations, I imagine that's where some of the savings can come as well because there's a lot of duplication.

I know in terms of shared services, which I'm responsible for, that's also an area where there are a lot of efficiencies that we can gain, obviously, from IT help desk. We already do the RNC, the Supreme Court and the provincial government. We certainly are ready. We're working now on how do we kind of give these new organizations a hug and bring them in.

CHAIR: The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Yes, that's basically all I had, Mr. Chair.

I would just say to the minister, yes, I think in an effort to achieve savings for government from an overall perspective, I would certainly see this division, your department, playing a very significant role through the use of technology and through the use of bringing things together. You say giving them all a big hug. Whatever you want to call it, I think there are efficiencies to be found and I think that this division and your department is going to be one of the key pieces in that.

I wish you all the success in the world with that, because as I've said many times – and I think we all agree – we need to find ways to become more efficient and save money to get ourselves out of this absolute hole that we're in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll go back to 4.1.02 under Professional Services. Can the minister explain how money was spent in Professional Services last year and where the money is planned to be spent this year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I kind of mentioned, Professional Services covers a range of things from training. Also, it captures when we need experts to come in and work on specific systems or for specific projects. The reduction in costs – I'm just looking here now, sorry. This past year, the reduction in costs was as a result of COVID-19 delays. Vendors were adjusting to COVID-19. Some of the staff had less work to do. The contractors had less work to do because things were moving slower from COVID-19, so that resulted in lower costs.

Then, if we look forward, the increase here is a result of we're moving to a new mainframe contract, so there's transition work associated with that, in addition to all the things I mentioned already that are under Professional Services.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you.

Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, can you explain the $11,300 in expenditure?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That $11,300 for this past year is an increase because we bought extra laptops and equipment for employees so that they could work from home during COVID-19 under this division. Then next year, the $8,000, we're doing a reallocation from Purchased Services to address the deficiencies in this budget line item.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under Revenue - Provincial, could you please outline how this revenue is generated and what accounts for the variance? I note that last year $72,700 was expected, that $26,200 was received, and this year you're anticipating $52,000 in revenue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

If we look at this past year, the decrease in revenue is because the OCIO did not provide support to Provident10 and the Teachers' Pension Plan IT systems, as they have in the past – for example, payroll systems. When they do work, they collect revenue from them, from the pension corporations, the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation and the Legal Aid Commission. That was a reduction because we didn't need to do any work for Provident10 and the Teachers' Pension Plan.

Then in terms of moving forward, the reduction is because we're not anticipating doing work for the same, Provident10 and the Teachers' Pension Plan, so we're expecting less revenue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Can the minister provide a list of embedded contractors – position titles are fine – and the length that they have been with OCIO?

S. STOODLEY: Could you repeat the question, sorry?

L. O'DRISCOLL: Can the minister provide a list of embedded contractors – position titles are fine – and the length that they have been with OCIO?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Yes, Mr. Chair, we can certainly provide that to the Member.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Under section 4.1.03, under Salaries, could you please outline the variance in the salary line item? I note that last fiscal year there was a savings of $529,000.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under Salaries of 4.1.03, this past year savings were a result of attrition, employee turnover and the HR timeline associated with hiring staff.

Then we look at the budget amount for next year. There was a $16,000 decrease from attrition, a $307,000 decrease for the 27th pay period funding and then $200,000 for the government salary increase.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Under Transportation and Communications, can you please outline what this expenditure of $1.5 million was for?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of this past year, we had higher costs for software licensing, maintenance and subscriptions. This includes the 160 software programs that the government pays for the renewals. Sometimes the vendors will put up the fees and there's nothing we can do about it. We have to pay those costs, essentially. Those are the software costs.

Then, moving forward, we are anticipating increased software renewal costs. We have to pay extra costs to Oracle for our financial and HR management systems.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you for that.

Under Supplies, can you outline the types of supplies purchased last year and why the budget is increasing to $8.5 million?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, for that last answer I just read out the Supplies information, sorry. Before that you asked about Transportation and Communications?

L. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.

S. STOODLEY: Okay. I just answered the second question. I'll go back to your previous question if that is okay.

For Transportation, the reduction in costs was lower travel as a result of COVID-19 and we didn't have to ship as much. Sorry.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The question on Supplies, the $8.5 million, did you just answer that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: For Supplies, the bulk of the Supplies is software costs. We have 160 government applications that we pay software costs for and these are increasing and they have increased. The biggest increase that we are anticipating, moving forward, is an increase in what Oracle is charging us for their financial and HR systems. The biggest one is Oracle. They just increase the fees and we have to pay it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under Professional Services, I note that last year Professional Services went over by $92,200. I'm just wondering why.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Professional Services were increased, and that was $92,000. We needed some critical network security expertise, so we had to bring that in. That's what the extra money was for.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, can you please outline what was purchased for $873,500, the purchasing total?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is another line item where we bought a lot of laptops and equipment for staff so that they could work from home during COVID-19.

Just on laptops during COVID, one of the things I have made sure is that staff, when they get a laptop, they don't get to keep their desktop. They decommission the desktop so we're not incrementally adding – we're going to maintain the same number of computers. They don't get to have two. I just want to be clear about that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Under Revenue - Provincial, could you please outline where this revenue comes from and provide an explanation why the full amount was not raised?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We get revenue from NLCHI, the Municipal Assessment Agency and Legal Aid for general IT support and data centre services. This is relating to a timing delay due to financial year cut-off for software and hardware and salary that we recover from those organizations.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Under 4.1.04, under Salaries, last year there was a salary savings of $346,000. Can you explain that and outline the impact they had on projects?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under 4.1.04, these are primarily Corporate Services and Projects. This is a big kind of project bucket. The difference is project requirements and as the projects are delayed the mix of people that we need to work on them changes. It's just we didn't need to have those people working on those projects.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Under Professional Services, could you please outline why the budget has been increased to $6.6 million?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So this is again because this is a big project budget, we have projects that were delayed. So we anticipate them ramping up. When we look at all the projects, which I'll give you on this list that we're anticipating completing this year, this is the cost of essentially getting those done, which we're kind of moving money around to support.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: One more question there.

The minister talked about some savings in bringing in the IT for the ABCs in with OCIO. Does the minister have an estimate of the savings or the number of positions impacted?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

I think that's an excellent question. We don't have that information at this time. I think that will happen while the teams are planning the integration and everything. So, hopefully, the next time we have Estimates, we'll have more information on that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.05 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.1.05 carried.

CLERK: The totals.

CHAIR: Shall the totals carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, Executive Council, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of Executive Council carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of Executive Council carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report having passed without amendment the Estimates of Executive Council.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of Executive Council.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of Executive Council.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

CLERK: (Inaudible.)

S. CROCKER: Okay, thank you. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, it's been a long day.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're debating the amendment to the budget that was put forward by my colleagues some days ago in the budget process. I had a whole different approach to what I was going to speak to when it came to the budget and that tonight, but I've had to modify that with the sad and confusing day that we've had around the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say sad because the fear is real, and probably to a point now where well over a thousand men and women who rely on the oil industry, or a particular part of the oil industry when it comes to the Terra Nova Project and their work on the FPSO, are directly affected and, as we understand it, would be considered unemployed now and the impact that has on them, their families, the communities they live in and the potentially 5,000 other people who rely on employment that is related to their income.

I know people will say: Where are you getting the other 5,000 jobs related to that? I extract from the Greene report when it talks about our viability and the impact that a certain industry has. Dame Moya Greene outlines that the oil and gas industry has a ratio of 5-1. For every job that's created, particularly well-paying jobs, there are five related jobs in the oil and gas industry.

Right now, this is a devastating day for 5,000 to 6,000 people, their communities, their families, all the related products and services that could be provided, but also for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because not only will it have a financial impact on our society, but it also demoralizes the fact that we have so much at stake and so much pride in our oil and gas. To take anything away that would have been a benefit and would have put us on the global market and showed the ingenuity and the skill set and the history we have in the oil and gas industry, it's a sad day for Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's confusing, Mr. Speaker, because I'm not quite sure at 1:15 on a Thursday, when the House is due to start at 1:30 and close for its weekly session, that the government decides to have a press conference to outline what they say was an offer to the other partners in this project. Knowing the challenges we've had because of COVID and knowing that this particular project is at the later stages of its development life and knowing that there still was a significant amount of oil in the ground that would benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to come out – and I say confusing. I'm not saying that the Opposition would have taken one stand one way or the other, because we had asked a multitude of times about various pieces of information or clarification or updates on what was happening and we never got them.

To a certain degree, I'll give the government and I'll give the Premier and the minister credence to the point that you can't negotiate everything you do in public, but there could have been at least some acknowledgement that things were either on the right path or there were challenges on the expectation from the other partners. Or there were things that the government couldn't offer, or there were things that they wanted to offer. But there was no discussion around where we are.

Today, all of a sudden – and I'm going to say this with pure respect – I think there's a curving of exactly how an offer was put on the table. I say curving because at the end of the day – and I said in one of my other speeches – I can take the number six and make it a big number; somebody else can take it and make it a small number. In this case, I get the impression – I'm hoping I'm wrong. The only way I'm going to know if I'm wrong is to do what we had proposed to do, which I would have thought we would have been in the middle of right now. Knowing the circumstance and impact that this announcement today would have on the oil and gas industry and so many families in this province, we would have been having an open debate, an emergency debate. That happens rarely in the House of Assembly, but does happen when there's a significant event or tragedy or issue that needs to be debated, because it's going to have a major impact on our society, either economically or socially or even politically. Unfortunately, we are not in that opportune time now to do this.

Now, we did manage to convince the government and there is a motion that Monday morning there will be a debate on this particular issue that we're facing now. How long that will last, what form it will take, I guess we'll know over the next period of time. The challenge we have on this side is that it's four days away. It's only hours before the imposed deadline for whether or not this project goes forward and whether or not the billions of dollars that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who would have been the benefactors from. No doubt, the oil companies would make their money too, but we would have been the benefactors. That could have gone into programs, services and health care, infrastructure, education and seniors. It could have gone to pay down our debt load; it could have gone to look at our financial stability.

Right now, we're on the eve of having that project fail. Unfortunately, the issue that's put forward is that the general public are probably getting a misconception. I think it's all in how you spin the story that you put out. I have my own suspicions as to why at 1:15 they decided to go out pre any of the other partners that they were negotiating with, keeping in mind there's still an open deadline that's still there until Tuesday to whether or not a deal could be made. They came out prematurely, from our perspective, after saying for the last three weeks in this House: We can't share information; we can't negotiate in the public. But now, all of a sudden, at the last minute there's a big press conference that basically paints a very grim picture and starts to put the nails in the coffin of that particular project and the impact it would have on people.

You have to understand my cynicism here and my skepticism as to why things are going this way. As I only said yesterday in a discussion, I'm a very optimistic individual. I try to be as optimistic as possible, but I can only be optimistic around the information that's shared. I'm, by nature, a suspicious person. Maybe by my previous career you do that because you want to analyze every perspective. I'm suspicious about the intent of how this rolled out today. I know my colleagues on this side of the House will ask a multitude of questions come Monday. We will get a briefing Monday morning and we will dig deeply into what was offered.

I talked to a multitude of people and 95 per cent of them are extremely upset over what's been announced. They're extremely hurt and disappointed about how it unfolded and the impact it may have. I want to clarify the fact that it's being painted that there's nearly $500 million of taxpayers' money being given to multi-billion-dollar companies. If you spin it, you can make it sound that way if you don't tell all the story and you don't clear the narrative as it should be. I want to clear it for the people who are out there listening and watching right now.

There's a pot of money – and I give credit to Ottawa. I've said it in this House before that under COVID – now, don't get me wrong, other provinces are getting major amounts of money to go into various industries that are sustainable and are very important to their economic viability, based on the fact that COVID took a major hit on what they're doing. Out West it's in the hardwood industry. Some of the others are in manufacturing, some of the other provinces it's their own oil and gas and some other ones it's the farming industry. Every province has gotten a multitude of investments in different federal programs to offset their losses.

In this case, in Newfoundland and Labrador, the biggest part of our economy that took a hit was the oil and gas industry. There was a substantial amount of money; I think $325 million – substantial. We acknowledge the feds for putting that in there. We would have liked a little bit more parameters on what it could have been used for. Nonetheless, government, through a process, decided that it would be farmed out to various projects within the oil and gas industry to enhance employment and to ensure that those viable projects would move forward. It would add some sustainability until the bridge into COVID is over and industries get up and running again.

I just want to explain there's $205 million of that pot. That's federal funding that came from the federal government. Not five cents coming out of anybody's pocket here in Newfoundland and Labrador, out of our coffers here. It doesn't add five cents to our debt load in any way, shape or form. It is money that has to be spent in a specific area. We can't take it and put it into the fishery. We can't take it and put it in education. We can't take it and put it into seniors' programs. I wish we could because there are a lot of things that could go towards enhancing people's quality of life in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We can't do that and that's fine. So we'll put it into an industry that's very viable, gives us a massive return from a tax perspective, employs Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, keeps their quality of life up and it works for people from every corner of this great province of ours, so it is not just isolated to one region and benefit only a certain sector in our society. That's $205 million.

The rest of the money that is being offered is paper money. I call it paper money because it is all about deferred royalties. For those who may not be familiar, every time we sign a deal in the offshore with an oil company, there is a certain percentage of every barrel that goes out, after certain parts of the contract. It could be after certain expenses. It could be after a certain period of time. It could be after you hit a certain threshold of how many barrels of oil, depending on what the deal was at the time with particular companies and the benefit to our society as part of that. That is the way it is negotiated and, in most cases, they benefit both partners. Nothing wrong with that.

In this case, my understanding as I read it – and this is how it has been explained to me, for those in the industry – is that the deferred royalties is what was put on the table. That's fair enough. That still may equate, over 10 years, to $272 million of monies that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would have gotten. That's fine; I want people to follow me – $270 million potentially could have been gotten. I say potentially because you don't get five cents if you don't take an ounce of oil out of the ground.

Now, all of a sudden, this is money that we would get if these other companies, who are putting in their billions of dollars, go out and drill the oil while they're employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on their rigs, employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on their supply vessels and contracting a multitude of other Newfoundland and Labrador companies who employ Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who work to provide those services and goods. But right now, they're making it look like the oil companies are not playing good pool with them. They're saying: At the end of the day, we've offered $500 million and they're the big, bad, greedy oil companies.

Now I'm not standing here in any way, shape or form, nor is our Opposition, and standing up and saying we 100 per cent support the oil companies. What we're saying here: First, let's get it on the table exactly what it is your offering and let's equate it to economies of scale. Economies of scale means if I'm going to spend $5, I want to make sure I make back more than $5. I don't have to make $500 back, but I need to make something that justifies my investment. It could be I just get $5 exactly back, but at the end of the day, I have something else that was a benefit to the people around me or to myself.

There's not a half a billion dollars – I wanted to express this to people – there's not a half a billion dollars of any taxpayer's money of Newfoundland and Labrador – there is not a cheque that the Minister of Finance will write to an oil company in the offer they made. Not five cents of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: We've talked about equity share. We have equity share in some of the other offshore projects. There's an argument whether or not that really benefits you. It depends where it is. There's an argument of whether or not it's good to be a partner in some of these because of some of the responsibilities you may have. Then there are others who will say: Well, we have a great example: Let's look at what Ottawa has gained from the Hibernia equity share that they bought in to, which was three benefits in it for them: One, they got a sustainable offshore oil industry that was at its infancy stage and nobody was sure if it would flourish to be extremely competitive and put us on the world map.

It got Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so employed that the federal government could write off $1.3 billion, $1.2 billion a year for 10 years not having to give any money to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as part of the equalization. We were proud to say: Thank you. We don't need your money now; we're doing okay. There are other provinces. Our sisters and brothers in this Confederation may need that parcel of money. We thanked the federal governments for the years of giving us money to get us over the threshold. We were in a good place. Now we find ourselves not in a good place again. We don't get our equalization.

As part of this process now we're saying we want to get our oil industry back up and running. We want to make it viable. We need to be able to see what it is we can do. Part of what the government is offering is paper money that actually is, really, lost money. Because if they don't do this investment, not only are they not going to get the $270 million; they're not going to get potentially another $500 million to $1 billion that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would get or the government would get for doing very little. Signing this partnership that's already in play, that's already been proven to be equitable and beneficial, particularly to the thousands of people who work in the industry.

Let's move to the next level: You cannot lose on something that you don't put in, but you can't gain when you walk away from something that automatically gives you a return. The automatic return here is we know there's anywhere from 100 million barrels there to 500 million barrels. People can argue around, but the C-NLOPB – the agency that we entrust, that we give all the powers to oversee our industry here, from a safety point of view, to an environmental point of view, to a licensing point of view – have said they know it's there. Don't forget Nalcor and the oil and gas component of that have proven that our seismic says there are a multitude of potential returns there for companies.

Massive, big companies have invested in this. There may be some politics at play why some of the partners want out. But you know what? We have a responsibility here, not only for the employment part of it, but this is an actually good investment, because we will not get five cents in any royalty regime if we don't take any oil out of the ground. People forget that.

Noia and a number of other agencies, 12 municipalities in the Northeast Avalon – including the City of St. John's, who have, obviously, the ability to research and look at things – have put out their own statement saying Terra Nova is very important. It's actually a benefactor to not only this region, but the whole of the province and to our tax regime in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why would we not find a way to invest in that process? I don't know and I'm asking and no doubt we're going to ask this question when we get into the debate.

Maybe there's a ploy here. Maybe there's something at play by the government. If it is, if it's a strategy to try to make this viable and make it work and get the partners to come to the table and come up with an agreement, great, but please do not do what's happening right now. You're frightening the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those workers now are distraught. We're getting constant inquiries and calls about what this means for those livelihoods. We're getting people now already saying: I'm looking, as soon as COVID is over, to pack up and leave because I have no faith in the oil and gas industry here or the province to be able to make it flourish and put it on solid ground.

We need the government to be honest with people. What is at play? Be honest about what it was you are offering from an investment point of view, because it's misleading to say that there's a half a billion dollars that you're putting upfront that people think that's coming out of the taxpayers' money that could be used for something else in our province. That's not accurate at all.

Is there a benefit to an equity share? That's something that we should be debating. We've asked to have that discussion in this House of Assembly and I guarantee you, we'll have that discussion here come Monday. But we want this government – because it's the House of Assembly that wants to have proper debate, proper discussion. If there's any way possible that we can salvage this deal to make sure our oil industry is still strong and that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador benefit from it, we'll have that discussion. We will not oppose for the sake of opposing. We've said that numerous times and we continue to act that way. We not only speak the game, we walk the game.

This is too valuable now to play politics, so let's not turn the narrative. Let's not skew the numbers. Let's put all of the facts on the table. Let's have an open, transparent dialogue. Let's look at every potential avenue that we could do to move this forward. Let's ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are the benefactors of what's happening here.

This is not about us and them – us being the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and them being the big, bad oil companies – this is about what kind of a deal would work to keep them engaged here and see that there's a profit margin for them, and to see us, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, gain financially and keep our oil industry moving in the right direction.

We have a viable oil industry. We did have obviously a challenge with a life cycle of one of the oil fields that we had, but there is still a lot of life left in this at the end of the day. The C-NLOPB, one of its own philosophies is that you maximize the return on the resource in the ground. You take it until there is no more there, then you move on to another field because you've maximized your benefit as part of that whole process.

I didn't want to get too political, but I have to do it because I know they're going to have discussions. I know we didn't get the right answers or the upfront answers that we asked for the last couple of weeks. It's ironic that just as we're going into a provincial election, when it was necessary to get the support of the oil industry, the workers and all those people – very diligent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who rely on this for their success – that the provincial Liberals at the time stated: We can save this. We have an MOU. We have an MOU with the companies. We're negotiating. We have an offer. We're going to make everything work. There's no risk to this. It's all going to work wonderfully.

But it's ironic, that as it's all over, as we're into the summer when COVID is almost done, when the oil industry is going to boom, there's a bigger risk. I ask the question: Show me your analysis. Particularly, show me your analysis of what the risk change is. The only thing that we can discover that changed: Oil went from $43 to $72. If that's the risk, because now you can add a 35 per cent profit margin for all players involved, then I think somebody is skewing the numbers here or somebody has a hidden agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to prolong this tonight, but I will tell you come Monday, me, my colleagues on this side of the House are going to ask for answers. We're going to want dialogue; we're going to want the proper information. We'll come back with suggestions of ways that we can make this deal work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and all partners involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, shall the amendment carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. We have an agreement.

I want to thank everybody for their contribution to the debate today and all the officials involved in the Estimates tonight. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments and I certainly look forward to the debate here in the House on Monday morning.

I have to adjourn the debate right now, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that we now adjourn debate.

SPEAKER: The motion is that we do adjourn debate.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

T. OSBORNE: Nay.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Education has offered to stay here and keep watch for tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. CROCKER: Yeah.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank everybody for today.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that this House do now adjourn.

SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do stand adjourned until 9 Monday morning.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

This House stands adjourned.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 9 a.m.