June 14

June 14, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 15

The House met at 9 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Admit strangers.

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with the motion passed on Thursday, June 10, we would now start debate on the motion on the Terra Nova FPSO.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: We're here today, Mr. Speaker – at least some of us – to debate the province's position on the Terra Nova FPSO. The significant offer made by the province to the partners and our government's decision that taking on an equity in the project is too great of a risk for our province to bear.

First let me start by saying, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations between the multi-billion dollar, profitable, big oil companies to achieve alignment in the project, we are – and always will be – there to support the women and men who are directly impacted. We share your stress and we will do what we can to alleviate your anxiety and fear. We will be there for you. We are there for you.

Beyond the details of this particular deal, there's a more fundamental question to debate here today, one that has plagued our history and one that we all must now face. It is our turn to examine the cognitive decision-making in approaching deals such as the Terra Nova and how myopic emotions have often lead to the wrong decisions in mega projects of the past.

We need to pause and reflect to ensure the decisions we make today, while they may or may not be the right ones for an election cycle, are, more importantly, the right ones for the future of our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: The essence of this debate is government's scope and depth in supporting multi-national, profitable, big oil companies. This is not necessarily a question, however, of profit; it is a question of risk. I hope and pray that the private sector finds a solution, one that enables them to make large proceeds on that asset-life extension because those who assume the risk, deserve the reward.

The question we need to answer is this: Is the province, in its current financial position, ready and able to take on more risk in yet another megaproject?

We can never forget in the face of profits achieved and uncertain commodities that the resource is ours. The oil is ours. We need to ensure we do everything we can to develop conditions that allow us to realize the maximum value with the least amount of risk for the people of our province. I believe we have achieved that balance with the current offer on the table.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology provided an update to the people of the province on the status of negotiations on the Terra Nova Project. Despite efforts on the part of all parties and a significant financial offer by the provincial government, the future of the Terra Nova Project today remains uncertain and in the hands, firmly, of its equity partners.

This was not an easy decision or announcement to make. On behalf of our entire government, I wish to express, again, my continued support for the hard-working women and men who have contributed so much to the Terra Nova Project to date.

The uncertainty surrounding this project is stressful for them and their families. I'd like to take this opportunity, again, to assure them that we will continue our efforts to support the oil and gas industry and, in particular, the workers and their families.

The Terra Nova oil field has been a source of opportunity and pride for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador since its discovery in 1984. It was the second oil field to be developed on our Grand Banks, and production started in 2002.

Suncor holds 37.675 per cent ownership in the Terra Nova Project and is the project operator. The remaining partners are ExxonMobil Canada at 19 per cent, Equinor Canada at 15 per cent, Husky Energy – a subsidiary of Cenovus – at 13 per cent, Murphy Oil at 10.475 per cent, Mosbacher at 3.85 per cent and Chevron Canada at 1 per cent.

Since first production in 2002, these companies have profited approximately $12 billion from this project and our resources. Approximately 85 per cent of that oil has been depleted and the C-NLOPB estimates about 80 million barrels are remaining.

The FPSO has been out of the field since December 2019 and is currently tied up in Bull Arm, as we all know. An estimated $600 million is required to carryout necessary upgrades to the FPSO and subsea infrastructure to return it to service to capture the remaining oil in the field. In addition to this issue, there is significant partner misalignment and that's the crux of it.

Over the past several months, our government has been at the table with the partners of the Terra Nova Project. We have worked with them to address these hurdles and barriers to get it back to production. Recognizing the benefits attached to the Terra Nova Project, the provincial government committed over $500 million in financial assistance over the remaining life of the project.

This includes a direct contribution of $205 million from the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industry Recovery Assistance Fund, an increase of $30 million from the original MOU, as well as changes to the royalty structure valued at over $300 million.

The provincial government is, and continues to be, supportive of the province's oil and gas industry and the Terra Nova Project, in particular, as demonstrated by this significant financial offer on the table. However, the province has a duty to all residents and given the province's fiscal situation, cannot support projects at all costs.

While the provincial government had discussed terms in taking an equity stake in the project, the risk has proven to be too great. An equity share would come with the associated costs of abandonment and other uncertainties, not the least of which is the commodity itself.

The risk involved in the future of this project cannot be on the backs of the residents of our province. In excess of 85 per cent of current oil reserves for the Terra Nova Project have already been produced. Now, unlike the current project owners, taking on an equity stake as a new partner at this late stage adds significant risk for the provincial government.

While the current project owners are already committed to abandonment cost at a future date, the provincial government, as a new equity owner, would be committing to costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars without any guarantee of a return. This stands in stark contrast to the project owners who have already committed to the cost to abandon the project and have already had an 18-year earning period. That's 18 years of making money from our resources, which the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would not have had as a new equity partner.

For the province's existing equity investments, the province was in at the ground floor. For the Terra Nova Project, the province would assume the full share of the abandonment costs associated with the equity interest on a field that is almost 85 per cent complete.

A 15 per cent share of the asset life extension would cost the province at least $90 million. The province would also be on the hook for 15 per cent of abandonment costs after a non-guaranteed decade of additional production, with some estimates putting the total abandonment costs at as high as a billion dollars. These up-front and abandonment costs, as well as the risk of cost overruns on the asset life extension, the possibility of an early end to production and market volatility in the oil industry result in too great a risk for the province to undertake at this time.

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, Albertans learned that their final cost – taxpayers' cost – for the now defunct Keystone XL pipeline will be about $1.3 billion, as the project was officially terminated on Wednesday. I am not prepared to burden the people of our province in our current financial reality with that sort of risk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY: Suncor, the operating partner of the Terra Nova Project, reported a profit of $821 million in the first quarter of 2021, including more than $350 million on its investments in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore alone. In that same quarter of 2021, other partners of the Terra Nova Project reported profits as the following: ExxonMobil, $2.7 billion; Equinor, $1.85 billion; Cenovus, $173 million; and Chevron, $1.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, these companies are far better positioned than our province's Treasury to assume the costs and risks associated with the remaining production in the Terra Nova oil field. Our government calls on the project owners to continue to negotiate over the coming days to find an equity solution. We will be here to support that project and work with the equity partners to ensure its feasibility in a way that benefits the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our government has demonstrated our commitment to the hard-working women and men in our oil and gas industry. We helped secure the $320-million investment from Ottawa and established immediately the Oil and Gas Industry Recovery Task Force to help distribute the funding to maximize value and employment. Thirty-two million of that fund has been dedicated to support our local service and supply sector. We also committed $16.6 million to keep the Come By Chance oil refinery in warm idle and ensure employment while the owner continues to work towards securing a buyer or investor.

We also established an accelerated Exploration Initiative to provide companies with the incentive to drill more wells in the best prospects. This is a policy measure that will allow all future bid-deposit forfeitures to be reinvested, resulting in an injection of hundreds of millions of dollars in our offshore.

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to ensure Newfoundland and Labrador is a globally preferred location for investment in oil and gas by emphasizing exploration in an environmentally sustainable manner to drive discovery and production. The potential in our offshore remains great. In the fall, Equinor confirmed that wells drilled as prospects, known as Cappahayden and Cambriol, were successful. Just last week it was reported that the Bay du Nord field is now estimated to contain one billion barrels of oil, triple its initial estimates. We look forward to these exciting developments at the Terra Nova Project. The province will support those projects in ways that ensure the value and benefit for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve a government that is a responsible steward of our province's Treasury now and for the future. I'm frankly not willing to roll the dice with an equity investment in a late-life project in place of oil firms that continue to book profits in the billions using our resources.

Our government remains committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the oil and gas industry and its workers. We reiterate our call to the partners of this project to find an equity solution and get the Terra Nova FPSO back in production. Our government will be there to support the project as offered, in a prudent manner that benefits all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, given the fiscal flexibility of the province, we can't afford to bet and lose. We've seen what happens when that occurs. It would cripple our Treasury, our schools, our hospitals, our future. We are still trying to right the wrongs of similar decisions in the past. While we cannot be anchored in that position forever, we need to learn from those mistakes.

Risk, in our current financial state, belongs in the hands of the private sector. I wish them the utmost success, profits and returns.

We will honour our commitment to the partners, but, more importantly, to the women and men impacted by any decisions made. We are asking the partners to come back to the table; a table that has now been set with $500 million of government support to come to a deal that will allow a win for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to say it's an honour to speak here today, but it's not. For those who know me, I don't think anyone has ever seen me wear black into this House. It's a sad day for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and it's a sad day for a lot of people who are employed in the offshore. My heart goes out to them. Once again, we're sitting here having a conversation with not all of the facts in front of us.

The first thing I'd like to say is I believe that this government and all of the proponents involved in this deal should waive their NDA and put the facts on the table and let Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know what the real offer was and what's really at stake here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Failure after failure, Mr. Speaker. Now that the federal government has abandoned Newfoundland, they no longer care about oil and gas, yet they're still big on Saudi oil, I guess, where do we go? Where do we go?

I look back, I guess the first date that comes to mind is January 14. On January 14, this government stood up in front of a province and boasted about a deal for the Terra Nova, along with a federal minister who said it was a great deal; a day before an election – a day before an election. The day after that, on the 16th, that federal minister's own staff came here to campaign for these same people. Now, they are in power and they're saying there's no deal. That kind of tells you what it's all about.

We can talk about passion and we can talk about everything, but let's go back in time a little bit and look at what has happened long before the global pandemic, which is what this government has blamed this on from day one. Let's be clear, the Terra Nova FPSO came in to dry dock in 2019; it did not come in in March when this global pandemic started. The failure started long before. The Henry Goodrich came in long before; the West Aquarius came in long before; and the Barents has come in since.

We failed. We had the previous minister boast and brag about Advance 2030 – bullish on it; 650 different oil fields or finds out there that we would develop. Do you know what we did instead? We hired a foreign advisor to see what kind of business we could drag up in Guyana. We abandoned our own people; the men and women who have built this industry.

All we have to do is go back to Hibernia and look at the former Liberal government under Clyde Wells and understand that it was the PCs that fought hard for this industry. It was Mr. John Crosbie that fought hard for this industry while the sitting Liberal government abandoned it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Memories are short.

Last week, I sat down and I listened about how much was there and how much wasn't there, and there are all kinds of different numbers from an industry standpoint and the standard is generally PPP – proven, probable and possible. Right now, we say somewhere around 115 million proven, probably and possible. While we want to know what's proven – simple fact, and there's nobody here that would disagree with that – the proven, probable and possible has always been the indication, the key indicator, for industry to move forward. When this oil field was found there was 278 million barrels PPP. Today, there are 540 million barrels PPP. It's doubled in size. We have 115 PPP now and most people in the industry would think that this going to expand over the life. There's no question.

I listened to the Premier over there this morning. The Premier says: People deserve a responsible steward. I could not agree more. But do you know what else people deserve? They deserve a government that's going to stand up for them; a government that believes in the people in this province and gives them a fighting opportunity to move forward. We don't have that. Our federal minister has been non-existent. Guess what? Our provincial counterparts have not pushed any of the silent six, not one of them; haven't heard them publicly call out anyone. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard anyone over here say a word about any of this.

We all make mistakes. Both sides of this House have made failures in the past. Some own it, some don't; some speak out about it. None of them do. Not one.

This opportunity with the Terra Nova is an opportunity for us to get people back to work. Now, we listened this morning to a briefing where we were told that an equity stake would give us a marginal return – a marginal return. When we asked about the indirect spinoffs they didn't have any answers. As a matter of fact, they quoted a report that came from Noia. I don't even know if this government did a report on the indirects.

The Greene report itself clearly says for every one offshore job there is, there are five more created: One equals five. Seventeen hundred jobs initially to get this rig back into service at $138 million a year over a one-and-a-half to two- year process. Then a possible 10 years after that, same kind of money; 1,100 people employed offshore with as many as 5,000 onshore. Then you have think about the message that this sends industry.

Now, it's all right to say this doesn't affect any jobs going forward because the bottom line is all that these oil companies care about. Well, guess what? The bottom line is not all these oil companies think about. If you want to talk to the current Finance Minister and ask her about the money that Exxon and Suncor and all these people have donated to H. Bliss Murphy and all these places that we need to survive as a government.

We can't afford not to find a way for this to work. That's just donated money, that's got nothing to do with the money that's generated by the men and women that work offshore, by the economic spinoffs from the businesses that are here, by the amount of produce and goods that are bought and sold and by the royalties.

There is a big picture here and what I see, based on the facts presented by this government, which are very little and I understand there is a NDA, but they're not disclosing everything. I can tell you right now, this is all about politics. This is about a federal government that wants to reap the benefits from the Hibernia field and don't give a damn about Terra Nova or the people in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: It's time for the people that got elected to govern, not Opposition, to govern, to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: On January 14, when this announcement was made, the next day there was an election called. Guess what? This announcement was a MOU, a $175-million MOU between government and the Terra Nova processors. Guess when it expired? In March. Guess when the election was? In March. Guess how much conversation went on between January 15 and March? Not a whole lot. Government will probably tell us after that they negotiated. Well, I urge you, if you negotiated during that time, put the documents on the table.

We're here this morning, while there is a group of men and women outside of this building protesting for their lives, and we're in here. We should have all been out by the door supporting them, or at the very least listening to them. If you can't support them, you should go out and give them the courtesy of your ear. It doesn't happen. I don't know if it's because people are afraid to stand up in front of the people that elected them or if they just don't care. I'm not sure. I'm not convinced. It's a pretty scary thought.

If you want to look at numbers and hard facts, I'll give you a few. The Premier, right now on the Terra Nova and all of our offshore oil and gas, if you were to give him a grade, it's pretty simple, I'd give him a zero. Finance Minister in her previous role, in the six years that we had to build this up – because this all fell apart before COVID – in the six years before this happened, I'd probably give her the exact same mark, a zero, because there are no prospects in the future. We can talk about a billion barrels offshore with Bay du Nord and all of those things that we like to flaunt around as good news, but there's no good news today. In order for us to have a future we need to have a present.

We talk about growing our population. There's going to be a mass exodus. We talk about looking after our people. We talk about mental health. We talk about all the things that we're here to do. We are supposed to look after this beautiful province and the beautiful people that live in it. Well, you're failing – you're failing miserably.

One other mark I'd like to give out and I'll give it directly to our minister that represents us: Minister O'Regan. I can't even give him a zero. It's ridiculous. For him not to be yelling and screaming on the rooftops of this province fighting for every man and women that lives here, it's shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: For nobody on that side of the House to be calling him out on it, even more shameful – shameful. All Seamus has done is shame us as a province. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I have lots of friends that work on this Terra Nova and all of the offshore oil and gas rigs. Let me tell you, they're frightened to death. Is this a play so Ottawa can get more royalties from Hibernia? Perhaps. Is this a play so Hebron can bring an FPSO up alongside and spud another well nine kilometres away to get access to the oil from the Terra Nova field? Perhaps, but all of those things are the wrong answers. We need to be trying to do what we can right now. The only thing we're doing is forgetting about our responsibility to the people that put us here.

Mr. Speaker, all the money, all of the thoughts and all of these studies has been put in. You look to the Noia report. It just blows me away. At today's current price, if we were to – not a projection, just today's current price – buy into an equity stake and we only got the 115 million barrels, that's $8.28 billion coming in directly. That doesn't include one portion of the indirects.

I listened to these guys talk about well abandonment fees. So they say somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion. What they don't say is that is not the cost for us. The cost for this province would be based on the equity stake. Why you can't negotiate a portion of what has already been done bewilders me.

If we buy 15 per cent – let's just use Exxon as the example – Exxon should be on the hook for their 85 per cent, if that's a fair number. That should leave us somewhere in the vicinity of about a $30- to $40-million bill for abandonment. I would suggest that's a realistic number, but government won't disclose that number. If it is a billion dollars, it's a billion dollars spread across all partners based on percentages. Again, a billion dollars. If it's 15 per cent, it's not a billion dollars, but government is trying to convince everybody it's a billion dollars. They need to come clean. They need to present the facts.

On Thursday, we asked to debate this. They wouldn't debate it because they said the information wasn't on the table. Monday morning 8:30, they give us a briefing and during the briefing, the House goes into session. Shame on you. The session was still going on when the House started. People didn't even receive the full briefing and, I will add, the briefing was null and void of any facts and figures. It just wasn't there. It was just blank words trying to convince us that we made a decision.

So, again, I say it: This government has some information that they should pass along to the people. This is a decision made to please their federal partners. This is a decision that they're not making. They tried to convince us they're putting $500 million in. The money is not coming from our pockets. They're putting $205 million in from the gas recovery fund. Let's be clear on that – and I don't think anybody has said this; most people probably don't know it – there are no more requests out there for this money. The rest of the offshore is not begging for this money. Unless a new request came in late last week, there are no more requests for this money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: Well, it just came in. That's what they say.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that we should go all in on equity – not saying it. What I am saying is that we should be making this decision based on facts. We should have all the facts on the table. We should understand exactly what the costs are associated with it. Not some speculation that it may or may not cost this. Government is not putting it out there. I believe that this is a decision that's being made with nobody's best interests in mind except a government that's afraid to look after the people that they were put here to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this.

I'll try my best to keep my train of thought logical and coherent and respond to some of the comments from the other side. I don't believe there is any need to reiterate the comments made by the Premier, many of which were also part of the briefing that was provided to all Members of the this House of Assembly prior to coming in here.

Now, one of the values, one of the benefits of being in this House for as long as I have is that I have the benefit of history. I have the benefit of knowing how things used to be done and how they are done now. I will point out just a couple of things that the Member said about having the briefing Monday morning. Well, I can tell you two things. Number one, if we had offered the briefing on Friday or Saturday, it probably would have been turned down. I will also –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

A. PARSONS: I tell you what, I never said a word when the Member previous spoke. I would expect to be afforded the same courtesy here on this debate.

The crowd opposite actually asked to have the debate on Thursday; they wanted to have the debate prior to having any information. What did we do? The staff, who I would point out were just insulted about not doing an analysis, not putting together any information, not showing up to do this work and not working over the weekend. The staff were insulted here – say you didn't do the briefing.

The reality is that a briefing was provided on this and we're having a debate on this. This is progress, I would point out, because I can remember the last time, when I sat in the Opposition and we debated a megaproject, the minister of energy or natural resources at the time said publicly: We don't need to debate Muskrat because the quality of debate would be so poor that we don't need to have a debate. There was no emergency debate. There were no questions asked. We were basically insulted for asking for the debate.

I will point out that we have progress here today. I realize that if we had the briefing Friday, had the briefing Monday, had the briefing Saturday or never had the briefing, the reality is that politically we will get attacked for doing so. The reality is that we put a briefing together and offered it to all Members of this House of Assembly, as we should, to have this special debate.

The other reality, too, is that this matter will continue on. Information will continue to be provided because I actually believe that this deal can still happen, but I do not believe it is incumbent on government to put everything into it. I do not believe it is incumbent on government to risk the future of the province to make this deal. I don't believe it's on us at all costs.

There was a lot of rhetoric in that last speech. I wrote a lot of it down and I'm going to try my best to respond to it. Again, everybody has had the information provided. The first thing is we talk about waiving the NDA. I would say that the province would actually be open to doing that. If you can convince the seven partners, multinational companies, to waive their NDA, I guarantee you the province would follow suit. But the reality is that this is a commercial transaction for which we are not a partner. We cannot force them to do this. I would tell you it would absolutely be unprecedented. You find me a government before or after that would do that, absolutely crazy. You find me companies that would do that, absolutely crazy. But it's a nice thing to ask for.

Again, we've put out everything we can without getting ourselves in legal jeopardy, which, I would point out, I know there are certain Members – not all Members. I'm not going to tie everybody in together because I don't think it's fair, but there are certain Members that would love nothing more than for this government to mess up the process by revealing all the information. I believe that to be true, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I'll go through the points that I just made: We were asked to have a debate before any information was provided. We felt it responsible to do it today. I would point out that the self-imposed deadline by the companies is tomorrow. That's their deadline, not ours. Government has not imposed any deadline. That's their deadline. We're here debating it before then. Again, I would point out that it's going to be far more of a debate than we were offered on many other important topics in this province. I think we have made progress.

I will point out we talk about the staff and no analysis. People can insult me; people can say what they want about the Premier. We're here. There were civil servants in that office all weekend doing work, and for the Member for Terra Nova to insult them – and that's the second time this session – it's unacceptable. Unacceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: You can fault me all you want, but to talk about those women and men that have been working on this for over year and saying: Nothing was done; I don't think that department has any analysis done. That is not how this works. Again, history shows me that. I was not given an opportunity to have those briefings on many occasions before; I never even got the opportunity.

We talk about failures of the past. The reality is – and I'm not getting in stripes here – there have been many failures in the past, tons. Many governments, all stripes, all kind of politicians, that's what happens when you govern. You do fail. In this particular case, I can tell you that the decision that we have reached, the decision that we have taken is to avoid a failure in the future. That's what we are doing here. We feel that we have put the work in. We feel that we have put the time in. We feel that we have put the analysis in. I appreciate the frustration that people feel, and not just the Members opposite, but members outside on the steps. I appreciate that. It's hard not having all that information, the information we are privy to.

As one Member said to me: We can only hope that you are doing what's in the best interests of the province. I can tell you, I truly believe that the decision we have taken is in the best interest of the province. Does that mean the entire province likes it? No, but we feel we are doing something that is good for the entirety of the province. I would point out, the most important part of the province are all those ones who are going to come out here after us. This is a future decision. This is a decision to protect the future. That's what we're all here for.

Now, I keep hearing: The government should do this, the government should do that. I will point out, I will reiterate to all that are out there, $500 million of value is certainly not nothing. I would also reject the arguments from the other side who question me – I can tell you, I don't make decisions based on whether somebody is going to like it or somebody is not going to like it. We make it based on what we think is in the best interest.

I can tell you, the majority of messages, calls and emails that I've had since Thursday were not about: Why are you not doing it? Were not about: Why are you not taking it? Why are you giving $500 million? That was the majority. That's true. If people want to they can ATIPP my emails to see that. They can ATIPP that. I never got one negative email about not taking equity.

But, again, what I will point out is that if taking equity was the right thing, but not popular, we would do that. It's not about being popular. The Member said about govern. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's what we're doing. We are governing but we are governing for everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: I will also point out – I've been criticized since the fall, fair ball, that's what happens here – I have been asked to spend the entirety of the $320 million. We were asked by certain Members of the Opposition to spend it all on West White Rose. We were asked by Members of the Opposition to spend it all on Come By Chance. We were asked by Members of the Opposition to spend it all on Terra Nova. I don't know how that's possible.

Now, what we have done is we have committed the lion's share of that money, $205 million, to this project, to the detriment of other projects that are out there. I will point out, we have taken $32 million and put it to the supply and service side. Now, hopefully, that comes out soon. People don't always realize, these are not companies that people always hear, but we had a ridiculous amount of interest for that $32 million. What I can tell you, in fact, is for the $32 million, we had over quadruple the dollar amount of applications made. I think it was over 70 or 80 applications made for that. That's money that you're going to see, that's jobs, that's work. But we felt that was important. In fact, that was a task force recommendation which we complied with because we felt we need to ensure that the supply and service sector, which is also important, we need to get that done.

Coming back to it, we have been asked on multiple occasions to give the money away; give the money away; give the money away. What we've done, we have made decisions. They'll be questioned, that's fine. But what I can tell you is this money is there on the table for the project and for the owners. I can guarantee you that if this goes ahead, down the road somebody will criticize us for giving that money. But that doesn't bother me because we believe it is the right thing to do to make this project work.

But if it does not happen, the Member opposite said: Well, there's no interest in that money. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, there will be a lineup of people coming to get that money to put it towards our other offshore projects, our other offshore jobs that will happen, people will get the benefit of that federal funding.

Speaking of federal: I know that it makes good politics to shout and scream and want to belittle your federal politicians. We've made a lifetime of that here in this province and it's usually good politics. We talk about: Well, where are the Members? Where are the Members? I think the word was: give them the courtesy of your ear. I will say to the Members, I was out there on the steps; the Premier was out there on the steps; the Minister of Finance was out there on the steps. Right now, while we speak, Minister O'Regan is out there on the steps speaking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: You might not like what he has to say. That's fine. That doesn't bother me one bit. What I'm saying is that he is out there. We were out there. I was speaking to TradesNL. I was speaking to Unifor. In fact, I can tell you, I was speaking to Unifor yesterday, as was the Premier. We've been speaking on this every single day.

It's like an iceberg, I would say folks. There's what you see on the ground, just above the surface there and there's what's below. For everything that people see in the news, I can guarantee you there is a significant amount of time and effort that's being applied every single day behind the scenes and under the surface. I can guarantee you that.

Now, again, the political rhetoric was: Stand up for the people. It's time for you to stand up for the people. That's a line. I've probably used it when I was in Opposition myself. It's a good line. It gets attention, especially to those that are reacting with their hearts. But what I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that number one: giving $500 million to this project is certainly standing up. The other thing I would say is that the decision we have reached in this matter, I can guarantee you, whether people like it or not, it certainly is standing up for the people. I've had a number of people reach out to convey that.

Now, one point is we talk about the failures. The reality is we have multiple projects ongoing right now. We have multiple hopeful projects in the offshore with great potential. I would not let one project colour any government's feeling towards the rest of it, or their position towards the rest of it or their outcome towards the rest of it. The reality is to look at this particular situation and say that a government has failed or that a government does not support oil and gas is a beyond ridiculous statement – it is a beyond ridiculous statement.

The fact is that successive governments over multiple years have gone out of their way to support the oil and gas industry. In the same way, when I do an interview with people that question our government and previous governments' support towards oil and gas, I'll defend it. Oil and gas has helped to pay for our social programs. It's helped to pay for our education. It's helped to pay for our health care. These are all good things and we believe that will continue into the future.

Again, I do not believe the investment that is being asked of us at this point is a good one for the province. I wish I could disclose all the details, but the reality is that we can't. What I will say is that a failure of this project will not rest on the shoulders of this government or this House I can guarantee you. A failure here – I think we need to look back at the ownership. I think we need to look back at the ownership that has taken – 85 per cent of this project is out of the ground.

We could talk about equity. Equity is fine; equity is not a bad thing. We have equity stakes in three other projects, but each one of them was on the ground floor, was in early. In this particular case, we are being asked to come in with 15 per cent left and assume significant risk down the line when the vast, vast majority of the project, the value is gone. I don't believe that is right.

We come back to this ownership group. They are the ones that have reaped that benefit and are now asking us to take on the increased responsibility for the costs that are coming down the road, the costs that come with decommissioning and abandonment. I don't think that's fair. The Premier has already pointed out the numbers; I'm not going to repeat them. Needless to say, these companies have a much healthier bottom line than this province. I can guarantee you that; they have a much healthier bottom line.

I will point out – and I'll say it and hopefully the companies are listening – there are other private interests out there that want to get in on this. There are other private interests out there and they want in on this. It's incumbent on the ownership to go to the table. We will assist; we'll do what we can. We have half a billion dollars sitting there, but to come back to us and ask to put it on the backs of 520,000 people, it's not right.

There are private interests here that are willing to take this on. We've done everything we can, but I'll tell you what, I'm not giving away my kid's future. I'm not doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: Again, I have no problem with risk and I have no program with gambling. We all believe that there are times to risk and there are times to gamble, but I'll point out this, Mr. Speaker, I'm not risking my own money, I'm risking money that belongs to everybody out there. That's the problem.

It's fine to take risk if you're a company. If you're a company and you take risk and it doesn't pan out, you shed layers, you shed people, you shed capital expenditure and you shed exploration. If we take risk and it fails, we shed schools, we shed hospitals, we shed programs for autism: we shed all of these services and we shed jobs and people. That's the problem with risk.

I say, Mr. Speaker, hopefully I will get another chance to speak to this. I think I've spoken enough here now. That's where we are. I am glad that the Opposition – I'm glad that every Member of this House is here speaking to it. We need to do that – absolutely. Your job is to question, to hold us accountable and scrutinize – absolutely. But, again, I believe I have made the point that we're all trying to get across here – from, certainly, the Members here – is that we have all of the time in the world for those workers that are out there. I've spoken to my share of them and there are a lot more workers. But in this case, what the operators are asking us to do is not fair to the people of this province; it's not fair to us. That is why, at this point, we will just have to leave our measly little offer of half a billion dollars of value on the table.

Right now, ownership in this project, an equity stake in this project, according to the excellent analysis done by a lot of really good public servants in my department, the Department of Finance and elsewhere, the analysis that I've seen – and I've spent just a lot of time since August working on – said it's not the right move. I believe time will tell. I believe that at the end of the day, this will be proven to be the right decision. In the meantime, I know that it requires debate and questions and we'll let the morning continue on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Just sitting back listening to all this today and seeing the people outside, we can tell where the passion is here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We've always been an oil and gas province and we should continue to be as well.

Sometimes I question what I'm here for. The politics of it all sometimes just drives me absolutely nuts; I'm not a fan of it. What I am a fan of is keeping people here in Newfoundland and Labrador and protecting revenues that are going to be sustainable for the future and our future generations.

You throw out the numbers all day long and, again, I'm here to put a face on some of those numbers that we throw out there; keep it as personal as we possibly can. The Premier talked about an equity partner without any guarantee of return. I would argue someone paying their mortgage, their car payment, keeping groceries in their cupboards, in turn, to keep people here in Newfoundland and Labrador, well, that's a good return for me as well. I would argue that is the return we're looking for at the end of the day. If this province doesn't make a dollar off this decision – not a dollar – but instead keeps the 1,100 people working, then the 1,700 people working, $138 million in wages and spinoff jobs, that alone right there should be initiative enough to make this project as successful as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, my portfolio as critic to Population Growth has never been more important than it is here today. If projects like this go by the wayside – with all the work that's put into it, I understand. But if projects like this are lost, and it's indicative of the future projects here in the province, the mass exodus that we're going to see is going to create a snowball effect that's going to destroy this province. It's going to absolutely destroy it.

Our population growth is the key to our success in this province, keeping people here and keeping us above water, keeping us afloat and I don't see it. I was one of those workers that went away for 17 years, but I came back and forth. I brought every cent back home to Newfoundland and Labrador. Besides buying a beer and a meal in the airport on the way home, there wasn't a dollar spent away. All of it was brought here.

What we're going to see with future outcomes is people moving away. People are doing it now; they have been for the past couple of weeks now. I know people that have already left. It's going to intensify, it's going to get worse and worse as we go along here.

Let me tell you something, there's nothing worse than a nanny or poppy here in Newfoundland and Labrador that has to call their kids and grandkids once a week up in Alberta, Fort Mac, down around Taber or wherever, Saskatchewan, Northern Saskatchewan where they're drilling. It's hard to see, it's hard to watch but that's the direction that we're headed. Make no mistake, those people out on the steps this morning and those people in the Districts of Terra Nova, Harbour Main, all these places, where this directly affects the people, they're going to see a population loss.

Once that starts to happen and the revenues start to leave this province, b'y we're in for a rude awakening I believe. It's coming, no matter how much we don't want it to come, it's coming. There's nothing worse than seeing a person get on a plane every single day and take off; it's hard to watch.

Over the past years, when it came to people losing their jobs in the oil and gas sector, I've watched friends lose their houses, lose their cars, lose their families. It's hard on a marriage. It's hard on kids. But I've also seen them lose their lives. I've had three friends of mine, in the past so many years, who have taken their own lives due to job loss. Once again the snowball effect, everything going out of proportion. It's definitely eye opening.

We had this PMR last week about mental health. The mental health of this province is not in the best shape now as it is, nor is it anywhere across the country. I'm sure everybody is – they have their demons, they're in hard shape. But those people out on the steps this morning and throughout the districts that are fighting for their livelihoods, their mental health is going to take a big hit here. In turn, it's going to be a trickle effect down through their families, their spouses, their children. That's hard to come back from.

A lot of the resources we have in this province, but to get a second or third visit, once again we've talked about it before, it's tough to do sometimes. We're going to see a bigger mental health crisis once again if this is the direction that the province is going in. None of us have the answers. I'm sure the government are trying their best right now, but some things definitely could have been done before this, beforehand, leading up to this.

When the Member for Terra Nova talked about the technical briefing just being offered this morning, that's not a slight on staff. The staff of the minister were only given the weekend to get it all together and I'm sure they did one hell of a job. They did a great job trying to put together the information that they had. But a briefing should have been done a week ago, two weeks ago. We knew this was leading up to tomorrow's deadline. I truly believe that some foresight should have been given at that time. There should have been a briefing Monday of last week, for instance. That's something that could have been facilitated.

It's not a slight at all on the staff members. It's probably more of a slight on the direction that they were given or the direction they were not given in due time and due process.

We talk about the federal government. The west of this country were into oil and gas long before us. You go to Nisku out in Alberta and they still have the first oil rig that ever started it all, back 60 or 70 years ago. They've been through quite a bit. They've been through quite a lot, and my brothers and sisters out there: my heart is with you as well. We can relate to them and they can relate to us.

I look towards them, and if you want to talk about how popular this federal government is when it comes to oil and gas, you take a look out there and the federal seats they've put in. It's beyond me how anybody can truly trust this federal government when it comes to oil and gas when there are so many other countries out there that are just cashing in on the benefits.

We talk about the transition from oil and gas to a greener energy and, again, it's coming, it's there, I can't wait for it, but it's not there today and it won't be there tomorrow. So while the rest of the world cashes in on the oil and gas products that we have now – which is not just what you put in you planes, it is not just what you put in your vehicles, but it's what everything is made of. Everything around you is made of oil and gas. The product is going to be around for a long, long time.

We are an oil and gas province. I believe we are still a fishing provinces as well, but we are an oil and gas province. While we're not cashing in on what we can, the rest of the world is. Make no mistake about it, they see the writing on the wall and they want to make sure that they get the maximum benefit they possibly can. Whether it be through revenue, business, jobs, it's all out there.

When we look towards the federal government and the fact that they gave $200 million to a casino in Ontario. I would love to know which MP stood on his feet or her feet and screamed and shouted that their casino needed $200 million and got it. I'd like to shake their hand because we don't have it here, we really don't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: We talk about our federal MP – the federal Natural Resources minister and – again, I know that a lot of emotion get into it and it is not rhetoric, but how he is not screaming and shouting and standing on his feet and saying: No, no, we need more for this province. Sure, the half a billion dollars, it's a great start. It's great to put out there. It's great to put on the table.

I know that the Minister of Energy talked about: Well, do you know what? Some want it to go towards this project or that project, and it has to be stretched a long way. I don't think that's the point. I think the point of it is that our major resource right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, our job creator, is on the line, and Ottawa is nowhere to be seen. The half a billion dollars is great; it's there, but we need more. We need more.

Who's going to stand on their feet to say we need more? I know we will and I hope the government does, too, because we need more. We haven't been a have province in 10 years. We will still watch provinces like Quebec get a $13-billion equity program through equalization – $13 billion. By the way, I would argue that in some of those years – I don't know about this year or last year – in most of those years, Quebec still posted a surplus of their budget and still got $13 billion.

We have two of the greatest, greenest projects in all of this country right here in our little province. We came in line with what the federal government wanted. They asked for green energy; we did it. We did it. Even the government says we are the green battery. Why? Because of Muskrat Falls, because of the Upper Churchill. We did it. We did exactly what they asked us to do and we put everything on the line to do it. What do we get out of it? Nothing. Two hundred million dollars for a casino and we are getting nothing. We're telling these people out on the steps: I'm sorry.

Like the Minister of Energy said: give the money away. It should be from the federal government – sorry, he said: A failure of the project will not rest on the shoulders of this government. I agree. A failure of this project will not rest on your shoulders. The failure of this project will rest on the backs of those people out on the steps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: Again, we look at the federal government; we look at the MPs that – we can all agree, everybody across the province: Where are they?

It doesn't have to be a political stripe because, I can guarantee you, if we were in government and this was Erin O'Toole, I would be the first person to stand up and say: Are you kidding me? We need more. We need assistance. We need help. We put our butts on the line. We built our green energy projects, as the federal government wanted, as the world has been asking for. The world has been asking for these green projects, and, by God, yes, we put ourselves in the hole by doing it. We definitely incurred a lot of debt doing it, but we did it.

Where's the incentive? Can't oil and gas and green energy make that transition together? We still need it but the incentive is not there. It's hard to watch.

We talk about retraining the oil and gas workers. Let me tell you something folks, oil and gas workers for the most part don't want to be retrained. They love their job. They want to continue doing their job. I loved my job. I was still part of the old-school drillers that spun chain. You take a three-quarter-inch chain and you flick it around pipe. You watch out to make sure your hand and arm aren't sucked into it; throwing tongs. I've watched injuries, horrific injuries, but still some days I sit here, I think to myself I miss it. I'd still like to go back to it.

These people don't want to get retrained. Some of them may. I can't say all of them. I can't speak for all of them, but for the most part these men and women love their job. They love being covered in oil, grease and dirt. I loved every minute of it. Even though it was hard, I knew what I was doing. I knew that all of you were going to go to work in your vehicles the next day because of me. Maybe not the Member for Lake Melville though. He had the green energy.

But I knew that I had an important job to do. I loved my job. When we talk about putting that money back into retraining, retraining, retraining, you have to stop and ask yourselves – most people here sat at a desk or they were lawyers, doctors, educators, all great professions, but not everybody wants to sit at a desk. I do it now and I love my job. I truly love my job. But the only reason I love my job is that I know I'm speaking on behalf of every blue-collar worker in Newfoundland and Labrador that doesn't want to be retrained, that just wants to go back to work, drill for oil and make sure that this province is taken care of for future generations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: I'm actually trying to convince one of my sons to get into oil and gas one day. He's 13 years old. He asks me about it. He says: Well, Dad, how much money can I make? There's good money in it. The youngest fellow, Xander, sometimes talks about oil and gas and he'd like to get into it. I don't deter him from that – I don't. Yeah, he probably won't be there for another seven, eight years; I've worked with guys on the rigs 16 and 17 years old. He might not be there for a couple of years yet, but I'm not going to deter him from that. I was a proud oil and gas worker – a damn proud oil and gas worker.

Those people out on the steps, they're very proud oil and gas workers as well. We have to stop in here for one minute, just a minute. Let's forget about the billions. Let's forget about all the numbers. Let's forget about the agreements. Let's just stop for one moment and put yourselves in their shoes, what they have to face this weekend: staying up late at night, 3 in the morning; thinking about how they're going to put food on their table, how they're going to keep their car payments going.

All of us in here, we're thinking about where we're going to go on a staycation or even a vacation this summer as Canada opens up. Not these people. These people truly now have to worry about groceries, food. As hard as they work – and I worked 13-hour days, up to 50 days straight, and some of these men and women do it as well. Can you imagine working that hard and not having a future, or not knowing if you're going to get a paycheque?

When we talk about oil and gas, we can talk about the transition into green energy and how important it is, and it truly is. It is more important to the future of this planet than anything else. If you think climate change is a joke, then you're wrong because it's there. We need to ensure that future. For right now, we need to ensure a future in oil and gas here in Newfoundland and Labrador and let these people know that we're with them, because we are with them.

Again, you don't know it unless you do it. You have no idea what it's like, the camaraderie of these men and women as they work together; the cold days, the cold nights out on that rig or anywhere else in oil and gas. It can be a tough job, but, by God, they're some proud to do it. They're proud to do it and they're more than proud to put revenue back into Newfoundland and Labrador. I was proud to do it as well.

I'm not going to stand here and point fingers. It's not going to happen. I am going to stand here instead and lend a hand to the people outside on the steps and let them know that we will do whatever it takes to help them out. We have to reinforce that. Again, they're not looking for the retraining; they're not looking for a layoff slip; they're not looking for a new job. They want to work where they work. It's a fantastic job. It's a fantastic industry. It has a future in Newfoundland and Labrador, but unless we facilitate it, it does not.

Can we do it as a province? Probably not. We probably can't get there just on our own. But we are in the Confederation of Canada, and the federation of Canada will reach out and help so many other provinces. We've been hearing it for years, ever since I was a kid: Newfoundland and Labrador always gets left behind. I see it more and more and it truly is.

The federal government have debt as well. Of course they do. Unless they step up, unless they put more equity in, unless they put more money into this – and I hope the prime minister gets this message as well, because Newfoundland and Labrador needs the federal government right now. We do. We need them to come down and say, you know what, what else do we need to facilitate this?

I understand the big oil companies' guys, yeah, they're in it for a dollar. Of course they are. Like I said at the start of this, Newfoundland and Labrador coffers, if we don't make a dollar off it but we keep these people working out here – I don't want to lose money, of course, and I can understand the risk. But if we don't make a dollar, if we break-even and we keep our people out here working and we take care of our people, then that would be worth it to me.

We need to make sure that we send the rest of the world and the rest of the industry a message, because we always say Newfoundland and Labrador is open for business. We have lots of businesses here in Newfoundland and Labrador; we have our tourism sector and we have our fishery. That's starting to make a comeback as well, but the oil and gas, that's where our revenues are going to come from. It might only be for another 20 years, but if we shave years off that 20, the revenues we're going to lose are substantial.

To the people out on the steps and the people throughout the districts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in the oil and gas sector, as a driller, I stand with you, the Opposition stands with you and we will continue to fight and do whatever we can to keep groceries in your fridge.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for acknowledging me in this very important debate today.

I thank all Members of this House for the opportunity to have this, what I think is a very important discussion and debate today. Most importantly, I think this morning I want to thank the men and women who have contributed to the growth and development of our offshore oil industry. They have done outstanding work and they are recognized globally for their skill and their abilities. Mr. Speaker, in this debate this morning we have talked a lot about our offshore workers but I wanted to acknowledge them.

We have a very robust offshore opportunity. We have an opportunity to grow, develop and continue to produce, Mr. Speaker, and that has really modernized and changed Newfoundland and Labrador, in a lot of ways, our oil and gas industry. The value of our oil industry in this province cannot be overstated, nor is it easily replaced.

I also want to thank, this morning, the professionals in the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology, as well as OilCo, for the work and efforts they have put in since the collapse of the international oil industry and, of course, the development of COVID; for the amount of hours, the amount of effort, the amount of encouragement, the amount of support and the amount of information that they have been able to provide and to continue with our growth and development of our oil and gas industry.

Mr. Speaker, I was minister, at the time, of Natural Resources when COVID first struck and when the collapse of the international oil industry occurred and I can say, Mr. Speaker, the hours and the efforts should not go unnoticed. I won't allow that to happen this morning: allow me to just thank them.

Two important things to start off this morning is thanking our offshore oil and gas workers, the men and women who provide incredible skills and integrity and effort to grow our offshore and as well to the department and to OilCo for their efforts as well.

At one point, the industry represented up to 30 per cent of the gross domestic product of this province, 13 per cent of labour compensation and 10 per cent of employment. That is a significant contributor, a significant contributor to our economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will say we have some of the lowest carbon intensity oil-emitting projects in the world today; some of the lowest carbon intensity emitting projects and I think that's something that cannot go without saying how important that is. We want to continue to put the oil from Newfoundland and Labrador into the world markets because, of course, it helps drive down carbon – the carbon intensity of oil – and it helps to ensure we have the lowest carbon per barrel. I know the projects here in Newfoundland and Labrador continue to work to lower that oil.

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently this morning to the Member for Terra Nova who said that nothing had been done in our offshore. So I thought it would be important to make sure that when I'm speaking to the people of the province, when I'm speaking to the global industry that I correct the record. Allow me to have a few moments to talk about some of the things leading up to what happened in 2020, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is very, very important for people, not just in this province but those that are listening around the world, the oil and gas industry, those that look to this province to make their investments – and we want to encourage them to continue to make investments in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can say, Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous opportunity that is, I would think, one of the biggest opportunities in the world today.

Allow me to talk a little bit about some of those – what I'm going to call – important steps that were taken leading up to the challenges of 2020. First of all, I can say that we worked very hard with the federal government to accelerate the exploration approvals. We were able to take it from 36 months down to less than six. That, I can tell you from CNOOC and from Equinor, from some of the majors in the world today, was incredibly important. CNOOC is out there hoping to make a discovery as we speak. There's been hundreds of millions of dollars looking for the next Hibernia offshore. I do hope they do that. I want to say a shout-out to the men and women from Newfoundland and Labrador who are working on that rig. Let me say that I hope that we'll be celebrating a new discovery soon.

We worked with Husky and partners on the West White Rose extension. That was not only agreed to but it was started, Mr. Speaker, about some 60 per cent of it is completed in Argentia; a tremendously skilled and readily available workforce – tremendously skilled.

We also did a framework agreement for Bay du Nord. Bay du Nord has been in the news, the discovery, the recent discoveries, the new discoveries that Equinor has made in the last year have increased the prospects for Bay du Nord, some say to a billion barrels. I do want to encourage Equinor to move forward with that development.

I can also say the asset life extension of Suncor was also agreed. I'm going to say this because the people of the province need to understand that when the asset life extension was agreed by the partners of Terra Nova, the conditions were the same as they are today; roughly the same dollar value for the price of oil, roughly the same dollar value. It was around $70 US Brent crude and today we're roughly in that same realm.

I say to the partners of Suncor, I do hope that you take that into consideration as you look toward moving forward with the sanctioning and the asset life extension, especially with Newfoundland and Labrador, and through some money that the federal government is also contributing, having put a tremendous $500 million on the table to assist with the development of the asset life extension.

We also, Mr. Speaker, had the Innovation and Business Development Fund – $60 million to encourage innovation and business development for our oil and gas industry offshore –$60 million. That continues today, about $6 million a year going out to help increase our development.

The Member opposite said disparagingly that we were involved in encouraging Newfoundland and Labrador companies in Guyana. Well, Guyana is developing its offshore oil industry and we have tremendous expertise to lend it. We are there: numbers of Newfoundland and Labrador companies. Many, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are engaged in that. That certainly says that we can export our expertise and develop in other countries. I'm very proud of the Newfoundland and Labrador companies that are doing just that.

We also had eight, Mr. Speaker, new entrants to our offshore. Companies like BP and BHP put in major bids to come and develop offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, we had the largest single bid of $621 million – $621 million – made by, I think it was, BHP in our offshore in recent years.

We also have new discoveries. ExxonMobil made new discoveries. Husky made new discoveries. Equinor made new discoveries. So things are very exciting offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, the department also has an exploration data room. I can also say that we've spent in excess of $100 million – well in excess of $100 million – on seismic data. We now have over 200,000 – 200,000 line kilometres of new 2D multi-client data and 40,000 kilometres of high-quality 3D data available. Think about that, Mr. Speaker, we are saying to the world that we are making investments to understand our seismic offshore Newfoundland and Labrador and what we're seeing is tremendous. In just 10 per cent of our offshore – and this has been independently verified – there are some 60 billion barrels of oil. Not discovered, but seen on seismic.

Now, we need to get out there and discover it. That's why companies like CNOOC, that's why companies like BHP, BP, Equinor and others are out there doing discovery. Is there enough discovery happening? We would like to see more, Mr. Speaker. I encourage companies to go out there and do that. That's why we worked so hard to have that accelerated exploration approval process in place.

I heard the Member opposite talk about Advance 2030. Over 200 oil and gas stakeholders developed that. We have an oil and gas council made up of some of the top – the absolute top – oil and gas executives in this province. We also have a task force to help spur continued growth and development.

Mr. Speaker, I think this government has done an incredible amount of work to continue to grow our offshore oil and gas industry. I say to the oil and gas industry itself, I say to the companies around the world, including the eight new entrants, including ExxonMobil, including Suncor, Husky and Equinor, partners today in our offshore, there are some 650 leads and prospects – 650 leads and prospects – more than 20 basins mapped offshore Newfoundland and Labrador and over 60-billion barrels.

All I can say is our opportunity is outstanding offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. The people that work in it are compared to the best in the world. We have robust supply and service capabilities in this province, and we have world-class education and innovation happening here. We are probably the world's leader – and I can say that. I'm not trying to brag or anything. I think it is true that we are recognized as the world leader in operating expertise in harsh environments.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should be cheering our oil and gas industry. The people of the province may not realize just how big offshore Newfoundland and Labrador is. We have some 910,000 square kilometres in our offshore. Now, compare that to, say, Norway. Norway's is 650,000 square kilometres – so the magnitude of our offshore oil and gas potential.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you've heard a lot this morning about the Terra Nova Project and that Newfoundland and Labrador has committed some $500 million to that project, to the asset life extension project and to the continued delivery of that project. I have to say, I think it is a tremendous investment in our offshore, in that particular project. It pretty much will cover the cost of the asset life extension. It's less than 100-million barrels, but there are around 80-million barrels still left to be developed in that offshore, plus any other tiebacks or any other discoveries that could be made. I encourage the investors in that project to take advantage of this opportunity to utilize the $500 million in investment that Newfoundland and Labrador is prepared to make.

It may not be the right decision for Newfoundland and Labrador to take an equity stake at this point in time. Our financial considerations, there's a big stake to be made. I think the Premier did an incredibly good job of laying out the reasons why we would not take an equity stake. But that is not the same for the major oil companies who have already, Mr. Speaker, reaped the benefits and rewards of that project and will continue to reap benefits and rewards of that project.

There are close on 100 million barrels of oil in the environ of that project that I'm sure with new technologies and with new discoveries that project will be here for many, many years to come. I know that they're probably listening this morning, Mr. Speaker; I encourage them to make those considerations, to understand that we want their development here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want them to continue and we want them to accelerate their exploration. We want them to accelerate their discoveries. We want them to accelerate their projects.

We are very supportive of the oil and gas industry. We want them to continue to grow and prosper because it grows and prospers the people who work in the industry and it grows and prospers Newfoundland and Labrador. It helps us to invest in our schools, in our hospitals, in the best quality of life for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There's nobody in this House that does not stand with Newfoundland and Labrador, does not stand with the workers, does not stand for oil and gas. I believe that everyone in here certainly wants to be part of the future for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's why we've continued to invest, I think, another $20 million in the budget for continued seismic work by our oil companies, Mr. Speaker.

There's the accelerated Exploration Initiative that provides companies with the incentive to drill more wells. We have monies put aside for the supply and service industry; some $32 million I believe the minister said a little earlier, coming out of the money that we received from Ottawa to support the industry. There's $6 million from the Innovation and Business Development Fund. There's a tremendous investment by the people of this province to grow our offshore oil and gas industry. We may not be able to take equity at this moment, Mr. Speaker. This may not be the right project for us to take a huge portion of equity, but I think the oil and gas companies can see how serious and how encouraging we are to their growth and development, because it is growth and development for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'll again remind the industry that the conditions today at roughly $70 a barrel for Brent crude are roughly the same as when the asset life extension project was announced; roughly the same dollars per barrel they're receiving for the oil. Plus the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with their partners, the federal government and their offshore oil and gas industry, are prepared to put $500 million on the table as well. I think it speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared to move in this direction.

I've heard a bit this morning opposite about abandonment. Well, let me remind everyone that abandonment only occurs once the plans are accepted by C-NLOPB, and we're a long way from that. So I'm encouraging all partners of Terra Nova to come together to take advantage of this important offer that Newfoundland and Labrador have on the table to ensure the continued growth and development of the Terra Nova Project and to ensure the continued growth and development of our offshore. I encourage that.

I encourage us all to continue to support oil and gas. I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that we have such strength within this industry in the province, such an incredibly strong and skilled and readily available workforce. The fact that we have the offshore oil in Newfoundland and Labrador, the fact that we have low-carbon intensity in our offshore oil, the fact that we have produced, up to this point, some 26 per cent of Canada's conventional light crude oil – 26 per cent. I'd like to see it go higher.

Our conventional crude light is phenomenal. There are some 6,700 people employed, or there were. Up until COVID, there were 6,700 people who were gainfully employed directly in the oil and gas industry. We'd like to see more. We think there is a healthy future here. We have not only a robust industrial and supply servicing capability, the availability and location is good for our future fields. We've seen good discovery offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I say stand strong, all of us together, to grow this industry, to reap its rewards, to continue to grow Newfoundland and Labrador and to continue – I say, Mr. Speaker – to work together for Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

Mr. Speaker, to me it's about supporting oil and gas workers or the workers of this province. In the House on Thursday and today, we've heard talk about – and I know it's a form of shorthand but – supporting oil and gas. It's not about me supporting oil and gas, it's about supporting oil and gas and workers.

What I'm about to say is to look at the whole notion of transition; not an immediate transition out of oil, but we have to start having a plan, if we are going to protect workers and if we're going to be fair to workers, their families and the communities which depend on them.

Just out of curiosity, in 1964, would anyone in Newfoundland have imagined our province as an oil-producing province with an oil industry that is surpassing the value of our fishery? Or that we'd have a gravity-base structure located over 300 kilometres off our coastline? I didn't, I was five years old. I certainly didn't, but we know that Hibernia was in production by 1997. That's 24 years ago. Now, we're having this debate; not about Hibernia, but about another project.

In 1964 – what's significant about it is – a university professor, Hugh Lilly and fellow diver, John Snow, were part of the first diving expedition to the bottom of the Grand Banks to collect samples and data about its terrain, geographical research. As I said, that's 1964. A plaque to honour the dive was eventually placed down there on the Virgin Rocks. Up until then, no biologist, geographer or geologist had set foot on the Grand Banks.

A remarkable story, even more remarkable because of how he obtained the funding to do so. Memorial University thought the expedition was a waste of time and no one else seemed interested in the idea, certainly not oil companies, but Premier Smallwood, at the time, did fund it.

Why is it important? Because it probably led to the discovery of oil. Oil companies weren't interested in the Grand Banks; roughness and other challenges made it impossible. But when oil was discovered, and they did discover elements of it there, that we might say, the rest is history.

It's a story about transition because prior to 1964 no one would have imagined Newfoundland and Labrador as an oil-producing province, yet here we are, we've transitioned into one. Here we are facing another transition. I think we've got to be ready for it. We've got to have a planned, slow, well-financed one that looks after the workers.

Oil will not go away tomorrow. It will not go away in the next 10 years, but there are clear signs that it is on its way out as an economic engine for the country.

If indeed there is a tide in the affairs of men, then we're at such a point right now. If anything, we need a transition plan that is fair, that is just, that is supportive of workers and communities.

I've heard my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans speak eloquently about the fear for the future, whether the people are going to be able to pay their mortgage, put food on the table, to have their children in programs. He's hit the nail on the head. Whatever we do, we do to protect the workers of this province, the people of this province not the oil and gas companies.

Do we accept the reality of climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions and transition to a green economy? I haven't heard one person in this House of Assembly say otherwise. I haven't heard one Member deny the catastrophic consequences if we do not reduce our emissions to net zero by 2050. It's not a joke. However, I have also heard it said that there is still a demand for oil, and we have some of the cleanest.

Now, last week, the news clearly demonstrates that while oil may be with us a while longer, it won't be that much longer or as long as we might think. The time to transition from oil is here, if we're going to protect the oil and gas workers and our communities.

In the end, if our oil is in such high demand, really we would not need to put anything up for it. It would be a commodity sought after by companies on its own.

In today's briefing, we heard a few of the details, and I'll apologize if I get some of them incorrect, but here's what I heard: The royalty offer of $300 million, a significant amount by the province; there is more downside protection to protect owners but there are upside opportunities for the province, but notice the first one was protection for the owners; oil forecasts are all over the place; marginal returns on equity investments; each company makes decisions based on profitability and risk; and the project was uneconomical under the current royalty regime.

Now, here's the thing: Do I support the notion that we need to be putting more money into oil? No. I think we've done our share. Here's the thing: We are busy attacking the government at this point. And I can tell you, yes, there will be times when you will deserve every bit of criticism. But why are we not lambasting multinational oil companies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DINN: As the Premier has noted, they have made some $361 million in the last quarter on Newfoundland's offshore. They are the ones walking away. Now, I don't know in the art of the deal, but once you start begging cap in hand, you've lost all bargaining power.

What are they doing? They're protecting their bottom line, their future and the interests of their shareholders. The workers are certainly not top of their mind. That's what they're looking at. They're obviously seeing that there is a lot more risk in this than they're willing to take on. They are. They're already seeing the writing on the wall, as it were.

I'll say this, because we've been, as Newfoundland and Labrador, as a province and as a country, at one time when we were independent, as such, we've been through transitions. Look at some facts according to certain statistics that Canada wide 33,000 jobs were lost in the fossil fuel industry between 2014 and 2019, and 20,000 lost during the pandemic. That's a significant amount. There's your canary in the coal mine, as you might say.

If you look at some statistics, I guess, one time, 40 per cent of Canada's revenue or GDP was from agriculture. Today, it's 1.5 per cent. Post war, 1948, 21 per cent of the workforce was made up of women. Today, it's 48 per cent. We have undergone significant challenges and changes and transitions in our history. Our economy is prosperous. I'll be making my point in terms of we need a transition plan.

We watched in Newfoundland here, God knows, I taught on the Southern Shore and every time a school was closed, it was the death knell of a community. The Southern Shore, where I spent half of my career as a teacher, that I loved dearly, you can see the ravages. The cod moratorium is a perfectly good example of that.

Now, I taught in Trepassey in 1981, that place was booming. It was booming. As a teacher, I was definitely making the least amount of money of the lot. It was booming. If you drive up there now – if I remember correctly, the schools had some 500-plus kids in it. It was a happening place. You go up there now, it's 25 students from K to 12. That's what's up there; it's a shadow of itself. It was hard to watch.

I was never in the fish-harvesting business. I had a lot of respect for the people who were in the business. I was a big fan of listening to The Fisheries Broadcast. I don't know how many times I'd listen to fish harvesters talk about problems in the catch rates, that there was something going on. Then the fishery was closed and we were thrown into chaos. We were left scrambling.

Now, there were signals that there was something going on, that we should have had a plan in place. It devastated communities. I'd say it devastated Trepassey. It devastated people's lives. People were forced to transition. You could not make a living at fishing. I would say that the fishery today is certainly not what it was pre-moratorium.

The railway is another one. My dad worked at the railway. He retired a year before the railway was shutdown. My daughter was a year old when the announcement came that they were closing the railway for good. I can tell you that long before the railway was closed, we could see the signs that its time was coming to an end, that there was going to be no more support and that people were going to lose their jobs. My dad, fortunately, he would have kept on working there a lot longer.

I would say that given the chance – I often think of it – maybe if the railway had gone on, maybe that's where I would have worked. Who knows? Our parents were very much focused on getting us an education. When I went teaching up the shore, there were two people there who worked at the railway. They were teaching. They had transitioned out of it years before because, I guess, they could see this was not going to be the life; it didn't have the longevity.

We don't have a railway anymore. We have bits and pieces there for a museum, but was it a positive? Was it the end of the province? Was it a drawback? One thing is for certain: There was a plan in place to transition people out of it. Those who could retire were retired; those who were young and had young families and needed the work, you find a way to transition them, but that transition came.

My concern is that if we carry on without a transition plan, there will come a point when the oil production will not be the economic driver of Newfoundland and it will be too late. Right now is the time to start that plan. I'm not talking about shutting down the oil industry. We know it's going to be here. Right now, more than anything else, if we're going to put money into something, I'd rather it not be oil companies; I'd rather it be the workers.

I understand that oil workers love the job they do. I loved the job I did. My dad loved the railway. There comes that point that those who maybe are in a position to retire can so that we can start protecting the livelihoods of those who need this and for those who wish to retrain, but it has to be that gradual plan. That's all I'm saying here.

The fact is, the world is turning from oil. I would suspect it's not going to be in a linear fashion; it's going to ramp up as technologies come on stream: the use of hydrogen fuel, the use of greener forms of making concrete and so on and so forth. We've seen it already. You just have to think a couple of weeks ago with Royal Dutch Shell, the court decision in the Netherlands, the overthrow, I guess, or the upset of the boards of directors for Chevron and Exxon.

We see it coming. Let's be ready for it. If we're going to put money up, it's commendable to protect the workers, not commendable to protect the bottom line of the oil companies, because it has to be about the people of this province, pure and simple. I think we need to start looking at this now as a huge opportunity to create millions of new jobs and boost the economy. That's nationally, of course. The federal government has to be onside in this. If we're going to transition energies – and it's coming – it must be fair and inclusive and it must not leave anyone behind because, in the end, the transition is about people.

If anything, if we're looking at it in broad strokes, Mr. Speaker, we have to commit to a long-term phase-out of fossil fuels. I'm not talking, again, that we're looking at shutting down the offshore, but we have to start planning for it now. The writing is on the wall. What does that mean? Look at the advances in green technology. Whether it's in electric cars, whether it's in the use of cladding on buildings to create photoelectric energy, whether it's the use of hydrogen, it is coming.

I can remember teaching at Holy Heart – I think it was around 2000 – and looking at a person walking up Bonaventure Avenue with a cellphone up to his face and how unusual that was. Yet, I'm willing to bet that everyone in this building here, in this room, has not one, but two cellphones.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DINN: Got one. You are fortunate.

Some may even have three. There's probably more power on this here than what got the Apollo astronauts to the moon.

We have to look at staging transitions over time because changes to how we use energy will come. We have to facilitate labour mobility within the industry. Again, it has to be fair, just; it has to be worker-based.

Yes, that might, indeed, support skills training. It's also going to mean protecting the incomes for affected workers. You cannot have it come to a sudden stop and have people thrown out of work. In that stress, that anxiety, you have to protect the workers here who have given so much to this province.

We talked about diversification of the economy. Well, we have to start looking at it. If we are indeed the green powerhouse of Canada, then let's have that discussion around it. Whether it's the addition of more generating power to Churchill Falls, whether it's about how we get the best bang for the buck out of other hydroelectric developments – yes, even Muskrat Falls – to make sure we get what we deserve out of it. But whatever it is, we must make sure that in any transition plan the workers, their families, the people who depend on them and the communities who depend on them are top of mind. It won't be overnight but we need to start now.

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to this, if there's any blame here, if anyone stands to make a profit, it is these companies. They are not our friends. I don't care how many not-for-profits they donate to, there is a bottom line to this. Our job here is to look after the citizens of this province, the workers of this province and to make sure that when it starts, the energy transition – that our workers, our people, are looked after.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Warr): The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to weigh in and speak for a few minutes on this very, very important debate that we're having here this morning as we talk about Terra Nova and the money on the table from the province and the workers, Mr. Speaker. So far this morning we've heard from our Premier, who I thought did a very good job of outlining his genuine concern for the people of the province, outlining his interest in certainly helping the workers and the families who are top of mind for all of us, but also outlining the responsibility that we have to all of the people in this very small province, in this fiscally strapped environment that we're operating in.

We heard the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, Mr. Speaker, outline the tremendous efforts that have been taken over a period of time to work with this company to find a solution that would work for everybody. We heard the Finance Minister – who I believe did a very stellar job – talking about the things we still have to be hopeful for when it comes to oil and gas.

Labrador, where I come from, Mr. Speaker, is up for bid this year. I'll try not to reiterate anything that's been said already here this morning, but the 60 billion barrels of oil that we already know of through seismic discovery. So I believe these are things that certainly give us much to be hopeful about.

Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times for the families and the children impacted. No matter what side of the House you sit on, everybody knows somebody. Everybody has family; everybody has friends that will be impacted by this. Some of us have been around long enough that we've seen decisions made that were not informed decisions. We've seen the impacts on all of our families. I go back to my early days in the House. We can't change the past. I say it often and I've heard it often: We can't change the past, but we have to learn from the past.

Muskrat Falls happened in my backyard. I can tell you that we are still seeing the impacts of Muskrat Falls, at the time a project that was sanctioned and sold to the people of this province as a bill of goods for $6.6 billion. We're well over double that and the project is not finished.

I did an interview this morning, Mr. Speaker, on a very difficult situation happening in Lake Melville: social issues, homeless, transiently homeless. If you're on the ground up there, many people will tell you that there have been negative impacts leftover from Muskrat Falls that we're still seeing today. We saw people with good-paying jobs that had to leave – that had to leave that community. They couldn't afford to stay there – cost of living.

We saw the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay that didn't even get a share of the impact agreement. We saw a decision made where the UARB in Nova Scotia had the luxury of deciding what would be the best decision for them, with Emera with that line, while our own PUB here in this province was kicked out of the decision-making process, Mr. Speaker.

Every day we discuss issues in this House. Just this past weekend I had folks reaching out. They needed extra resources around for RCMP support. I was told they're needed all across the province.

Myself and my colleague for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows were dealing with heavy health issues all weekend; folks that need more money, Mr. Speaker. Every day in the House, somebody mentions roads; 10,000 kilometres of roads in this province and we don't have enough money. At the end of the day, we sit – some of us – around a large round table and we have to make the best decisions that we can for the people of this province, the place that we're so proud to call home as well.

Would we like to be able to say yes to every request? Absolutely, we would, but we take an oath. Even as an individual – I've been in this House and on this team that I've been on now for almost eight years. Often, personally, I might make a different decision, but I've taken an oath to make the decision that is the best for all people in this province. Sometimes they're very difficult decisions, Mr. Speaker.

I think back to 1992. I spent 23 years as a career and employment counsellor, overseeing a number of offices along the Coast of Labrador, up and down, in a number of communities. We went through a very tumultuous time in 1992. I saw grown men, big, strapping men, sit in my office and shed tears because their way of life was stripped from them. They couldn't see tomorrow. They didn't know where the next money was coming from. A group of people, Mr. Speaker, many of them did not even have a high school education, just because they grew up, they went in the fishing boat and you earned a good living.

We worked with those people, Mr. Speaker. Just like Ottawa has been supporting us through this pandemic, supporting us with the downturn in oil and gas, Ottawa worked with us then. We're pleased to have those relationships. Many of those fish harvesters, some went back to school. They transitioned from an inshore fishery to bigger boats, to 34'11”s to 65-footers. They went through a very difficult time. That transition was not easy, but many of them are doing very well today and, certainly, financially probably make more than most of us that are sitting around in this Legislature.

So I share that, Mr. Speaker, just to say change is hard, uncertainty is difficult. At a time with a province so fiscally strapped, at a time when the need is so tremendously great, I believe that led by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology and the Premier, and supported by the Minister of Finance, the Treasury has gone as far as they can go.

I, too, received a number of emails this weekend and not one email, Mr. Speaker, asking why haven't you put more. Why haven't you gone out and taken that additional risk of buying a stake in equity. Instead, the emails were around 85 per cent of this project is done. Wait until you get the best deal. The oil is in the ground, it's not going anywhere.

I also sort of got attacked a little bit from some folks that said: Where did the government get a half a billion dollars to put on the table for a few families when you're asking us to cut, cut, cut right across departments? So there are all different views. I'll tell you now as a resident of this province and as somebody who hasn't been serving this province for a number of years, my heart goes to the people impacted. I've worked for more than two decades with people facing uncertain times that became unemployed, that we needed to help transition to employment; some just connecting them to related labour force, some that needed to go down the road of retraining.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that make this hard, make it not so palatable is the fact that we want to help the people of the province, but we're talking about companies that have turned – I believe it's $12 billion collectively in royalties. We're talking about some of those senior people that make multi-million dollars a year in salaries, Mr. Speaker. I think the question that everybody in this Legislature needs to ask themselves today – all of us, there are 526,000 people in this province, 40 seats in this House; that's a collective voice representing those people. We need to ask ourselves: How much are we prepared to risk? Let's take it down in simple terms to a family. You have your pay come in for the month and you pay your groceries and you pay your mortgage and you got a bit of money left over. What are you going to do with that money? Do you want to plan a trip? Do you want to go out to a restaurant? You can live a certain way.

If you've got a little bit of disposable cash, you can make those decisions and they're not going to hurt other decisions, but with a province that's fiscally in the situation we're in right now – I heard a number of speakers across the floor this morning, Mr. Speaker, and I respect them all. I respect the hon. Member who's right across from me when he talks about his passion is clear for oil and gas. He knows oil and gas. We all bring collective experiences to this House.

I'm sure that I can speak to experiences that might be different from other Members in this House. But we all want what's best for the people of the province. But what I didn't hear was how much is enough to risk. Nobody said, we've got the $500 million; let's take the 15 per cent equity. Let's continue to gamble at this end-of-life project.

All of us are looking to Alberta. I have a sister in Alberta that I haven't seen since 2019, and I hope that changes soon. I hear from my sister, who's running a business – actually, she's really butting the tide because she just opened a second business over the weekend during this pandemic. Tremendously proud of her.

Nobody is very proud right now in Alberta I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, over what happened with Keystone and the taxpayer's dollars that were put into that project that is now defunct. We can't change those. We weren't a part of those decisions, but we have to learn from those decisions.

How much are we prepared to risk and how much are we prepared to gamble from a province that is already fiscally strapped?

I also think it's important today for families that are impacted and wondering where to turn; we need to talk about hope. The Minister of Finance did a great job outlining many things to be hopeful for. I look to the area where I come from in Labrador. I say it every day. I believe Labrador is going to play a tremendous role in the economic recovery of this province.

I look down at my colleague who represents Labrador West, and when we were up and toured that mine back in November. One of the things that stuck with me was the folks on that bus that day that said the more we mine, the more we find. Good things happening in your area, Mr. Speaker, with mining. In Lab West we're about 50 years out. Vale up in the Northern tip of Labrador going to 1,700 jobs as they move underground, and I think about 950 people there – last count I got – on site right now. There are things, Mr. Speaker, to be hopeful about and we all want to make the right decision. We have a responsibility to the people of the province – to all the people of the province.

I heard somebody mention on the other side this morning when they were speaking about nanny and poppy and the future of nanny and poppy. I think when I leave this House, if there's one thing I'm remembered for, I hope it will be how many times around our tables that I've mentioned Aunt Millie and Uncle Joe. I get a lot of smiles about that, but I genuinely care about Aunt Millie and Uncle Joe.

I was raised by my grandparents when they were well into their senior years. I was number 12 that joined that family. They took me in at the age of four and I had a very good upbringing. I can tell you right now, as someone who's been the minister in a large social department for 3½ years, and recognizing that we have the most rapidly aging province in this country. We have seniors that are struggling every single day. We have Members opposite that raise issues in this House every single day about the seniors are struggling, Mr. Speaker. They must be watching today, saying: You want to give a half a billion dollars to companies that have just turned $12 billion in profits collectively? They must be shaking their head because they're thinking how much they could do to improve their own quality of life with that addition of money. I just share that because no decision that we make is in isolation.

As departments we don't work in isolation. Every one decision impacts another decision, Mr. Speaker. On Muskrat Falls, they say let's not talk about it; let's bury it, but we are still feeling the impacts of Muskrat Falls. We see it every day on the ground. I say it again: We can't change the past, but we can learn from it. The memories are still very, very fresh for me. I could talk all day on the impacts of Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, the project isn't dead. As the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology has outlined multiple times, the deadline is not ours. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is still at the table. We want to support the workers in oil and gas who've given so much and they've sacrificed much. The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans is not wrong when he talks about the sacrifices they've made.

Many of us who've travelled for years and you're coming back from flights across the country, when you get to Toronto, you'll see familiar faces. They are people that have been away. They are people that have missed years of their children's lives growing up because they've made that move, that sacrifice and they've come back and, yes, they have contributed to the economy of our province. We appreciate them. We appreciate the work they've done. With some of the information that's already been put on the table here in this Legislature, we hope we are encouraging them to know that there is still future in oil and gas in this province, even as we move to talk about things like a greener economy, like the Atlantic Loop and like the future that's still there in mining.

I'll just close, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to weigh in and say, as a minister, you make the best, most informed, responsible decisions that you can on behalf of the people of the province. We have a duty for that. We went through very, very difficult times with some past major projects where decisions were not informed. It was a Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, that led the longest filibuster in this history. I believe it was 84 hours. A filibuster because we felt so strongly. We were compelled that the road the PC government of the day was on was wrong. At the end of all of that, Mr. Speaker, at the end of all of that they invoked closure, shut it down and the project moved ahead. It was a terrible deal.

When I say we're fiscally strapped in this province, the Finance Minister – and often when I leave late, her vehicle is still there, and especially leading up to the budget. Because as a government they, we, are grappling to fill a $600-million gap. Annually, $600 million has to be found to keep the lights on in the homes of the seniors in our nooks and coves and crannies and rural parts of the province. That's what's keeping a lot of people awake here at night in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It's not the CEO down the road for some oil and gas that's making $3 million.

We support the oil and gas, but many people like me don't understand why they could not, collectively, work out some sort of a commercial deal. Why take a small province of half a million people and a Treasury that is absolutely fiscally strapped, doing everything we can to protect the people of the province – why couldn't they come to a deal commercially?

All that aside, kudos to this government for being willing because they care about the families connected with Terra Nova; they care about the hard-working women and men; they care about the future of those children.

Five hundred million dollars was put on the table, yet there was a pushback. What about equity? What about the risk? The risk is too big for us, for our multi-billion-dollar companies, but why doesn't the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take it on? That would not be called being fiscally prudent, Mr. Speaker. We can't do that. We can't do that. We are still living under bad decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say we will be there. We will be there for those people and support them and walk with them through this very difficult and uncertain time right now. We absolutely will be there. We are all genuine when we say that. However, we can no longer afford to roll the dice and gamble with the people's lives, the 526,000 people in this province, because this is one issue, as a government, we are finding our way through; likely the most challenging time that Newfoundland and Labrador has ever known. We have many, many people coming to us and many important and difficult decisions to be made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I first want to start off by simply saying that those of us in our caucus on this side of the House are not doing this because we want to support the oil industry and the big companies. We are doing this simply because we want to support the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. At the end of the day, if there is no economic benefit for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, then so be it. That's where the crux lies. Is there benefit or isn't there a benefit? Are there direct benefits? Are there indirect benefits? We don't know. Because, at the end of the day, unfortunately, we don't have all of the information.

There's an old saying – some of you have heard it before, I'm sure – that says in God we trust; everyone else requires data. With all due respect to my Members opposite, I'm going to keep asking for data. I recognize that the NDA puts a handcuff on a lot of information that may or could be provided. But there's been a lot of numbers thrown out, and we did have the benefit of a presentation this morning for approximately half an hour, and coming out of that we were able to ask a few questions.

One of the questions that I did ask was: What was the marginal? He basically said in his answer that they had a marginal rate of return on equity investment. When I asked him to define marginal, he, again, looked at the lawyer in the room with him and said: I'm really not allowed to say anything because of the NDA in terms of defining marginal. When I talked about it and asked further about the direct benefits of the project, they did not have any information to give us, but they did refer us to the Noia report, which I found interesting that he actually would suggest that. I'll quantify that because he said: Outside of the number on royalty, the rest of the Noia report is accurate. So I'll get to that particular piece in a minute.

The first number I want to address, I guess, and get some clear understanding on is the $500 million. Now, I'm reading that the $500 million – and I'll break it down in large numbers – $200 million of that is from the federal fund and $300 is a royalty regime. Now, Minister, I would like to know if the $300 million is supposed to come out of this year's budget or is the royalty related to the royalties that we would receive if the project was to go ahead. Because the reality of it is, if it's the latter and the project doesn't go ahead, you ain't getting those royalties anyway, and so you haven't really lost anything to begin with. When you talk about a $500-million investment, the $300 million, if it's based on royalties you're going to get if the project goes ahead, it's not impacting your budget for '21-'22.

Again, I don't know if the multi-year targets that the Minister of Finance has identified in her Budget Speech include any royalties from this project. I would expect not. What I do know is there is $462 million in increased revenue from offshore oil royalties in this year's budget. So oil is playing a significant factor in allowing us to once again reduce our deficit. Now, that's a $462-million increase over last year. So we've counted on oil and we're continuing to count on it.

Another chart in her Budget Speech talks about the oil price and the exchange rate forecast. Again, when we look at the book, it basically tells us that their budgeted price for oil in '25-'26 is $61 a barrel. So that's what we're basing our multi-year targets on. Again, is this project viable at $61 a barrel? Because if it is, one would think that they'd want to keep the life of the project going. Again, you know, we talk about a 10-year period, and there are risks as to whether or not they would shut it down before the 10 years are up. Again, that is based on our own assumption that $61 a barrel for oil and whether this project is viable at that number.

If I go back to another number – the $500 million, I'm struggling to understand what our commitment is or our risk is. If it is $200 millions from the feds and $300 million is from royalties that we won't get if the project doesn't go ahead, then there is nothing in our '21-'22 budget or in any of our multi-year target that reflects that cost.

So, again, I think just clarification on that at some point would be great to understand that a little better. Again, perhaps I'm wrong and I'll apologize if I am, but without a lot of data it's hard to know.

There is also talk about the billion dollars that it's going to take, basically, to shut this thing down at the end of the day. That abandonment cost of the billion dollars, that's for the total project. That's what we're led to believe, it's the total project. It's not the cost to the Newfoundland and Labrador government, it's for the total project. Again, without knowledge of what was actually on the table, if we have a 15 per cent equity stake, then that would equate to $150 million. So that would be our share of that abandonment cost if it stays at a billion dollars.

We've also talked about – I think the other number was $90 million and I think that may have been the cost of actually buying the 15 per cent equity share; again, that's another number.

To go back to the indirect benefits and, as I said, the officials this morning and the Noia report, they alluded to benefits of “1,700 jobs and $138 million in wages during the asset life extension ... 3,400 jobs and $139 million in wages annually during its ten years of operation ….”

They went on to say, “provincial and municipal governments would receive a total of $1.49B over 10 years, including $880M in royalties, $120M in corporate income taxes, and $485M in other taxes.” Now, again, the $880 million in royalties, obviously, if we're using $300 million of that as part of the $500 million, that comes off that number. Then I don't know, based on negotiations, how much is left or what's left in that particular number. But we do know that the salaries paid to our workers would be above average wages. We also know that the skills and expertise they have would be retained. We'd also know that it would send a strong message to the industry globally that we're here.

Noia believes there is a business case. Again, that's where I come back to the whole business case of whether or not there is a business case or not a business case, because that's what it's seemingly coming down to: What is the business case for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? And so it should. If, in fact, the business case is not there for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so be it.

Again, that's some of the information that we're not really sure where this is actually going. The reason I bring those up is because we've talked a lot about costs and potential costs of doing the deal, but now I've just shown you the costs of not doing the deal. If we don't do this deal, or this deal doesn't get done – sorry, let me rephrase that. If this deal doesn't get done, 1,700 jobs and $138 million in wages during asset life extension and 3,400 jobs and $139 million in wages annually during the next 10-year period – that's a lot of money. That's a lot of jobs.

Let's go back to the budget for a second. I just mentioned earlier that I don't think – and I'll wait to get confirmation from the Minister of Finance on the multi-year targets that she has in her budget. I do not believe the revenue numbers that she has in her multi-year targets includes any revenue from this project. I would expect it doesn't. Because of that, if Noia is correct – and, again, the officials at the department referred to me Noia's report – there is a potential for $120 million in corporate tax and $485 million in other taxes, not counting what may or may not be there in the royalties. Again, I stand to be corrected on that.

Dame Greene also referred in her report about a future fund. If none of the revenues from this project are factored into our next five-year forecast, is there a potential for us to take any of these monies that we are going to receive if this project were to go ahead and put them into a future fund so that at the end of the day, when the project is abandoned, we will have the money put away to cover that cost? If it's not included in our numbers now and there is a potential for significant dollars to come in in taxes, then putting them into the future fund, as Moya Greene suggested, might be a way of deferring that revenue until such time as we need it to pay down the abandonment costs or pay our share of the abandonment costs.

Again, those are questions that without knowing the intimate details of the agreements, it's hard for us to say whether that's been talked about or not talked about. It sure seems like, when you look at it from the outside in, there is an opportunity here for indirect and direct benefits associated with this project.

I can't get over the numbers: 1,700 jobs and $138 million in wages during the asset life extension and a potential for 3,400 jobs and $135 million in wages annually; $120 million in corporate tax, $485 million in other taxes. Again, if those numbers are not factored into our five-year multi-year targets, there's an opportunity to use those revenues to pay for any abandonment costs.

So my plea would be to government that you have said you're not walking away from the table; you're still at the table, but do not allow the oil companies to say that our government wasn't there. I know everyone in this House wants the same benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We want Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be the principal beneficiary of our assets, whether it's oil and gas, whether it's forestry, mining or the fishery.

At the end of the day, there is time. We've been told there still is time and we're still at the table, so let's take another look. I know you said you've reached the end of it, but I'd urge you to go back and take another look. There's nothing wrong with going back and having another look at it again. Readjust if necessary. See if there is anything else that may or may not be able to be done. Don't draw lines in the sand. Let's keep pushing. We've talked about the 80 million additional barrels of oil and, again, based on the $61 a barrel, significant revenues.

Without having the privy of the data, I would ask the government to provide as much information as they can. My colleague talked about the non-disclosure agreement and I know the chances of them agreeing to it may be slim, but I think we should ask them anyway. I think we should ask the oil companies, if you want us, then let's do it. If you've already done it, great, and even more power to you.

At the end of the day, I think we really need to push the oil companies as hard as we can. I think the Premier and the minister need to continue to make that effort and certainly see what needs to be done, because sometimes when we say we can't afford it, sometimes we can't afford not to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Bennett): The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the previous speaker for his comments as well.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that every single Member in this Legislature wants what's best for Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the reason we ran and that's the reason we devoted ourselves to public service. There's no monopoly on wanting what's best for the people in this province and what's best for the future of the province. Every single one of us wants that. We may at times disagree on the approach or we may disagree on what we believe will get us there, but I believe every single one of us wants what is best for the people of this province.

We do need the jobs. I've heard some Members say we need the jobs. We've seen through the history of this province, Mr. Speaker, governments putting a lot of money into securing jobs and it hasn't always worked out for the best in this province. But we do need those jobs and we do respect the folks that go out.

It's not an easy job to be out on the oil platforms or the oil rigs. We've seen situations where people put their lives at risk when they get aboard the chopper and go out, so it's not always easy to be out there. Every person in this province, Mr. Speaker, will remember the tragedies that have happened out there. That has an impact on every single one of us. We recognize that as well.

It is a skill set we want to maintain here. For the Members who've said that, they're absolutely correct. It's a skill set we want to maintain.

I believe we have a very bright future in the offshore oil and gas industry, Mr. Speaker. I also agree with those who have said we need to transition and we need to have a plan. My colleague from St. John's Centre said we need to have a plan to transition from this to whatever is going to be the greener energy, the greener future. We absolutely need that. We need to start planning that. We need to start ensuring that we transition.

But every product, almost without exception, Mr. Speaker, even these desks, the finish on them is probably developed as a result of the offshore oil industry; our bottles of water, the plastics; our telephones that we use; our computers. It's not just the vehicles we use or the planes we fly on or the ships that bring supplies in and out of the province.

I believe that we have a bright future. We know Bay du Nord, for example, has about a billion barrels out there. We know that our oil is cleaner than many other jurisdictions, in fact, probably most jurisdictions in the world. I think and I believe that as oil companies start focusing and planning to become, not just oil and gas companies but energy companies and focusing on what the next form of energy will be, part of that transition will be transitioning from areas where the oil is dirtier to areas where the oil is cleaner.

We will need oil for the next 20 or 30 or 40 or maybe 50 years, I don't know. At some point, we probably won't need it any more. But for the next number of decades, as oil companies transition into cleaner forms of energy, part of that transition will be transitioning into cleaner oil and getting out of the areas where they have dirty oil.

I believe Bay du Nord and other finds that we have out there, Cape Freels, that area, we've all heard the talk of significant oil deposits out there. So there is a bright future for oil and gas in this province.

As much as we need the jobs – and that's something that is weighed heavily, not only on that side of the House but on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, because, as I said, we're all in this for what is best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you look at half a billion dollars is what's on the table from this province, to protect this project and the workers on this project, the risky part really comes when you look at a 15 per cent equity stake. There are factors there, Mr. Speaker, where, when you look at the fact that this project is 80 or 85 per cent of the reserves are already drawn, so you have 15 or 20 per cent of the reserves are there. If we were looking at the beginning of this project, maybe 15 per cent equity is not a bad thing. At this stage, Mr. Speaker, when you look at volatility of oil and the 15 per cent or maybe 20 per cent, if we're lucky, of life remaining in this project, the risk of oil spills and the cost of decommissioning this project, the 15 per cent is a risk that is perhaps too great for this province to take on.

Yes, I agree, we don't want to see those workers leave the province, and the risk is that some of them will; some of them have left the province.

I got elected here just after the collapse of the ground fishery, Mr. Speaker, and we saw 60,000 people leave this province as a result of the collapse of the ground fishery in this province. That is significant and it has significantly impacted in a way that's immeasurable; you can't measure the impact on this province. Even today, those 60,000 people were primarily the younger people that were involved in that industry, and not just that industry, but when communities went into decline, there were others in those communities that left who weren't even working in the fishing industry.

But they were primarily the young people, Mr. Speaker, because the people that were closer to retirement got TAGS, or whatever the case may be, and they just transitioned out of that industry. The younger people, those 60,000 people, when you factor in that our population, just prior to the collapse of the ground fishery, was nearing 590,000 people – we have 525,000 people here today. Those young people, the majority of them, left the province and had children elsewhere.

If the ground fishery didn't collapse and we had that, plus the oil industry, we'd be significantly more than 600,000 people in the province today. When you think of that in terms of the economic spinoff and what it would mean to the communities that those people left.

My colleague from St. John's Centre talked about Trepassey and the fact that it was a vibrant, bustling community during the peak of the cod fishery; 500 students in a school down to 25. The impact on that you can't even measure; what our economy would be like today; what our population would be like today; what communities in rural Newfoundland would be like today.

There used to be three fish plants in my district. One of them closed prior to the collapse of the ground fishery, the other two as a result. That's here in St. John's. You look at the impact here is significant, but you look at the impact on a place like Trepassey. There is no way to measure that.

We don't want to lose people from this province, and I recognize that argument as well. But to put a risky project where we have a $15-billion debt – we're willing to – there's a half a billion dollars on the table here, but if the project goes sideways – some of the people that left this province, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't due to the collapse of the cod fishery: it was because of the debt the province faces and the uncertainty. They leave and have their children elsewhere.

So the impact of the debt on our population is also immeasurable, I would say. The impact of the debt on our province is immeasurable and the fact that the history in this province has been to buy jobs at all cost has put the province, in large part, in the debt that it's in.

While there's no monopoly in this House from any Member on who wants what's best for the people of the province and the future of the province, because I believe, with everything that I have, that every one of us – that's the reason we're here. This is not about politics; it's s about whether or not the province can bear and withstand the risk of a 15 per cent equity stake when a project is 85 per cent complete.

My first thought on this was we can't afford to not invest or to take that on because of what it would do for the economy and what it would do to the population and people leaving. When you think about it, Mr. Speaker – a 15 per cent equity stake, 15 per cent of the cost of decommissioning, on top of the responsibility the province already has in decommissioning, the volatility of the oil prices and the risk associated with we don't know how much return is going to come out of that project – the fact that we're putting half a billion dollars on the table, I think the people of the province, the taxpayers in this province, would say that is a significant show of support by our government.

Some would probably argue it's too much, but there's no way you can argue that it is not a significant show of support. To add the extra layer and extra risk of 15 per cent equity, that's the concern here, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we all need to think about.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to say a few words here this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I think, first of all, it's also important to sort of put what we're doing here in context, because I had somebody yesterday evening; we were having a chat and they were asking: What is this big emergency debate that we're going to be having? What is it that you hope would be accomplished? What's on the table here? I think, really, this is obviously an opportunity to raise the issue, to raise the concerns. It's an opportunity for government, as best as they can, to try to get their information out there and what they've put forward. It's an opportunity for Opposition Members to vent a little bit, perhaps. I'm sure there are going to be some politics at play on all sides as well.

At the end of the day, it's important to note there's no motion on the floor. I was a few minutes late coming in because I was actually in the briefing when the House opened, which was a bit bizarre, but anyway, there's no motion, to my knowledge, on the floor. We're not debating a motion. It's not like a piece of legislation before the House where you vote aye or nay on something that's going to actually change something; i.e., legislation. In terms of an outcome, there will be no outcome from this emergency debate in terms of the direction and so on. Even if it was a piece of legislation, government has a majority anyway. It's important to just note that fact, but that doesn't mean we don't talk about it. It's an opportunity for everyone to have their say and input as to how they feel and how their constituents feel.

Mr. Speaker, similar to what the Minister of Education just said, I guess I want to reiterate those words. I really don't think there's anybody here in this House of Assembly that doesn't want what's best for our province, doesn't want what's best for our oil industry and, certainly, the workers who are going to be impacted, directly and indirectly, as it relates to this project. Not to mention the communities that are going to be impacted, directly and indirectly, depending on how these negotiations go. We all support that.

Though, from what I can gather in the briefing I did receive and based on what has been said, it does come down to the risk factor. I have to say in attending that briefing this morning – I certainly appreciate what the staff put together and so on; I understand their hands are tied – but it is kind of frustrating. To be honest with you, if there actually was a motion on the floor now I wouldn't know how to vote. To be honest with you, if there was an actual motion on the floor that was substantive and that would set the direction I don't think I would vote on it. I wouldn't feel like I'd be able to vote on it because I don't know any of the details, I don't know any of the facts and I don't know any of the numbers.

We can talk about risk, we can talk about the definition of – when we talked about how much royalties are available what was the word that was used? The Member for Stephenville referenced it when he spoke; I can't remember the term now. Anyway, the bottom line is – marginal, I think was the word. Marginal, there we go, he's giving me the thumbs-up.

They talked about how the project would be marginal in terms of the royalties and so on. But when we asked we could not get any sort of a definition as to what does marginal even mean. It becomes very difficult when you're talking about marginal returns, what you're giving up versus what you're going to get in return and understanding exactly what the risks are and what those numbers mean, it makes it near impossible to make that judgment call. That's one of the problems that we have on this side of the House – a problem I have on this side of the House, for sure – that the government and Cabinet, I guess, in particular, they know all of the actual numbers, they know what has been put on the table by both sides and they know what has been countered and so on. We don't know any of that; we really don't know.

Then it comes down to, I suppose, as I said to the minister responsible for natural resources earlier, we kind of have to decide if we either trust you or we don't. That's really what it comes down to. Do I trust that they are doing everything they can and that they're making a reasonable decision? Common sense has to play into it, to some degree, and you have to say: Well, why would they want to stifle this deal? Why would they be against the Terra Nova Project getting up and running? What motivation would there be from an economic point of view or even from a political point of view?

I'm sure the minister of natural resources – and I know that's not the name of the department; it's changed and I forget the name – would like nothing better than to go before the media and say: B'ys, we've got a deal with Terra Nova, everything is up and running and things are going to be tickety-boo. Why wouldn't he? I would if I was in his position. I'd love to be the hero to stand out in front of the media and say we've got a deal. Who wouldn't? That's why, when I look at it from a commonsensical point of view, without knowing the information, it would seem to me that they at least believe what they're doing is the right thing based on the inside information that they have and that I don't have. That's what common sense, I guess, would tell me.

Now, I have to be honest, there is a part of me that is a little skeptical even on the commonsensical side of things because I know what happened with Muskrat Falls. When I had the $6-million man and his accomplices coming in, giving us the information and telling us – I took them on their word – what we believed to be true, and we know what happened there. There is a little bit of skepticism, and I can't make that go away because I've been burnt. But I really have to believe, though, when I try to balance it out, that they have the information and they would have no reason for this not to go ahead, to want it to go ahead, and I have to believe they're doing everything that they feel they can do and what they can reasonably do to benefit the province, our people, those workers who are out there on the step and the communities and so on that would be impacted. I really have to believe that.

So any idea of sitting here today and condemning the government and saying you don't care about the province, I just can't do that – and start giving people zeroes and everything else. I'm not going to do that because I really don't believe that's – I believe they want to do the right thing. I really do.

Now, am I concerned? Do I have questions around our federal government? I do, because that was one of the questions I asked at the briefing as well: What dealings have you had with the federal government? Is there anything that the federal government could be doing, that they could put on the table to make this work? I couldn't get an answer. So I don't know how close or how far apart government is with these operators. I don't know what the gap is; if it's a huge gap, if it's a fairly small gap.

I understand and I agree – we all know what a mess this province is in financially and we are strapped for cash. I think everybody recognizes that. I would also say that I've received a few emails as well. The emails I got, like government said, were more around I can't believe we're going to put $500 million in, as opposed to why don't you put more in. It was that way.

But I wonder could our federal government be doing more. I wonder. From an ideological point of view, I really don't believe we have a federal government who is friendly towards our oil and gas industry. I would agree with my colleagues on this side in the Opposition, in particular, on that. That's just a feeling I get.

It is frustrating, I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans – I think it's called. I would agree with him. It is very frustrating when you hear about $200 million going to a casino and we have $280 million, was it? Or was it $320 million – $320 million in totality. For an entire industry that has such a huge impact on our province, we got a total of $320 million. My colleague is here saying now there were two casinos that got $200 million each. That's what he's saying.

It is hard. When you hear that, it makes it very challenging not to be frustrated and perhaps angry to some degree, with the federal government, and to question could more be done and should more be done. The fact that we do have a Newfoundlander who is the federal minister for the oil and gas industry, you would think that the deck would be stacked in our favour in that regard. It makes it more frustrating.

I also realize that this has nothing to do with political stripe. We can beat up on our federal MPs and say, if they were Conservatives it would be different, or if they were NDP it would be different or whatever. The reality of it is we have seven MPs regardless of stripe. Ontario has well over 108 and Quebec has – I don't know, 60 or 70 or whatever it is.

Right off the bat, regardless of political stripe, you have seven people, seven Newfoundlanders here, and between Ontario and Quebec alone, they're looking across at about 170 or 180 MPs to seven. Regardless of political stripe, the system doesn't necessarily work well for small provinces and that's the reality. We don't have that influence; we don't have that clout, regardless of whatever political stripe is there. That's the unfortunate reality of Confederation with Canada.

It's been good for us; we've gotten a lot of good from them. They've taken a lot from us in terms of they've destroyed our fishery. There are a lot of bad things that have come with Confederation, but there has been a lot of good as well. They have been here with us for COVID-19 and so on. I appreciate all that. They have given us money for other things. I'm not knocking that. I'm very frustrated over the equalization; I think that formula needs to be changed. We're getting what we're entitled to under the formula but they should change the formula.

I question whether the feds could be stepping up to the plate here to broker a deal, to make this happen, so that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would not be at risk. We're not in a position to be at risk. We just don't have the money, but they have the ability to do something. If they can give $200 million to a casino, they can do a little more for Newfoundland and Labrador to save an industry that's going to present so many jobs and retain expertise, royalties and everything else that would come from it. I really have to question whether they are doing enough.

When you look at Ottawa, and like you say, whether it's the casino or I think about all the money that has been put into Air Canada and Bombardier. There was a story I can remember a few months ago where Loblaws, of all companies, and the money they were raking in. They were giving them money to buy new freezers or something for their supermarkets. They were raking in billions of dollars. Here they are giving them money to buy freezers and coolers and stuff for all the grocery stores out of federal taxpayers' money, but we're going to let our oil and gas industry and oil and gas workers potentially lose their jobs and everything else they have around them.

These are the things that make it frustrating. I'm not putting this on our provincial government. I'm not. I believe you're doing all you can and I know we're strapped for cash. I'm not trying to beat up on Ottawa because it's the politically correct thing to do and so on. I'm really not. I'm being sincere when I say I'm just questioning, when you look at all this other money that's gone into other things around the country – things that sometimes you have to do a double take and say, my God, did they really give money for this and the amounts of money for this. You have to wonder, given that, have they done enough for this province, for this industry? I think it's a question worth asking. I don't know. I don't know what dealings you've had back and forth with the feds. I don't know.

Another point, which I haven't heard in this debate, and I think it's an important one, is that there's also a thing called precedent. Someone referenced the fact that the oil and gas industry are all watching this debate and everything else. I don't know if they are or they're not. Maybe they are; maybe they're not. I'm sure a few of them are. There is a thing called precedent. I've heard premiers over the years, whether they be Liberal or whether they be PC, talk about no more giveaways.

Premier Williams was famous for his no-more-giveaways thing. If I'm not mistaken – and I stand to be corrected here – but somewhere in the back recesses of my mind, I can seem to recall – I don't know if it was Terra Nova or White Rose, but there was an oil project at one point that we didn't do a deal on. I'm sure Premier Williams walked away from the table and said: No, we're not doing it until we get a good deal. A year later, they came back and we made the deal. I can't remember if that was Terra Nova, if it was White Rose or what it was, but there was some project that we walked away from because we weren't getting a good enough deal. We said there were no more giveaways.

I can remember Premier Tobin, I believe, with the not one more spoonful of iron ore – I think that was it, wasn't it? I believe. Not one more spoonful. We're not giving away anything. We're talking about the fact that we can't go giving away our resources. You hear it all the time.

I guess my concern on the precedent is if you make the deal too rich for this company in this circumstance, do you start giving up – we just renegotiated or offered to renegotiate the royalty regime to lower it, to give up $300 million. Then if we're going to get into taking on equity stakes and full liability on a project that is already 85 per cent complete, then is that sending a message – I just ask – on Bay du Nord or any other projects that we're so desperate now that we're going to start giving everything away?

Now are these companies going to come in and say: Yes, you know your royalty regime? Yes, well, we want a deal like you were going to give to Terra Nova now. You're getting too many royalties. We need more money and we need you to take on more risk and so on. That could create a slippery slope as well, once you send the message that we are so desperate that we're going to just give everything away.

I think that is an important factor in all this. I feel for the workers and I would love for this to go ahead, and I hope it does go ahead, but you can't on the one hand say no more giveaways, but on the other hand give everything away. That doesn't make sense either.

I would just conclude, similar to the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, in saying to government, again, I don't have the details; I don't know exactly what's on the table. I don't know the offers, the counteroffers or whatever. I'm going to have to trust you at your word that you're doing everything that you can. I would just ask that you please continue to stay at the table. If there are other things that can reasonably be done, I encourage you to do it.

If the feds have not stepped up in any substantive way beyond that $300-million fund and there is something else they could do to step up to make it happen without us taking on anymore huge risks, then I encourage you to continue to have dialogue with the federal government, with our federal minister. If there is a way to bridge the gap and make it happen, make it happen.

I would also say that, as I heard someone over there say, I would not be prepared to simply sell away the future, give away the future of our province; take on huge, unreasonable risks to get a deal just for the sake of getting a deal. As I said just a couple of minutes ago, if we're going to say no more giveaways, then we have to be true to that. We can't just give everything away either. It has to be a deal that's reasonable for all sides.

One thing we know about these oil companies, and any company I suppose, they're in it to make money. If there's money to be made, they're going to go ahead with this anyway. They're going to go ahead. Why wouldn't they? If they can make a ton of money off this, they're going to go ahead with it anyway. We don't need to sell the shop and give everything away.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome this very, very important and timely discussion about a very serious public policy issue facing our province.

Let me say first and foremost, our empathy and our concern are with the workers and their families, who are facing difficult circumstances. It is not easy and we appreciate and recognize that. We're doing all we can to make sure that the environment is better for greater prosperity, for greater security and greater hope for all affected.

Our empathy and our concern are with the workers and their families, but also our wisdom is with all families of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ours and our judgments are to be made for the benefit and for the considerations of all families of our province, those who contribute to the prosperity that we all enjoy, not only from their own labours, but as well from their hard-earned taxes, which are remitted for public services and public goods. These are the challenges we face to balance those very important considerations.

This is a lot of money. This is a matter that will affect many, many families. It will have a significant and poignant impact on the overall well-being of our province in two ways. One way, if the project does not proceed, of course, obviously we will be impacted by a reduction in royalties and a reduction in revenues. But the pathway we take to try to make it, to unshackle it, to unlock it and to make it happen is probably of greater concern because that pathway could be fraught with many, many, many perils.

While our concern and our empathy are with the families that are impacted, the wisdom that is required by each and every one of us is to not create an environment, not create a circumstance whereby every family of this province will be paying for generations for a mistake. That is the magnitude that we speak of today. That's why this debate is so important, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands speak of the paradoxes that he finds making a judgment difficult in this environment because he points out, and very rightfully so, that there are other projects, other circumstances that have been the benefactor of much money whether it be Loblaws or casinos, even oil companies.

The fact of the matter is we can all draw reference to the fact that many, many companies throughout Canada have received very generous benefits to advance public policy, whether it be in the case of Loblaws – my understanding is that it was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by having more energy-efficient refrigeration systems. Those judgments are left to others as to the practicality of that particular investment. The investment of the casino I'm not particularly familiar with.

I do know that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has in the past and will continue to make a very strategic, smart investments in oil and gas. But it has to be in reference to the best interest of the families and the people, the communities of the province as a whole.

I often think of the example that we're facing right now in Muskrat Falls and draw a comparison or a reference to the Terra Nova Project and the request by its operators, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, therefore the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, obtain an equity interest in that particular project.

Well, with the reference of Muskrat Falls, it's very straightforward, Muskrat Falls has been described as an ill-conceived project. Much effort has been undertaken to investigate that expenditure, that project. A learned jurist, a judge, came forward and said it was a dog. One of the reasons why many people are asking for an equity stake to be purchased by the federal government is because it is a weak project. I think we just have to say that and say it out loud.

Muskrat Falls is fundamentally, its fundamentals, a weak project. We own it. We own a hundred per cent of it. It will be a project that will generate some revenue at the end of the day, but for the majority of its lifetime, it will be a dog. That's why a project, which we own a hundred per cent of, we want the federal government to take that ownership or some of that ownership away from us. Now, reflect on that for a minute. We own 100 per cent of it, but we're negotiating – some would argue begging – for the federal government to take some of that ownership away from us and to relieve us of some of that burden.

Now, echo that from the point of view of the Terra Nova Project. We have operators that have made over $12 billion. We have private sector operators that have made, to date, over $12 billion from the Terra Nova find – $12 billion – and, in fact, in 2021 the revenue is still in the billions, the profit margins are still in the hundreds of millions, but they are asking us to take an equity stake in it. Big corporate entities, the oil and gas industry, are saying to a government, something which often large companies abhor, they're demanding direct public sector management and ownership in a project which they formally owned – or currently own, but are hoping to jettison. Do we need to know anything more than that? There are risks associated with this particular project. By asking for an equity stake they are recognizing that the risk profile is no longer tenable. So, Mr. Speaker, the risk profile then becomes shared by us. That is the essence of the current impasse.

We, as a government, have offered and have put $500 million on the table in a prudent, sensible investment and an offer to the private sector oil companies who have already made billions on this project to ensure that the families that are negatively impacted, the families who we are so gravely concerned for, have a reasonable opportunity to maintain and continue their standard of living, and for the community at large to also continue its standard of living. But when you consider the risk profile that is created by an expectation, which is very difficult for a government that is very cash strapped – in large measure, cash strapped because of Muskrat Falls and the sheer risk, the debt profile that it imposes upon each and every one of us – it is something we have to consider.

Mr. Speaker, I know that it's difficult sometimes for some Members to hear this, but it is an important part of the discussion because it teaches us. It teaches us wisdom going forward, because we all agree: No more resource giveaways. As the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands so amply articulated, he agrees with that as well and I'm sure many Members do. No more giveaways.

When we think of the history of Newfoundland and Labrador and we look at some of the giveaways, we need to learn from that and by learning from it we don't repeat it. Because, I tell you, my heart is with those families. When you put yourself in a position where you can potentially, immediately relieve that pain through a short-term action, not recognizing or realizing that beyond that moment of pure relief that comes from that announcement comes a whole new dimension of cost and future pain in the medium to long term, and you suddenly have to recognize that maybe you did not do the right thing. So, with that said, I would appeal to all Members to use your intuition to say that we will protect the interests of working families in this province and we will do so in a way that recognizes a couple of basic principles, no more giveaways, but at the same time be open for business.

When we look at some of the actions of the oil companies today we often assume that they don't always act in the public interest or the public good. Well, the truth is one of the major operators of Terra Nova also operate in the oil sands and they are currently modifying their investments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They have picked up on the notion that things in the oil industry have to change; otherwise, they will be unmarketable.

One of the biggest threats – and I think we'll all agree – is that demand for oil and the demand for fossil fuels, demand for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other products that come from it will still remain very, very high, but attracting investment will become more scarce. That's the core issue, why very large, multinational corporations are reviewing their investment portfolios themselves and looking at ways and means to modify their own business behaviours and their business plans because not to do so would be to risk future investment by institutional investors.

Well, in large measure, we have to do the same thing but for a different purpose. We have to look at our risk portfolio, look at what is required of us to maintain a strong, open-for-business approach and reality to attract new jobs to come to Newfoundland and Labrador in our offshore oil, but we also have to be prudent.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the examples that have been before us already, we are anxiously looking for federal assistance on Muskrat Falls. We're very, very confident that the negotiations will bear fruit, will bear benefit for each and every one of us. But we also recognize that even Members of Her Majesty's Official Opposition are calling on the government to sell it's shares, it's equity in Muskrat Falls to limit risk, to reduce risk because the risk is so high.

The operators of Terra Nova – put it in a different seat now – who have enjoyed immense benefit from the Terra Nova, collecting billions and billions and billions of dollars in the past, are now recognizing between the refits to the FPSO, to decommissioning, to all sorts of different risks that now exist in an uncertain environment for oil, are now realizing themselves that the risk for their own interest is too high and they want to sell it to us so we bear the risk.

What else do you need to know? That's why this government and our minister responsible for the energy sector has led the way in making sure that the mantra, the often said slogan of “no more giveaways” is acted upon. Therein is the fundamental difference. Because as we all agree our hearts and minds are with the workers who have been negatively impacted and who face such uncertainty, but our wisdom must be with all families of this province.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the history of another electricity project, the often spoken of Upper Churchill. The decision not to – and I don't know if it's even fair to say it was a decision – the conclusion not to put an escalator clause in place. If you look at the history of electricity generation, the electricity market in North America; 1880 was the dawn of electrification of North America with streetcars. Tesla and Edison producing new inventions to be able to monetize and to be able to produce products that were serviced by electricity. Then, of course, in the '20s and the '30s electrification ramped up with the construction of megaprojects, hydroelectric dams, whether it be the Hoover and the Boulder.

Then, of course, in 1954, the first nuclear reactor in the world was put into production by Russia followed by the US in 1957. The electricity market was growing, growing, growing, but, as well, supply was growing even faster. The bottom line here is that electricity markets, there was no uptick in price in 100 years of any substantial consequence. There was no significant inflationary impact on electricity markets from 1900 to 1970, flat – supply meeting demand.

The notion that there be an escalator clause was somewhat unheard of. It would be a hypothetical, theoretical exercise, but, sure enough, without any reference to any sort of case study, there was a circumstance around the 1970s that caused electricity prices to dramatically increase. Nobody could have foresaw it, but it did happen.

With Muskrat Falls, the promise on Muskrat Falls was that there would be constant, steady increase in demand for electricity and constant, steady increase in price for electricity, above and beyond inflationary impacts. The reality, however, was very different and we should have known what the difference was at the time of sanctioning.

The difference was shale gas. Shale gas production had already begun, was already able to meet unsurpassed demand in the US market. The US now is basically fully self-sufficient in gas, oil and electricity for generations to come.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, you have a situation where we knew what the consequences were or we should have known through past actions, but a decision was taken back in 2011, I think it was, for sanctioning. Now we've arrived at a point in time – and, yes, I agree with the hon. Member, forget about Muskrat Falls. Well, just three months ago, the PC Party had a page in their Blue Book saying we need to sell off Muskrat Falls to whoever will buy it, hopefully the federal government, because it is a dog. It is a risk we cannot absorb.

Mr. Speaker, that leaves us where we are today. We have $500 million. Money that would otherwise be used for health care, for education and for other public services, but we would like to stimulate the Terra Nova Project to be able to keep this going. We understand that – when I hear the hon. Member opposite – when we offer royalty concessions, that that's money that we forego over many years. So before they get too excited over the words that I speak, we have $500 million of value that we are prepared to offer into the Terra Nova Project.

The equity situation, however, is something that is a risk which cannot be overlooked. That's why, Mr. Speaker, I will close this off and simply say to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands: While you ask the rhetorical question you do not know which way you would vote, I believe you have already answered your own question.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

It's been interesting listening this morning. I did have a quick opportunity after our briefing this morning to go out on the steps of this Confederation Building to hear some of the passion in the folks that are assembled. They're worried about their futures, they're worried about their jobs and they're worried about their livelihoods. I, therefore, feel the first point that I want to make on this floor this morning, is that whatever we say here needs to be contributing to the problem that those people are facing out there right now. I feel so many of us have certainly been thinking about that.

I'm not going to belabour a lot of points, but I do want to make two more additional points around that. One is with a background of environmental sciences and my experience dealing with climate change and so on, I am challenged myself in terms of my own vision, what I want to say and do and how I can help influence this transition that we've all spoken about this morning.

I'm thinking back to the fall of 2016 when I was in carbon pricing talks with the federal government; it was a meeting of all the ministers of Environment. The prime minister and the minister of the Environment at the time stood on their feet at the same time and explained that this is how it's going to be in terms of pricing carbon for all the provinces and territories according to the federal government.

Well, had we complied with that situation and that offer at the time, and had I not walked out of the meetings that I did a couple of hours later because there was no budging, there was essentially no recognition of – first of all, as I always want to speak about, in Labrador – diesel communities below 60 degrees latitude were not going to be exempt from that carbon tax. When you're sitting in an isolated community and you have no alternative option for energy, and the federal government is going to say that this is now going to be a more expensive situation for you and the province, that was unacceptable.

The other aspect of why we took such a strong position at those meetings was about the offshore. We have a relatively new industry. It's come on with the latest in technology, the latest in regulatory oversight. I believe that the companies that are operating here are operating to a much higher standard than you'll see anywhere in the world. At the time, for you to find efficiencies in the carbon pricing strategy that Ottawa was offering, carbon would have to be in excess of $130 a ton. I'm not sure everybody can grasp these concepts, but I guess what I'm trying to say to you is that we already have a very efficient offshore in terms of the way it operates. The federal government at that time was talking about adding an additional financial burden.

I'm going to roll in on that point to – I think the next point I need to talk about is the fact that in terms of world production, Canada ranks around fourth in the world. China is right there beside us, the United States, Russia and Saudi Arabia. In terms of Canada's production right now, we the Newfoundland and Labrador oil and gas economy, represents about 5.6 per cent of the production. We are a very small percentage of the national total. I think so much of the frustration that we've having – and, yeah, it's good. I know Seamus O'Regan very well. I think it's good that he does represent the government. He's somebody that we know, that we can reach out; he's with this province.

But the challenge we have is we're 5.6 per cent of the total national industry. When you have– as the former minister of Natural Resources and I used to talk a lot about – perhaps the cleanest oil and the cleanest extraction techniques in the world, we are, however, dwarfed by what are considered to be, unfortunately, perhaps the dirtiest sources of oil and extraction techniques in the world, and that is in the oil sands. That is so much of our problem is that consumers, when they go to the pump and you put gas in your tank, you don't ask yourself did that gasoline come from some of these clean fields where we're actually conducting ourselves according to the highest standards in the world. The oil we burn in our furnaces, does that come from a clean source?

Frankly, it's world markets and we are competing up against jurisdictions – and I have spoken much about. I'm just going to give you a couple examples, I think, just to wake everybody up a little bit here. I have worked and seen so much of what we're up against in Russia. It was the late '90s. I actually was involved in an audit for the World Bank looking at, at that time, what was probably, and probably still is, the world's largest oil spill in the Komi Republic. There was some 70 kilometres of pipeline over a series of breaks and it wasn't just one break. This was neglect that has built up. It was just not caring; it was just about being awash in oil and gas at the time.

I went in with other officials, working with the World Bank, and looking at an audit as to whether the spill was cleaned up. Canada contributed a lot of money at that time. That's when your eyes really opened. When I look at what I just spoke about a few minutes ago, the regulatory oversight of this C-NLOPB, of Noia, the standards that we excel at, that we ask our industry when it is operating in our jurisdiction to comply with and you're competing against a jurisdiction that, wow, it will just make you shake your head.

Here is another thing that some Members might find interesting. I actually went one time to Ukhta, and Ukhta was one of the largest gulags in the entire realm and regime of Mr. Stalin. What they did in Ukhta was called oil mining and guess what? It is still happening. Deep underground you inject water at super high pressure, and it pushes the oil out through all the fissures in the rocks. What you have as you walk along in the most amazingly disgusting air quality you can imagine and the oil actually comes out of the rock and it collects in little ditches that walk along and you can see this stuff oozing out of the rock. There were kilometres and kilometres of these – it is oil shales that are being developed so for generations, essentially for decades, that industry was producing. Well, guess what? It's still operating in Ukhta today.

I got personally involved in one of the situations, two employees of mine in Syktyvkar, where we had our operations. Their father was a senior environmental director doing a lot of the inspections. I didn't have a chance to meet this gentleman because it was one Sunday afternoon; he was walking along and he got taken out in a drive-by hit and run. Never found out what was going on, but at the time he was raising a lot of noise about the environmental standards. His sons are still looking for a solution.

These are some of the things that are going on in the industries that Newfoundland and Labrador is competing with. We are demanding high standards, but unfortunately consumers are not. This is bigger than this room, that's for sure. But it's something we need to realize, that those people out on those steps are being caught in a chess game where we are such a small pawn. It's really very frustrating.

I want also to go over to a theme that I've been speaking about these last couple of weeks around the budget and I raised just last week. That is about our own resources. I've heard the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands and I believe I just heard the Member for Corner Brook also talk about it. I'm thinking about if I had a carrot patch. If I planted carrots in my backyard and I nice big field of carrots and I felt that, okay, now I'm at a point now where I want to harvest that crop and put it out there and so on. Would we really have to pay then for those carrots to be picked, collected and distributed on the retail market?

I find it's amazing that we have to buy in to these projects, whether it be mining – I'm very frustrated with what, for example, IOC pays for royalties. We've talked about the fishery. All of these different resources and now our oil and gas deposits in the offshore. To get involved with something that's in our jurisdiction and put so much risk on ourselves and future generations, I just think, wow, we are getting this so wrong. We have to stop and start thinking about the future. As painful as it's going to be.

I look at those folks on the steps and I asked Mr. Martin this morning: What does the total payroll cost in terms of Newfoundland and Labrador residents for annual salaries. He didn't have a number then, but I think I've heard a number here this morning? I did some calculations, it's probably in the vicinity of $125 million to $139 million a year. That's just in salary alone.

For supplies and the companies that depend on this industry and this project in particular, it's incredibly frustrating that we're now at a situation where we just can't keep going to the point of trying to buy in to projects, supporting companies which, at least in this jurisdiction, are behaving, I would say, to a world standard. What they're doing elsewhere who knows, but certainly their competitors, I've seen them with my own eyes and it's very frustrating.

I'm not sure how we're going to really move forward. I guess I'll just advise the House that I am working on a presentation. I'm not sure when I'll give this because I want to make sure it's accurate, but I do have a lot of concerns about the offshore in terms of its exploration.

I feel we need to develop the fields that we have in place and proceed with them. There's merit in doing that, again for the environmental advantages, for the regulatory oversight that we provide, for the importance of our economy. But in terms of developing those other fields and the risk associated with that, especially when we're continuing to compete with some of the characters I've had personal experience with, I don't think that's a place we want to go.

In the meantime, I do hope for the best for those employees out on the step, their families and the companies that depend on them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll take a few minutes to weigh in on the debate today when we talk about what's happening with the Terra Nova negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify the intent of why we had called, with support from the government and all the Members of the Opposition, about having a debate. It was so that we could have an open dialogue about the issues that are being dealt with in this negotiations and to see if we could lend what support was necessary or a group of suggested ideas that would help move the project a long and come to some kind of an agreement between the parties involved.

We never once said this was about giving oil companies what they're not deserving of. We never once said it was buying an equity share at any cost. We never once said it was about putting everything on the table that didn't benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to spell that right away. It's a bit disheartening because I made it very clear when I spoke to the Unifor members, those men and women who are affected, who are no longer in work. I used to have a sign in my office one time, 35 years ago as a civil servant, that said if you think the system is working, ask somebody who isn't. That's where we are right now. If you think this system is working of the negotiations on this agreement, ask those members out there who don't have a job. Ask those members who right now are grappling with the fact that they have no hope that there may be a job here.

All we had asked this administration – Mr. Speaker, I'm a little upset because the Premier's first comment this morning, when a few of us weren't in the House because we were out talking to the rank and file; we were out to hear what their issues were and we were also hopefully – I was hopeful to hear what the Premier would offer out there and then we could come in and have a dialogue here in the House. He didn't offer that. His quick comeback was that, well, it's too bad all Members are not in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, I honour what I hear in this House and I respect what I hear from people. But do you know what? If I'm going to be informed to speak on something, I want to speak to the people who are affected most by it, and that's what I saw when I was out there, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: I just want to clarify that, and I'm not going to take a lot of time because I spoke to this on Thursday night and I think I outlined a lot of my issues. I do want to clarify, and I said it out there adamantly, about what we, as an Opposition, stand for. We stand for finding a collaborative way to do the best thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's not us and them; it definitely is not in this issue here. We will be political and we will be the Opposition when it's necessary and it serves the purpose of the people of this province. What we were asking in this case was to have an open dialogue.

We had asked to have information shared with us in the briefing and I give credit to the bureaucrats, they did a very professional job. I know they shared what they were given the notice to be able to share. Obviously, all of the information is not there. I'm still bewildered where we went from Thursday on a 1:15 press conference where it disallowed any real negotiations with the other parties, to now we're having a debate, yet we don't want to talk about the issue at hand. The issue at hand: Is there an ability to come up with a solution? Seamus O'Regan, the minister, didn't offer any supports or lend any credence to how this could be done. It's all about: Oh, we're going to support the industry.

Share the information with the general public so we can decide: Was there a workable solution? If there isn't, we're not beyond the fact that sometimes you cannot come to an agreement or the agreement you must come to is not in the best interest of the people you serve. The people we serve are equally all the same in this House, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would have hoped and more importantly I would have expected that that information would have been shared so that we wouldn't get into a bantering dialogue. We would have got into a solution-based dialogue in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and that's what upsets me the most about what happened here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Corner Brook took a few hits about what we stand for and about selling the equity share. Do you know what we stand for? We stand for using the assets we have in Newfoundland and Labrador to minimize any impact, be it socially, economically, mentally or physically on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If that means we can work agreements and deals, particularly if it means we're working with the federal government – you know, our partners in this Confederation – to make sure that we minimize the impact on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think that's a good move.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to end by reading one thing. I'm glad he reminded me about our Blue Book because sometimes we forget that was an election thing, but our Blue Book is what we stand for and it's our principles around our policies. Now, they're always evolving because there's always moving parts here and things change in our society. I will read this last part and then end on it.

“Standing Up for Our Energy Industry and Jobs

“A PC Government will fight for our energy industry – and the jobs that go with it – so we can make our province strong! Our offshore industry needs dramatic support to preserve jobs and create new jobs – support of the magnitude delivered by PC Governments to ensure the development of Hibernia,” the cornerstone of our oil industry.

Mr. Speaker, I'll also end on a note that I did when I spoke to the gathering out there. The intent here and the primary objective should be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and it should be to ensure that those people who have a skill set, those people who are committed to the oil and gas industry and those people who give every day as volunteers and spend their money in our economy are the ones that should be our primary objective to take care of, Mr. Speaker. They're the ones we came to this House for and I expect all of us in here to stand up and support them – whatever it takes – to make sure they have a viable future in Newfoundland and Labrador and we don't have to say goodbye, we have to say welcome again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being 12:30, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

June 14, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 16

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Are the House Leaders ready?

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Humber - Bay of Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands, Harbour Main, Bonavista and Terra Nova.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, on June 1, the City of Corner Brook and the Corner Brook men's soccer, ladies and minor soccer honoured a long-time soccer volunteer.

For over 50 years Doug Sweetapple has been involved with the sport of soccer as a player, coach and as executive member, and has been a driving force behind developing and building a strong soccer program in Corner Brook, including the recruitment of coaches, players and officials. It's because of this unwavering dedication and commitment that the Wellington Street Sports Complex soccer pitch has been renamed the Doug Sweetapple soccer field.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: Doug mentored many young athletes and he provided guidance and mentorship off the field. As it was stated after the Rodney King riots: If they're on my field, they're off the streets, Doug lives by: If they're on the field, they're under my guidance, not the streets.

In 1987, Doug was inducted into the Newfoundland Soccer Hall of Fame and was also awarded an honorary life membership with the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Association in recognition of his outstanding contribution and leadership to the sport.

I ask all Members to join me in offering congratulations to Doug in receiving this well-deserved recognition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, while the City of Mount Pearl has long been known for its well-maintained public infrastructure and its top-notch service delivery, it is truly its people that make it great. Unfortunately, in recent weeks we lost two exceptional community builders who I would like to recognize today.

Mr. Jim Greenland had a great passion for volunteerism, being involved with the Children's Wish Foundation, the Shriners, Masons, Kinsmen, K-40 and the Frosty Festival. Jim also loved sharing his wonderful gift of music. He had a beautiful crooner's voice and was always a favorite at the old-fashioned Variety Show and Irish Pub Night during the Frosty Festival. His voice, along with his charismatic personality, will be very much missed.

Mr. Gerry Taylor was one of the nicest gentlemen you would ever want to meet and was a huge contributor to minor hockey in Mount Pearl and throughout the province. Gerry had a significant positive impact to countless lives over his many years of dedication to the community.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of these two fine gentlemen and offering our condolences to their families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

I am honoured to recognize an extraordinary 21-year-old woman from Makinsons in the District of Harbour Main. Ms. Rhegan Robinson was born with a cognitive impairment, which never impaired her ability or determination to achieve many things in her young life.

Since the age of 12, she has been a member of the Tri-Con Giants Special Olympics club. In 2018, Rhegan attended the Special Olympics Canada Bowling Championships where she received a gold medal, her first National Games. In 2019, she was a member of the silver medallist unified bocce team and in 2020, finished fourth place at the National Special Olympics Games in Ontario. Also, in 2020, Rhegan was the Unified Sports MVP of the Year and the Newfoundland and Labrador Female Athlete of the Year for the Special Olympics. She has also achieved her Gold-level status with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award program.

Rhegan also recognizes the importance of her community in serving others and is a dedicated volunteer at All Hallows Elementary School in North River with the Breakfast Club.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in celebrating Rhegan Robinson, a perfect example of what we can all achieve when we challenge ourselves to be the best we can be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an honour to celebrate the extensive and exemplary community service of Harry Faulkner, who dedicated a large portion of his life serving the residents of Bonavista.

Mr. Faulkner was a member of the volunteer fire department for three decades, serving as fire chief for seven of these and chairman of their executive. He is presently a member of the Royal Canadian Legion since 1980, serving as president for four years.

Harry has been a member of the Bonavista Lions Club since 1968 and has served as their president as well. He was a member of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Matthew for nine years, serving as their second lieutenant until 1980.

He taught Sunday school for seven years from 1965 to 1972, and has engaged in a whole host of other acts of volunteerism, including coaching minor and senior hockey and serving on the Journey for Sight committee, recreation associations, town council and Cabot 500 celebrations to name but a few. It is challenging to find someone who has dedicated more of their life serving their community.

I ask the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the outstanding lifetime of community service from Mr. Harry Faulkner of Bonavista.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic many groups have stepped up in response to the challenges faced by our communities. Three volunteer associations in the Clarenville area have once again gone above and beyond to support families throughout the District of Terra Nova.

The Clarenville and Area Community Youth Network, Clarenville Lions Club and the Eastern Health Youth Outreach Program have developed a Community Meal Initiative, free meals for families with school-aged children in the Clarenville area.

This program came about from an application to the President's Choice Children's Charity grant that a local business owner of Michael's No Frills submitted on behalf of YouthTube in Clarenville. The community saw the need for this and have ensured the success of the program with donations from businesses, families and friends.

The Community Meal Initiative started in April of 2021. On average, there are 40 to 45 meals prepared weekly. These meals are prepared by volunteers based on preregistration. They are hot meals and are available for pick up at the Lions Club or delivery, if needed. This initiative shows another wonderful example of community helping in a time of need.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, today, I want to recognize this year's East Coast Music Awards winners and nominees from our province.

Newfoundland and Labrador had many amazing artists nominated in a variety of categories.

Of these nominees, we had six winners. Congratulations to Silver Wolf Band, who took home the award for Indigenous Artist of the Year; Kellie Loder, who won the Fans' Choice Video of the Year for her song “Molded Like A Monster”; The Swinging Belles won Children's Entertainer of the Year; The Heavy Horses won Country Recording of the Year for their album With Darkness In My Eyes; Peter Green took home the award for Live or Virtual Sound Engineer of the Year; and Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers won a Stompin' Tom Award.

Mr. Speaker, some of the most talented musicians in the world hail from Newfoundland and Labrador and play a vital role in the continuing success of the cultural sector. I would also like to recognize MusicNL, an organization that fosters the growth and development of our province's music community, supporting it as a viable industry on the world stage.

The cultural industries generate jobs and attract new investment to the province. In support of the cultural sector, Budget 2021 included a new Artist Support Program, which will be a component of the new Tourism and Hospitality Support Program; $10 million for the Film and Television Equity Investment Program; $5 million for ArtsNL; and $3.3 million for the Cultural Economic Development Program.

Culture is not only vitally important to the social fabric of this place, but it is an important pillar of our economy. We must continue to support our artists in every way we can.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating all of our East Coast Music Awards winners, as well as all of those nominated.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We in the Official Opposition, too, want to congratulate our nominees and winners at this year's East Coast Music Awards.

It is without a doubt that we have some of the most talented musicians in the world and they continue to export our culture and their talents throughout the globe. We recognize MusicNL, who work night and day growing and developing our province's music industry for the region, country and the world.

We certainly appreciate the various programs that government provides in support of our cultural industry, but unfortunately artists have been struggling for years, and particularly during this pandemic. They are some of our greatest promoters, bringing thousands of tourists to our shores each year to explore and learn more about our culture and heritage. We think that more can be done to assist this integral component of our culture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

The Third Party caucus would like to congratulate all the talented nominees and winners of the ECMAs.

Considering the importance of the cultural sector, we believe it's time for us to start providing the same level of support to youth artists as we do for youth sports. One change we could think of that can go a long way in fostering talent and growth in this province is music and other art communities with the addition of a youth artistic tax credit similar to the physical activity tax credit. This credit would enable families to foster an appreciation for and skills in and appreciate our culture that is such a big part of our identity.

I hope the government will consider this idea so we can continue to be well represented by our talented people on a national and international stage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Professional Municipal Administrators on their annual convention last week. This year's theme was: Leading through Turbulent Times.

I was pleased to address their virtual conference and recognize the work that they do each and every day for our communities. Sessions at the conference included effective municipal politics, diversity, inclusion and equity; and a presentation from my department on municipal elections.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend a heartfelt congratulations to the 52 recipients of the Long Service Awards presented at the convention. This year more categories were added for eligible municipal employees recognizing those with 10 to 50 years of service.

The Long Service Awards acknowledge the critical role municipal administrators play in municipal government and the contributions that they make to their communities and to our province. Thank you for your service.

It has been a challenging time as we navigate the stages of the pandemic. The leadership displayed by Professional Municipal Administrators and from our community leaders has certainly shone through.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Professional Municipal Administrators and this year's recipients of the Long Service Awards for their work and dedication to the people of the province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. minister for the advance copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, our caucus joins the hon. minister in congratulating Professional Municipal Administrators on their annual convention. As a former mayor myself, I can personally attest to the importance of these individuals in our towns and our municipalities.

Elected officials, Mr. Speaker, will come and go, but our municipal administrators provide the professional continuity through the years, advice to council and leadership among their staff.

I'm also delighted to note that the Long Service Awards were given out for the first time, recognizing those with 10 to 50 years of service is a tribute, and their dedication to all the communities.

Today, I'd like to recognize four individuals from my district, from the Town of Torbay: Dawn Chaplain, Ann Picco and Brian Winter, and from the Town of Flatrock, Diane Stamp, each with 15 years of municipal service.

Congratulations to all.

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 her statement.

Municipal administrators do a lot of heavy lifting at the community level. They have, indeed, been here for us through these and other turbulent times.

On behalf of the Third Party, I congratulate the recipients of the Long Service Awards and thank them for their devotion to our municipalities all across our province.

I would also like to call on government to do more to help Professional Municipal Administrators champion the causes of diversity, inclusion and equity – key themes discussed at this year's convention and core values of the communities they serve.

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.

We are now less than a day away from the deadline to find a solution to get the Terra Nova FPSO operating again, and getting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians back to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: I ask the Premier: What negotiations took place over the weekend? How many hours did they last? Who was at the table?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

As the Member opposite well knows, this is an issue between the private equity investors, the multi-billion-dollar oil companies. We have put a healthy deal on the table for them. We've set the table for them with over $500 million of value. This is an alignment issue amongst stakeholders; the private equity owners; the multinational, billion-dollar, profitable companies, Mr. Speaker, as the Member opposite knows.

I will not bend a knee to them. They need to sort this out themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody is asking the Premier or the government to bend a knee to any company, but for months you've been negotiating in secret. Thursday, you proposed to go out publicly without sharing any other information with anybody else. Now, all of a sudden, when we're at the 12th hour, the government determines that they're not going to be involved in the process, Mr. Speaker. That's not good governance from our perspective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Is the deadline for the deal still tomorrow?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

This is not our deadline. This is a deadline that the private equity owners have put in place. We haven't subscribed to any deadline and we won't. We hope that they come to the table and work together to find solutions for the men and women who work in this important industry and this important project, Mr. Speaker.

We're here to support the hard-working women and men with the avenues that we have in place in front of us. It strikes me as odd that the Member opposite wants us to continue down the path of the myopic and sclerotic ways of thinking and decision-making of the past, the eleventh hour pulling the wool over the government's eyes when involved in megaprojects.

We are not prepared to do that. This government is not prepared to do this. Right now, this is a private sector issue; it needs a private sector solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From day one all we've asked of the Premier and the government is to share information so that we all can determine whether or not everything was done that could have been done to salvage this project, Mr. Speaker. Our caucus, through access to information, informed the public of the government's offer to buy a 15 per cent equity share in the project.

I ask the Premier: What changed between April and today to shift your position on the equity stake in Terra Nova?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

I find it offensive that the Member opposite continues to say that this was done in secrecy. I'm not sure the Member opposite understands an NDA and perhaps cannot even spell NDA, Mr. Speaker. These are commercial interests and we need to protect the commercial interests of the province.

It is not done in secrecy; this is how business works. This is how commercial deals between individuals and government – that's how it happens, Mr. Speaker. So the Member opposite is misguided with respect to any significant negotiations in secrecy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't lower myself to get at that level. I thought we had moved beyond that in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAZIL: Our PC caucus is not all-in on equity stakes, let's be clear. But if it makes sense in the broader economic picture, it has to be considered. We need more information.

Would the Premier's support of an equity stake have been different had they paid abandonment costs on the oil that's already been pumped – been taken off the table?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm happy to take this question as it relates to this topic. Certainly, it's something I've dedicated a lot of time to over the last days, weeks and months.

A couple of things as it relates to equity. Equity in and of itself can be a good thing. The equity stake depends; in fact, we have three right now in various projects. But I would note that they were all done at the ground floor of those projects coming in early.

In this particular case, an equity strake would be coming in, as I've said before, on a project that is 85 per cent completed. Essentially, what the province would be doing is assuming a significant amount of risk for a field that is significantly depleted.

Equity was something that, obviously, has been considered through this. We always have said that we would do anything that we could, but in the long run we decided, as a government, that this was not the right path forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Energy Minister said, “I am hopeful that these owners will take the money that's been offered to them and they will bridge the gap.”

Can the Premier disclose how much additional funds are needed for the Terra Nova life extension to proceed? What is the gap?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it's hard to point out the gap here; we may have to talk to the companies. I'm a little nervous about getting into actual technical terms here as it relates to the possible non-disclosure agreements. I think the biggest thing when we talk about bridging the gap would be equity and that's not a gap that we are willing to close. We think it's a gap that the companies should close.

What I will point out, though, is that right now, the $500 million is helping these companies mitigate their risk and it's helping them with their liquidity. I will point out that the price of oil has risen significantly since last year when this happened. So we think that everything is there for these companies to make the deal happen and, obviously, with $500 million of provincial government support as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The media is reporting that four partners with 40 per cent interest in Terra Nova want to exit the project and that two partners, Suncor and Husky, are willing to increase their share.

How much of the 40 per cent is Suncor and Husky willing to purchase?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's a conversation that I'm not able to get into for legal reasons, obviously, but it is something that's being discussed by all of the current partnership group. All I can say is that we, as a province, have indicated that we are not open to an equity stake in this project going forward.

We entertained those discussions as we felt was appropriate. We, as a government, felt we should do everything we could and look at every angle that we could, but in the long run we decided that this was not the move forward for us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government says that the case for the Terra Nova asset life extension is marginal.

Will the Premier clarify? Does that mean there are benefits in the project going ahead?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, there has been a significant analysis done of this project. I can tell you that the staff in the department, as well as in Finance, has been working this file diligently for days, weeks and months. Sometimes when we look at a project, again – many of the companies that look at it, it's not a case of profit versus not profit; it's a case of profit versus more profit.

What I will say is the issue for us is that even if there was the opportunity for profitability, the risk associated was too great. We are a province that is coming off the heels of another megaproject where the risk was too great and we're still dealing with the burden of that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: How much revenue to the province will be lost if this project folds?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are varying numbers here. Again, the reality is that nobody can tell this for sure. That's the reality. It's all based on various base models and analysis, but the reality is that when we looked at this, the risk was too great.

Yes, there is the possibility of revenue. No doubt about it there is the possibility for revenue, but there also exists, in our mind, a significant case for risk. That's when we start talking about the loss of hundreds of thousands – and perhaps millions – of dollars of money that belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The federal government used to believe in our offshore oil and gas resources, but now they're turning their backs. In 1985, it was a federal equity stake in Hibernia that saved the project and got us to where we are today.

I ask the Premier: Did you reach out to the federal government to ask them to take an equity share in the Terra Nova Project?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

I have certainly discussed with Minister O'Regan the significance of the Terra Nova Project and the importance of offshore oil and gas to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can assure you the prime minister and the minister recognizes the importance not just to the overall coffers of the Treasury, but to the hard-working women and men who work in the industry, Mr. Speaker.

They have provided $320 million to allow us, as a province, to invest in different pieces of the industry to ensure that it is well positioned to emerge after the pandemic. That's what we're acting with, Mr. Speaker. They had no obligation to do so. They firmly believe in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore and the fact that it's some of the lowest carbon oil around the world. We need to market it as such to ensure that this industry survives as we go forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The federal government has purchased equity in energy projects in other parts of the country. Apparently, Newfoundland and Labrador does not get the same treatment.

I ask the Premier: Would the federal government be turning their backs if it were a Quebec energy project?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I can't speak to what the federal government does with Quebec projects. It's certainly not something I'm privy to or within my purview.

What I will say is equity for us right now, as a province, is risky. We have to look no further to our cousins in Alberta to see what happens when you bet and lose. I'm not willing to bet on the future of this province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kenney, in Alberta, is currently burdened – with the taxpayers of Alberta – with a $1.3-billion bill for a pipeline that goes nowhere. This is a bet that we can't afford to take and lose, Mr. Speaker, and we're not prepared to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There'd be no bill if it were Quebec.

Simply yes or no, Mr. Speaker: Did OilCo recommend the province buy an equity stake in Terra Nova?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer would be no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Again, yes or no, Mr. Speaker. Did the department's analysis recommend the province buy an equity stake in Terra Nova?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Member wants yes or no, and that's fine, but this is not an interrogation, it's a Question Period. What I will say is it's not that simple. It is just not that simple to say yes or no. The reality is that there have been various options that have been put forward there. The reality is that we've considered so many different possibilities based on various base cases, various models and various analyses.

The reality is, at the end of the day, our department, our government and our oil company have decided not to proceed with an equity stake in the Terra Nova.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Simple question, Mr. Speaker, what did they recommend?

We all know right now that there are two different sets of analyses.

Will the minister table those two sets of analyses?

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

A. PARSONS: As I've said on multiple occasions, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that a lot of the information that we have used to base our decision on is governed by non-disclosure agreements involving commercial sensitivities and commercial actions. I'd love to table it here, but the next thing you know we're going to be sued by the oil companies and then I'll have Members on the other side complaining to me that I did that. So I'm just not going to go down that road.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I would suggest our internal analyses based on whether or not it was viable are our own.

There could be more oil in the Terra Nova oil field than we know about. This could make a case for further exploration or development.

Is government doing additional seismic work to determine if there is additional oil?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly not aware of any additional seismic being done on this particular oil field. I think that work's actually been done a significant period of time ago by various players here. But, again, I will say that we have used all kinds of different analyses to deal with this, including dealing with different possibilities as to what is out there. Using very negative outlooks, very positive outlooks and median outlooks. We have crunched significant numbers.

Again, I'll give a lot of thanks to the staff within the department who have worked a lot of time on this file to help us make the best decision going forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Those outlooks are pale in comparison to the actual outcome.

The Finance Minister said this morning that 6,700 jobs in this province are directly working in oil and gas. Under the Liberal watch, West White Rose is idle, there's no active discussion on Bay du Nord, West Aquarius, Barents and Henry Goodrich are gone, and the Terra Nova's future is on life support with the plug about to be pulled.

I ask the minister: Of these 6,700 jobs, how many people are working directly today?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the Member opposite throwing out numbers. I've heard all kinds of numbers thrown out by Members of the Opposition in the course of debate today. The reality is not all of them are accurate. I want to go on –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

A. PARSONS: Again, give me a second please, thank you.

What I would point out is that the Member references all the negativity. It's sometimes depressing. It's really depressing when he talks about nothing going on in Bay du Nord when the reality is that we have three times, possibly even more, according to speculation about what's out there. We have West White Rose that again we've had very positive conversations about Husky.

The Member likes to blame and that's fine, but I can tell you one thing, we don't control the price of oil and we didn't cause COVID.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know how to respond to that.

I will ask the Minister of Finance: In your revenue projections for your multi-year targets, have you factored in any royalty revenue from Terra Nova?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.

The answer is yes. There would be Terra Nova royalties factored in. Of course, we all understood the asset life extension was progressing, Mr. Speaker. I will say that we're still hopeful that it will be progressing once the decisions have been considered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Again I ask, Mr. Speaker: In that case, does that mean if this project does not go ahead that these numbers – multi-year targets – will have to be changed?

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

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

I will say that the multi-year targets does assume that the Terra Nova progresses. It does assume that there would be approximately $35 million in royalties starting, I think, sometime in late '22, early '23, once the asset life extension – so we would have to make up that revenue, but I'm still hopeful of the Terra Nova Project will move forward.

Again, as I said this morning, Mr. Speaker, the price of Brent crude today is approximately the same price that it was when the Terra Nova Project asset life extension was sanctioned in 2019.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There's a $500 million offer on the table, as we've heard; $300 million of that is a reduction of future royalty payments and the other $200-and-something million is from the federal government.

I ask: If this project does not go ahead does that $300 million disappear?

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

S. COADY: I just answered the Member's question by saying that there is approximately, in the forecast, the revenue forecast, starting in late '22, early '23, Mr. Speaker, we had assumed $35 million over the forecast for our royalties from the Terra Nova Project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Noia has said that the Terra Nova life extension would bring a 10-year, $1-billion economic benefit to the province.

Does the province's evaluation of the project agree with this assessment?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me preface my response by saying that I appreciate all the energy that Noia brings to this. Certainly, I have a lot of respect for that organization, their members and their board. We have done a lot of work together over the last little while.

They have obviously done their own economic analysis of this. What I would point out though: Theirs would be different than ours because they did not have access to the information that we did. There are certainly some issues with methodology. There are certainly some issues with the different findings there. That doesn't mean that it's not a piece of work that we would look to. But, at the end of the day, I will take the advice of the officials within Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, that's exactly where I got this question from. This morning on the briefing, when we asked about the indirect benefits of the project, they did not have them in front of them, but referred us to the Noia document. That's why we asked that question: The officials actually referred us to the Noia predictions and said, outside of the royalty regime, it was accurate.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Would you please table the economic projections on asset life extension, including the benefits that the province would receive through HST, personal income tax and spinoff jobs?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll guide him towards the economic report that was just recently tabled with the budget. I will say there is approximately $35 million per year that could be attributed in the forecast – $35 million a year – to HST, personal income tax and payroll taxes from the Terra Nova Project. I will tell him that in the forecast, there are no corporate income taxes from Terra Nova, mostly because they have some writeoffs, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

Today in the briefing provided to our caucus, government went to great lengths to explain the lack of details due to the non-disclosure agreement – NDA.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I ask the Minister of Justice and Public Safety: Have you discussed or written the oil companies requesting that they agree to waive the NDA?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll certainly take this as the former minister of Justice, but currently the minister responsible for Industry, Energy and Technology.

That's not something that we have written to the companies to ask for at this time. Right now, all the attentions have been paid on trying to encourage the partnership to come to an agreement. Our concern has not been the information available for a debate here. Our concern has been trying to get a deal, having $500 million out there and trying to have these companies come to a consensus or a conclusion on bridging the gap on equity. That is where our attention has been paid and that is where it will be continued to be focused.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister would want the public and the Opposition access to as much information as possible about their data, their calculations, their risk assessment and their reasoning. The people of the province have a right to know, so let us lay those facts out for them to decide.

I ask again: Will the minister write the oil companies to waive their non-disclosure agreement?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, at the end of the day, I just have a fundamental disagreement with the Member on what we are supposed to do here. At the end of the day, we were elected to govern and govern we will. Part of that is engaging in negotiations with companies on a whole number of files, and this is one of them. What I am not going to do is disclose any information or ask for a company to disclose any information that may hurt our position as it relates to getting the best deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Now, what I will say is the information will be forthcoming when it is done, but it certainly won't be right now when we're trying to help these companies get a deal done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Terra Nova Project does not continue, there will be over a thousand jobs lost, along with countless indirect jobs and spinoffs.

I ask the minister: What specific supports will be available to help these families in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the Member opposite. Certainly that has been one of our concerns. Probably our biggest concern, obviously, has been the people associated with this project. We've seen those numbers go down. In Q1 it was around 1,100. It has gone down to about 450 or so in the last quarter, but then there are the indirect; there are the families.

What I can say are a couple of things here. Again, there is no definitive answer because up to this point we have absolutely, totally been focused on trying to get a deal done. I will say, politically speaking, that if we said otherwise, we would be pilloried by everyone for doing that. What I will say is that the money that is being allocated to this project can be used for workers in other means, including through other departments. That is something we have discussed and did actually speak to the union about yesterday, but right now we are still hopeful for a deal.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for answering that with class, which he did.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has a population growth problem. A large portion of this problem is directly tied to jobs.

I ask the minister: If the Terra Nova Project does not proceed, does the department have any projections for how many families will pick up and leave our province?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, that's an important question. We do know that as it relates to various economic drivers in our province, if there is bad news, there is the fear that we will have people leaving this province, and we have seen it in the past. Certainly, we would not have those projections. I know that my colleague may have something there. Again, it's hard to determine because we know that there are and will be further opportunities in this field and otherwise.

The other thing I will point out is a counterpoint to that argument, and the counterpoint is that if we engage in a very bad deal that has bad repercussions for this province, we may end up driving these people out ourselves because of the steps that we have to take.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

And it could be a great deal where we keep a lot of people here in the province once again, and keep these people working that want to work.

Mr. Speaker, what discussions has the minister had with our colleagues in universities to ensure appropriate retraining opportunities are available for these workers should talks fail, if that's what they wish to do?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, what I will say is twofold. Specifically as related to this project, that's not a conversation that has happened.

What I will say is that I've had multiple conversations, as have my colleagues in Population Growth and in Education. These are, I guess, conversations we have had, certainly, with both our private and public post-secondary institutions. We have invested a significant amount in allowing for other trades for other options, especially as it relates to our tech industry, and I've actually had people in the field reach out. That's one thing that is being worked on quite quickly.

As it relates to this project, what I can say – and, again, to quote the Premier – is that we want to see a deal here that benefits everybody in this province, but if that is not to happen, then we will be there to support the workers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week there was a large amount of dust kicked up from the mining sites in Labrador West.

I ask the Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Will his department review the allowable thresholds to ensure that those living in mining regions don't sacrifice air quality for economic prosperity?

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

B. DAVIS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

I know that our department has looked at that and talked to officials at Tacora, and had been advised that they had – the contractors that were working on hydroseeding in the area for dust-mitigation measures. There have also been some exceedances based on some street cleaning that's been done in Lab West based on the winds that are going.

I appreciate the question, but we're going to keep a close eye on the proponents there.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Greene report says, “Develop an inventory of other hydroelectricity opportunities on the Island and in Labrador ….”

I ask the minister: Is there a list of rivers that are being considered and does this government intend to end the moratorium on hydro development on the Island?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As it relates to the first part of the question, a list of rivers, it is something I could certainly provide to the House. It's not something I would have or be able to remember, but I would have no issue providing that to the Member.

As it relates to the moratorium question on hydro development, again, that's not something that I've actively considered right now. We have been more concerned about our developments in Labrador and the possibilities that exist there. Certainly what I would say, as a follow-up outside of the House of Assembly, I would certainly do my best to provide you with the specific information.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, 2041 is not far away, and we have a tough negotiation ahead with Hydro-Québec on the future of electrical supply from Churchill Falls.

I ask the minister: When will the negotiation begin, and is the federal government involved?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say that there is no set timeline for negotiations to begin, but it does seem interesting that it's 20 years away. It seems like a good time. The reason I say that is that in the very near future, we will be announcing a committee designed – again, it was a recommendation from the Muskrat Falls inquiry to have an expert panel designed to help us with that negotiation, people with background in the field. We certainly have a number of names of – actually, we have a long list of people that would be interested in that.

That's one thing going forward. A second part of that is I do think that the federal government will play a role in this. This ties into something that they want to see, which is the distribution of our assets outside of this province. We'll be prepared to deal with the feds; we'll be prepared to deal with Quebec, and at the end of the day, trying to get our assets developed and getting the best value.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recent news surrounding the Terra Nova FPSO, global trends away from fossil fuels and policies and technologies being introduced specifically to eliminate the market demand for oil and gas highlight the necessity for a just transition.

When will this government present a fulsome, just transition plan and protect workers from what is coming?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question, I believe, is when will we transition from fossil fuel or oil development into renewable energies. There are two ways that you can approach that question.

The first part is that we will be launching a renewable energy plan hopefully sometime during 2021. That's the plan. I do not have a set date, nor do I want to pen myself in, but 2021 is what I'm committing to right now. Certainly, there is going to be a lot that goes into that.

The second part is that we do know there's a transition. Everybody knows it. Whether it be Noia, whether it be the oil companies, everybody knows that there's a transition. What I will point out, though, contrary to the beliefs of the NDP, is that we are not prepared to give today on the workers that are involved in the oil and gas sector. We can have a transition, but that doesn't mean we forget the people, the men and women, working there right now.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're not asking government to give up on anyone, certainly not the workers of this province, Mr. Speaker. We're asking to develop a plan so that they're looked after when the oil economy does come to an end.

In a May 7 SaltWire interview, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said he's reviewing the Court of Appeal decision to determine the department's next steps regarding the Northern Harvest Smolt Limited's application to expand its salmon hatchery in Stephenville. It's been over a month.

Would the minister update us on what the department's next steps will be?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

That is true. We are following the decision of the court. We are looking at the next steps that we're looking at to do that. Decision to release the project was done with the full due diligence following thorough review. Environmental protection is always top of mind with respect to this.

I will say to the hon. Member we are working through that process with our staff. Stay tuned and we'll be moving forward on that hopefully in the coming little period of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order, under Standing Order 49.

During Question Period, an exchange between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, there was a remark made, and I quote: The Member opposite doesn't know what an NDA is, let alone even know how to spell it.

Mr. Speaker, I find those comments disparaging. They're offensive. They go against what we're trying to accomplish in this House. We say all the time we want to work together. Publicly, the Premier has been – I've said it in this House, we all said it. We want to work together. Comments like there is no place for it in the House. It's no place between two leaders. Like I said, I find it very disparaging.

I'd like to let the Premier know, we may not all have medical degrees, but I would go to war any day, anywhere, every day with this man and this group of people over here. Anywhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: On that note, I think the Premier should at least apologize and withdraw those remarks because there's no place in the House for that.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: I think it's just a difference of opinion between two Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The decision has been made.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: that notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for Routine Proceedings to conduct government business, and that if not adjourned earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that on tomorrow I will move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1), that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 17, 2021.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

In 2020, government announced that Route 520, the highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the communities of North West River and Sheshatshiu, was a priority under the Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan. A later summer tender call was not successful, so on the 19th of September, 2020, in the House of Assembly the minister of Transportation and Infrastructure stated government would expand the scope of the contract to find better value for next year's construction season; i.e., in 2021.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. TRIMPER: That's the year we're in now, Mr. Speaker. This commitment was confirmed again on the 11th of December, 2020, by the minister in response to a petition by the MHA for Lake Melville – that would be me.

On the 9th of June, 2021, in response to a question from the MHA for Lake Melville – that is me – the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure indicated he was still reviewing which highways would be addressed in 2021. The comment by the minister was that “It's very important to note that I must live within my means and I intend to do that, in terms of a budgetary perspective.” Given that the budget of $170 million for highway paving is consistent with that of last year, this should not be a problem to maintain this long-standing commitment.

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to issue the tender for expanded work on Route 520 immediately so that the expanded contract can be awarded and work started also immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about this a fair bit this last little while in the House of Assembly and I need to advise everyone in a decision-making capacity that this highway, like all other highways in this province, does not have the ability to heal itself. The potholes, the dips, they are not getting better; they are getting much worse. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, my office is, I would say, on occasion, inundated with calls and complaints. I am sure the minister is also hearing much about it.

It is not fixing itself. Here is the situation: We have that same highway. It is deteriorating. We also, though, have the same budget we had last year. This highway was identified as a priority for Lake Melville and a priority for this province. The only thing I can see different, Mr. Speaker, is that the MHA representing this district is no longer a member of the caucus; he is actually an independent MHA.

Can the minister please explain to me how politics have been taken out of the pavement of this province?

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

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

I couldn't see behind me the last time. I had my mask off quick, so I'll get to the point.

The background to this petition is as follows: Route 10 from Trepassey to Peter's River is a part of the scenic Irish Loop drive, a destination for many tourists, foreign and local.

WHEREAS many of these tourists travel to visit the various attractions along the parts of the Irish Loop. Visitors come to see both old and new tourist attractions in recent years, therefore increasing traffic volumes and traffic along this section of the highway.

We call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade this significant piece of infrastructure, including asphalt, sightlines and shoulders so many tourists will become more inclined to visit the area and residents will be provided a safer commute during day and night.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke on this once before already and I'm going to say it is a reoccurring theme in my district that – yes, we got some pavement last year, four kilometres, but every petition seems to be around roads. I'm sure there is more in the province but we seem to have a lot more than most.

It's called the Irish Loop, to go right around the Loop takes about four hours. On one section of it there is a lot of pavement done – not in our district; I'm going to say in the government's district – and we haven't had that touched and looked at. If you drive up there you go from, I'm going to say Trepassey, right to Peter's River. If you drive in the daytime, you'll stickhandle around, moving around potholes, going to the left side of the road if you're going up the shore – coming down, you're going on the right side – to avoid the potholes. It is just something that the minister should get up and have a look at and see the condition of the road.

This time of the year with tourism coming on, you'll see people going up there now – I'm going to say in the next week or two, because I heard there's capelin in Ferryland today, but I don't know if that's the case or not. You'll see big whale attractions in St. Vincent's. You'll drive along the road and you'll be able to – and there will be a big tourist attraction going there to watch it. It has been big the last three or four years for some reason, and obviously, the reason is because the whales are right next to the road and you can see them.

For that area, it is vital that they get in and look at that road. The potholes are unbelievable. When you get up there you can jump out of your car and go take pictures of the potholes and drive down to Trepassey. Just the maintenance alone on that for cold patching and in the area of Trepassey, as well. Along the route there would be some tree trimming as well, just sightlines for tourists going in the area. It's very important that we get to look at this and hopefully the minister can get up and have a look at it.

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any further petitions?

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 from the Order Paper: Motion 9.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 14, 2021.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: 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 call from the Order Paper: Motion 10.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 15, 2021.

SPEAKER: 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 very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper: Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great honour to sit in this House and represent the people of Placentia West - Bellevue that unequivocally, I guess, in the past election wanted me to come back in this House and represent them, and I'm very proud to do so in this 50th General Assembly. I thank them very much.

I also thank my election campaign team. They certainly went over and above with all of the unforeseen circumstances and they handled it quite professionally with a lot of integrity and respect. That's something that we did as a group for our district.

I had a lot of other things I wanted to speak about when it came to the budget, but with what's going on with the FPSO, the Terra Nova, I think I'd be very remiss if never spoke to that today because the people out on those steps today they're the people I represent. A lot of those people are from Placentia West - Bellevue and they're bewildered right now. They want a government that supports them. They're not looking for a free handout. They've worked all their lives. They haven't been a burden to this province, whatsoever. It's time for this province to really stand up and have something to say about it. To me, starting the House this morning and me not being able to stay out on those steps with my constituents is actually despicable. I think it was a very poor show of what we do here and what we represent. Really, it was playing politics. We know your stand on it; you know our stand on it. We're here to support the people and you're here to support yourselves.

This is something that I wanted to stay out on those steps and support, because I strongly believe in our oil and gas industry. Not only this project, but our oil and gas industry is world renowned. For our federal counterparts to turn their back on us, especially the fact that our Cabinet minister from Newfoundland – we're lucky enough to have one when we only have seven seats as it is – is not representing us. He's representing the federal government. He's representing his buddies. I don't know who he's representing, but he's certainly not representing us, because there's no support from our very own Cabinet minister. He was elected to represent the people that are out on those steps as well, and not his own interests.

Yes, we're heading to a green economy and so why not create a seamless transition? There are not very many products you can touch in this House of Assembly today that hasn't got some part of the oil and gas industry as a part of that product. As I see everybody on their phones, obviously it's in their hands right now. If we can make a seamless transition from our oil and gas industry – which is a non-renewable resource; we know it's not going to be there forever, but we need to utilize it to our advantage. We need to utilize it to the advantage of our own people. That is the trick to this. It's about making a transition seamless enough that we come out of an oil and gas industry and we go into that green economy, but we do it through our global leadership and our global stewardship of clean oil and gas to get to this transition.

I hear the minister talk about we have the lowest carbon footprint per barrel. If the federal government is looking at us moving into a green economy, doesn't it make sense for us to be putting this oil out to the world, instead of the oil that's in Saudi Arabia, Russia and Guyana and all this stuff, that's not as clean as the oil that we're refining here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Shouldn't that be the driver to bring our oil and gas ashore? That's the reason why we should be out there getting it.

I mean, if we look at our history, everybody likes to bring up – they don't go back any further now than Muskrat Falls, but in the meantime our history is fraught with giveaways. We did it in the fishery, we did it in forestry, we did it in mining and now we're doing it in oil and gas. When it comes to energy and a clean, green economy we can also be world leaders and global leaders in that as well, because we have the resources and the assets.

I'm not interested in what Quebec's benefit is going to be out of this, because I still hear it and, I mean, if we want to talk about history, our history was sold out in 1949 because of the giveaways. We had to give something to get something. Albeit we were in a very desperate situation, which also brings us to the Churchill Falls deal. It should never have been a sanctioned deal based on duress. If anyone understands a business contract, one of the mitigating factors in a business contract is duress. We were under duress in 1967 to have this Churchill Falls deal completed. We didn't have the money and the British Newfoundland company was becoming dissolved, so we had nowhere to go. What did the federal government do? Did us a favour, didn't they? They did us a favour and gave it to Quebec because Quebec was able to bail us out because they were getting so much money from the federal government. They didn't bail their selves out with what Quebec is producing. The federal government gave them the money to bail us out and gave them the equity stake in our Churchill Falls. That's the problem. For anybody that's listening in this House, the next time you mention Muskrat Falls put your hand in your pocket and feel Joey on your hip because he's the one that started it with the giveaways.

We're getting $60 million a year from Churchill Falls and Quebec gets something like $2.4 billion. Does that sound equal? They don't have to report that now on their financials for the end of the year and they still get $13 billion of the $18 billion that goes out to the country in transfer payments, in equalization. Why is Quebec getting such a sweet deal and we're not fighting for the same sweet deal? I don't get it. I really, really don't get it.

If we're all equal in this Dominion of Canada, then we should all get a say, but we don't. While we have seven seats, Quebec has 77, which, I might add, is more than double all the Atlantic provinces put together. To say that this is a democracy is the biggest fallacy that this nation has ever fallen under. It's not a democracy. It's an aristocracy, because we boosted up these provinces that we call rich, all because they have a bigger population. Quebec is certainly not adding to the coffers of this province per capita the way Newfoundland and Labrador is, especially if we have the oil and gas industry up and running to full capacity.

If we don't do this with the Terra Nova, this is another opportunity lost, because guess what? We're talking about $300 million of this $500 million that we're saying enough is enough, so $300 million is based on royalty regime fix, which is not coming out of our pocket. It's coming off the black line that we'll end up with at the end of the day. At least we'll be able to keep our people working. That's the trick here. It's about those thousand families and getting those people back to work and letting them have some pride in keeping their possessions.

The biggest industry right now in Newfoundland is the Buy and Sell. It's disgusting. Like I said, this is another lost opportunity.

If you look at 1,700 indirect jobs and you say every one of those families has a partner and one child, we're talking about over 5,000 people in this province that we're turning our back on, that we're not giving an opportunity to put their tax dollars to work for them. They're contributors to the economy. They're not people that are asking for a free handout. These are $120,000 minimum a job. The $300 million is not an investment, because it's coming off the profit share and the $200 million is coming from the federal money that came down for COVID, which, I might add, that everybody is quite proud of. Three hundred and twenty million to save the oil and gas industry on the East Coast of the country of Canada.

Again, this is another lost opportunity. There are no opportunities being thwarted here, because there is a big difference between risk and risky. If the $300 million is coming off the profit share and the $200 million came from the $320 million, then just remind me again what is it we're investing out of our own pocket not to take this opportunity to get these profits that are still in our grounds? I don't get it. I don't understand it. To turn around and say that they were spending $500 million, because from my understanding and what I've listened to from industry experts, it is only $740 million for the project to be a go. It's not that big of a gap when you're talking millions and millions of dollars.

They gave us $320 million to save our oil and gas industry. The next day they put out a fund for $1.8 billion for electric charging stations. I didn't know we were there yet, but it is nice to know now. I don't have an electric car, by the way. I don't mean to offend the Member for Lake Melville, but in probably 20 or 30 years I'll have one, because then we can all afford them. It is a more expensive car. It is a bigger demolished footprint to the earth, yet the footprint that we're doing to extract the oil and gas, there is something dirty about that when we have the cleanest oil and gas in the world.

And you know what? It is kind of a bit of a shame to be here and call it the oil and gas industry. Because while the oil is what people are looking to extract, the biggest reserve out there is the gas. What's this government done to figure out what to do with the gas?

Let's go back and blame it on Muskrat Falls. Well, you know what? We haven't paid anything on Muskrat Falls yet, so I don't know where we're coming off with this big burden. If you look back on the project – and yes, it is overbudget and stuff like that, which is under the management of this government longer than it was under the PC government that sanctioned it. They don't see it that way. They want to sidle up with their partners at the federal level and stuff like that so that we can get to this new green economy. Mr. Speaker, $1.8 billion for electric charging stations and $320 million to save the oil and gas industry on the East Coast of the country. Don't sound like good economics to me.

If somebody told me tomorrow that my buddy was going to give me $200 and I can possibly get $1,000 out of that. I'd say: Well, do I have to pay back your $200? He said no. Well, it seems to be it's all profit for me. Because even if I only take 70 per cent of what I profit from, I'm still in the black; it's not costing me anything.

To sit here and talk about costs and all that kind of stuff, I would challenge, I guess, the people in the medical profession to step into the business world for a change and have a look at what their education is offering them there. To sit here and insult anybody here about spelling things and all that stuff and not retract it, again, no integrity, no respect.

What we're about over here, yes, we want to be progressive and we want to move forward. We want to make this province better, but we also want to be conservative and understand mitigated risk. There's a big difference between risk and risky. Don't get the two mixed up. I explained it to Premier Ball before he left as well, or the former premier. He actually commended me for it, because he understood because I put it in layman's terms for him, the same as I'm trying to do here for you guys today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DWYER: You're very welcome.

It's that cocky attitude that has got us in this situation as it is, because we're not looking out for the people; they're looking out for their own egos. That's what's going on here. As you can tell by the comments from across the way, they don't think anybody else has anything to contribute.

I'll guarantee you one thing: There's nobody in this House that's voting for me. I'm here to represent the people of Placentia West - Bellevue. I'm going to do that to the best of my ability with the business degree that I have. I don't need a medical degree to run the province, because I'd rather have a premier, actually, that says expert than trainee. If he's going to sit here and insult my leader, I'm going to let him know what his parameters are, too.

If you look at the money that we could do with this seamless transition and have these projects up and running, in a district like mine when you have so much industry, Muskrat Falls would be a very dusty conversation if we were up full and running with the refinery, which hopefully is going to be done sometime this week; if we had Bull Arm up and running full capacity; West White Rose, Vale. I have a state-of-the-art fish plant that the owners have invested $10 million into a town of 895 people. You can't say that the people are not out there trying to do their best to make this province better. We have to be better in here.

It's not personal decisions. I don't take anything in here personally. I'll be quite honest in that. I do have a lot of reservations about the amount of respect and integrity that comes out of this House. That's not what I signed up for, I can guarantee you that. I signed up to represent the people. That's what I'm going to do. I'm going to represent their interests with the best of my ability. I'm not one that says I have all the answers. I've heard it a lot in there, though. There are lots of people in here that have all the answers, apparently. I'm here to work with people. I'm here to make it better for all of us. I'm not here to look for pats on the back and all that kind of stuff.

I just got the ultimate pat on the back in this last election when I won every poll in my district. The people said they wanted me to come back here. You know why? It's because I bring integrity and respect to this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DWYER: I'd say you'd be better off probably figuring out the budget that you just presented, instead of trying to figure out what I'm saying over here, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably.

J. DWYER: Yeah, probably.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. DWYER: Yes. Well, that's why I'm trying to dumb it all down a shade for you. Because I know it's over your head if I spoke in business terms.

The 1,700 indirect jobs –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DWYER: It's a big joke to you, isn't it? Yes.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. DWYER: Oh yes, we've been here before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. DWYER: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the protection, because obviously as I speak about integrity and respect, it's lost on the people that are heckling.

I'll just say this: The money that we can get from actually investing nothing and using the regime that we're talking about, it'll help all our programs, roads, schools, hospitals. The two extra government departments that were added since the last election – that in the last election was determined, actually, and my colleague across the way from the District of Burin - Grand Bank can attest. He was on the same video saying that the Burin Peninsula is booming. That's how out of touch that side is.

Lett's get back to work. Let's stop making this personal and let's get to work for the people of the province, not ourselves, it is not about our interests. It is not about pats on the back. It is not about what we can get for ourselves. It is about representing the people and utilizing the money that we have to our advantage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to start off today with a Chinese proverb, those of you who have sat with me here have noticed that I use a lot of quotes. The Minister of Finance likes to quote a Chinese proverb, so I thought I'd start off with one today. This Chinese proverb says the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago; the second best time is now.

The reason I say that is because we've had lots of banter back and forth across the House about who done it. Whose fault is it? And a lot about the past, about what happened or who did what. At the end of the day, it makes for great politics, but it doesn't make for much real good economic sense in terms of moving our province forward.

Again, I want to try to focus on, today, where we're going as Members of the 50th General Assembly and what we want to see happen. Despite what Members opposite – it's not about failing; it's about making sure we get it done and we get it done right. Any budget you do is a tough one.

There is another old saying that says balancing the budget is like going to heaven: Everybody wants to do it, but nobody wants to do what you have to do to get there. I think that sometimes that is a real truth to that. There are tough measures that need to be taken and we all know that. We find ourselves, unfortunately, in a position where despite having the resources that my hon. colleague talked about over the years, after 72 years of Confederation, instead of sitting here and getting a royalty cheque, we're pretty much what someone would describe as flat broke.

There is a lot to be done. I also want to reflect on something that Barack Obama said. Barack Obama said: “A budget is more than just a series of numbers on a page; it is an embodiment of our values.”

When you look at Schedule VI, for example, of the Budget Speech, you get an idea of some of the things we value. Two of our largest expenditure items are health care and education. Clearly none of us, I think, looks at those as a cost. We should not be considering health care as a cost. We should not be considering education as a cost; rather, they are services that we need to provide to the people of our province. The challenge we have is how we roll them out.

We know we're spending a lot of money on health care. We've increased the budget year over year. At the same time, our outcomes haven't kept up. We also know that in health care there are many different providers who all have their own ideas about how we can spend our money. That sometimes does not necessarily line up with each other or where we may want to go. I think the focus in our health care system has to be on outcomes. Today, clearly, we are challenged.

I know the minister has said – and it's probably a true statistic – we have more doctors now in our province than we've ever had in the history of our province. Yet we can't seem to find them. Because they're not in my district. They're not in CBS and they're not in a few other districts. It becomes a real challenge as to how do we change that. It's not just about doctors anymore. Nurse practitioners can play a vital role in our communities, especially in our rural communities.

The fact that we have Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat Parfrey doing a review, I think, is a good thing. I'm looking forward to what that review will tell us. No doubt, it will be something we will sit around and have some serious chats about and some conversations. In the meantime, we can't just sit still.

I have, as I mentioned in the House previously, people in my district who have been waiting over a year to have cardiac surgery. Sitting at home waiting for a call that doesn't come. I have people in my district who have waited more than two years, as I'm sure you have, for eye surgery and a call doesn't come. We have people that have been waiting for months for a CT or an MRI.

We only have 500,000 population. Yet if you look at the stats, we've been told, oh yes, we have enough of this equipment, but at the same time we don't seem to be able to have timely access. That has to change. How we fix that, I don't have all the answers, but I tell you I'm looking forward to what the review will show us and maybe tell us about how we might make some changes to that. We've talked about utilization a lot and whether or not certain things are necessary or certain procedures are necessary, and all of those things need to be factored in. But clearly, as I said, it's not about cost, it's about service. How do we improve the service to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians no matter where they live in our province? That's the real challenge we face.

On the education front there are opportunities galore. I mean, Eastern Health is closing long-term care beds because they don't have enough nursing staff. How is that even possible? The biggest regional health authority in the capital city of the province and they cannot recruit nurses. Do we have to have more nurses available for schools? Do we need the admissions to go up? I don't know. But that, in itself, is a major issue.

We heard of several vacancies throughout different government departments. The Minister of Finance alluded to the fact that we have over 500 jobs on the board for core government services – 500 job vacancies. What type of skills are we looking for? How long have those positions been vacant? What do we need to do to get people to go to school and basically guarantee them a job when they graduate? Maybe we have to start looking at things differently. If we have 500 job vacancies in the civil service and they've all been put through an attrition lens, they're needed, then surely we need to take a look at what type of skill sets are required and change our education system to adjust. People want to stay in our province to work, so let's make sure that we give them a career where the jobs are. That stat just floored me; we were waiting that long for 500 positions.

Another one that I found hard was the transportation on our provincial ferries. I know there is lots of discussion around that, but there's a significant amount of overtime being spent on our provincial ferries because of a lack of deckhands. Who would have thought that the government would not be an employer of choice anymore and that we would have vacant positions on our ferries and in our core government departments? That certainly has changed. At one time getting employed by government was considered to be – you had a good job. I don't know what the answer is, but I know we need to look at it.

I think when it comes to education from K to 12 we have to make sure we are creative. We can't simply turn around and say we have low enrolments and so we're going to close schools and put people on a bus. There has to be more creative solutions than just that. We need to think outside the box and find a way to come up with different solutions. We all recognize that things need to change, but let's make sure we do it right.

Earlier they were talking about some paving and taking the politics out of paving. Years ago we all grew up in those days where you knew – you could put a sign up: You are now entering an Opposition district. Because the road went from smooth to rough. Whether you were Liberal or PC, for years, that was always the way. It was election paving; that's what we used to call it. Now, we've heard the fact that the Auditor General has made some recommendations on a new program that will hopefully take the politics out of paving and we'll be able to rank projects. The minister has made mention that he intends to implement the recommendations of the AG and so I compliment him on that.

On a personal note, of course, I'm on my third minister now when it comes to Cold Brook, in terms of getting some paving down there. I'm kind of hoping the third time is lucky and that we'll get some acknowledgement for Cold Brook. I do believe my colleague across the way, when he used to represent that area, was also pushing for it, and so I know he supports me on it. That's just one piece on the transportation side. Certainly, again, it's something that we look forward to. I know there are a lot of districts that are looking for paving, but having a system in place where it's easy to defend, then that makes it easier for everyone and I look forward to that.

The third area, of course, that I didn't talk about in the pie chart that concerns us the most is the amount of money that we're spending on interest on our debt. The fact that that is in our top three expenditure categories is a concern for all of us, and it speaks to the need to start really getting serious about our expenditure levels and how we adjust them or how we make changes to them. As we have all said in this House, it's not going to happen overnight and it's not going to happen in one budget cycle, but it has to happen, it has to start. As someone said: If you don't start you'll never finish. As a result of that we have been delayed starting. Since 2015 we've talked about it but we haven't started it yet. I think it's really time that we have a more serious effort and not simply focusing on the revenue side. That's a bit disappointing in this year's budget again that it seems to be focused on the revenue side again. Significant increase in revenue, taxes going up and oil revenues going up, but not a lot on the expenditure side. I think that's a concern for everybody and we need to find a way to get a handle on it.

My colleague from Bonavista talked a lot about the fishery when he spoke. Of course, we can never forget about the fishery. It's why most of our ancestors came here years ago and settled on the coasts around the province. Basically that's where they lived and fished and how we made our living. I remember, of course, in 1949 – I don't remember it; I was told that when Canada took over, but some people say I would remember it – when we joined Canada that we actually had the richest fishing grounds in the world. I can't remember outright how much we – the ranking went from, like, 24th down to 14, but that was the value of it. Over the last 72 years we've had a lot of issues with the fishery. I think the fundamental principle for us is the adjacency principle and, for me, it's always been the person who goes out on the water and risks their life every day that should be the one that benefits most from the fishery. I think that has always got to be the way.

Of course, when we talk about the fishery we can't not mention our friends, the seals. Again, my colleague spoke a lot about that, about the fact that we have seven-million-plus seals out there and the videos that we all saw on VOCM of the herd heading south. They're not heading south for Florida, they're heading south to eat and they're heading our way, I guess. Unfortunately, the federal government has no desire to get involved in the seal industry. We do have a quota which we're never able to fill.

My colleague alluded to the seal as the wolf of the ocean. That's true, it really has no natural enemies, maybe killer whales and as the climate changes we're likely to see more of those, maybe, in our northern waters, but right now I don't think there are a lot of natural enemies of the seal. So the wolf continues to eat and they don't fish in season and they don't have quotas, they simply eat every single day, 365 days a year. What they eat can be up for interpretation, but they eat. One would argue it's fish, it's capelin, it's cod and it's crab, it's whatever.

If we had seven million wolves on the Island of Newfoundland, I think we would have a problem. I think we would be out to try to do something about that because they would eat everything in sight, too. Every single thing. Because it is a seal, somehow or other Canada doesn't want to help, doesn't want to get involved in it. I think maybe it is time that we as a province took it upon ourselves to take another look at what we can do.

I'm not 100 per cent sure what that may or may not look like, but I really believe that we need to seriously talk to the people in the industry, talk to some of our own experts and start looking at how we're going to deal with this seal population, because it is certainly having an impact on our fishery. Again, don't ask me; ask any fisherman who is on the water about it and they'll certainly tell you that.

I wanted to keep going a little bit more on the budget in terms of where we are, what we can do, what else we might look at. Again, as I said earlier, a budget tells us what we can't afford, but it doesn't keep us from buying it. I guess, again, it comes down to choices. Sometimes we disagree on the choices, but that doesn't make the choice necessarily wrong. It doesn't mean that the suggestion we make is wrong. I think it is important that we have our data lined up and that we do our research and we make sure that the investments we are going to make are going to be ones that will benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador long-term.

There have been too many short-term investments. What I mean by that is cycles of four years; i.e. – what was it that they used to say about Joey Smallwood? His thing was that your first job was to get elected and your second job was to get re-elected and so on. I think everyone here in this House is beyond that. I think people have a genuine interest in doing what's right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Like I said, we can all disagree to some extent on how we get there, and we'll have our arguments. Like I said, we'll disagree with it and we'll challenge on the numbers and we'll continue to challenge, but I think we have to keep that going. We have to ask questions and we have to get answers. Hopefully, the government will be in a position to be able to provide us with those answers and to certainly give us some indication on where they're going.

I know I'll have some more questions for the Minister of Finance in the days and weeks ahead. I look forward to the responses, as we dig in even deeper into the budget and into the numbers and also into the rollout of the initiatives that are outlined in the budget. I certainly have in my district, lots of challenges and discussions with different ministers and look forward to chatting with them. Municipal Affairs, I've had some early conversations with the minister, and certainly with the Minister of Transportation. I can't wait to get him out in my district. I don't know if I'll let him back, but I want to get him out there first.

I think there are lots of things, and I think, as you all know, sometimes you have to see it to get a true appreciation of what needs to be done and where it needs to be done.

I guess, in closing, I'll get a little more philosophical and perhaps give you a little bit of advice for all of us individually. It goes like this: Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give.

Thank you so much for your time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no further speakers, is the House ready for the question?

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

SPEAKER: Are the House Leaders ready?

All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

CLERK (Barnes): Mr. Brazil, Mr. Petten, Mr. Wakeham, Mr. Wall, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr. Tibbs, Ms. Evans, Ms. Conway Ottenheimer, Mr. Parrott, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Paul Dinn, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Dwyer, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown.

SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Furey, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Haggie, Ms. Coady, Ms. Howell, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Loveless, Mr. Davis, Mr. Abbott, Ms. Pam Parsons, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Hogan, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Reid, Mr. Warr, Mr. Pike, Ms. Stoyles, Ms. Gambin-Walsh.

LAW CLERK (Hawley George): Mr. Joyce didn't vote.

CLERK: He has to vote. He can't be in the Chamber and not vote.

LAW CLERK: There are no abstentions, Mr. Joyce. Do you vote for or against?

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the bells stopped before 10 minutes. (Inaudible).

SPEAKER: Ten minutes is only on the clock until the House Leaders call for the vote. We discussed this earlier at a previous correspondence.

If the House Leaders are ready, 10 minutes is put on the clock. Once they call for the vote, then the vote can go ahead, as per Standing Orders.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no objection from the government side for the Member placing his vote.

SPEAKER: The Member can vote. You were in the Chamber at the time.

Order, please!

As Members were in the Chamber when the voting started, they are obligated to vote either for or against the motion.

E. JOYCE: Against the motion.

CLERK: He's against the motion, okay.

What about Mr. Lane?

LAW CLERK: Mr. Lane was against the motion.

CLERK: Okay.

And Mr. Trimper?

LAW CLERK: Mr. Trimper, are you for or against the motion?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: If I may, I would like to confirm what the motion was.

As soon as the bells rang, I started running.

SPEAKER: We're voting on the amendment for the –

CLERK: Non-confidence.

P. TRIMPER: Non-confidence.

I vote against the motion.

CLERK: Against, okay. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes: 15; the nays: 24.

SPEAKER: I declare that the amendment has been defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Concurrence Motion, report of the Social Services Committee.

SPEAKER: We're back on the main motion so you have to adjourn Motion 1 first.

S. CROCKER: Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that we adjourn debate on Motion 1.

SPEAKER: 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.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Concurrence Motion – the report of the Social Services Committee.

SPEAKER: The motion is that the report of the Social Services Committee be concurred.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of the motion. Estimates is an intriguing process to someone who's outside of the House. It really is the one time that the public, via the wonders of broadcasting, actually get an opportunity to interact, even remotely as it were, with the staff of the department whose head is called. This year our staff was a little bit leaner in Health than in previous years in the light of COVID. We kept it down to basically our senior executive.

As the people who were here from the Social Services Committee would know, a kind of small but mighty crew. They were only visible to those Committee Members for a day, but for the other 364¼ days of the year, they have worked, in some cases, almost round the clock – that's not an exaggeration – to do the kind of things that they never expected they would have to do, simply because of the pandemic and the Coronavirus issues that we have had. I have to say that with their effort, hard work and diligence, I think it's quite easy to look around, and look backwards and see how Newfoundland and Labrador has faired as a result of their hard work.

I think it would be unfortunate if I did not use this opportunity to very clearly, as minister responsible for that department, but also as a citizen of this province, to actually thank each and every one of them and the teams who sit in their back offices, all 261 of them across the Department of Health and Community Services, Mr. Speaker. I really think they deserve a round of applause quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HAGGIE: In terms of the actual Estimates process, itself, it is an opportunity for the Opposition and any interested MHA to ask questions. It's always intrigued me that in actual fact for a department that spends, this year, only 36 per cent of the province's revenue – that is a noteworthy dip of itself. Before that department, the questions around the sums of money, more often than not would focus on a couple of hundred thousand here or there in terms of salaries within the department, yet the issue of the $1.2 billion or the $2.4 billion for the regional health authorities, by comparison, was glossed over in terms of that accounting.

The questions once we moved off the kind of minutiae that you expect of the Minister's Office, the Executive Support and the Departmental Operations, once we moved away from there, really the discussions in this, which was my sixth Estimates as Minister of Health and Community Services, was very much again policy based. A lot of what we discussed was how we intended to supply services and what we could do to make access more straightforward.

As the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port mentioned in his previous comments around the budget more generally when speaking to the amendment, we are challenged with, basically, in many respects, being a territory, because of that we have a very scattered geography. My colleague and seatmate from Transportation and Infrastructure will tell you at great length about the 9,820 kilometres of road for which his department is responsible. That is a significant factor in a lot of what we, in Health, have to manage when it comes to access.

One of the things that has really been kicked into high gear as a consequence of the Public Health requirements around the pandemic has been the issue of using technology to defeat geography. That is more commonly referred to as virtual care.

We have made significant investments in virtual care from the simple approach of adding services to telephone lines with 811. We now have a nurse practitioner service available as a background activity in some respects so that when you call and you have your request for advice or guidance, it's triaged by a nurse – an RN – and then, if appropriate, sent along to a nurse practitioner who has the ability to prescribe and issue prescription refills. It's designed for intermittent episodic non-urgent care, because that was a need at the time of COVID.

It is also the case that we have spent around $70 million in physician fee codes since the start of the pandemic for virtual fee codes. The majority of these have actually been telephone based rather than the Zoom or the Skype that we here have become used to in terms of managing our relationships as MHAs with constituents, or alternatively as MHAs with our colleagues or ministers with our departments and colleagues.

Virtual care is no doubt the way of the future, but it is not the only way of the future. Indeed, there is a challenge professionally for health care providers to educate those in practice already, but certainly to provide training for their trainees – be it social work, be it family medicine, specialty medicine or the realm of nurse practitioner, for example – in how to best utilize virtual care, also how to provide that and at what point virtual care cannot provide what is necessary for the person in need. Those challenges we will continue to work through and our pandemic-related fee codes for virtual care will fade and be replaced by a more structured mechanism as negotiations, particularly with the Medical Association, for example, progress.

From the point of view of the other comments that were made, again, by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port and, indeed, this was a stress I laid in Estimates, access is the issue that I hear most of as minister and as MHA. We can look at the numbers all we want and we argue over them regularly with various care providers. We have over 1,330 actively licensed physicians in this province; a number we have never ever seen before. We have been blessed with one of the highest, if not the second highest, number of registered nurses per 100,000 of population. Yet, in each of the categories of care that you talk about, people have concerns about their ability to access a provider.

What we're looking to in health care is to try and change the dialogue to the right care from the right provider in the right place – which could be your home – at the right time. That is very easy to say, it rolls off the tongue and it's a nice sound bite, but in actual fact it is something of a challenge to deliver because it requires a change; it requires multiple changes. But what it does is, I think, really we need to re-emphasize and go back to the roots of health care, which is where you put the patient and their family, in the context of a community, at the centre of what it is health care services do.

We have, in some ways, gone down that road already with mental health and addictions. I spoke at some length the other day around Towards Recovery and how that lived experience, persons with lived experience, the Recovery Council, the involvement of stakeholders when I spoke to the private Member's resolution from the Opposition last week about removing barriers and making sure access was straightforward. We have gone further down that road with mental health and addictions, I would argue, in the last five years than we've gone down that road in the previous 15. That is a testament to the involvement of people with lived experience.

I think what we now need to do – my level prior to COVID which started those discussions with various patient representative organizations at the national level – is we need to clone that approach and bring that very much to the forefront.

On an individual level, you'll not find a care provider who says: I'm not putting my patients or my clients needs first. But it is done in a way that, collectively, somehow doesn't seem to manage as a system.

COVID has not helped, quite frankly. If you go back to the lockdowns and the Alert Levels that we had to go through to control COVID in the early days, particularly last winter and the winter before, that actually made it harder for patients to access what they felt they needed when they needed it. It provided barriers to support for individuals because we walked that awful tightrope between risk of infection, which we had yet to learn about in terms of how to manage and support, and emotional support for the individual patients. I'm sure that one of the things that you would get is equally criticized from either direction, which probably means on the day we weren't far off, but that needs to be addressed.

There is a window now; there's an opportunity as the vaccine rolls out. We passed 70 per cent at the end of last week with dose one. We are expecting significant increments of, particularly, Moderna vaccine over the next couple of weeks. That then lends us the opportunity to actually beat our timelines, our decision gates, for want of a better word, about our reopening plan, because we've said 75 per cent. We will hit that and pass it well before July 1.

Our dose for 80 per cent for dose two, I think we will get there well before September. That then leaves us with some significant leeway in the broader sense, but it also leaves us with significant latitude in terms of how we can reopen our health care facilities, how we bring the families back into long-term care and how we re-establish those connections for people whose home is now a facility or a building rather than the house they raised their family in.

I would go a little bit further on a principled approach and the discussions that we had, I've mentioned it in at least two Estimates if not more, is that, in actual fact – again echoing the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port – health care isn't a cost pure and simple, it is an investment because a healthy population is a prosperous population. It contributes individually and collectively. It is a happier populace, it is a better place in which to interact. It is a service that we provide. You can argue about what the cost per capita is and should be, and we've always been compared with other provinces and we are now heading on a trajectory that will let them to overtake us within the next two or three years, so our costs will compare very favourably with other provinces by 2025.

If you compare us with the territory – that off the Avalon we actually are – our cost per capita as a territory is the lowest in Canada. Not just lower, they are lowest by a factor of four or five per capita. I think that speaks to some of the distributed nature of our health care system.

As we look to find out the results of Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth's work with their task force and their various subcommittees, I think one of the challenges for all of us is to make sure that we get that balance right. We can't have a neurosurgical unit in every clinic in the province. We have 187 facilities for a population of 516,000 or 520,000 people. We have 13 hospitals in this province, where if you go to somewhere like Mississauga or Hamilton, they have one for that same population. Our challenge is not population, it is the distribution of those people and how to provide realistic, timely access to people wherever they may live and whatever their issues may be.

Certainly Sister Elizabeth and Dr. Parfrey bring vast personal experience to this endeavour but, quite frankly, also their teams tap into a wealth of expertise of a variety of stakeholders, a variety of community groups and, again, people with lived experience. I think that balance there will enrich the conversation and the discussion that has to be had over the course of the period of the creation of their report and its conclusions, but also in terms of the discussion that it would generate as advice and recommendations to government, in general, and myself, in particular, as Minister of Health.

To flick slightly to the actual financials of the Estimates of Health, essentially, we have seen a slight increase this year compared with previous years. That, in a sense, is a structural issue. We have seen an increase in cash allotment to the RHAs as a cash-flow issue. This is not a deficit impact; this is simply a borrowing requirement, short term. A lot of the RHAs find the bulk of their expenditures fall asymmetrically across the year. They tend to come in a batch at the beginning of the year, so we need to have provision for that.

Bearing in mind the ever-increasing demand for new and better drugs, it is a testament to the hard work and diligence of our negotiators for product-listing arrangements and for our engagement in the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance that we've been able, each year, to moderate the extra that we have had to put into that drug budget. We've usually – and, again, this year we did, too – found at least 50 per cent of that new money. Whilst the number has not gone down, the range of drugs, for example, has increased with money we have reinvested.

Rather than repatriating money to my colleague, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, we have been very enthusiastic about reinvesting that money within the health care system itself. Indeed, the principles on which the Health Accord NL Task Force was commissioned was that monies that were realized, were saved and were identified through efficiencies and changes would actually go back, not just particularly into health, but a recognition that, for each and every one of us, 75 per cent of our health is actually derived from things outside of health. The biggest predictor of your longevity and your wellness over life is actually your family income at birth. That is not new news. It's a statement that's been there since the days of Lalonde in 1974 and Hall even earlier than that.

As my time winds down, Mr. Speaker, I wish to once again say I will be voting in favour of concurrence of the report of the Social Services Committee. I've obviously concentrated on my own bailiwick, as it were. I will leave others to speak to theirs and maybe the generality of our social policies as manifested through this budget.

Really and honestly, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that lays the foundation for transformation. I think on that basis alone, it deserves support.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it's a pleasure to speak here in this hon. House, representing the wonderful residents of Topsail - Paradise.

I do thank the minister for his comments. I will say that the Estimates process, for anyone watching it from afar, it's much like watching paint dry, I guess, in some instances, because you get down to some of the lower numbers and that and asking questions on it. It is nonetheless a process we have to go through.

In my past life, of course, I was on the other end of it. I worked in government. You were called over and you had to sit out in the hallway or be on call should your minister require any additional information. It was a bit stressful on their part. As the Minister of Health and Community Services has said, the staff do a fantastic job. They put in a lot of work, put in a lot of effort to ensure that we as ministers – down the road – but as ministers you look good. They make sure you have all the names, the numbers and that in front of you.

Again, the Minister of Health and Community Services, I give him credit there. He's very professional in what he does and has an answer for many of the questions.

Certainly, I do, as well, applaud the staff behind the minister, and those staff, all the essential workers, everyone that has done an amazing job during COVID. In fact, looking at the vaccine rollout, seeing that we're going to be close to 70 to 80 per cent fully vaccinated by September is nothing to sneeze at. Certainly, I look forward to that and look forward to coming closer to some form of normal.

As the minister mentioned, we go through some of the smaller questions. In fact, with this Committee, I suspect – when I sat in, I sat in with, of course, the Third Party and the independent Member for Lake Melville. A lot of good questions asked. A lot of good questions on policy.

We actually finished ahead of time. We normally get allocated three hours per sitting. Of course, we were able to get out of Estimates a little earlier than expected. I guess that's also attributable to the answers, as well as the co-operation of the minister and staff in terms of providing or offering to provide us with their information after the fact, which I guess we'll receive in due time. That will give us, certainly, a better indication of the information that's available to us.

The minister spoke about COVID. Yes, it's been very negative on all of us but it's also helped us in some ways. One that he mentioned was kicking virtual care into gear and looking at it as the way of the future. And how there will now be a challenge to train and educate those in the health care profession. You also have to think about those in smaller communities that do not have the access to either Internet or the programs to access virtual care as easily as those in closer communities could.

That is a challenge and I think we all know that. As we move forward, hopefully we'll be able to get the public to catch up by offering broadband Internet in the communities that don't have it. That will allow them to avail of things such as virtual care.

The minister spoke about health care as an investment. I don't think any of us can argue that. Health care is an investment. We need to ensure that our population is healthy and taken care of. Because the other side of that is you're going to have individuals who are ill and sick and actually costing more for us to take care of. That's even more prominent now in a society where we are a fast-aging population.

I've heard the minister say in the past, too, about wellness over illness. We also agree there. We have to start doing more to promote wellness over illness. Some examples that have been brought forward: Last November, I brought forward a question in the House on the continuous glucose monitoring and the flash glucose monitoring devices. The minister committed to having staff look at that.

I asked a similar question six weeks later in December and, again, a similar response. I'm hoping now that as we move further along, the minister will have a more clear response on that. Certainly, I hear lots of positive comments on the glucose monitoring devices and how it's made life easier for individuals, how individuals have been able to participate in society to a greater extent and how individuals have avoided hospital visits because of that. If there is anything that's going to promote wellness over illness, looking at some kind of assistance for glucose monitoring devices would be one step in the right direction.

I mentioned this previously in Estimates – I believe I mentioned it – but I'll mention it here. I had the pleasure of speaking to some medical students who presented a paper on diabetic boots, and these are devices that help take the pressure off your feet and limbs and help prevent ulcers, which eventually world result in amputations. This is also another area where we need to look at the wellness over illness. We need to look at how that helps people stay active, stay in the workforce and stay involved in society. I know everything comes down to dollars and cents, and so I think it's a no-brainer when you look at it. If you can promote a healthy community, a healthy society, then I think down the road – as we said, health is an investment – we will actually save money.

I gave this example before and I will give it again. This is just some numbers that the medical students came up with when they were looking at the diabetic boots, and I will just read it right from their document here. They say: Newfoundland and Labrador currently incurs $16 million to $18 million annually in direct costs associated to diabetic foot ulcers, as well as an additional $2 million to $3 million annually in indirect costs. That's, of course, from Diabetes Canada, those stats. The estimated cost of a single amputation is $74,000. So there are huge financial implications for those dealing with diabetes, as an example.

They go on to say that Diabetes Canada estimates that a provincial offloading device program in Newfoundland and Labrador would cost between $1 million and $1.6 million annually; however, such a program is expected to result in gross direct cost savings of $5.7 million to $6.1 million annually. Thus, a province offloading device program is projected to result in a net direct cost savings of $4.1 million to $5.2 million annually. That's just one example of how health care is an investment and if we invest in the right areas, in the long run, we're going to have a society that participates to a greater degree, we would have a society that's healthier and we would have a society that has less strain and drain on our health professionals and our health system.

I did have the opportunity to hear a presentation from Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis on the Health Accord NL piece of work that they're working on. I know they're expecting to have some interim reports between now and December with, hopefully, the final report in December. I am – and I've said it before in this House – very encouraged by the information they presented and I'm looking forward to the final report and we can have a discussion on it. I certainly think they also look at not just the medical but the social implications of a health system. As you know we presented in this House just recently a private Member's resolution on mental health, so they also have been looking at the mental health concerns here within the province.

I think the minister also spoke to looking towards individuals with lived experiences, for those and those experiences, and their comments and their suggestions to be fed into where we go with the health care system in here in the future. He talked about changing the dialogue to looking at the right provider, at the right time, in the right place and for the right reasons. That's so true. That's not something that happens overnight, but it's certainly something we have to target now and move forward.

Mental health, again, is a good example. Government has in place so many apps, phone lines and different options that individuals can call when it comes to mental health issues, but we continue to get or, at least, I continue to get calls on long-term supports for those in need of mental health programs or services. We need to look at that and I realize we have to start somewhere. Some of these 1-800 lines that you can call can give you some direction on where to go next. But I've spoken with people that have been in extreme dire need and that can't even dial the phone. We have to start looking a little deeper at that. As we said in our discussion with the PMR, there will be more people coming out of this. There's going to be the echo pandemic coming out of COVID that will deal with some huge mental health issues for individuals dealing with those.

I think everyone in this House – I mean, every call we get as an MHA, you know, you might say it's a complaint or it's a concern. I'll go out on a limb and say I get the most calls in this House congratulating me. No, that would be a lie if I said that. We rarely get people calling us up and patting us on the back. Most people call us up because they have a concern and that's why we're here, to listen. They'll call us up –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. DINN: Oh, sorry, the Member for St. John's Centre gets the most calls. Sorry about that.

These are people who are calling with lived experiences. They're calling about something in their life that went wrong, or something that's not working for them or they're calling for information. I mean, that's the types of calls we get. I always say if you had two horns and a pointy tail and you called for help or you called to talk, then that's what I'm elected to do, to talk to you. We have to start putting ourselves in their shoes and showing a little empathy, for sure, that you have to have.

One of the other calls I get, and it's very prominent up in Topsail - Paradise, Harbour Main, Conception Bay South area and I'm sure at pockets throughout the province, and that's with regard to the shortage of family doctors. I think it's actually mentioned in the first report from the Health Accord about the potential of 90,000 families without family physicians. That's people calling with lived experiences. The minister noted that we have upwards of 1,330 actively licensed physicians. That may be true; in fact, I have no doubt it is. I have no reason to disbelieve the minister in providing that data. But, I guess, when you dig a little deeper, where are they? Some may be in family practice, some may be teaching at the university and some may be working on something else. It's something to look at.

The second point that was raised was that we're second in the country – I stand to be corrected, though. I think he said we're second in the country in terms of the number of registered nurses. That's a good thing, too, because some of the comments when I was going around door to door was a potential solution to the family physician shortage is to ensure our nurses, especially our licensed practitioners, our nurse practitioners – ensuring they are used to a greater capacity. It can help ease some of the strain and some of the burden on doctors that are currently practicing, and perhaps help in some of the communities where there are shortages of family doctors or physicians. I think that's something we have to look at.

The minister also mentioned about going back to the roots of health. I was going to say the roots of hell, but it's the roots of health, it's where we're going with (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. DINN: Yeah. Sometimes we may have to go back to the roots of hell. The roots of health, we need to go back to the roots of health and look at – I look at that comment is sort of like zero-based budgeting. Go back to health and say: Well, what health care services do we really need and how do we provide them? And then work out from that. We have to work out – it goes back to changing the dialogue on having the right provider in the right time and the right place for the right reasons.

Geography – as the minister mentioned – is an issue here. But it shouldn't be a huge barrier because through virtual health or using the nurse practitioners to a greater ability we can help alleviate some of that. We're not going to get past the geography, it's going to be there. I know many of us certainly don't want to see rural Newfoundland wither away. I think that's what attracts a lot of people here is our rural communities and our culture.

We go back to the comment: health is an investment – and it is. That doesn't mean you spend at all costs. There's a cost to us of providing a service. When we look at the cost of providing a service, we really need to look a little deeper and say: Okay, what's the return on investment? Not that we're looking for a return; we know we have to provide health. But like the example with the diabetic boots – I'm sure there are similar examples when you talk about the continuous glucose monitors – when you look at devices like that you have to look at that for a relatively smaller investment upfront, we can save huge dollars in the long run.

Not only that, I can't even talk to the people who avail of these devices that can participate to a greater degree in society. Just think about it, if you were asked: We're going to amputate your leg or we could save it if you utilize this boot. I mean, really, we shouldn't have individuals that are caught up in a cost of providing that. That should be a no-brainer, we should be able to provide those devices that allow people to be heathier and continue on participating to a greatest degree possible in society. We need to do that. We'll have people working longer and people contributing longer.

The RHAs – the minister mentioned the RHAs and there were some increases in the RHAs due to some structural issues he noted. We didn't dive deep into the RHAs as much in the Estimates – again, because the minister had offered to provide us with the information, and I expect that shortly so we can have a look at that. I also know the Premier's Greene report made a statement about consolidate, eliminate the RHAs: bring them all under one, which was pretty much a blanket statement with little detail.

I was encouraged by the Health Accord in our discussion with Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis. There is more to it than that and they would have a closer look at that and, hopefully, as we move forward and as we get those reports – which again, December will be sooner than later for us. The sooner the better so that we can get a better grasp on what we need, what we don't need, where we can get savings, but, in most cases, where we can promote wellness over illness.

That's the reason we have a Health and Community Services Department. That's the reason we provide these services. We want to make sure people have access, we want to make sure that we have a standard of access and we have guidelines that treat the individuals who need that and give them the opportunity to get the treatment they need. At the end of the day, we want them to participate to the best of their ability in society and be contributing members.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I get the opportunity right now to speak as the Chair of the Social Services Committee. For those who are watching at home, what that really means is I had the honour to be able to sit and maintain some order during five of the Estimates meetings. I actually was able to attend six. Most people say, yahoo, you got to attend Estimates, but Estimates are anywhere from three to four hours long, each meeting. Sometimes it's a long and arduous process and you're here all hours of the night. But I'll be really honest, this was my first opportunity to be Chair and it was really a privilege. I chaired Justice and Public Safety; Children, Seniors and Social Development; Education; Municipal and Provincial Affairs; and Health and Community Services, Mr. Speaker.

Justice and Public Safety is a department that ensures the impartial administration of justice and the protection of the public interest and the dual offices of the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice and Public Safety. Within this department, Mr. Speaker, we also now have Fire and Emergency Services. It's the delivery of fire protection and fire prevention services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the District of Placentia - St. Mary's alone, I have 13 volunteer fire departments. For those MHAs that reside in St. John's, sometimes you share the same fire department with another MHA or you just have one. But for us rural MHAs, we have, as I said, 13-plus at times. We also have varying degrees. I have Whitbourne and Placentia which are really large fire departments; two really small ones like Branch and Point Lance, but nevertheless all the departments are equally important.

It was a privilege to be able to sit through Estimates and to listen to the minister and the staff answer questions on such a vital and important service to our province. The planning, the response, the recovery and support functions are provided under Fire and Emergency management and support services are managed through this department; a very, very important service for our province.

Mr. Speaker, law and order is the foundation of a civil and just society and the Opposition and Third Party did ask questions pertaining to operational issues. They were answered with clarity and precision by the minister and the staff. I just want to say this was a really good and very informative Estimates session.

Children, Seniors and Social Development: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being the minister of this department from 2015 to 2017 so I was very interested in the advancement and the changes that have occurred in the department because, as an MHA, you're working away for your district. If you're a minister, you're working for your department. There's a large volume of work. Until you get to sit through, listening to the Opposition and the Third Party really drill down into the department and the changes over the years, can you really tune in to the advancement.

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing: I was really, truly interested, and there was a significant number of questions asked about the programs, the resources and how we managed to get through the COVID days. When I was the minister, we did revamp the organizational structure in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I'm very happy to report that it sounded like it was working really, really well and the staff answered the questions well and the minister answered the questions well.

Child Protection is a very costly and important role of any government and, specifically, this department. This department also oversees persons with disabilities, Adult Protection, Poverty Reduction and Income Support is added. I was very interested in listening to Income Support because all of these dynamics, having a place to call home, a roof over your head and having programs and services to help reduce poverty, all of this ties into one's individual wellness and the wellness of a family unit. That's what this department is all about. I'm happy to report that I feel that the minister and the staff did answer the questions very well during this session of Estimates.

Education: No doubt, this has been a very difficult year; COVID-19 has really impacted our children. It's been challenging; it's been challenging for our teachers, for administration, for custodians, for bus drivers, for students and, especially, children with disabilities. As I was listening through Education and listening to the questions, I was just kind of tuning in to how children with disabilities were reacting. I was thinking back to my days when I was a parent of a child with a disability in school and knowing how difficult the days in school were and can be for some parents. But I must say that the staff in this department was very informative, again, and I feel questions were answered very well.

I also remember – I was going to say the date, but I won't – many years ago when I graduated from high school and I was heading off to university, the excitement around that. You think about that; you're getting to move to St. John's with your friends, you're getting to go to a new place and you're getting freedom from your parents. There was a whole group of students that had to delay that for one full year, and probably two years. Just think about the impact, the impact on those students' lives, how we were able to continue to focus, as a government, and deliver the education, virtually, and, at times, with different arrangements.

I understand some days there were children in school, some days they weren't in school. Yet, as a government, we were able to work through COVID-19. This Department of Education, they were diverse, they were able to change and they were able to get our children educated. That was very, very important. Even those kids that are graduating were going to have to do some university – there first year at home; our government was able to assist and deliver. I think it was marvellous and you have to give credit. You have to really reflect and look back on what has happened during COVID-19 days.

There's been so much change in education, there has been so much change around education: important ceremonies were missed or changed and things became outdoors – ceremonies were outdoors and we all know what Newfoundland and Labrador weather is like, yet here we are with all these grad pictures been done different days, different times; kindergarten ceremonies outdoors.

Everybody from the Department of Education, to the school board, to the teachers, to the administration, to the parents, to the students; everybody adjusted and changed. They were able to get their education, they were able to maintain that social component that comes with education that you learn in school.

Municipal and Provincial Affairs: This was a very interesting Estimates. I have 56 communities in my district so I was really tuned in to listening to some of the changes or some of the ways the minister is going to work towards change. This particular department is going to lead in building a prosperous future for this province. Within my particular district, in these 56 communities, I have such a huge combination of municipalities, local service districts, unincorporated areas and I also have some municipalities who have taken it upon themselves to do regional services.

So when the minister speaks – and she has often said – regionalization is going to be different for everyone. I can actually nod my head and say: Yeah, it is. I'm living it in my district and I'm seeing how some of my communities have maintained their individual identities but have come together on their own to develop a program or a service or some way to give their constituents a service that is needed in that area.

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is definitely going to lead the way for Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt about it. The Estimates went well. There has been some changes in this department – Environment has branched off.

Listening as the Chair, I was specifically listening to where some of the tasks have moved to. Often I found the Opposition or Third Party would ask a question but it was with Climate Change now or it was no longer Municipal Affairs. We were doing the Estimates of last year so the numbers were there for the previous year, but next year you'll be looking somewhere else or asking another minister those questions. It was very informative and it went really well. Hats off to the Opposition for the questions that they asked during this particular Estimates.

Health and Community Services: Without a doubt, there have been significant demands placed on this department this past year. You really could see it in Estimates. It was evident. I marvelled at some of the things that the staff have been able to work through in this department since we've been faced with COVID-19. As Minister Haggie did earlier, I have to applaud the staff. I truly, honestly do. They were not only working through and with COVID-19, but they were able to maintain all the other services that we would get on a regular basis for Health and Community Services.

We all know Health and Community Services takes up a large portion of the provincial budget, and it has for years, so that's not something new. There are a lot of programs and there are a lot of staff and there's a lot of work and a lot of wheels turning in this department. Then, all of a sudden, COVID-19 was thrown in and they had to take that on because we were in a pandemic. My health needs or your health needs or anybody else's health needs didn't go away because of COVID-19. We still had to address the health needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mental health and addictions: I was part of the all-party Committee when we formed government back in 2015. It was very informative to listen to how we are moving along with some of the recommendations from the all-party Committee and how resources are going to move into the community. My background is nursing. I'm a 1990 General Hospital school of nursing grad. My background is nursing, so you do tune in to these questions when they're asked by the Opposition, the Third Party and the independents. The independents ask questions also.

You do tune in to this, especially when you have some lived experiences being on this all-party Committee, you're heightened by some of the responses. While there are a lot of numbers and a lot of dollars and a lot of details, there's no doubt that the staff and the minister addressed the questions around mental health. I feel they did give some good answers and responses around mental health and addictions and how we are going to move forward as a government and as a province.

Virtual care has truly impressed me as it has evolved during COVID-19. There's an old saying: Everything happens for a reason. Well, virtual care is a service that I've used for my son, who is one of the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who does not have a doctor. Right now, we're using a specialist for his medication. It was very evident that the virtual care and the use of that particular system and how it's going to evolve and how it has evolved during COVID-19 is definitely going to be a valid and very vital tool in our tool box as we move forward in society and as we change and evolve in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Being the Chair of the Social Services Committee is actually a very good position to be in because you get to listen to the questions about the health and wellness of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and how we as a government and how we as a province are going to move forward.

Again, I just want to thank the Opposition, the Third Party and the independents for all of the questions. I would like to thank the ministers and these five departments because the Estimates went really well, the questions were very informative and I think the answers were very detailed.

So I will be voting in favour of concurrence for the Social Services Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you – who are you now? Mr. Chair or Mr. Speaker? Chair, is it?

SPEAKER: Speaker.

P. LANE: Speaker, okay. With the way the House is rearranged and so on, I wasn't sure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, will be voting in support of concurrence on Social Services, obviously, if I'm voting for the budget.

As has been said, the departments covered under the Social Services Committee would have been Children, Seniors and Social Development, Justice, Health, Education and Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I have a few random comments, I guess, as it pertains to the various departments that would be contained under the auspices of that.

First of all, on the Department of Education and part of the Department of Education is also responsible for child care. I just want to, I guess, reiterate a point that I have made in the past because I continue to hear from parents and child care operators and so on, and it relates to the $25-a-day child care. On the surface, it's a wonderful program. One would think: My God, how could you possibly have a complaint about $25-a-day child care? It's great – it is. I will be the first to say it is a good program if you can get it. That's the key: If you can get it. There are a lot of families that have taken advantage of the $25-a-day child care; however, there are many families who are not able to take advantage of the $25-a-day child care.

Not that it's tied to their income and so on, because it isn't. Depending on who you talk to there's – I've had some people who I've spoken to that said it should be tied to income. They thought that it was an unnecessary expenditure of money. Like, make it $25 a day for families of a certain income, but if you're a millionaire do we really need to give your child $25-a-day daycare? I suppose that's an extreme example, but I get the point they were making. Nonetheless, it is universal $25 a day and, as I said, it's wonderful for the families that can avail of it. The problem we have, though, with it is that – and I suppose it comes down to the consultation, perhaps, that may or may not have taken place with child care. I'm not going to say there was no consultation, but to what degree and so on I'm not certain; I can't speak to it.

One of the problems we have with the $25-a-day child care is that – I'll just take a child care facility in my district. There's one just up at the top of the street from me. I won't name them, but they're just up at the top of the street from me in Power's Pond. Their business model was built on $45 a day. That's their business model and like any business they had to take into account the number of children they're going to have, whether or not they are renting a facility or they own the facility, what the mortgage is on the facility, how much they're going to pay their employees, what kind of snacks they're going to offer, what kind of programs they're going to offer and all of those things. We know there are certain minimum standards, but then there are a number of facilities who arguably go beyond the minimum standards because they're trying to offer a quality child care for their clients.

If you were a child care facility and you are charging $45 a day and then the parents say: Okay, now I only have to pay $25 a day. The problem was that if they were to charge $25 a day instead of $45, the government is saying: We will subsidize you $13. It might be $12; it might be $14. I think it's $13, though. We will subsidize you $13. If you were making $45 a day, and you're only allowed to collect $25 from the parents of the child and the government is giving you $13, well, $25 and $13 is $38. Where does the other $7 come from? The answer is, basically, you have to suck it up and take a $7 loss per child in order to avail of this program. You have to cut your rates and take $7 per child per day out of your revenue stream. Many operators have said: I just can't do it. I cannot survive on that. I will not make any money.

What ends up happening, of course, now is a lot of them have said: I can't do it. Therefore, they don't avail of the program. They say to the parents: I know there's $25 a day over at this daycare; perhaps their model allows for it. Maybe they have more kids, whatever. So you can go there, but if you're staying here, you have to pay $45, because I can't get the $13 from the government unless I put my rates at $25. I can't, for example, say instead of $25-a-day daycare, I'll go $32-a-day daycare. You're paying $45. I'm going to drop it down to $32. I'll take advantage of the $13. But government is saying: No, you can't do that. We're not subsidizing you $13. We are saying it must be $25. If you're more than $38, then you're taking a hit.

It's not working. As a result, there are a number of daycares that parents are still paying $45 a day. Some of these daycares have said, well, luckily right now we're in a situation where there are a lot of families that are saying: Well, even if I have to continue paying $45 a day, it's worth it because my child has been going here, they like the ECEs and they have their friends. So they're managing to continue to pay the $45.

The other thing is that there are not enough spaces out there at $25 anyway. Even if I wanted to go somewhere else, there's nowhere for me to go because there are not enough new places out there that are charging $25.

I'm not knocking the program. I'm really not. Government's heart was in the right place. I'm just pointing out that it is an issue and when we say every child in this province has $25-a-day child care, that is simply not true. It is simply not true and it's not going to be true because it's not going to work for the business model of a lot of daycares.

They asked me to raise that again, so that's what I'm doing.

I want to jump over now to Health. This is an issue that some Members may have seen. This particular example, they may have seen it on social media last week. It was shared with me, maybe other Members as well. Basically it was a couple. Because of health reasons, they had to go into long-term care and so on. I'm not sure if it was the husband or the wife. I think it was the husband was perhaps a Level III and she was a Level II or whatever. The bottom line is a couple that's been married and together for like 50 years or whatever are now being separated and being put into two different care homes.

That's not the first time I've heard of that. I know government has this first-available-bed policy. I had a situation a number of months back where there was a person contacting me that all the family were in – I think it was St. John's, and their father had to go to Carbonear or something like that. There was another one out around Bay Roberts area and they had to go to Placentia because it was the first available bed.

I understand the conundrum that government has with some of these things, but there has to be compassion. I've heard some people say we need to put the care back in health care because some of these policies and so on, you have to question it. I know that there are only a finite number of beds and there are costs associated with it all, but surely, God, we can't be taking a couple who have been together for the last 50, 60 years or whatever and then separate them, and basically say you'll never see your husband again. Essentially, in a lot of cases, that's what we're doing with some of these policies. It's terrible. It's heartbreaking. We need to find ways of doing it.

In this particular post that was put out there last week, it was indicated by someone – I don't know if it's true or not; maybe the Minister of Health and Community Services knows. They said – it's total hearsay – that Nova Scotia recently put in a policy that says that spouses cannot be separated. You're not allowed to do it. In the health care system, if you go into long-term care or whatever, they have to be kept together. I don't know if that's factual or not, but it's worth looking into. That came down in Nova Scotia. Again, it's showing a bit of compassion for people.

I understand the budget and the fiscal situation we're in; I support the budget. It is not about that. It is not about dumping on the minister. It is not about dumping on the government. This is just basic dignity and humanity for our fellow citizens. I'm not saying that you're the ones who initiated this. It was probably on the go long before now, but it needs to be fixed.

I know at one point in time when the Minister of Education was minister of Health, back – jeez, I don't know how long ago that was. At one point in time I can remember having a talk with him. At that time, government was looking at what they called – aging in place was the concept or something like that, where basically seniors' facilities would be set up in a way that you had your independent living and then you had your assisted living and then you had your long-term care.

They were all in the same community, so at least if you had a couple and they advanced through the system, they would stay where they were to. If one spouse needed long-term care, at least the wife or the husband was just next door in the cottage or in the assisted living and they could be together every day and so on. That was sort of the concept, I don't know what happened to that concept. It is something that I think needs to get revisited. I did want to throw that in there.

Staying under Health – and my colleague from Topsail - Paradise raised this; this is something I'm sure we've all heard from constituents about. It is the family doctors. I will just add my voice to it as well. I have gotten lots of calls from people who can't get a family doctor. Simply can't get them. I know that you can say: Oh, go to the walk-in clinic and stuff like that. I've had people who told me they went to the walk-in clinic, but the walk-in clinic never had their medical files and stuff like that. There were issues they had that the doctor at the walk-in clinic said: I can't write you a note for this or I can't recommend this or that because I don't have your medical file. You need to go to your family doctor for that.

That is something that I have heard from people. It might be fine if I go in there and I got a – not me, but for argument's sake, someone went in and they had a UTI or something like that and they go in and then they just write them a prescription. Fine for that. That's probably fine to do just virtually. That's all good. There are a number of things where you need the family doctor who knows your history and your medical information and everything else that can care for you properly. There are a lot of people don't have it.

I know the minister has said that we have more doctors now than we ever had in our history and all that. I'm not saying he's not being forthright and honest in saying that. Maybe we do have more doctors, but maybe we either have more sick people than we had before or perhaps we have more doctors, but they're not family doctors. We might have more specialists. We might have more doctors working at the Health Sciences or at one of the health care facilities or whatever. They don't have family practice clinics. They're just not there. We're not making it up. I've heard a number of Members raise this. It's not being made up. Ask the people. They just can't get family doctors.

I'm not sure what the answers are. I know that government has been doing some things with offering bursaries and so on. I think you've had discussions with the NLMA and so on. I'm glad you have and I encourage you to continue doing that, but family doctors are still an issue in my district and I'm sure throughout the province. I've heard other Members raise it on numerous occasions.

Again, sticking to health care, one of the things, of course, that would've been noted in the Estimates this year, no different than last, is the fact that much of the Estimates budget for the Department of Health is simply one line, a transfer to health care authorities and so on. There is really no way of delving into where all the money is really being spent, other than $3 billion or whatever it is to health care authorities.

I really do applaud the government once again for taking the initiative to now having a system that's going to be put in place where there can be Committees that can actually examine ABCs and health care authorities and so on so we can start drilling down through the actual line by lines and understanding of how this money is being spent in health care. Again, I'm glad that's happening and it really needs to happen.

On to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation – because I'm running out of time. I'll try to be even quicker here. A couple of things on Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, for my district at least. More affordable seniors' housing is definitely needed. What I mean by affordable is not some private guy that's selling condos for $300,000. It's also not this situation which we've had through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing where a private developer puts up a building and they say: Okay, we'll give you $40,000 a unit and you can knock $300 off the rent for 10 years, and once the 10 years are up, you can kick the seniors to the curb if they're still there. That doesn't work either.

We need more units like we have at Masonic Park, as an example. Masonic Park could be twice as big and it would be full. It is a real need.

Of course, the other issue on Housing is more accessible housing. I know I've had a number of constituents over the years, I still have a couple, looking for accessible units. We have an aging population and so on, as we know, and the houses, when they were built, were not built with universal design in mind.

I was glad that the minister did say that is now something that the department has adopted. On a go-forward basis, universal design will be adopted. That's a wonderful thing. It's a positive thing. In the meantime, that need is very real in my community and I'm sure throughout the province. With the aging population, it's going to be a bigger issue as time goes on, I would suspect. People are getting older and with the advancement of medicine they're living longer. The more people you have that are living longer ages, chances are there is going to be a greater need for accessible housing. It would just naturally work out that way.

The other thing – I have a minute and a half left – Municipal Affairs also falls under here. I'm glad to see that Municipal Affairs is going to be bringing forth a new cities act. Something that I know Mount Pearl, in particular, was calling for when I was on city council. It was always: We're working on it, we're working on it. And nothing happened. I'm hopeful, hopeful, in listening to the minister when we asked some questions that there will be a cities act before this House of Assembly this fall. I think it was indicated that there would be a municipalities act first, and then on to the cities act. I'm hoping we get them both; waiting long enough on that.

Of course, we don't have to wait on the cities act to get the code of conduct piece in. I understand that's going to be sort of a standalone piece that can be brought forward. Hopefully, if the cities act doesn't get done this fall, at least the code of conduct needs to be done for our municipalities including our cities.

The final point under Municipal Affairs is, I certainly encourage the government to get on with regional services and more regional co-operation, more regional sharing and so on. Certainly, I'm not going to prejudge what it's going to look like but it's definitely needed in a lot of areas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, we have been asked to concur with the Social Services Committee's review in acceptance of the Estimates of expenditure from my Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

I want to compliment the Chair of the Committee for her work in guiding us through the Estimates discussion. I also wanted to thank the Opposition critic, Member of the Third Party, as well as the independent for the questioning and discussion during the Estimates. I found it both insightful, helpful and, as a new minister, I certainly appreciated the opportunity.

Previous to that, as a deputy minister, I had certainly prepared several ministers over my career for the Estimates Committees, so it was sort of interesting to see what it was like on the other side. Certainly, getting the budget documents together for a government is an onerous, deliberate activity and I wanted to compliment the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for the skill that she and her staff brought to that exercise this year.

The total expenditures for the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development total now over $400 million, and with a staff compliment of over 980 staff. Our major program is Income Support, which is funded to the tune of over $220 million. This program was transferred to my department on my appointment as minister in April. It is incorporated as a key element of my mandate as minister as given to me by the Premier and something I was certainly excited about.

The Income Support program: We have roughly 22,000 cases and over 30,000 individuals who are supported on an annual basis through the Income Support program. Now, despite these high numbers, the caseload happens to be one of the lowest in recent history. I think that's a reflection of the state of the provincial economy, despite some commentary otherwise, and the growth in employment in recent years.

Also worth noting is that for single individuals who are employable who make up roughly 76 per cent of our caseload, our rates are the second highest in the country. For single parents, our rates are also the second highest in the country. That is not to say that we can't do better to support them, as we know the cost of living in this province continues to creep higher and higher.

Over the coming year, we will be reviewing the Income Support program, looking at how the program is structured and looking at how the rates are determined, to determine what, if anything, we can and should do to change those rates.

In addition, we will be looking at the Poverty Reduction Strategy. That's a broader approach to looking at poverty, looking at income levels and determining how best to restructure policies and programs of government to support those who, over time, do become dependent on government programs and services. We will build on the former strategy but we'll be certainly looking at a different approach in that. As minister, I want to look at how we define the needs, whether it's single-parent families, what it is for seniors and what the need is for persons with disabilities; look at how we can structure our policies and programs to support their particular income needs.

Our next area of focus in the department and expenditure comes with respect to our Child Protection Services. We have offices across the province staffed by some of the highest skilled social workers across the country. I'm very proud to be associated with that profession and with the staff.

I have been over the past week or two on Zoom calls with the staff to get an appreciation from the front lines as to what they've experienced and certainly what they've experienced over the pandemic and how they've been able to deal and treat and work with the families and the children in their care. It's been exceptional that they have really met their professional obligations, at the same time as meeting the needs of the children and families. We have found that the service levels have been met or exceeded in many cases.

Now, that's not to say that there haven't been particular challenges in the workplace. We are currently working with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public Employees through a joint committee to identify and work through those issues. I'm certainly pleased to note that the president of NAPE and his staff have been very supportive and are participating in that work. We have put out a joint release to update both the department, the government and the public at large as to the progress that's being achieved.

One of the issues facing social workers, certainly through the pandemic, working from home and as they were going doing visits, is obviously their personal safety. That's something I take quite seriously and the Committee is working through some very concrete solutions to support them, such as making sure they all have cellphones and other technical supports so that we know at all times where our social workers are and the work they're doing.

Some of the good things that are coming about in terms of child protection are a result of the new Children, Youth and Families Act brought in and introduced by the predecessor minister, who is now Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation. She and others had the foresight of really focusing on early intervention and prevention so that more children can stay with their families and within their communities. What we have seen over the subsequent years is that the number of children coming into care is actually coming down. That's a good thing.

We've also expanded our programming to support children who are in care, whether it's through enhancing foster care arrangements, independent living arrangements and everything else in between that supports the children.

The other positive thing is that we are working with the Indigenous communities to support their approach and to allow their children to stay within their communities. We have worked extensively with the Innu Nation, with the Nunatsiavut Government and also here on the Island to make sure children are supported within cultural arrangements that support their aspirations as governments and as Indigenous communities. Again, the number of Indigenous children coming into care has and is coming down. Our goal is to continue in that vein. We will be saying more on that in weeks ahead.

Of course, this did not and is not happening overnight. It certainly takes leadership at the political level and through the governmental and bureaucratic level and within the communities themselves. There's a commitment to new forms of social-work practice so that cultural planning and elements like that are incorporated into their work. We are spending exceptional resources to make sure that that training is and gets done. We're committing new resources when and where it needs to happen. As I said, we are working with NAPE. That has been a success story, and we will continue that working relationship.

One of the immediate issues that we will be working with through our friends with the Human Resource Secretariat and the Treasury Board is for those of our staff who are working at home and what arrangements we will be looking at in the future. Right now, most of our Income Support program is delivered by our staff working from home. That is working quite well and we've actually saved money doing that.

Many of our social workers are working from home or, also, a combination of working from home and going to the office. We want to see how that can work and work better going forward. What I am finding is that staff are feeling that they are empowered now to do their work they have been hired and paid to do, that that is their focus and that the outcomes are actually improving. That is really what we want to achieve as a government.

As I said, we have a good and new working relationship with the Innu Nation and we have a good and new working relationship with the Nunatsiavut Government. There are continuous challenges, but we are working on them collaboratively and that's paying dividends.

The other area that I'm responsible for is our seniors and I have a seniors portfolio. We are working extensively with SeniorsNL and the Provincial Advisory Council on Seniors. Again, through collaborative efforts, we are addressing policy and program issues that need to be addressed and we will continue that in the foreseeable future. The other thing that we are also working on is making sure that through the funding that has been allocated through the budget, we can provide grants to different community agencies to support seniors programming and activity in the various communities across the province.

Last week we did announce the Community Transportation Program for seniors to, again, look at creative solutions to allow seniors to get to activities in their communities, and really calling upon community agencies, municipalities and the like to figure out a way that they can support their seniors with some additional funding provided by the government. What's important in that process is that those ideas and those initiatives are sustainable for the long term, because it doesn't begin and end with one grant. We need to engage and challenge our local communities to find those solutions. We are there to provide some funding.

I'm also responsible for the status of persons with disabilities. Again, we have a provincial advisory council which has been very active in providing some very solid, reasoned recommendations to the department and to government in how we can improve the lives and circumstances of persons with disabilities. One of the things that are at top of mind for them is new accessibility legislation. We are working quite diligently at the department in conjunction with our colleagues across government and with the Department of Justice and Public Safety to develop legislation and to bring that forward. I suspect it won't be this session of the House, but in the fall. That will challenge all of us throughout the province to work through the issues facing persons with disabilities.

For those who read The Telegram this weekend, there is a very compelling letter to the editor from a person with a disability in talking about a life as a person with a disability and all the challenges that she faces where the person without a disability does not face. It really, I think, will set the tone for the discussion in the fall.

I'm also responsible for the community sector. That's a new responsibility and a new component added to the ministry and to the Cabinet. That has come about through the work that the community sector generally has been advocating for – a renewed focus on the role of the community sector – currently, it's employing around 16,000 people – and how we can strengthen the community sector, look at it as sort of a third pillar, if you view the private sector as a pillar, the public sector as a second pillar and then the community sector as a third pillar to help drive social development activity as well as economic development activity in this province.

We will be working through the Community Sector Work Plan and develop new programs and services to support the community sector. One of the key things that I have been talking to them about – again, based on what we have said in the budget – is that we want to focus on improved transparency and accountability of all our agencies, whether it's government direct or the community in terms of any funding that is provided to them that we, as a government, feel secure that we know what they're doing and that they are and will be held accountable for receiving those public funds.

The community sector, there's a working group in place right now. They are very supportive of that approach. That will be, certainly, a key message that we'll be bringing to all the agencies going forward.

The thing that intrigues me most about the ministry right now is the focus on social development, because it takes in all the aspects that I've just spoken about. But it also takes in the housing component and the work now that we can look across the continuum of social activity in the province and come up with some very integrated and comprehensive solutions that will help address the work that will come forward with the Health Accord NL and their focus on the social determinants of health. Because outside of income and education, the thing that people will need support for will be around housing and will be around other social supports that we are doing piecemeal at present.

I'm looking forward to the Health Accord NL recommendations. Because we want to be in a position to respond and respond immediately and effectively to what we think are going to be some very eye-opening and comprehensive recommendations to help improve how we deliver health and social services in the province. I've already had some discussions with Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Parfrey on some of the ideas that they have that I think will coincide quite nicely with some of the work we're doing.

If I may, in term of the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I agree and concur with his observations in his district and what we are seeing right across the province. Seniors and the need for better and more accessible housing and affordable housing for seniors is definitely on our radar. We will be working with the federal government in terms of the new funding that they have provided under the joint agreement we have with them over the next number of years to develop those types of solutions that he mentioned.

We will be looking at the rent supplement program and how we can expand that because that's quite successful. We will be reviewing our housing stock. We have now over 5,500 units across the province. We know many of them need repair and we will have money allocated this year and subsequent years to improve the housing situation across the province.

We're working with community groups on supportive housing, because quite often a house in itself is not sufficient. The person or persons need supports. We are finding with Connections for Seniors, as an example, where they are helping provide housing, they're also providing supports. We're doing that for youth through Choices for Youth. We're doing that for others in the community and that is paying dividends as well because once they are secure in their own home or an apartment and they feel supported, then we can help and work with them on their other issues: whether it is mental health, addictions and the like.

We also are working on a new housing and homelessness plan for the province. We will be piggybacking on some of the work we have done already with the federal government because we developed a three-year plan with them and we will build on that for a province as a whole.

We feel if we can come up with the appropriate plan, obviously, it will be discussed here in this House, then we can look at when are the appropriate investments of the public sector but also engaging the private sector in the types – again, that the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands identified, what are the housing options for the province, whether it is private, public, non-profit, affordable, supportive, the full range and that's where we'll be focused.

One of the things I'm finding as a new MHA, the issues I'm dealing with for my district are around income, they're around housing and they're around child protection. All those three elements fit within my mandate. Already, we are seeing the ability to bring officials together to problem solve on an issue that, in that past, would have been siloed and not addressed or only partially addressed. I think the benefit, and I commend the Premier and I thank the Premier for the opportunity to take on this mandate because I can only see good things happening going forward.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will leave it. I want to thank the Members of the Social Services Committee for their support through the Estimates and I look forward to a success year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I'd like to thank the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's for chairing the Committee: much appreciated, very professional, very well done. I also want to thank the table staff for providing all our documentation and everything that we needed to get through our Estimates.

I also would be very remiss if I never thanked the minister and his department staff for being prepared, because I have to be quite honest, I've been through Estimates a couple of times, and not to take anything away from my previous ministers, I think they did a great job as well, but Minister Abbott comes with some background in health care, therefore he was a little bit more prepared for some of the questions I had to ask.

One of the biggest things, I guess, that I appreciated through Estimates was that there is talk now of these wraparound services. I think that's the whole reason of adding Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Income Support to the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development and persons living with disabilities because that way it kind of cuts down the redundancy. Really, all that needs to be brought in once these people talk to an intake worker or anything like that is to bring in their Health and Community Services file.

I think that would be something that would be a great advantage to us. As we've seen through Estimates this time, it's been a great savings actually having people working from home, which hasn't been a real big decline in the amount of services that are being provided.

It was nice to hear the minister agree that it's an opportunity for us right now to look at a new model, because if working from home is working, then bricks and mortar are probably going to be a thing of the past for most people in this sector. Because as I tell people, when they say where is my office. I say right here in my pocket because wherever I'm to I can answer questions, not only from the ministers and stuff that they reach out but my constituents as well. For that reason, I think there is a good opportunity to look at a new model. That way we can continue with the savings in our department.

It's a great privilege to be on the Social Services Committee on behalf of the Official Opposition because it's our opportunity to hold the department to account for expenditures. I will say that while there are some things that are being worked on, one of the biggest things I think in our department would be the fact that we look out for our seniors. These are the people that paved the way and trail-blazed for all of us. The least we could do is give them the respect that they deserve for getting us here.

When it comes to that, one of the biggest things is – while housing and supplemental housing is a great benefit to seniors – a lot of seniors find themselves really looking for support in seeing an eye doctor, an auditory doctor or a dentist. In Estimates, that was something that I questioned and it's something that we're going to look at for developing that socially, I guess, for seniors. Obviously, it's hard to say that there's either one or the other out of those three that are more important, but when it comes to your teeth – if you don't have teeth it's hard to eat and stuff like that, obviously, but it also affects your digestion, your amount of salvia and everything that's produced. It's something that really needs to be looked at.

One of the things that I thought about was that it might be an opportunity for us to see if companies want to let employees, if they have a dependent senior, add them to their benefits. It wasn't necessarily that the government has to fund the program, but it needs to find examples of how this can work to our seniors' benefits.

Right now, I guess, when I look at the youth in our province, things have improved. The amount of intake persons are lowering. Like I said, our children and our youth are our greatest asset and they're our future. One thing I'd like to do for them all right now, for our school-aged students from kindergarten, Grade 3, Grade 6, Grade 9 and Grade 12, who are all trying to figure out their graduations – these are rights of passage for – it doesn't matter what age because you know for our kindergarten kids it's an opportunity for them to realize that they just got through a whole year of full-time learning. That's something to be proud of and getting ready to move on to Grade 1 and be a great contribution to their education.

Grade 3: It's a lot of apprehension. You're leaving primary school and you're going into elementary where, for the first time, you're coming out as being the oldest in the school to going back into being the youngest. That brings its own dynamics.

Grade 6: Same thing, they're getting ready to move into junior high. It's a right of passage. It's an opportunity for them to celebrate with their friends and prepare themselves for junior high.

Grade 9: It's almost like a right of passage for moving into adolescence, understanding about going to the junior dance and all that kind of stuff, actually being treated, I guess, a little bit more maturely.

Grade 12: My son graduated last year from Grade 12. He certainly never had the experience I had and it was unfortunate, but that was a COVID situation, it was nothing that anybody could do to remedy that situation. In the meantime, I congratulate all of our graduates – not necessarily just this year but last year as well. Just know that we're here and we want to get that back to normal as quick as possible as well.

One of the other things that came up in Estimates as well was that I've recognized through this department and the work that I've done here the last couple years, being the shadow Cabinet minister, is that we have a very active Seniors' Advocate and a very active Child and Youth Advocate. My suggestion is that I think it is time now that we have an advocate for people living with disabilities because then they have an outlet of somebody that understand where they're coming from and what those wraparound services are going to look like, because Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Income Support are added to Children, Seniors and Social Development and persons living with disabilities. It is quite important and I think that they need that advocate to bring their concerns forward as a collective group.

Fire and Emergency Services has also been added to this department. I'd be very remiss if I never gave a shout-out to Chief Duane Antle of Come By Chance. I got to celebrate with him on the weekend actually. He just received the Lifetime Achievement Award from fire and emergency services Canada. He's the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian to receive this award, nationally. It was actually quite an honour that COVID let us do this little get-together in Come By Chance because normally it is done in Ottawa and presented in Ottawa. But being the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian to receive this award, with 27 years experience now, I'm certainly not the first MHA that he's been a firefighter under but I got to represent all those MHAs that he has been a firefighter under for all these years. It gave me quite a lot of pride to hear his speech and talk about wrapping himself in people that were going to raise him up as he raises them up.

Congratulations, Chief Antle, you're very deserving of your award.

One of the things that I spoke on earlier today is that with Fire and Emergency Services and stuff like that, I have 34-plus towns, including LSDs, and I have a recreation committee in an unincorporated area as well, but my district is very industrial. If we want these programs for CSSD, Income Support and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to work, then we need to start understanding that we need income. It's not about keeping the lights on, it's not about just paying the bills; it's about putting ourselves in a better financial situation so that these programs can be availed of for everybody. There is a great percentage of our population here in Newfoundland and Labrador that do need these services.

Like I said, it's good to have it in place, but we want to eliminate anybody that's taking advantage of the situation or the programs and make sure that it is actually there to give people a hand up, as it's stated in the budget. Because with adding Income Support and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to CSSD it cuts down on the redundancy. I think we are putting our constituents and the people of our province in a better place to get that hand up and actually realize it.

One of the things that I did mention about Income Support is that we want to encourage people to get back into the workforce, but as soon as they find employment or anything like that we just cut them right off from the benefits that come from Income Support. Because if we're truly going to give them a hand up, then we leave it in place for the month and probably even the benefits until their probation period is over because we don't want to discourage them from continuing to work. If we're going to give them a hand up, then if somebody takes a new job, let's say the first of July and we cut them off from Income Support, then by the time the end of July comes and they get that first pay cheque, it's pretty much already gone. So we want to make sure is that if we can get those bills paid, that hand up for that extra month might actually put more people back in the workforce and retain more employees for our employers.

One of the things that I've noticed recently that's come to my attention is that the RCMP here in the province hasn't had an increase to their funding in over 13 years. That seems a bit bewildering to me because we talk about how we're including more programming for our RNC officers and stuff like that. The federal government pays 30 per cent; we pay 70 per cent. They're at a crucial point right now where the underfunding is actually not really helping us police our more rural communities.

I think that's something we should certainly look at. When you look at an $8.6-billion budget, when they're looking for anywhere from $15 million to $20 million annually to really increase their services and their presence on our streets, then I think that it might be something we need to address very closely very soon because, to me, it's an invaluable service. It actually gives our children, our seniors and our people living with disabilities that sense of security in their hometown when they know there is a police presence there.

Like I said, I applaud the RCMP for the job they do here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the RNC for that matter as well. With that being said, we can't let it fall by the wayside when it comes to funding our police services; the same with our fire departments and our paramedics. As long as we get the right equipment and stuff, then our constituents and our whole province will be really taken care of.

One of the big things, I think, that will change this department is the commitment to Wi-Fi and cell coverage. That's one of the things that are actually holding us back from doctor retention as far as I'm concerned. If we don't have these tertiary services in some of these rural areas, these people don't have any propensity to want to go there. They want to bring their families and their kids and stuff like that.

I'll just use Arnold's Cove for an example; we've known for a while that we need a doctor there. We've been pushing for a nurse practitioner for the interim, but with that being said, we need to find some incentive. We're rolling out the best doctors in the world. They're going all over the world and they're becoming the heads of medicine in other parts of the world. Here we are we can't retain them, all because they have such a debt load when they come out of school.

I suggested something like a trust, so that all students, whether they can afford it or they have to get student loans or anything like that, they add to this trust. After their seven years of studies, we give them that five-year break to pay back loans and then they get to draw from the trust so that they can set up their practice and become successful in that first five years. It seems to me to be a pretty solid business plan globally.

With that being said, we need to understand that it's taking us now 20 and 30 years to be repaid, the student loans that we're putting out to these new doctors. Whereas if we gave them that five-year break after graduation in year 12, they're probably ready to pay this back en masse because they have a successful practice, they're already entrenched where they're to and they want to stay.

So we turn around and within 15 to 17 years we'd probably have these loans paid back, which is cutting anywhere from 10 to 20 years off some of these repayments. I'm not saying that these are fruition suggestions; these are suggestions that certainly can be built on. They can certainly be expanded. But we can't talk about virtual medical care without having that Wi-Fi and cell service everywhere in the province. If taxpayer money is paying for it, then it's not just for people that live inside the overpass or live in bigger centres or anything like that, it's for everybody to avail of.

When I first got in here, I guess I was a little naïve in that I trusted a couple of people that told me that Brookside was going to get Wi-Fi and cell service. They still don't have it to this day. They have the poles in their driveways to prove it, that it went through their town, but it wasn't a good business model for Bell Aliant, which I didn't find to be great reasoning.

Like I said, to present the petitions that I did on Wi-Fi and cell coverage, I took it from a personal perspective: business, virtual medical care, tourism and fire and emergency services. So when we're now here in a global pandemic, we notice that working from home, getting educated from home and these Zoom meetings and stuff like that all rely on these services. It's something that we have to get done ASAP, but we need to do it for the entire province, not just the larger centres. Every person in this province deserves to have the same services no matter where they live.

With that being said, I would like to recognize also that it is Pride Month. It's an opportunity for people to express themselves and live their best life. I commend everybody that is enjoying Pride Month. Be proud. That's what it's all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DWYER: Thank you.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will stand down; I have nothing else to say. All I want to say is let's make strategic investments in the right areas where it's going to benefit everybody in the province, not just a few.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that we adjourn debate.

SPEAKER: The motion on the floor is that we do now adjourn debate.

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.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that we now recess for supper until 6 p.m.

SPEAKER: The motion is that we now recess until 6 p.m.

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.

This House stands in recess until 6 p.m.

June 14, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 16A

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.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Concurrence Motion, report of the Social Services Committee.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to, again, take the time to thank all the constituents in the District of Windsor Lake who put up with me during the long, extended campaign, obviously, knocking on the doors and phoning them. I appreciate enough of them having faith in me to send me to the House of Assembly here today to speak on their behalf.

Certainly, everyone on this side of the House feels the same way as the Members opposite who say it a lot, that we are all here to represent members of our district. I take that very seriously and it is an honour and it is very humbling as well, Mr. Speaker. I just want to thank everyone in Windsor Lake, again, for the opportunity and the honour to be here and represent them.

I also want to take the time today, given that it is Public Service Week, to thank all the staff in the Department of Justice and Public Safety for all the hard work they put in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: All the hard work they put in every day and certainly over the last year and a half with COVID. Obviously, I am fairly new. I can't keep using that excuse, but I am fairly new still to the department and to government. Having seen it all first-hand and hear everyone in the House talk about what a great job the staff does, I think – and they just gave them a nice clap – that obviously we all owe a debt of gratitude to all members of the public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I will just say one more thank you today before I get into the meat of what I want to say here this evening, and it is thanks to the Members opposite who sat through Estimates when the Department of Justice was here in the House, and particularly to the critic for Justice and Public Safety, who I think did a great job and asked very pointed questions and I hope the answers that were given to her by me and the staff were satisfactory.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will speak a little bit tonight about Budget 2021 and how it relates to the Department of Justice and Public Safety. Certainly, as everyone knows, this budget set direction to modernize and transform our government. We want to improve service delivery and achieve fiscal stability by ensuring we spend within our means, and certainly not beyond it.

With Budget 2021 we're making significant steps towards healthier and active communities and providing the tools for entrepreneurs, innovators and businesses to excel. From my department's perspective, we want to make our communities as safe as possible. That's something that I'll focus on during my tenure as Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

We also want to focus on making justice accessible. In my former life, as a lawyer, I know what a high hurdle and a high threshold that can be for people who are seeking to have access to justice. It can be very difficult for a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker. I've seen it first-hand. As a lawyer, I've tried to help as many people as I can, but sometimes some of those hurdles are just impossible to overcome. That can be for any number of reasons, including personal finances, when people have to hire a lawyer; sometimes through no fault of their own they need a lawyer. The court system certainly sometimes can be slow. Justice can be slow.

All these issues do stand in the way of having access to justice. There are social issues that get in the way of people being able to fully participate in society. These are barriers that, as minister, hopefully we can help remove some of them and let everybody contribute to society and make access to justice as easy as possible.

I do want to discuss some of the ways that this government is improving the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with regard to the Department of Justice and the justice system. I'll note some of the efforts that are ongoing right now. I don't want to get too much – or I probably don't need to get too much into the storied history of Her Majesty's Penitentiary, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that despite numerous announcements by numerous governments over the decades since 1949, this government was the first one and only one to announce a plan to rebuild and finance a new correctional facility to replace HMP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I very much look forward to assisting with that. The project, for the record, remains on schedule for construction to begin in 2022 with a goal to complete it by 2024-25.

Also on that note, there are funds being used for the Labrador correctional facility as well, to increase the size there, which will help matters in Labrador. That includes an additional 18 new double-bunk cells, increased programming, expanded kitchen, new fire suppression system, expanded medical unit and renovations necessary for infrastructure to allow both male and females to be housed there, Mr. Speaker.

The current cost to house an inmate in this province is about $300 a day, and half of those in custody at correctional facilities are awaiting trial. Anything we can do to improve the facilities will certainly end up costing this government less in the long run.

This government is also capitalizing on $200,000 in federal funding for the Drug Treatment Court in St. John's, which helps offenders break the cycle of crime by offering a therapeutic approach and establishing long-term supports in the community. Of course, I'm sure many of us know that people end up in and out of the court system. It's not really where they can be to get help and to integrate back into society. These specialty courts help them and help us help these people to deal with their issues, whether it's drug addictions, psychiatric issues, et cetera. These are improvements and it's the way that justice is going in the future, to specialize and treat people who need help, and don't necessarily need to be thrown in jail.

Also, on that note, over $390,000 has been allocated in the budget for the expansion of the Family Violence Intervention Court and a dedicated resource has been hired to help make the expansion a reality.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. HOGAN: Cut it off?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. HOGAN: All right.

I've listened for a few weeks now, everyone having 20 minutes to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

J. HOGAN: I prepared and I prepared and I prepared. One of two things happened here tonight: I did such a good job that I'm told I don't need to speak anymore, or I did such a poor job that I'm being told not to speak anymore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone for listening here tonight for a riveting seven minutes and I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

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

Great job.

On behalf of the Official Opposition, I attended the Estimates for the Department of Digital Government and Service NL and I also participated in the review of Estimates for OCIO.

First of all, I want to thank the minister for her participation in the Estimates process, but I also ask her to pass along my appreciation to the officials who appeared in the Estimates Committee. Having department officials appear before the Committee really ensured that we were able to have detailed discussions and conversations about policies and the evolution of Service NL into the Digital Government service of Newfoundland.

I also wanted to thank the staff of the House who worked long hours during the Estimates. The House staff had great procedural knowledge which kept us on track and ensured meetings ran smoothly.

I'd also like to thank the Members of the House who sat in the Estimates. The MHA for St. John's Centre joined me in Estimates and asked some questions as well, and an independent Member was there as well.

I'd also like to recognize the political staff that we have in the Opposition. Our staff work very hard in researching ahead of Estimates. They prepare us for Estimates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Then afterwards they listen to us on audio to see if we missed anything.

I could go on a little further, but time is of the essence. So I'd like to thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any other speakers? No?

The motion is that the Report of the Social Services Committee be concurred in.

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, Report of the Social Services Estimates Committee, carried.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, number 3, Concurrence Motion, Report of the Resource Committee.

SPEAKER: The motion is that the Report of the Resource Committee be concurred in.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I'll also keep my comments brief, because I know we've spent a lot of time in Estimates on these Committees. I think some 60 or 70 hours so far that we've put into this, but it's a very important part of the budget process when you think about our Estimates Committees.

As a minister, it's actually one of the things each year that really gives you great insight into a department. Being a new minister to the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, it's really a great opportunity. Former Premier Ball would always say to us, you really start to understand your department once you do your first Estimates; you really get into understanding your department. So it's a wonderful process.

Again, I thank the Committee themselves for the work that they did. The Members opposite and our Members here on this side who sat on Committee night after night after night. Very important work. To the House staff for all the work that they put into Committees.

To the departmental staff – the executive all the way down – who actually prepare us all for our Estimates and make sure that we're able to answer the questions. It's the one chance a year where those people get an opportunity to come in as well and answer the questions for us. It's very comforting to have staff behind you actually sitting here. They're behind us every day when we come in here, but to actually have them here in the House with you helping you answer the questions really helps.

Mr. Speaker, we'll have lots of time this week; I want to take some time and talk about the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation. But we'll spend a lot of time this week in Committee of the Whole, and that will give us lots of opportunity to talk about – myself – that department. For now, Mr. Speaker, I will clue up on my comments for the Resource Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any other speakers?

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say it was good during Estimates to be a part of the Resource Committee. I would like to thank the Chair, the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, he was Chair of the Resource Committee. I would like to thank the ministers for having us in to discuss issues in the department, to discuss the line-by-line items and, of course, the staff of the government who came in and presented all the Estimates numbers with us and went over to ask many questions, that sort of thing. Again, thank those people for doing the same. It is much appreciated to be able to come in here and listen to the Estimates and go from line to line and get all the values that we need and listen to that.

Mr. Speaker, I'll have more time to speak on parts of the district and parts of the budget later on. With that, thank you, and I'll let this go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be brief as well, seeing that everyone else has been brief with it. I just want to thank all the ministers on the Resource Committee for coming and going through the Estimates process. You get to learn a lot, you get to dig into some stuff so it was a really great process. From the first time being thrown into it until now, you understand why it is the way it is. I want to thank everyone for that.

I want to thank the Chair, the hon. Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, for chairing the Committee. I want to thank everyone, the staff, the public servants and everyone that participated in that. It was a great thing.

Like I said, we'll move on when we get to the Committees to have a further discussion on different departments and everything like that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just going to take a few minutes here now – not long. I will be supporting Concurrence, I will be supporting the budget. I did just want to mention a couple of things because we're into Resource Committee and I know that the minister of – I keep calling it Natural Resources but anyway you know what I mean – his department falls under there.

I was a little surprised, Mr. Speaker, that we never heard any commentary or anything on the Come By Chance Refinery today. Maybe we don't know the whole story or there's nothing to announce yet. I did note the story in the media today, that they're saying that there's a potential tentative agreement, deal on the table for the Come By Chance oil refinery. Obviously, there are a number of things in this province that we've had a lot of concerns over, Terra Nova being one of them, all of our oil projects, I guess, really. Certainly, the other big blow was the oil refinery. It had such a huge impact in terms of economic development for the region, certainly the communities, for the province as a whole and certainly all the workers.

Again, this is another case of good paying jobs. We can't emphasize it enough. Sometimes when we're talking about some of these projects and stuff, we're talking about jobs. These are very highly skilled, high-paying jobs that make a tremendous contribution to our communities and to our province. We can't lose sight of that for sure.

It was good to hear that apparently they're in talks and there appears to be something in the works. Hopefully, it works out. I'm not going to go by one media story; I'm not going to start celebrating yet, by any stretch, because we know things can come off the rails pretty quickly. But it would appear that there's something positive happening at least. I certainly hope that it's going to come to fruition.

The other thing I just wanted to mention – I won't take the whole 20 minutes, just 19. Anyway, another thing I just wanted to mention because I know tourism falls under this Committee as well. There's no doubt there's an awful lot of reason to be optimistic about our tourism industry. We know that COVID-19 dealt the tourism industry – like everything I suppose, but particularly the tourism industry was really dealt a huge blow by COVID-19. Hopefully, now when the borders get opened up and so on, I'm really hoping that people will take advantage of that and we're going to have a great tourist season.

A couple of things that I have brought up in the past, as it relates to tourism, I just want to reiterate it very quickly; a couple of challenges I see at least – suggestions. One is the signage. Our tourist signage is a problem – not our tourist, our signage in general, I would suggest, is a problem.

I know you go to other places, I'm sure most people in this House have been to other jurisdictions, and I'm not trying to compare us now to Orlando or whatever. I know that's a different kettle of fish. They see millions of people and everyone is there for Disney and all that kind of stuff. But one thing about it when you go down there, there's no way, like, it's pretty much impossible to get lost because no matter where you go there's signage everywhere. It's big, it's bold, it's clear and everything is marked out properly. I'm not suggesting now that we're going to turn this into Orlando, by any stretch, I'm not. But the point is, though, that directional signage is a challenge on the highway sometimes and signage in terms of where the attractions are is an issue.

Even if you have a sign that sort of says there's an attraction at some point – I'll just look at the Barbour House as an example. That's a tremendous tourist asset, I would suggest.

B. DAVIS: Very nice.

P. LANE: Very nice, right.

But if you didn't know where the Barbour House was to and all you saw was a sign up on the Trans-Canada Highway before you get to Gambo somewhere talking about the Barbour House in New-Wes-Valley, but between there and Barbour House there's nothing. Even when we get to Newtown, I'm not even sure if there's a sign on the little road going down into Newtown that actually says Barbour House this way or whatever. There may or may not be, but I don't seem to recall one.

There are a lot of things around the province that's the same way. If you're from here and you know where things are, that's one thing. But if you don't really know where you're going, I find the signage can be very challenging. I really think there needs to be a strategy – I'm sure there will be one – to improve signage beyond just one sign or whatever.

I even notice sometimes, even here on Pitts Memorial when you're going out to – not Pitts Memorial; the Outer Ring Road, the signage is not exactly stellar even for the airport. You know where the airport is if you're from here; you've been there a number of times. But it's not exactly fantastic signage even for the International Airport. Sometimes you can just go on past it and so on. I just think it's something that we need to be looking at.

The final point in terms of the tourism – I raised this before, as well – is I really think, especially where there's scarce dollars and so on that we have, I really think we'd be better off in many regards investing the money – targeted investments. We've had a tendency over the years, in the province, and I understand the politics around it and everything, but we've had a tendency to try to share out money. It's like if we have a bit of money we have to share it up, cut it up into hundreds of pieces and so on. Everybody gets a little bit of something but nobody really gets anything substantial to really make it that stellar attraction.

I'm not trying to say now that there are not smaller attractions and so on that we should forget about it all. But, at the end of the day, I think we're better off looking at what are the key sites, the key attractions that people are going to want to see and let's put a concerted effort into making that attraction the very best it can be so that you walk away with a totally fantastic tourist experience, as opposed to spreading it out into little pieces here, there and not really making those improvements.

I know you can get yourself in trouble, you start talking districts and areas, but I don't really care – Mount Pearl is not really – our thing is sports, that sort of sports tourism, but people aren't going to Mount Pearl necessarily for –

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a museum out there.

P. LANE: Yes, there's a small museum there.

I look at Bonavista as an example. Bonavista is an amazing tourist location. They've done a lot of stuff. There's no doubt they've done a lot of stuff there, no doubt. But the question is: Are there other things that can be done to up the ante to make it even that much better? To really make it stand out even more than it does, as an example, as opposed to trying to say, oh, well, we'll throw a couple of dollars to Bonavista but then we have to throw a couple over here and a couple over there and a couple somewhere else.

Then that sort of leads me into the whole aspect of there are a lot of – I've raised this in the past as well – spots where you –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: I didn't get the memo. I'm not sure what the memo is, but anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: No, we need better co-operation and inclusion.

Anyway, that's what we need.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at some of the tourist sites and so on, I know that when I've done a staycation and I've gone around different places, sometimes you'll see a place that might be advertised that there's something there and you might drive down some road and you could drive for 20 kilometres and when you get down there, what was there as an attraction was falling to pieces, it wasn't maintained.

There are lots of great things, don't get me wrong, lots of great things. But there have also been times when I have driven down there and we said what a waste of time this was, driving all the way down here for this old, dilapidated whatever that has not been kept up and is really an eyesore. I think part of it as well, in terms of the tourism, whatever you're going to have, make sure it is maintained.

If groups are going to be coming saying we want money to develop this and develop that then part of it should be: How will you maintain it after the original work is done? If you don't have a plan and the ability to maintain it then we shouldn't be spending money on it. I'm not sure that has always happened in the past. I think a lot of times there might have been small things done.

Perhaps they were part of JCPs or programs and stuff like that so people could get enough stamps for their EI and whatever. There was never that thought of: Now that it is done, can we maintain it? If we can't, then why are we throwing money at it? We're only wasting money. That would be my final point on that.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I do apologize to all Members, I didn't get the memo but that's fine. I'll leave my comments right there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any other speakers?

The motion is that the Report of the Resource Committee be concurred in.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried

On motion, Report of Resource Estimates Committee, carried.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Concurrence Motion, Report of the Government Services Committee.

SPEAKER: The motion is that the Report of the Government Services Committee be concurred in.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: I got the memo; I wrote the memo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Always a pleasure, no doubt, to say a few words in this House of Assembly. I'd like to begin by giving some information to my hon. colleague that sits to the right of me, who is the Minister of Health and Community Services and he has been Minister of Health and Community Services for five years and seven months today. I think we should give him a round of applause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: He was telling me the last time, I believe it was a Minister of Health that was back in 1967; very interesting year because it was the last year that the Leafs won the Cup so …

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: Anyway, we always have to throw some sport analogy in there.

But, Mr. Speaker –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

We won't have any comments against the Leafs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: – I would be remiss – I need some protection here, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: From the Speaker.

E. LOVELESS: From the Speaker, yeah.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed always a pleasure to speak on behalf of the District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune. I certainly thank those who supported me to allow me to have this honour to come here, sit and speak on behalf of them and on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have to say thank you to my family as well, and certainly your campaign volunteers who you wouldn't be here – as all of us have said – if it wasn't for them.

I've heard a lot of speeches over the last couple of weeks and we've done a lot of thank yous and stuff. There was one week that it was Paramedic Week. There was a week that it was Nursing Week, Volunteer Week and Firefighters Week. So we have a lot of volunteers that we need to say thank you to.

Mr. Speaker, the memo that was given out I did get; I'm getting pressured to amend that memo. I could get into more about my district to talk about the fishery and everything, but I will take a few minutes to talk about Transportation and Infrastructure. I know it's probably the most important department in government, I think. The Member for Stephenville is waving his hands.

I realize when you're not in that department, you go to that minister asking for roadwork or infrastructure but you don't realize the scope and the responsibility in the department until you get there. I've certainly had, I would say, probably everybody in this House that have reached out to me for their district in terms of roadwork, which is their job. I welcome that. I wish I could commit to everybody, but I can't do it. The budget is not there, but we try to do the best that we can.

Yes, I say to the Member for Lake Melville, I do have to live within my means and I'm going to do that, because I have the responsibility to do it on behalf of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. But I understand it's important to you and to your districts. So I will do my best.

The infrastructure is also a very important piece, because that work goes to municipalities. I've certainly met with PMA, I'm met with a lot of groups, Heavy Civil, and talked to them too about how we can help them to help their association members in terms of doing their job. They're good meetings. They are meetings that you take something away from them. If you take away from them to improve then I think you're doing something right.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to end here by saying it's a privilege to be the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and Public Procurement as well, which is a very important piece. I look forward to the challenges ahead. I look forward to rolling out more roadwork, more infrastructure dollars so we can get work done in this province and put smiles on people's faces.

With that, I'm going to end and I will say: Go Habs Go!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, won't take too much time. Where we're talking about Estimates, I guess, and we're covering a lot of departments, we've already gone through this process, through Estimates Committees; this is kind of the wrap up. We've had three rounds – most of us had three sessions on the main motion, amendment and subamendment. We've had a lot of opportunities. There are a lot more opportunities to come as we get into various money bills.

I guess I can speak for a lot of my caucus who probably haven't spoke or won't speak to thank all of the staff both our own staff, government staff, ministers everyone else because I know I've had opportunity to be on both sides of this. I've been on both sides of this operation, I know how it works and the amount of work they put into it is second to none.

To the Member for Cape St. Francis's point to the House staff, they deserve a lot of credit obviously for keeping these Estimates running.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Estimates is a time when we try to get answers. We ask lots of questions and, technically, under the rules of Estimates, you are supposed to go line by line. It is all budget related.

I know the Minister of Education and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure during my Estimates, and I think through all of our Estimates, the ministers were very open to letting us ask a lot of general questions, which it's more about seeking information, clarity and getting a better understanding of the various issues. I, too, want to thank all of them for that.

On that note, I'll wrap up my comments.

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, echo my colleague's things of thanking the staff in the departments and for taking the time to go through everything with us. Again, letting us ask general question; it's knowledge-seeking questions which was very informative, so I thank them.

I thank the staff of each department. I thank everyone for all that. Also, again thank the staff of the House of Assembly for all the work they do to keep us on task for the Estimates process, which is an interesting process.

Like I said a minute ago, it's different but it's a very critical thing that we get the chance once a year, and it takes a lot of work and it takes a lot of effort inside of caucuses and everything like that.

Once again, thank you, and I'll wrap things up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't going to speak, but I think I'd like to because I have always found the Estimates process extremely informative. As this, sort of, independent party of one, it's a try to fulfill all that goes on in those sessions. It's rather tiring. I'm still feeling tired from it all because I missed one Estimates in the entire session and that's because I was on a plane. So I'm sorry and I apologize to the Minister of Finance; I did send her an apology.

I found it extremely informative. I thank the ministers and I thank their teams. Everyone was well prepared. I tended to focus on policy issues, whether it related to my district, to Labrador or to the province and allowed my colleagues to go through the line-by-line detail. I think we had some really interesting discussions back and forth, a lot of good ideas. On behalf of myself and my little team, I would just like to say thank you to all of them.

Thanks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any other speakers?

The motion is that the Report of the Government Services Committee be concurred in.

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, Report of the Government Services Estimates Committee, carried.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I thank everybody for their comments today. It's been a long day, since 9 this morning, but an important one.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for CBS, that this House do now adjourn.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

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.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.