May 3, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 17
The
House met at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I would
like to welcome to the public gallery today Mr. Dan Goodyear, he is the chief
executive officer of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of
Stephenville - Port au Port, Conception Bay East - Bell Island, Harbour Grace -
Port de Grave, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, and Conception Bay South.
The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to recognize an outstanding young
volunteer. Abigail Pinsent is
the daughter of Paul Pinsent and Dara Best-Pinsent from Stephenville. The level
II Stephenville High School student has been a very active member in the Girl
Guides movement for a number of years; and, in addition to recently receiving
the bronze Chief Commissioners Award, she is a mentor to young Guides and
volunteers as junior Sparks leader.
Abigail
is also a talented artist whose murals can be seen at the provincial courthouse
and the middle school in Stephenville. While maintaining first-class honours,
she's a member of the school choir, concert band, drama club and volunteers as a
peer tutor.
Abigail
has also recently completed the bronze and silver components of the Duke of
Edinburgh's Award program and is in the process of completing the gold. It is
due to these accomplishments and volunteer efforts that Abigail was recently
named Youth of the Year at the annual Stephen Awards banquet.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating Abigail Pinsent on being named the 2018
Youth of the Year.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
today to acknowledge the Town of Portugal Cove - St. Philip's who were the host
of the recent 2018 best of Portugal Cove - St. Philip's community awards during
Volunteer Week. This year's awards had dozens of nominations received by the
organizing committee who had a tough job to recognize only one in each category.
The 11
categories included all sectors of the community including age, gender, business
and various levels of sports.
This
year's recipients included: Youth of the Year, Madelyn Drover; Senior of the
Year, Betty Tucker; Service Group of the Year, the Portugal Cove - St. Philip's
Volunteer Fire Department; Volunteer of the Year, Edward Sharpe; Female Athlete
of the Year, Maria Chafe; Male Athlete of the Year, Ryan Drover; Coach of the
Year, Neil Hackett; Team of the Year, Brookside Intermediate grade nine Girls
Volleyball Team; Employee of the Year, Jo-Ann Squires of Tilt House Bakery; New
Business of the Year, The Grounds Café; and Business of the Year, Stable Life
Inc. - Spirit Horse NL.
I would
like to thank the Town of Portugal Cove - St. Philip's and staff for
acknowledging the great group of volunteers, businesses and athletes we have in
Portugal Cove - St. Philip's.
This is
a great community to live and play.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to recognize a very talented young woman from my district,
17-year-old Anna Mercer of Coley's Point. Although so young, she is blessed with
an amazingly mature talent. She is a soprano, and on March 22 she won the
prestigious Senior Rose Bowl award at the annual Carbonear Kiwanis Music
Festival.
This is
Anna's third Rose Bowl win, after claiming the Junior Rose Bowl at age 14 and
again at age 16. Anna will now move on to compete in the provincials in Corner
Brook this month.
When
preparing to perform, she studies voice with retired Canadian Opera Company
Soprano Sonya Gosse of Bay Roberts, who we saw here today. Anna also plans to
pursue a career in opera upon completion of her high school. Amid her success,
she has already been noticed by the opera elite, and was invited to study with
Metropolitan Opera Soprano Wendy Nielsen in 2017. She will travel to New
Brunswick again this summer to continue her studies and follow her dreams. The
art of opera is both prestigious and unique.
On
behalf of all Members and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I
congratulate Anna on her talent and determination.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Darlene Jensen Royale,
recipient of the second annual Exploits Valley SPCA Animal Hero Award. Darlene
has a special place in her heart for animals and has devoted over 17 years
working voluntarily with the SPCA. She is very well known in our district for
bringing hundreds of cats to safety and caring for them in her own home. Having
rescued over 70 kittens in 2017 alone, it is wonderful to see her get this much
deserved recognition for all the work she has done.
Darlene's passion and commitment to addressing the growing stray cat population
has included walking from her hometown of Belleoram to English Harbour West to
raise funds to support the SPCA. This month she will be helping conduct a trap,
neuter and return clinic with a veterinarian in her hometown of Belleoram. This
program ensures that community cats are humanely trapped and spayed or neutered,
vaccinated, ear tipped and then returned to their outdoor home. For this year's
effort, with the support of her community and donors, Darlene has raised over
$3,100.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating
Darlene for her outstanding dedication to rescuing animals and wish her and her
partners a successful effort to humanely stabilize the cat population in her
community.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Salvation Army
Conception Bay South Corps on the occasion of their 110th anniversary.
On April
20, I had the pleasure of attending the 110th anniversary dinner celebration.
The CBS Corps had many events planned to commemorate this special occasion
including a family skate, an evening of Christian Choral Music, and a morning
and evening worship service to end the weekend of celebrations.
Special
guests, Commissioner Susan McMillan and General Andrea Cox, were in attendance.
The theme of the anniversary celebrations was: Blessed Heritage - Brilliant
Future.
The CBS Corps are led by Majors Lorne and Barbara Pritchett
who play an active role in our community. The CBS Corps provide a warming
centre, contribute to the CBS/Paradise Food Bank and donate to the school lunch
program at St. George's Elementary. They provide services for youth such as the
Pioneers Club and Vocation Bible School programs all free of charge. The
Salvation Army Thrift Store in Long Pond receives donations and provides items
to families at a minimal cost.
The CBS Corps has been, and continues to be, a very special
congregation helping generations of families in our community.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in
congratulating the Salvation Army Conception Bay South Corps on their 110th
anniversary.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE: I
rise today to recognize May 7 to 13 as Mental Health Week in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, this year's theme is #Get Loud about what
mental health really is. Silence hurts and Stigma kills. I encourage everyone to
stand up, speak out and talk openly about mental health.
I will participate in the Canadian Mental Health
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador's Launch the Light kick-off event on
Signal Hill tonight.
I acknowledge the work of the national association and
their 100th anniversary as champions of mental health. Your efforts are making a
difference for people and families living in communities throughout this
province. Here's to 100 more years.
Through the Towards Recovery Action Plan, we are making
progress to create greater awareness and improve access to needed supports and
services. Initiatives like Doorways, TAO or Therapist Assisted Online, and Roots
of Hope on the Burin Peninsula, are all making a real difference.
The impact of these services, in particular walk-in
clinics, have already resulted in reduced wait times of between 10 to 20 per
cent for counselling services throughout the province.
Wait times have gone from as high as 180 days just a few
months ago down to zero wait time on the Burin Peninsula.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE: In
Corner Brook, the numbers waiting for adult mental health and addictions
counselling have been reduced from 192 people waiting last March to 19 this
month.
It is through partnerships like the one we have with the
association that we can build on this progress to better support those
experiencing challenges.
On behalf of all Members in this hon. House, I thank the
many groups, organizations and individuals who continue to advocate for mental
health throughout the year.
Let's get loud for mental health.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister of Health for an advance
copy of his statement. We join with government in recognizing May 7 to 13 as
Mental Health Week in our province. We've long recognized the stigma that
surrounds mental health was and remains the reason why many people do not talk
about it or attempt to address their own matters, so having this year's theme as
Get Loud is so appropriate. As we all need to get loud about mental health,
including us as parliamentarians in our own leadership roles, each and every one
of us should take this message out into our districts and communities and spread
the word very loudly.
While we
have made great progress in this country and in this province on mental health
issues, much still remains to be done. Let's continue to work with the community
partners and people who've lived experiences. Together, we can make a
difference. We need to speak out louder and in support.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister. I want to thank the myriads of activists across the province who has
had the courage to get loud about what mental health really is. Their
insistence, their persistence, their leadership has changed the way we
understand mental health, what we need to do together and how to go forward.
Congratulations to the Canadian Mental Health Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador, 100 years of lifesaving service. Let's get loud and give a great big
bravo to all those who showed us the way.
Bravo,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to update Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about the steps our
government is taking to improve highway infrastructure in our province.
In
February, the Department of Transportation and Works updated its five-year roads
plan that outlines the projects we will complete.
Our
approach has been praised by the Heavy Civil Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador as a way for contractors to plan their expenditures, plan their work
and keep Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working in the province.
The plan
allows us to take better advantage of our short construction season through
early tendering, which leads to more competitive bidding and ultimately better
value for taxpayers.
Mr.
Speaker, this approach to transportation infrastructure delivers on the
commitments in The Way Forward to
strengthen the province's economic foundation, operate a more efficient public
sector and deliver better services and outcomes for residents.
I am
happy to report that 29 tendered projects from the five-year roads plan have
already been closed this year, enabling contractors to hit the ground running as
soon asphalt plants are up and running in the coming weeks.
We've
also taken steps to improve our summer maintenance activities. We know our
municipalities have concerns about highway infrastructure in and near their
communities. Earlier this week, I wrote all municipalities in the province,
asking them to work with us to identify infrastructure issues, such as potholes,
guiderails and highway shoulders that are most important to them.
Mr.
Speaker, we anticipate a busy construction season ramping up in the coming
weeks. While we take great pride in our province's road plans, we must stress
that our top priority for motorists in our province, Mr. Speaker, is safety. We
remind all motorists to be patient and drive slowly and cautiously in
construction zones.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, if the state
of the roads throughout this province is any indication, then we too anticipate
and hope for a busy road construction season this year, as well as a successful
summer maintenance program.
I feel a
full and transparent update on the provincial roads plan would include the
scoring that shows where all roads throughout the province rank in that plan.
That is the only way the public will know exactly where the roads fall in terms
of being considered for maintenance and construction, and that, Mr. Speaker, is
very important.
I will
continue to ask for this entire list to be released. It is the only way we can
be certain that government has truly taken the politics out of paving. I know
many people throughout the province are looking forward to the road improvements
that are scheduled to occur this summer. The safety of the motoring public and
construction crews must indeed be a top priority, and I wish everyone involved a
safe construction season.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I too
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We, of course, approve
of the five-year roads plan and early tendering policy –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
– as we are on record as
being the first ones to call for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
The problem is many of our
highways and secondary roads are in atrocious condition, and a lot more money
will be needed than is being spent this year. It's interesting not to hear
anything from the minister about night construction this season. I understand
the project wasn't as successful as he had hoped. Is he going to come with a
report to us about that?
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, this hon. House unanimously adopted a private Member's resolution,
that the House will adopt a Legislature-specific harassment policy, similar in
principle to the policy in effect in Nova Scotia. This policy, Mr. Speaker,
would be complaint driven.
Is the
Premier committed to move forward immediately?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well
first of all, I want to clear up some of the, I guess, misunderstanding that
occurred in this House yesterday when it comes to how reports are presented and
who they are reported to.
There
was almost a bit of an assumption that occurred in the House that reports would
all come to the Premier's office. Well, that is not the case. That is not the
case, Mr. Speaker. The review process that's in place right now could see
reviews that the reports would go to the House Management Commission. So I want
to clarify that statement. And the complaints need not necessarily go to the
Premier, as well. These complaints can actually be complaint-driven by the MHA,
directly to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it's fair that publicly we clarify that. That people would seem
to be – that they have been concerned that reports would go through my office.
That is simply not the case.
Only
complaints that come through me, and I've been asked to put them to the
Commissioner, are the ones that we have driven that way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
The Member for Virginia
Waters has been reported in the media as calling for a review process with a
public report and public recommendations for change to the toxic workplace
culture that impedes our ability to have a functioning democracy.
Is the
Premier willing to cause such a review process to be conducted?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
If you look at the
announcement and the press release that went out just last week – I think it was
Thursday morning – that is the kind of process that was engaged.
When you
look at the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, let's not forget that this
office can come in to review this, without even requesting. He has the authority
to come in, meet with Members; actually compel people to bring evidence and so
on to this whole process.
So this
is not about the Commissioner being the appropriate person – that is already
within our legislation. As I said last week, we are more than welling to engage
independent expertise along the way. I've said that, that has been very clear
last week.
In the
cases that we have to the review commissioner right now, every step along the
way, individuals have been involved who understood the complaint process and I
have been asked, on their behalf, to send this to the review for the
Commissioner.
These
are the only ones that I have been involved in, simply at the request of those
complaints.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: To ensure that the review into harassment complaints are
independent, as well as seem to be independent, will the Premier commit to
request the Management Commission to engage an independent body with the
expertise to investigate these complaints?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, all along the
way what I've said to the individuals that would be engaged in this process is
that they have every right to speak to the Commissioner at any step they want.
I've said that very openly and very clearly.
I have
met with the Commissioner last week, and he will do the review or can do the
review, and those that are engaged in the process can actually ask and seek the
expert advice that's required. We have said this publicly, Mr. Speaker. And this
need not necessarily go through my office.
Let's be
very clear about this. Any MHA themselves can go through the review process
without coming through this office. When that happens, there needs to be a
report that would go to somebody. The process that was outlined yesterday by the
Opposition would mean comparing it to the ombudsman in Nova Scotia would mean
that the report would be through their House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I
stated that I was not comfortable submitting a complaint until the rules for an
investigation are changed to ensure the investigation is completely independent
of government.
Will the
Premier do the right thing and commit today to make a change and support the
engagement of an independent body to investigate these complaints?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
first thing I would say is that the Member opposite certainly knows the Premier
is not a part of that. The Commissioner for Legislative Standards is an
independent Officer of this House of Assembly and actually was appointed by all
40 Members of this House unanimously. His appointment was actually supported by
the Members of the Opposition who spoke to it on record; the NDP, who spoke to
it on record.
I would
also point out that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards – again, a
non-partisan, independent Officer of this House – serves the House of Assembly
and has every power to get investigators in, to get expert advice and also has
the power to compel witnesses and to order a Member to vacate their seat. It's
quite a significant power.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier,
were any other options considered for another avenue to review the harassment
complaints?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the options that were available are the ones that been outlined and they were
described, through me, with meetings that I would've had within the Green
report. The legislation that has put this review process in place comes from the
Green report.
Mr.
Speaker, many people in other jurisdictions, when you compare what we have in
this province, people are telling me that what we have is the envy of the
nation. It's the envy of the nation.
People
are looking at this, when you compare it to other jurisdictions, and the one
that was described yesterday would've been in Nova Scotia, would've been to the
ombudsman. But when the ombudsman reports, that person must report to somebody.
In their case, it would be to their legislature, Mr. Speaker. So this reporting,
as I said all along, must be done. These steps, everyone needs to be comfortable
with the process (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Order,
please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
The model used in Nova Scotia
is certainly one I would be comfortable with.
Will the
Premier be prepared to ensure that we change the process and ensure the report
is submitted to the Speaker of this hon. House?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I do
remind the Member again, as I said yesterday, that matters which are the purview
of the Legislature should not be directed to the Executive. We're skating, but
I'll watch it. I'll leave it to the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect, I think you answered the question quite well. The fact is that we have
an independent process that's been determined by the Members, every Member of
this House. We have a Code of Conduct which is the only enforceable Code of
Conduct in country and it's governed by an Officer that was voted on by every
single Member of this House unanimously.
Again,
the Member opposite knows that the question she's asking should not be directed
towards the Premier. It should be directed at her own Opposition leader who sits
on the Management Commission.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is the
Premier concerned that the only complaint which has been actually made to the
Commissioner to date was the one made by him?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Member opposite to withdraw that statement
because she is completely wrong in that statement. I have not issued a complaint
to the Commissioner. I want to make this very loud and clear; I've not issued
any complaint to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. So I'd ask the
Member opposite to withdraw that comment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, I certainly will
withdraw that comment and apologize. I understood that the Premier had submitted
a complaint on behalf of the other individuals.
Mr.
Speaker, would the Premier inform the House whether any employees of the public
service have made complaints to the Premier, or his staff, about the conduct of
ministers towards them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest with you, it's a little bewildering today.
There is a harassment policy in place within our departments. I think, at this
stage, Members in this House of Assembly would be aware of how that harassment
policy would work. That would not necessarily come to me at all.
Mr.
Speaker, I think the line of questioning that we're going down today is really
questioning the powers of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. This is a
person that went to the Independent Appointments Commission, a group of
individuals with a reputable reputation.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to remind people the quotes from the Members opposite on
this particular line of questioning, it was the leader of the Opposition that
said the person has experience, knowledge and the expertise, he is non-biased as
the operational sides by also the legislative standards (inaudible) –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I would
remind everyone in the room to please understand the differences between the
Legislature and the Executive in your questioning.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, when asked if she had seen the kind of bullying and intimidation
referenced by her colleagues, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women
responded: “Did I feel it was bullying, intimidation to me? No.”
When
you, as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, don't see a problem,
doesn't this clearly illustrate just how systemic this problem truly is within
your government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
I thank the Member opposite for the question.
Harassment, bullying, intimidation of any kind, as I've said repeatedly, and
violence against women, against men, repeatedly I've said in this House, is not
acceptable. It's not to be tolerated. It is to be exercised out of our society.
So I
will say to the Member opposite, when we look at harassment policies, and I
think we have had a good discourse over the last 24 hours in this House, about
what may be able to be changed in the future for this Legislature, and I
supported her rapidly yesterday in her request to send this for further review.
I
certainly think that we can do better in this House of Assembly and I think that
we all (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You said
yourself that every person is different on how they interpret things. Minister,
your colleagues, myself included, clearly interpreted this behaviour as bullying
and intimidation.
As
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, shouldn't that be enough to
warrant your full support?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
thank the Member opposite for the question. I will again – and I say again, Mr.
Speaker – reiterate publicly and in this House, my full support, my absolute
full support for anyone who comes forward with a complaint of harassment,
intimidation, abuse of any kind, Mr. Speaker. I've said so publicly. I've said
so in this House. I reiterate it again here, unequivocally, Mr. Speaker.
We have
a process that we have to go through for harassment complaints. I think we need
to go through that process. I support – as this is a tipping point for all of us
in this House of Assembly – a review of the harassment policies for this
Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, historically,
the Provincial Agrifoods Assistance Program was available to producers in early
March. It is now the end of the first week of May and producers are well in to
their season with no applications or associated deadlines. The only thing the
industry knows at this point, Mr. Speaker, is that the program has been cut by
$500,000.
I ask
the minister: What is the current status of this program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to
talk about the agricultural industry and our programs and services and support
of the agriculture industry because we have so many of them.
In fact,
Mr. Speaker, we have been working with our federal colleagues to unveil, to
release the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Program. That will be a $37
million program cost shared between the federal Government of Canada and the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It includes a suite of programs that
will benefit farmers, but included in that, at that time we will be making
further announcements on a provincial agricultural program as well, Mr. Speaker,
and full details will be provided because I think the hon. Member knows some
interested applicants himself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
For the record of the House,
I, as an MHA, am not permitted to apply under any of these programs, kind of
like the ones with NLHC.
The
Canadian Agricultural Adaption Program, or CAAP, is in a similar situation. Mr.
Speaker, this program was known to be on the way for the past two years. There
have been industry consultations.
I ask
the minister: Will you please get to work and get these programs out and
available to producers when they need them?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I see an
application there at the top of the list already, I think.
We will
be processing applications very, very soon. We've been working with our federal
government but we'll also be working with other partners in the agricultural
community. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to stand on my feet and talk about
this because – and the Member is so, so anxious and enthusiastic to hear about
it because he knows what a great value this will be for the entire farm
community of Newfoundland and Labrador, and applications will be available very,
very soon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Yes, I can understand your
enthusiasm, Minister, but the issue is farmers do not take holidays during the
summer. They don't have time to fill out applications. The rate of approval –
okay, say if the applications get out by the end of next week, I would say and
hazard a guess that those applications will not be approved until the end of
summer, the end of the season.
Can I
ask the minister, if he can commit to have those programs in force within the
next two weeks and approvals in the farmers hands before the end of June?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, to quote a
fellow, a famous, famous parliamentarian: “Just watch me.”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister previously laid the blame for inaction on the Sequence Bio proposal on
the complexity of the file and because of challenges with recruiting for the
Health Research Ethics Board; however, since he made those claims new light has
been shed on this issue. A former ethics officer of the provincial board has
come forward alleging unethical and unprofessional behaviour from some members
of the very board they trusted to uphold moral practices.
How does
the minister respond to such serious allegations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue with the Health Research Ethics Board, we are working through. We have
been conscious of criticism. We have external expertise brought in to advise
them on how to improve their processes, and we are working diligently on a very
important file related to oncology studies.
We hope
to have that latter clued up rapidly. And as far as the other is concerned, I
will await the opinion of the external review.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Can the minister confirm that while he blamed recruitment challenges for delays
on the Sequence Bio proposal, the former ethics officer was removed from the
file by the director after they had expressed support for it. In actual fact,
that leaving later in the process did little to impact the timelines as she was
not permitted to work on the file.
Do you
think this is appropriate actions by the board?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member opposite is conflating two issues. One is an internal one with staffing,
which did not, as he admits, impact the process in the slightest. The challenge
we had was actually recruiting members with the right expertise to sit on the
Health Research Ethics Board itself. The issue he's referring to is support for
that board, and that was never inadequate, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
The minister is right; it didn't have an impact on the time frame.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL: Mr.
Speaker, do you know why it didn't have an impact? A 30-day process went over
200 days. They did absolutely nothing. They removed somebody who wanted to
support it and did absolutely nothing with the file, and the minister was aware
of that.
The former ethics officer stated in a letter, sent to both
myself and to the minister, that the supervisor, who was the ethics director,
had a personal vendetta against Sequence Bio and individuals associated with
that company. As she stated: the director's goal was to put up as many
roadblocks as possible to prevent Sequence Bio from ever getting approval.
Does the ethics director in question still hold a position
on the board?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE: Mr.
Speaker, it's an interesting line of questioning. I think if a member of the
public or an employee of an organization feels they have in some way been
unjustly treated, then I think that is something that the Member opposite and I
can work together to address.
However,
I would reiterate that as far as this process is concerned, the target time for
assessment commencing by the Health Research Ethics Board is 30 days, not the
time at which a decision should be received.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I'll just clarify it, that's
not the operational procedures in other provinces, and we do have a need here to
address particularly medical research. So I think the minister needs to move to
ensure that it's done in an appropriate time frame.
Will the
minister immediately launch an investigation into the alleged behaviour and
actions of the province's Ethics Board and report back to the House of Assembly
in a timely manner?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I would
like to take this opportunity to state that one of the things this province does
very badly is celebrate the things it actually does very well. We have one of
the best pieces of health research ethics legislation in the country, and I take
my hat off to the opposite side who introduced it when they were in government.
It's their creature that we are working with, and it stands in a class on its
own.
I am
quite happy, as I have said, to facilitate a review of those processes because
there is nothing that can't be improved by a second look and a sober, second
thought. And I am happy to support the work of the reviewers, and I await their
report with anticipation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I agree again with the
minister –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
– the legislation is a great
piece of legislation that was implemented a number of years ago. The problem is
enacting that legislation and following the rules put in play. There's the
problem we have here with being able to get medical research done in a timely
fashion, which would help all of us from a medical – some of this is life-saving
research that's necessary.
There
are yet again more issues at the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander. The
hospital's obstetrical services have been suspended since February, and to make
matters worse, they won't return until October.
Can the
minister confirm this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can't
speak to the personnel issues in specific form, but I do know that once again
there have been challenges with recruitment for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
As recently as last night, we had discussions with the interim CEO of Central
Health to find some novel ways of assisting them with recruiting staff.
The
important thing is that there is an obstetrical service available in Central,
and in the not-too-distant future that will be augmented by midwifery. But
unfortunately, for the short term, there is a challenge recruiting obstetricians
to the James Paton site.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Will all gynecology services and programs be suspended as well?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
No, Mr. Speaker, for
personnel reasons I will get into, for reasons of privacy. There will be
gynecology services available at both sites through the summer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
This is troubling news, not
only for the residents of Gander but for the thousands of people in outlying
areas that rely on the hospital's services.
Does the
minister believe it's reasonable for women to travel, in some cases, 2½ hours to
access this vital service?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, the evidence
shows very clearly – evidence in actual fact, produced in this province, and
nationally recognized by clinicians here – that the outcomes for delivery are
best with shorter travel distances.
That is
why it is crucial in the medium- and long-term, that we have obstetric services
in both James Paton Hospital and Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre.
That is what we are working to, and we are working as fast as the circumstances
will permit, and are prepared to put extra resources into recruitment for
Central Health to get them over this. And I've alluded to that already.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I'm just trying to get some
clarification. So if a woman arrives in Gander Hospital in active labour, what
services can she expect?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
She can expect, Mr. Speaker,
quality care. She will be received by physicians and nurses able to deliver that
baby, and in actual fact there are full pediatric supports available in Gander.
It is
simply there is no facility at the present for complex obstetrical services. And
that is why in the PSA it has quite clearly stated that it is in the best
interests of the woman to go earlier rather than to leave it to the last minute.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the
minister commit here today that the obstetrical services will in fact return to
Gander Hospital in October, or is the plan to transition the temporary plan to a
permanent one?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Back in 2016, at my very
first Estimates, I was asked that question by the leader of the Opposition who
was the health critic. I said then, and I've actually said in an answer to an
earlier question, I am committed to having obstetrical services in both
locations henceforth.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South for a very quick question, please.
MR. PETTEN:
According to recent reports
from the Conference Board of Canada, the carbon tax will cost each Canadian
household an extra $2500 annually by 2025.
Minister, do you have any evidence to dispute this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My first
question on environment, so I thank the Member opposite. What I would suggest is
that if the Member read down a little bit further than the press release, he
would see the eco-council came out and actually contradicted that.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, for six weeks
over 1,300 workers have been on strike in Labrador West and are now watching IOC
fly in replacement workers to do their jobs. Government still has not passed
anti-replacement worker legislation. IOC is not likely to return to the
bargaining table because they are permitted to bring in these workers from the
outside.
I ask
the Premier: Will he finally stand up for the workers of this province and
immediately amend the Labour Relations Act
to prohibit the use of replacement workers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
made reference many times standing in this House, that it's important for me as
minister I represent both employers and employees. I've stated many, many times
as well that the best settlement is a negotiated settlement, and we respect – we
have provided the services that's within my department to ensure that we have a
negotiated settlement.
Mr.
Speaker, we go through the process. And there is a process that you go through
in any negotiations. And unfortunately there are workers that are on the picket
line. That happens. But, Mr. Speaker, we are going through the process and
hopefully there will be a negotiated settlement as soon as both sides are able
to get back to the table.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker the minister
totally ignored the question. I'm talking about legislation for scab workers –
anti-replacement legislation. Our natural resources must be developed for the
maximum benefit of our people. For decades, government has allowed
multinationals to exploit our resources and our workers. This multinational
corporation reported profits last year of $5.2 billion, $157 million from this
operation alone.
I ask
the Premier: Whose side is government on? Will he do the fair and just thing,
protect our workers' rights, and introduce anti-replacement worker legislation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
information that the honourable Member opposite just quoted would certainly be,
I would consider, means for negotiation. If these numbers are accurate, what
she's saying, then that would become part of a negotiation. Because you see, Mr.
Speaker, the way in which it works is that you go into a collective bargaining
and collective agreement, and through a collective – that's what it says,
collective – which means both sides sit down and try to have what they
considered to be a fair, negotiated settlement for both workers and employers.
Because
not only workers, employers make a significant contribution to this province as
well, Mr. Speaker. So we can't lose sight of that. So that's the whole idea of a
collective bargaining. We give everybody an opportunity to have their say.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
When the
Minister of Health and Community Services was asked in Estimates about dropping
the IQ 70 test that disqualifies people from autism services, he answered: It's
now part of a bigger funding model they are still working on. After three years
of election promises, Way Forward
commitments and mandate letters about eliminating IQ 70, it's now buried in red
tape. Taking care of the needs of people with autism is not a money saving
matter.
I ask
the minister: Will this government immediately discontinue the use of IQ 70
which denies desperately needed services to those living with autism and which
the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador has been asking for, for years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
I think
autism has been a focus of my mandate. We have introduced new and cutting-edge
proven techniques for helping preschool and non-verbal autistic children. I
refer to the JASPER Program – and in Estimates I couldn't remember the acronym.
It's Joint Attention Symbolic Play Engagement Regulation.
The
specific question about the autism action plan is it is not marred in red tape,
Mr. Speaker. We are working through a process to figure out how to replace and
remove the IQ 70 piece in part of a sensible, coordinated response to dealing
with the challenges of folk with autism.
We will
have that plan, and we will announce it in due course.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I say to the
minister, it's as simple as getting rid of it as they've done in other
provinces.
Last
night, I was at the panel that the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador
presented. This is still a major issue. They outlined the levels that need to be
assessed for people with autism, and the intelligent quotient is not the one.
Will the
minister listen to the people in this province who have children who are not
getting the correct treatment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services for a quick response, please.
MR. HAGGIE:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Oral
Questions is over.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Pursuant
to section 8 and section 10 of the Public
Tender Act, I hereby table report of
Public Tender Act Exceptions for February 2018, as presented by the Chief
Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting
Children, Youth And Families, Bill 14.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Jury
Act, 1991, Bill 13.
I
further give notice under Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at
5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 14.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
opioid addiction is a very serious problem affecting many individuals and
families in our province and the Bell Island area is no exception; and
WHEREAS
the effect of these problems have implications that negatively impact many
people old and young; and
WHEREAS
support and treatment programs have been proven to break the cycle of addiction
and have helped many into recovery;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to establish a Suboxone, methadone treatment plan
for Bell Island which would include a drug addictions counsellor at the hospital
and a drug awareness program in the local school.
And as
in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've spoken to this and presented this on behalf of the residents of
not only Bell Island, but there are a number of petitions that are going around.
Every week I get a new one in signed by people from all over this great province
who see the benefits of programs and services, particularly in isolated, rural
communities that have some of the amenities to be able to actually support
what's being proposed here.
Unfortunately, there are a number of people who are struggling with addictions
issues on Bell Island. There are a number of organizations there trying to
provide supports. There are all kinds of moral support. There are all kinds of
emotional support, but what's lacking is the professional support in being able
to actually address the addiction issue and that's the interventions, the
weening off, the additional supports that are needed, the medical interventions
that are so important to ensure that the recovery is not only complete, but it's
successful.
What
we're asking here is, because there are a number of individuals challenged with
opioid addictions who are travelling to St. John's to methadone clinics for
Suboxone injections, and for other ones who are also looking at other services
they need, but there's a group who doesn't have any of those services, don't
have the wherewithal, don't have the fortitude right now to jump into one of
those programs by coming over here, either for social reasons, economic reasons,
whatever it may be.
Having
these services provided locally where they're more comfortable, where there are
supports of their families, where there are other professionals who have a stake
in the community, where there's the volunteer sector but where they're in a
comfortable setting because their friends who can encourage them can also
support what they need to do for their recovery.
It all
has an impact on the community, the well-being of the community. It has an
impact on our financial well-being. It definitely has a well-being on being able
to make those individuals who are struggling with opioid addictions be more
productive citizens and get them back more engaged in our society.
What's
being proposed is that we work with Eastern Health and the department to put in
a counselling service that would be beneficial to address these issues.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll present this and have a chance to speak to this again.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the
Ferryland district.
Route 10
on the Southern Avalon forms a large section of the Irish Loop between Renews
and St. Shott's. This section of roadway is currently in need of major repairs.
The designation of a World Heritage UNESCO site in Portugal Cove South has
increased traffic in and out of the Southern Avalon. The roadway is an important
link to the UNESCO site and will enable further economic development in the
area.
Therefore, we the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly. The
five-year road program announced on February 7, 2018, the updated one,
identified this road as beginning in 2019. We believe in those to undersign
immediate upgrades to the piece of infrastructure to occur to enhance and
improve the flow of traffic on the Irish Loop. This roadwork would enhance
safety of communities and enable continued economic development for the region,
and certainly as a service.
The
Southern Avalon – and certainly to the economic development piece and the
significant flow of traffic in and out of that region. Last year, if you look at
the Colony of Avalon, it's roughly anywhere between 18,000 and 20,000 visitors
to that particular area. You certainly want to flow them further south on the
Irish Loop, down to areas like Renews and then on to Portugal Cove South,
Trepassey and around further on the Irish Loop.
Last
year, we had about 10,000 visitors to the interpretation centre in Portugal Cove
South. It's a UNESCO designation. We certainly expect that to continue to
improve.
What
we're looking at here is basic maintenance being done in an opportune time as
the spring season comes on. Then we'll look at further enhancements to the
highway as we move forward through this year.
Over the
past couple of years we've done about 14 kilometres of that highway, rebuilt it.
No one is expecting it to be done all in a year but based on the economic
conditions that are available – as well, the residents in that area, acute care
facilities, diagnostic testing is all done through St. John's. So there's a
significant commute for those folks to come in and do that. At the maximum, it's
probably three, three-plus hours. In recognizing to get those health care
services, a lot of those people travel over that highway, so it's extremely
important that that's maintained to a level for service delivery, and certainly
to drive economic opportunity in the Irish Loop.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, third time
lucky, hopefully. These are the reasons for the petition:
The
Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Prescription Drug Program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in
Budget 2016;
Many
low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care, and
those same individuals can now no longer access dentures leading to many other
digestive and medical issues.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover
low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health and quality of
life and dignity.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister in this capacity is very well educated and experienced
with the benefits of good oral health. I ask him on behalf of the individuals
who signed, who are part of some of our most vulnerable sectors of society, to
address this issue at least with an explanation of why it hasn't been done yet.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader, now in her place.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Order 4,
third reading Bill 5.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Labrador West, that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a third time.
MR.
SPEAKER: It is
moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME
HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER: All those
against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 5)
MR.
SPEAKER: This bill
has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its
title be as on the Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call Orders of the Day, Order 3, Concurrence Motion –
Resource Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER: Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Concurrence and of
course to the Resource issues. I'd like to initially start off by commenting on
my own industry, being the agriculture industry.
Opportunity exists in all areas of our province. Do you
know why? Because people eat; that's why the opportunity exists. Do you know
what? People have always eaten. The opportunity has always been there
but what has been missing is the viability of our agricultural industry.
Time and
time again, right back from commission government to early Confederation days,
to the mid-60s, agriculture has been in the crosshairs of government as to be an
area where we can expand. It's widely known that we produce a very small
percentage of the food that we can produce here, but since Confederation our
food production has continually declined in all areas except for supply-managed
industries; supply-managed industries being eggs, chicken and dairy.
There
are other livestock industries that are not supply managed and do operate on a
small scale, such as pork, turkey, lamb, goat and beef, but again, it's a
fraction of what it was at Confederation. One of the biggest reasons for that is
the viability of industries; horticulture, a prime example. Horticulture is the
production of edible food crops.
Prior to
Confederation, we were self-sufficient in potatoes, carrots, turnips, cabbage
and many other commodities that now we're only producing a pittance, less than
10 per cent of what we consume. The reasons for that is the viability of those
industries. We're continually having to compete with farmers elsewhere in our
country, elsewhere on our continent where the cost of production is much lower,
they are able to operate on a much larger scale, and they have the logistics of
marketing, packaging and distribution worked out.
Our
grocery industry, our food supply industry is now nationalized. We basically
only have three big players. Yes, we do have some smaller local ones and, I
guess, to their credit, such as Colemans, Belbin's, Bidgood's and any other
independents. We need to see more of those because they are the ones who have
really, really excelled in carrying local products.
Some of
the big players now, they've also shown interest. When we look at pricing of
products, often pricing of products is not reflective of what the product costs
to get here to Newfoundland. Most times, big corporations, be it food supply or
merchandise supply are purchasing or bidding on the supply of a region's goods.
Because we're such a small percentage of the national grocery markets, or our
merchandised markets, often their cost of getting their product to our store
shelves and to our people is not reflected because they're probably making a
larger margin elsewhere in larger centres or on the mainland.
The
product that we sell here – for example, a head of broccoli for 99 cents here in
St. John's is still a head of broccoli for 99 cents in Halifax, Montreal,
Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver. So it's all about national pricing. And
that puts us as an industry at an unfair disadvantage. We're trying to build a
food supply and develop food security, but it's not viably possible.
We see a
big push now to get more new entrants in, but what's actually happening is our
existing consumers are getting really concerned that this new push of new
entrants are going to come in, there's been all sorts of efforts put into
production, very little into the strategic and organized marketing. Without
strategic and organized marketing, we're going to have market floods. We're
going to have price drops and producers who are now in the industry and
producing and supplying food are going to be compromised. Where are we going to
be if our existing producers, who've been here for many years, are compromised?
The
success rate of a new entrant in farming is very, very low. Even in a business,
general business ratios are one in five businesses will survive five years. In
farming, it's one in 10 – long hours, low pay, too many variables. It's actually
worse than fishing, because up until this year, we couldn't collect
unemployment.
What we
need to do is, as a government, we need to look at legislation that would enact
market availability in such that local products get sold first. Local products
get sold first at a fair return for the producer, which would ensure their
long-term viability.
And we
could go beyond agriculture for that. I know there'll be lots of interprovincial
competition and trade barriers, but we, as an island, and as a government are
responsible for the well-being of our people and hungry people are not very
well.
Why
can't we, as a legislature, look at something like that? Why can't we look at
putting in, I guess, a marketing advantage for our producers that would enable
our producers to expand their industries and not deflate the existing markets by
overproduction? That priority would always be given to local products. That's
what we need to look at in addition to production. Because there's no sense in
us filling this room with kale if we could only sell what kale could be put on
that table. And that is what's happening.
We're
looking at producing all sorts of new products where there's no viability and no
market. That's a big issue because it's going to dishearten anybody from getting
into the agriculture industry.
I'd also
like to speak to our mineral resources. I often hear – and yesterday, I did
enjoy the perspectives of the Members opposite about our vast amount of minerals
which are available and yet to be developed. That's absolutely fantastic news
but once that comes out of the ground and we're paying for it, that's the last
dollar we're going to see from that mineral. Why can't we look at, yes, we need
to develop these resources but we need to value add so that when products leave
our province, we're after maximizing the absolute value.
I hear
about the expansion and the quality of ore in Labrador. Forgive me for not
knowing 100 per cent of probably what I should to speak on it, but the thoughts
of oh, look, we got the best ore in the entire world. So the best ore in the
entire world should produce the best steel. There should be a market for the
best steel in the entire world.
Why
can't we, with our abundance of power resources, look at processing the steel on
site? Why does it have to be shipped to Sudbury or why does it have to be
shipped down to Michigan or Detroit or wherever it's going? Why can't it be
developed in Labrador?
There
should be not be one grain – we should look at every resource that we export in
its raw state and ask ourselves before that goes on the boat or on the plane or
however it may be shipped out, ask ourselves: Have we got the maximum benefit
and value to the people and the province from that resource?
Now, as
I say that, I can see some Members around me here on this side and that side,
they're nodding their heads and saying no, that's not. Do you know what? For far
too long that's been the case. As I said, our minerals and our oil resources are
non-renewable. The more we take them out, the less time they're going to be
there for future generations.
Those
monies that we're taking in now are not going to be a continual stream.
Eventually, there will be no more. So what we have to do is we have to
concentrate on maximizing that value. That's through the ultimate processing of
all these resources. We need to look at that. We have power, we have people, we
have land, we have water, so all those elements are there for us to set that up.
What's keeping us from doing that?
What's
keeping us from doing that – and it's not just now; it's been over the course of
the past 60-odd years – it's been get the money in the pocket as fast as you
can, even if it is only a pittance of what we could probably put in over the
course of time. That has to stop. We need to increase the value of everything we
do.
In
reference to the forestry industry, yes, we're all faced with the big challenge
now with our partner to the south, but we have to look at again this is a bump
in the road. Our forest industry has been here for hundreds of years and we need
it to be here for hundreds of years in the future. We need to continue the
proactive management and, again, maximum use of our forest resources.
Clear-cutting is probably the fastest and easiest way to harvest timber, but it
is not the easiest way or the best way for the environment or for the
maximization of value of a particular resource. We need more approaches such as
what's in Scandinavia where we actually have – in Scandinavia, they have
stewards of a particular forest and their job is to maximize the return on the
piece of forestry property that they have. That's something that we can learn
by.
We need
to look at smaller based industries, smaller based value-added industries, even
in the forestry. We have a pretty good vertically integrated system now between
the harvesters, the mills, the biofuels and lumber and specialty products and
the firewood industry – that can change, but that provides opportunity for the
future. That's why I'm really concerned when I look at the scale back of tree
reforestation, forest management. That's a big concern because trees that we
don't plant today will not be ready in 25 or 30 years' time when we need to
harvest that resource.
I heard
an interesting commentary on the radio this morning and it was about butter. The
radio announcers were commenting on oh, you know, I like this type of butter. I
like Mom's margarine. I like Eversweet margarine. I like Parkay. Actually, I
said margarine, but they said butter. Then one of the announcers said no, I like
butter. I like the hard stuff. For the life of them, they couldn't figure out
what the difference was between margarine and butter.
Did you
know that in 1949 when we joined Canada, the officials of the day thought it
more important to put in our Terms of Union that we were going to be allowed to
colour our margarine, whereas everywhere else in Canada it was legislated, not
permitted. We were allowed to colour our margarine. They were more concerned
with that particular clause than joint management of our fishery. That's a
disgrace.
Now,
today we look at those two products. We look at butter and margarine.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What's the difference?
MR. LESTER:
What's the difference? Well,
I guess butter probably really does come from a plant but it goes through a cow
first. Margarine, there is all sorts of speculation about how close it is to
plastic.
The real
thing we have to look at is we need to plan for the future. Nobody back then
thought that our fishery would be in the state it is today. I can never remember
a time when we were satisfied with federal government management of our fishery.
I think it's been to our own determent. Even today and recently, we've seen part
of a resource that's off our shores taken from us and sent to Nova Scotia.
I'd love
to be able to say: Okay, I want to take all of the agricultural land in the
Annapolis Valley and move it to St. John's. You can't do it. Why can't you do
it? Well, it's physically not impossible, but the concept, I think if we did do
that, the Nova Scotians would have a big issue about it and not let us do it.
So why
do we continually – it's almost like we push hard, push hard, push hard. No, we
want this. We want joint management. We want to be in control of resources off
our shore. Just as we almost seem like we're about to get to that pinnacle
point, it just fades away.
I'm not
saying that it's the current government that's doing that. That's happened time
and time again. So I challenge this government to stand up for our resource and
we have to see a completion of action. The people of this province deserve it.
The people of this province need it.
The
ocean resources in the form of our fishery could provide so much more economic
activity and so much more potential for our rural communities.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Adjacency.
MR. LESTER:
Adjacency, that's not
something really – it's not hard to understand but for some reason the federal
government cannot understand that. When it comes to the Arctic Ocean, and you
talk about the Russians encroaching on our Arctic Ocean, the federal will say:
Hey, look, that's next to us; those are our resources.
So why
can't the federal government translate that concept down to us, down to the
provinces? I don't understand it. If it's good for one, why is it not good for
the other?
I guess
I'd be remiss to not mention a small portion of my opportunity to the budget. I
had the opportunity of attending one of the budget consultations. The Minister
of Finance was actually the moderator of the event. The first thing he got up
and said – I apologize if it's not the exact words, so I guess I'll have to
paraphrase it – was ladies and gentlemen, there wasn't many people around the
caucus table that supported the budget of 2016.
I don't
know if that's a real, fair thing for him to say. I would wonder if he could
stand up and say that here in this House.
We went
through the budget consultation process and the questions kind of centred around
secondary schools and the ferries, but when I looked at the budget there wasn't
a whole lot of change. So I kind of question whether, maybe my – well, not my,
but the session I attended to and I saw the results, they were indicating we
need major change, and we didn't see it.
Maybe
next year we should probably bypass the budget consultation processes and save
the people of the province money. Unless we're going to listen to the people of
the province, I don't think we should pull a sham over their face and say: Yay,
we're listening but we're going to do something totally different. We need to
listen to what the people of the province are saying.
I'm
always about opportunity. I'm always about optimism, but do you know what? It
has taken decades and decades to build optimism, industry, economy.
As I
said in my maiden speech, in the '90s it was pretty dark times. We were all so
thrilled with the invention of duct tape because we used to be able to do body
work on all our cars. You'd see so many cars covered in duct tape and spray
painted over. That was because nobody could afford a new car.
Last
week, I was driving down Freshwater Road and I saw a car rebuilt with duct tape.
So, ladies and gentlemen, are we back to the '90s? That's a good question.
It's
taken decades and decades to build up our economy and it's only taken two years
to destroy it.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Oh, Mr. Speaker, it's going
to be a challenge to follow up that speech, but I'll do my best.
Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I'd like to stand here today and congratulate Judy Foote
on becoming our next Lieutenant-Governor, our first female Lieutenant-Governor.
It was certainly quite the spectacle here this morning to see such great
performances, to see a woman such as Judy Foote assume the highest office in
this province. It was second to none.
On top
of that, it was great to see several friends and colleagues, both political and
military –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
I'm sure
they'll get their turn to speak now the once.
It was;
I got to see a lot of political and military colleagues I haven't seen in a
while. It was certainly one of the highlights of my time as an MHA.
Just to
talk about the duct-tape cars, come on, the economy is destroyed in two years.
Well, they had a good hand in leading us down that road and we've done a great
job getting us back on track, Mr. Speaker.
Let me
remind the Member for Mount Pearl North –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
Let me remind the Member for
Mount Pearl North, when we took office on December 14, 2015, Mr. Speaker, when
the Premier met with the Department of Finance, what did they tell him? You're
not going to make payroll this month. If you don't do anything now, you're not
going to make payroll. Two weeks before Christmas, the previous government led
us down a road with a $2.7 billion deficit and almost not making payroll. That's
their legacy, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member for CBS is chirping over there. He's saying I can't let it go. The Member
for Mount Pearl North just got up and talked about the 2016 budget, that's all
he talked about. They must love the 2018 budget because they haven't mentioned a
word on that one yet.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's the same thing, the same
budget.
MR. KING:
It's not the same budget.
Let me
give you a little history. What we've done is reduced our deficit from $2.7
billion – that's the gift that keeps on giving from the Tories – down to $1.1
billion in 2016-2017; $852 million in 2017-18, and this year we're projecting a
deficit of $683 million. That's taking almost $2 billion from the deficit in a
span of two years.
When
they put their budget forward in 2015, Mr. Speaker, they said – and I think the
Minister of Transportation and Works has a copy there of
Budget 2015 – the deficit is going to be $1.1 billion and a barrel
of oil is going to be $71 all year. Well, Mr. Speaker, we found that deficit was
$2.7 billion and that barrel of oil went down to $26 in early 2016. Faced with
the mess that was left by the previous government, we had some tough choices to
make but we've been making those tough choices.
We have
a Premier here that I support wholeheartedly who made the tough choices. The
former Leader of the Opposition, the former premier couldn't make those tough
choices. So I'm proud to be a part of a government that makes tough choices.
When making tough choices, you have to move on and keep building your
infrastructure, investing in things that are going to grow our economy.
When
they say things are doom and gloom, the sky is falling, people are not having a
hop in their step, you're putting cars together with duct tape, that's
foolishness, Mr. Speaker. We've been working hard for the past two-and-a-half
years to grow our economy, because what they did, Mr. Speaker, they put all
their eggs in one basket.
They
loved oil – they loved it. They wouldn't focus on anything else. At one point,
25 per cent that all spending was based on was revenue from oil. Just imagine
that. We're down to less than 10 per cent on oil revenue spending right now.
What we
did was we created The Way Forward
document. That's the principle that's going to get us back to fiscal balance in
2022. That's not that far away. We've put ourselves – and we've seen the
reduction in deficit year after year after year. They didn't have the guts to
make the tough decisions. We have the guts to make those tough decisions, Mr.
Speaker.
What
you've seen is major infrastructure in infrastructure renewal, both municipal
and on our highways. We've been able to do that through partnerships with our
federal government and with our municipalities. The Municipal Symposium is
taking place this weekend in Gander. So I'd like to give a shout out to all the
municipalities in my district.
With
that said though, Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to give a big shout out to all the
people who have put their names forward on the upcoming George's Brook-Milton
municipal election, our newest municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador.
They'll be voting on their new council on Tuesday. So congratulations to them,
and I wish them all the best.
Getting
back to municipal infrastructure, I just talked about George's Brook-Milton. Mr.
Speaker, do you know how many years Milton has been without a proper water
source? You'd have to go and measure the height of Lily Pond, the water level of
Lily Pond for several years, three, four or five years, and pray for rain in the
summertime because it would drop that low.
Their
former member, the former Member for Trinity North, didn't get anything done on
that. Mr. Speaker, through the partnership with the federal government, and with
the former local service district of George's Brook-Milton and ourselves we were
able to take advantage of the clean water, waste water fund to a tune of $1.6
million so Milton actually has a reliable water source, Mr. Speaker. That's
actually action. So there's no doom and gloom for the people of George's
Brook-Milton.
I tell
you, Mr. Speaker, these partnerships have allowed us to do a number of great
things. Conduct water and sewer projects in Bonavista, a new water tower in
Bonavista. We've seen lift stations being funded for Trinity Bay North, a bar
bridge in my hometown of Catalina in Trinity Bay North, among other things.
This
year, I have $6.9 million coming to my district for roadwork. That's 9 per cent
of the provincial roads budget of $77 million. Do you know how that was done,
Mr. Speaker? That wasn't done the way the Tories did it where you do a kilometre
there or a kilometre there, hopefully in a few places where you'd pick up a few
votes. That's how they did it.
If you
look at the Auditor General's report that was released last summer, close to 50
per cent of the roadwork that was done in 2015 was all hand selected by MHAs –
pork-barrel politics, Mr. Speaker. What we've done, we got clear of that
pork-barrel politics that the Tories were good at and we've developed our
five-year Roads Plan where we have a scoring matrix and all roads are evaluated
and scored. Starting with the TCH, major trunk roads and then moving further
down the line.
Last
year, I had the neck, Route 230A done between George's Brook and the Bonavista
highway. Something that should have been done 15 years ago but, thank God, we
got it done. It scored high every year but never got done because the two MHAs
adjacent to each other couldn't determine who wanted it done or it wasn't a
priority to them.
Mr.
Speaker, this summer we're going to finally see the road to Elliston paved. I
know the Minister of Service NL talked about the Markland Road is number four,
the worse one in Atlantic Canada, but Elliston has to be up there, and I think
it was at one point. So thank God we're getting that done. It's long overdue.
We're
getting roadwork done on Route 230, between the Musgrave turnoff and the Winter
Brook turnoff on Route 230 in Lethbridge. As well, we're getting roadwork done
between Musgravetown and Bunyan's Cove. That is a significant amount of work.
We've
seem brush cutting done at an unprecedented level. The safety of our
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, our constituents, our residents, our visitors
– we're seeing that done all over the place, Mr. Speaker.
I can't
forget but talk about my good friend, the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry
and Innovation, who has been in my district I think – he spends almost as much
time there as I do, and I spend quite a bit of time there. He's been out time
after time after time promoting just not tourism or culture, but he's been
promoting industry in my district; funding announcement after funding
announcement after funding announcement, helping businesses and non-profit
organizations grow so that we can grow and our economy.
Now, I
have to give a shout-out to my friend, the Member for Twillingate - Lewisporte.
We have a steak dinner on the line to try and determine who is number two and
number three in rural tourism visits. I'll admit, he's number two, I'm number
three – but they're still busy spots, Mr. Speaker.
We've
seen unprecedented tourist visits in the District of Bonavista, and that's
growing right now. Years ago you could drive up the Bonavista Peninsula and get
a hotel anywhere. You could get a hotel anywhere. Now, if you go along anywhere,
you have to book well in advance. You're not getting a spot. If you come down
without a booking you're probably going to have to go up in Clarenville.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) turning away
thousands.
MR. KING:
Yes. The minister is saying
we turned away thousands of people, which is true. We're in very high demand
because of the people we have working in our tourism industry. The people who
come together, they've been working together for 25 years. They've built the
infrastructure that has allowed the Bonavista Peninsula to be a hub of tourism
in the province.
Mr.
Speaker, the Skerwink Trail in Port Rexton alone saw 34,000 hikers last year –
34,000 hikers. If you look around at licence plates – if I go to my office in
Bonavista on a Wednesday afternoon or a Friday morning or a Monday morning,
whenever it is, if I drive around Bonavista, like I normally do before I go to
my office, I like to do that just to see where the licence plates are from, and
they're not all from Newfoundland. You've got them from Ontario, Quebec, other
parts of Canada, but you've got an awful lot that are from the United States and
other places, and that's bringing in revenue.
We have
a goal to increase our tourism revenue from $1 billion, which it currently was
last year, to $1.6 billion. We're well on our way to doing that through support
of TCII, and I think the tourism operators, the industry leaders in my region
are certainly happy with the support. They certainly were very vocal in that
last week when I went to the Bonavista-Trinity Regional Chamber of Commerce
dinner on Thursday night. They talked about the support they had from the
provincial government and they were very happy.
One of
the things we actually have taking place, Mr. Speaker, and the provincial
government is a partner of this, is dream local, the commons. What it is, is an
office space in a public building in Bonavista where anyone can go and use this
office space. So you're not held to trying to rent office space or trying to
come up with the money.
I can't
remember how much it is. I saw the presentation last week and I made a note, but
for a low fee you can rent office space by a month. So you go set up, you can go
in and have a cup of coffee, you can book the boardroom. It's very similar to
what the HUB used to have in Halifax, a place called the HUB. It's a community
place but it puts people together, puts entrepreneurs together so they can work
together, create good ideas and get the economy rolling in the Bonavista region.
Like the
Opposition said, like the Third Party said, this isn't doom and gloom. This is
people working together who know, they're confident that we're doing good, Mr.
Speaker.
Business
is booming on the Bonavista Peninsula. Sexton Lumber in the Lethbridge area is
doing remarkable work. I think I've talked time and time and time again how
Kevin Sexton just wants to keep expanding and do different things; finger
joining. Now he's in to the pressure-treated lumber. That's creating more and
more jobs, bringing in more and more revenue to the province. These aren't
people who are all about doom and gloom. These are entrepreneurs who are working
hard to grow our economy, who have confidence in our economy.
Our
Cabinet Committee on Jobs, the agriculture sector. I know the Member for Mount
Pearl North is part of the agriculture industry. The District of Bonavista has
quite a bit as well. Now, he would like to see it all on the Avalon Peninsula,
all the investments on the Avalon Peninsula, but we have several young farmers
and established farmers who are growing their operations in my district.
Through
PAAP and Growing Forward 2 and our new
funding – I can't remember the name of the new agreement that was put in place.
These funding sources are giving farmers new opportunities to expand and grow.
Three
Mile Ridge ranch, they're open year-round now. They said to me, because of the
opportunities that were provided through these funding programs, they've become
more efficient on their farm. So when the gentleman was working two jobs, he's
focused on farming now.
When we
say we're focused on growing our own food for this province and raising it from
10 per cent up to 20 per cent by 2020 or 2022 – I can't remember, 2020, I
believe – we're well on the right path.
Bonavista Social Club, another success story. They're just getting ready to open
up – the Boreal Diner is opening up this weekend. They have their own gardens at
the Social Club where they use their own product. We've actually helped – we
invested in them last year to buy their own building and to grow their operation
so they can prepackage things and send it out.
One
thing I'm going to mention, Mr. Speaker, and I still haven't gotten through my
speech. This is the second 20-minute time I've gotten up and I still haven't
gotten to my second page because there's so many good things to talk about.
While they talk about doom and gloom, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about growing
our economy.
When I
was at the tech summit – and I know I joke to you about the grey hair – there
wasn't much down there at the tech summit. I can't joke because look at my
hairline, but 40 tech companies, Mr. Speaker, is what we're focusing on right
now, partnering with industry. That's exciting.
Tech
companies, you can set them up anywhere. You can focus them here in Bonavista. I
know there are some in Clarenville. I know they're all throughout the province,
but one thing the Minister of International Trade said, and it stood out to me,
Minister Champlain, he said: Bonavista is no different than Berlin. That's his
exact quote. I wrote that down, as soon as he said it I jotted it down, Mr.
Speaker. He said: Bonavista is no different than Berlin. And in this global
economy that is very much true.
You have
several businesses now that are shipping all over the world. You have East Coast
Glow who are doing remarkable things. They're shipping all over the world.
They're down doing events down in New York City. They're doing events here in
the province, all over the country, but they're able to ship to Berlin. So when
they say Bonavista is no different than Berlin, it's very much true.
Mr.
Speaker, right now, I'd like to give a moment to thank our fishermen and our
plant workers for doing the good work that they do. When you think of the
District of Bonavista you think of the fishery. You've got the men and women in
our fishery who are doing the great work to grow our economy through the
fishery.
Right
now, the Bonavista plant is in full operation so we're hoping to have another
good season. I know the crab numbers, the quotas are down a little bit, but we
have the lobster season. We'll see how the cod turns out. So I want to give a
shout-out to those fine folks.
I know
the Member for Mount Pearl North mentioned that we need to better look after our
fishery. I totally agree. It's always been an important part of my region and
it's still an important part of my region. It's a very big employer. So we have
to find the ways to modernize our fishery, to grow our fishery. With the $100
million Fisheries Fund, which is being rolled out as we speak, there has been
major funds already allocated to different parts of the province.
I tell
people: Get out and apply, get some of that money, modernize your boats,
modernize the technology that you use to harvest the fish because it is very
important that we keep this industry alive in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. I
want to give a big shout out to those fine folks as well.
With 15
seconds left, this is my last opportunity I'm going to get a chance to speak in
the House, so I want to wish my mother a Happy Mother's Day. It's the weekend
after next. We're not in next week.
Happy
Mother's Day, Mom.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
That's a good son, Mr.
Speaker.
I guess
that's the way. In anticipation, I was going to take it easy on him until he
finishes off with that quote. Yes, his mom is watching.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He's a mommy's boy.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, there you go.
AN HON. MEMBER:
There's nothing wrong with
that.
MR. PETTEN:
No, there's nothing wrong
with that is right.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up and speak today on Concurrence. It's all part
of our budget process and every opportunity I get to speak on the budget is a
good time because we can speak on a wide variety of issues that are important to
us and important to the people of the province. We get a wide variety of views.
You hear
my colleague from Mount Pearl North who was very focused on agriculture and very
much expertise in that region. We learn every day, every time I hear him get on
his feet, I kind of sit and listen because this man has a lifetime of knowledge.
He makes a lot of sense when he talks and he puts things in a lot more
perspective than if you're not around that industry, we don't understand. He
picks up stuff that we don't get. Other Members of this House have their own
interests when they speak. In between the banter, you learn a lot of things from
people because of their unique interests.
Mr.
Speaker, I have just a couple of points on what the Member for Bonavista brought
up. He made reference, specifically, that all he hears me talk about is
Budget 2016 and nothing about
Budget 2018, meaning that
Budget 2018 is fine. I'd like to
remind them that Budget 2018 is the
same budget as 2016. A few changes here and there. We're still saddled with
those 300 taxes and fees. That's why I keep referring back to 2016.
If
2018's budget was different, I'd be talking about 2018's budget, and I'd
probably pass along a compliment or two about some reductions. In addition,
we've got a carbon tax that's coming our way too, so we've got to add on to
that.
In
Question Period today, I referenced one question at the last minute, I never
have enough time, but the Conference Board of Canada are saying now, roughly in
2025, the average family will be charged about $2,500 a year extra as a result
of carbon pricing.
I've
asked that question in this House numerous times. The answers I got back were
well-publicized. I think most Members of this House, at one time or another,
would have seen it in the last week or two. I was glad, actually, because that
was a serious question; that's an important question to a lot of people in this
province who are still living under the pressures of the 2016 budget. People do
want to know what extra costs are coming that are going to hit their families.
If
$2,500 is the fee, I hope government takes that into consideration when they're
making the decision what they're going to do, and if they're going to fight back
for the people of this province, like I've asked them. My colleagues, our caucus
is basically asking government to stand up for the people because, as I said
before, carbon pricing – the federal government is bringing this in, but there
are a lot of changing dynamics throughout the country.
There's
a lot of – I don't know what the word is – internal debate going on about carbon
pricing now. As I said, you have Ontario, you have Alberta. We don't know what's
going to happen there, the politics. They're uncertain times. I know if the
governments change there, it's a good chance those provinces will oppose the
carbon pricing. That will put an awful lot of pressure on any federal
government, no matter what the stripe.
If
Ontario goes against the federal government with their weight they have in
federal seats. As we all know, they carry a lot of weight, and from right now
all indications look that if the Ford administration wins in June, he's pretty
well on record that carbon pricing is not on for Ontario. That's going to cause
a lot of debate within the federal government, and rightfully so. Again, it's
not a party thing, that's a fact and that's something that they'll have to deal
with.
I think
when we look at carbon pricing – I get up and ask questions in the House a lot
of times on it. I understand Members of this House and people of the public
maybe don't grasp it, and I get that, it's a dry issue. Sometimes I read over
and over, and I got stuff here, I was just looking at it again, on carbon
pricing. I had to education myself because I was around it in my previous life.
I worked
with the former minister of Environment a few years back and we were dealing
with climate change and what have you then and carbon pricing. I attended a few
conferences with him. I did get a grasp on the concept, but it was a dry issue.
You kept reading and you'd read two pages and you realize that you didn't
remember the second page you just read so you'd have to go back and read the
second page. It just took you forever to penetrate the issue.
In
saying that, this carbon pricing, I was reading an article there recently – this
past week actually – it's going to be a valid question in 2019 federally. This
issue, on the national scene, has made more waves than it has here. I think the
reason for that is – and I keep saying this a lot, and I talk to a lot of people
and I've talked to a lot of educated people; they don't grasp it. Everyone has
always been of the notion that carbon pricing only affects big industry; it's
Come by Chance, it's Holyrood, it's IOC and it's Corner Brook – a big polluter.
Holyrood is in my backyard, so I've always been familiar with that and the
residents of CBS and Holyrood experience it. Carbon pricing is going to affect
every single individual, from the groceries on the food shelves to the gas we
put in our vehicles, to the fuel we heat our homes with.
I'll go
back – I don't like to use it, and it is not meant to be brought up, but I can't
resist to bring up the one that caught my attention and will never leave me: the
crematorium. In Alberta, it showed up on a bill. People are going to funerals,
going through a very tragic time in their life and they were seeing a line item
– they were being charged an individual line item, the carbon tax. It changed,
of course, they blended it in but that was big outcry in Alberta.
I
continue to ask those questions and I continue to seek answers because this
issue is more important to people in the province than probably what they
realize because a lot of people are not really paying attention, and I get that.
I guess our jobs as parliamentarians – we come in the House and represent their
areas, and we represent our critic roles – is to try to make that issue, connect
the dots, bring it together so people do understand it.
It's not
that they don't have the knowledge. It's just they're not engaged. They don't
realize. It's an issue that people glaze over. Like I said, even just trying to
keep my own knowledge base, it's a dry issue and people just don't understand –
not understand again, it's not something that they're really engaged with. It's
a very important issue; it's another tax on existing taxation we have. The
general public, this is going to have a bigger impact than people realize when
you add everything to it.
Speaking
of taxation – I'll go back and I'll say yeah, talk about 2016; I'll say 2018
budget because it's still there – we have to do something. We have to stimulate
our economy. What we're doing now, we're existing. Some areas are still doing
fine and a lot of areas are not. You get the new home construction. I know my
area was one of the fastest growing areas in the province – Atlantic Canada for
a long time.
I
understand you slow down. You don't stay there; you can't do it. But we've gone
from here to here. It was just this past weekend actually I had a long
conversation with a homebuilding company, a fairly decent-sized operation.
They're managing but there are a lot of changes. They're after having to make an
awful lot of adjustments. What they expected, their profit margins, everything
else has all been readjusted. They're operating in a different world just to
survive, keep your staff on, make a living; no one is getting rich, keep
everything going steady as she goes – everything is dropped.
In that
conversation, he listed off six, maybe seven – and I knew these people quite
well, and their businesses and they were always striving. They give up. They
folded. They've given it up. They are gone trying to find work elsewhere with
other companies and other businesses around. They're travelling.
One guy
took a contract down in Marystown to build a home, just a regular home; where,
two years ago, they were just naming their price and building whatever and a lot
of homes they never had time to even look at. It's a real indication where our
economy is gone, Mr. Speaker. You add the taxation, that's what I always say,
it's the taxation but it's the climate. It's a lot about the climate we operate
in too.
I
suppose spending sometimes is based on psychology too. It's a nice day out and
in spring of the year, in April and May month, you got a hot day and people tend
to do things differently. You'll see more people out shopping. There are more
people out walking. There are more people in restaurants. The same thing applies
with the psychology of taxation. People feel that they may be able to afford
these things and it may not have any impact on them personally. It plays into
the psyche, and it does affect everyone. And people talk about it. The more
people talk about it, they feel that hesitation.
There
are fellows that say – and I'm sure not a Member in this House hasn't heard it
said – there are lots of money in Newfoundland; people are afraid to spend it. I
know I hear it a lot and I'm sure that most Members in this House hear people
say it. I truly believe that is probably a fact but that comes with the climate,
the black cloud as we've often said.
I do
speak about the 2016 budget a lot, and I'll continue to speak about it because
until you give a new budget that changes what 2016 budget did and is doing to
this province, we have no choice but to keep reminding the people of this
province what that budget has done. Because it's continuing to do it; we're into
our third year of that budget and we're still living with it. Until it changes,
Mr. Speaker, that's something that I'll continue to talk about.
Another
thing I'd like to bring up now, we talk a lot about the legalization of
marijuana. We've had PMRs on it. We've debated legislation here in the House.
We've had lots of questions in Question Period. My colleague, the leader of the
Opposition, has mentioned it numerous times. Regulations – you're bringing in
something because it was supposed to come in. First, it was we're doing it June;
we have to do it by July or whatever. Now it's being delayed because we're not
ready. We've asked those questions; government don't have the answers because I
don't think the federal government has the answers. Now they're planning on
bumping that date ahead again.
All the
while, in our last session, the fall session, right until the last day, our
leader was asking questions on cannabis. Where are we? Are we ready? Right until
Thursday, the House closed on Thursday, and then Friday morning there were no
answers; there was evasive – Friday morning, there was an announcement made
subsidizing or $40 million will be available for Canopy Growth, I guess, in
incentives and tax breaks and what have you. So it's no, you're not giving $40
million, but you're making is available to them, should they need it, to have an
available supply.
I'm not
sure if they're going to have that supply. First of all, we don't need it by
July, but since then there are other producers willing to come into our
province, not just Canopy. There may be numerous producers to meet the demand.
We don't know what the demand is. No one really knows exactly what the demand
is.
For a
person to go out and open up a store to sell cannabis, right now, from what we
hear, the amount of cannabis you'd have to sell to make any profit on it is
exorbitant; you'd never be able to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
But it comes back again: Why
the rush to judgment? Why rush this?
We asked
here in the House – it's not that we're opposed to it. Prime Minister Trudeau,
in my opinion, got a good portion towards his election victory on that
initiative alone. I hear a lot of people say that when he said he was legalizing
marijuana, it was a big issue and he got a lot of support nationally for that.
That's
reality. He's bringing that in, okay. Let us be ready. Make sure we're prepared.
Have proper consultations. It's no different than when I just said carbon
pricing, something else he's bringing in; but, as we know, that's hitting lots
of road blocks, as is legalization of marijuana.
Health
Canada apparently are only putting on so many variations of strength of this
marijuana. The black market, as we say, will be alive and well. I know you
police that with alcohol and tobacco and what have you, and there are other
illegal opioids or whatever on the streets. That market will always be there,
but I don't know, to me, it's a lot of confusion and every time we ask those
questions, there is no one on that side that can get up and give you a clear,
concise answer. It's not giving us, it's giving the people because when you ask
questions here, as we all know, it's not answering us – sure, you're answering
us but you're answering the people of the province.
What is
the plan? You have a $40 million tax incentive lined up there. When the minister
went on the airwaves after the announcement, he was asked, he said: Yeah, that
will be available to the local producers.
We don't
really know. Local producers don't know. We have local producers here that said
they don't want government – they won't deal with them. It's best to do it on
their own.
Now
they're going to feel like they're in direct competition with a company from
outside the province and you have locals here willing to do it. You got other
companies willing to go out on the West Coast in the smaller areas, in the rural
areas of the province to set up shop. Are they getting an incentive on that $40
million? Maybe. We don't know. The minister is after saying he would.
What
regulations? We listed it off in our PMR, and it was a pretty lengthy list of
regulations. How do you deal with it? What about the roadside stops? Where is
the personal amounts? What can you have at home? The list goes on. I wish I
would have had it in front of me here to list off the stuff we listed in our
PMR. There are an awful lot of regulatory questions we had, and no answers
provided.
Now
we're into May. We're looking at, it was a July deadline. Now that's being
pushed ahead. Will it be pushed ahead further? Will it be like every other
thing, Mr. Speaker? What is the rush? Get it right, do it right. We hear it in
this House all the time, you rushed this, you rushed that. We're being very
open. We're not against it. Take your time and do it right.
What you
see happening is outside there is a level of uncomfortableness with the
legalization of marijuana anyway within certain sectors of our society. Why not
take your time and do it right? You'll be applauded if you do it right. My
belief in any of this stuff, you'll be applauded if you do it right. It's not an
emergency. Get it right, and get it right the first time.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm getting to my time, but I have a few other issues. I could go on
with my bullets. There is no problem to kill the time here to talk.
I want
to bring up an issue that I brought up last year, or probably whenever it was
brought in first, maybe 2016. The fixed link. Everyone: that sounds fine.
Nobody's opposed to having a fixed link connecting the Island to Labrador. I
don't think anyone here or anyone – they think that's great.
Right
now, we put it aside this morning, we got a study done. I've stood in this
house, I spoke to media on this issue. I said dust off your 2004 report, adjust
some numbers, you're pretty well getting the same thing. In essence, that's what
was done. Now it cost less than three-quarters of a million. I think it was
around $250,000. It's still the same process. The cars going back and forth –
which is what I criticized before. It's not a true highway. Fifteen years, well
at least a couple of billion dollars, at least. We're looking at that.
When
right now, Mr. Speaker, the roads in this province are not in that great a
shape. You have to drive to get there. You got to have a road to get up to where
they're going to have the fixed link, go up the Northern Peninsula. You got to
have something to drive on. Right now, why don't they take the $2 billion over
the next 15 years and invest in our highways and our roadways, the 10,000
kilometres of roads the province has. Why don't they do that? Then consider a
fixed link.
It
sounds great in theory. It's a nation builder. All that's fine. You have to do
the North Shore from Quebec down to –
MR. LETTO:
Blanc-Sablon.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. LETTO:
L'Anse au Clair is right next
to it.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you very much.
The
Member for Lab West corrected me on my – I had a brain freeze for a second, Mr.
Speaker. Thank you.
My point
is, before you go – it's like the cart before the horse, do it right. Pave the
roads. The roads right now, we're crying for roadwork. Everyone is crying –
everyone. The roads are in desperate shape. You bring up an issue on roads and
it lights up. Everyone has an issue with the roads.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
If you're going to do it, if
you're putting a fixed link there, it sounds fine and it's great politics in
that region but the reality is it doesn't make sense, not in this current
climate. It's not what's needed now with our roads. As I say, and everyone has
heard me in this House many, many, many times and you'll hear me again today,
our roads are in desperate need of repair.
In
saying that, I know the Minister of Transportation – I know this is an issue. We
tend to get along most times but we have our differences of opinion. I do not
feel – I'll say it again because I don't think you can say it enough. The
five-year Roads Plan is great in theory but it's all words. It's all words, Mr.
Speaker.
You're
putting a list out there, you're not inclusive. We've asked – and I'll ask again
and I'll ask again. I might ask again next week, Mr. Speaker, when we open
again. Give us the full list. Just let us know where we stand. Let us know where
we stand. I don't think that's unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. If I thought there was
a reason why he couldn't do that, I'd say fair game. I've never been explained.
I asked
the minister in Estimates. I looked across in Estimates, I said, can you tell us
where Route 60 lands? Can you tell me where Witless Bay Line is? They haven't
done the scoring on all roads, he said. The former minister, when he announced
the Roads Plan – and I'll always remember it. I have a lot of respect for him
too, but he stood up and he was really proud of how he was taking the politics
out of paving. This man was very excited about that. I think we all were. We
said that's grand, now we're all going to get a bit of pavement. Guess what, Mr.
Speaker? Nothing further from the truth.
We have
Members opposite getting up and saying my road wasn't on the list. No, my road
wasn't on the list. Do you know what they did? They went upstairs to the eighth
floor, which we all know out in the street, that's the Premier's office. Guess
what happened after they visited the eighth floor? It was on the list. It was
said in this House, check Hansard, it
was on the list.
Now, the
Minister of Transportation was a little bit uncomfortable with that and he
jumped up on a point of order to say that wasn't fact. That didn't happen.
Mr.
Speaker, Hansard doesn't lie. This is
what was said in this House. I'm only repeating what's documented in this House.
That is politics in paving.
The
former minister stood up after he told us about his five-year Roads Plan. He was
very proud of it, but guess what he did with the roads list for that year. He
sent it up to the eighth floor – again, that's where the Premier resides – for
approval. But, no, we're taking the politics out of paving. We're doing it based
on the scoring.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I'm only telling you what's been told by the Members opposite. I'm not
creating this. Hansard will tell you.
Go back and look at Hansard. I've seen
it. So I'm only repeating what's been said across the way.
I asked
simple questions: Where does my road fall on the list? Are you truly taking the
politics out of paving? They've answered it. Obviously, they're not. We asked
that.
I got up
today on a ministerial response, and every time I get an opportunity to stand on
the budget, every now and then on questions. When I run into the minister, when
we run into each other, I ask the question. I've sent emails. I've talked to his
officials.
I
believe if I could look, or any Member in this House could look and say that
road is getting paved next year or that road is getting paved in two years'
time. A bit of work needs to be done to maintain it now but that will be done in
two years or three years' time. That would alleviate a lot of people's concerns
and people would say: Okay, fair enough, at least it's getting done. We're
getting some temporary work done. We know there's an end in sight.
Right
now, everyone is left guessing. This government owes it to the people of the
province to come clean and tell them where their roads score.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All I
see is opportunity here. Those are not my words. Those are the words of an
entrepreneur on the Great Northern Peninsula. Somebody who moved from Nova
Scotia to settle in a small community in Main Brook. He said: It's a blank slate
for the entrepreneurial-minded person right here in Newfoundland and Labrador
I took
some time to listen to the Member opposite from CBS and I have to say, it's
quite rich, some of his statements, and some of the things certainly didn't make
any sense whatsoever. On one hand he talked about how the housing market is
going, it's so robust to the point that the contactor is turning down work. Then
to point out now that they're still doing work but they can't pick and choose
any more. So the work was not getting done at those points.
MR. PETTEN:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I'm getting to the point
because I listened very intently. I'm striking a bit around when I'm talking
about the economy and economic development here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
You look at that we have a $77 million roads budget for Newfoundland and
Labrador. He's talking about spending $2 billion, basically, on roads. We do not
have the capacity to do that much roadwork, just like any contractor cannot
build all of those homes at this exponential rate.
You can
have all the money in the world, Mr. Speaker – Norway has $1.4 trillion in its
legacy fund. They had the foresight, when they had all the money, to actually
put some away for a rainy day: $1.4 trillion – not billion, trillion.
When the
former administration, when the Tories were in power they did not save any
money. They spent and spent and spent. They gave the gift to everybody: higher
electricity rates for Muskrat Falls. What I will say is that when you don't
understand the basics of economics, you lead everyone down a path where
everybody ends up paying more tax, and it's thanks to the Tories that the taxes
were increased.
Norway,
with all of that money in the bank, if you've ever been to Norway and you've
driven over their roads, they have bad roads too because you cannot spend all of
this money. Due to capacity issues, you could cause deflation in your economy.
It has an impact on jobs.
We
understand the importance of providing predictability, consistency and doing
multi-year planning. This is the first time that there was ever a five-year Road
Plan, a five-year infrastructure plan. It leads to more competition; it leads to
more predictability. You can hire your workers; you can get things done quickly.
There's $620 million for investment in infrastructure, which is part of a $2.5
billion five-year infrastructure plan that's going to create 5,300 jobs in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Member can get up, from CBS, and speak time and time again about the politics in
paving, but I've been sitting in this House for almost seven years and I can
tell you how political that side has been when it comes to paving. Because my
residents, the constituents that I represent, with 650 kilometres of road
network of this 10,000, if I were to look at the amount of roadwork that they
had done during my term in office representing as an MHA, they've done next to
nothing in that area – absolutely next to nothing.
Just
prior to elections they would launch a tender and they would say they were going
to do work, the work would never get done but just ploys. Lots of that happened;
whereas, we are doing early tendering. It makes sense, it's predictable, there's
a consistency and it's having the greatest impact on people so that you can grow
your economy.
The
Member opposite said – and he's the critic for the Environment. He was talking
about reading the reports on climate change, which is one of the biggest
challenges facing the global economy, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, not
just Canada –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
– it requires a solution. He
was reading the report and he was saying –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind all Members I will
not tolerate interruptions. We have a little over an hour to go and I ask
everyone to respect the person identified.
Thank
you very much.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Environment critic had talked about how this is a dry issue. This is very, very
dry. When you're talking about something as important of how you deal with
climate challenge, how you look at finding a solution that fits Newfoundland and
Labrador, that has a balance for business, that looks at the economic
development and looks at mitigating factors, they approved a project called the
Muskrat Falls Project that was supposed to be $5 billion. It's now over $12
billion and will lead to the doubling of electricity rates.
We've
had to take significant action to mitigate rates, to find ways to reduce costs.
They like to forget about that. They like to think that they never sanctioned
Muskrat Falls. Time and time again, I've given a speech about the PC math
because the numbers just don't add up when they do the numbers. They're always
so much more than what they are. They like to spend, spend, spend.
I'm
striking some chords over there, Mr. Speaker, and I understand why. They have
their track record, we have our track record and I'm much prouder of our track
record than their track record, I can tell you that.
Now, I
had the opportunity to speak to 400-plus grade nine students about technology in
Newfoundland and Labrador and all of the opportunities that it brings. That's
really exciting to look at the bright minds, our leaders of today, as the new
Lieutenant-Governor talked about, Judy Foote, about how important it is to be
engaging youth and that they step up and that they lead.
Last
week, I had the ability to announce funding in a company called Empowered Homes.
Their Mysa system allows for thermostats and allows for the programming so that
you can have an app on your phone. While we're sitting here in the House of
Assembly, we could monitor the temperatures in our own homes, or we could
preprogram. This can save up to 20 per cent of your energy costs. This can be a
big business, and they're only doing 5 per cent of their business in
Newfoundland and Labrador. They're doing 50/50 in terms of Canada and the United
States. There are a lot of great companies and the entrepreneurial climate is
very strong.
If you
talk about Bonavista and the Bonavista Peninsula, the Member for Bonavista got
up before me and he touted all the good things that were going on, that his
Chamber of Commerce is very entrepreneurial, that they're creating start-up
space. When I went to Bonavista in early 2016, I think the Chamber had just
under 80 members and now they have over 130 members. There are like 60
businesses that have started up over the last three years. It's significant what
is going on in small business, the climate, tourism.
These
are the types of things that are happening that are building a stronger economy.
It's not just for small business and the tourism, as the Member for Bonavista
talked about, it's everything. It's a whole mix of dealing with forestry,
dealing with manufacturing and dealing with farming.
I'm very
proud of my district, as all Members would be of their district that they
represent and the people they represent. We all work very hard here in this
House of Assembly to advance the economy and the social well-being of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and build a stronger tomorrow. That's why we're all
here.
When we
look at investments that have been made, opportunities that we have, the Member
for CBS kind of ridiculed a great nation-building project connecting the Island,
which is isolated, of Newfoundland to mainland Canada to Labrador, to our
province, and connecting us to a market of over 300 million consumers, an
opportunity for tourism, for trade and for transport.
Seeing
Quebec investing $232 million on Route 138 will see a natural shift of traffic
from the west flowing north. People will have a curiosity. They'll want to
explore the Big Land. They're going to want to come to Newfoundland and come
down the Great Northern Peninsula where the Vikings were 1,000 years ago. It's
really old world and the new world met. It's an interesting story of how the
world came full circle; that it happened on the Northern Peninsula at L'Anse aux
Meadows.
Their
numbers are up. There was a 30 per cent increase last year; a 60 per cent
increase at the Port au Choix National Historic Site, which focuses on the
indigenous cultures of the region. It's really exciting to see that and see that
cluster.
I have
to say, though, when the Member opposite from CBS talks about cannabis industry,
we've been working very closely: the Minister of Finance, the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety, Health and Community Services, Children, Seniors and
Social Development. There's an interdepartmental committee that's been working
very closely on the regulatory matters. This is a big shift, the federal
government's policy decision of making cannabis for recreational purposes legal
in the country.
We've
taken swift action. We are the only province in Canada that did not have a
licenced producer and a licenced production facility. We had risk of not having
supply, not being able to create an industry here, not be able to create jobs in
Newfoundland and Labrador associated with this because if action wasn't taken
than all products, basically, would be imported.
Right
now, we're seeing where there's a lot of interest. We're very pleased we had
struck a deal with one of the world-leading companies that's going to create 145
jobs, operate for 20 years and numerous other benefits. They're going to be
spending tens of millions of dollars into the economy, and there is a return to
the Treasury.
There
has been many bad deals done by the former administration that never saw the
light of day. I've mentioned a little bit of that but I want to say there are
local opportunities for anybody. We had said publicly that we would use this as
a framework for other deals that would happen in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We're quite excited by the interest we're seeing and how people that want to set
up manufacturing and production facilities are looking at Newfoundland and
Labrador. How the partnerships are being built from a research and development
side of things. There are good things happening in the economy.
I wish
the Member for CBS listened to the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune when she was talking about how great it is that this
Bishop's Falls potential for a gold mine near her district, which would be
around the Member for Exploits. These are positive things. There are positive
mining developments that are happening across Newfoundland and Labrador;
prospectivity is up.
When you see a company like Fortis and their net
earnings reach over a billion dollars, there are things that's happening here in
our economy with businesses, locally grown talent. Innovative companies that's
flourishing here. We have a great tech sector. Where we
launched our Technology
Sector Work Plan was at Verafin. They are a Crown jewel in the Member for
Windsor Lake's district; 300 employees there. That's quite significant. They're
mentoring and supporting smaller companies so that they can scale up.
Our
Genesis Centre, our ability to work with Futurpreneur, with Common Ground, with
Invest Atlantic through our venture capital funds. There are a variety of tools
of which we can help. Sometimes it's financing in terms of working capital or
equity, or sometimes it's providing the opportunity to export.
If you
look at our export potential, it's tremendous. Being such a small province, big
jurisdiction, low density. We have, and in many cases, been punching above our
weight when it comes to companies that look at the export market.
With
CETA on the horizon, and you look at the Atlantic Fisheries Fund with $100
million for Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, another phantom fund. Another deal
that was announced by the former administration that could never get done, could
never get signed, never advanced.
They
talk about things they said they did. They'd make you believe they did it but
they didn't actually do it. They didn't do it. They just talked about it.
They
made a lot of announcements and promised a lot of money, with cheques they
basically couldn't cash because they had spent a tremendous amount of money.
Leaving the province with the worst deficit in the history of Newfoundland and
Labrador. If our Premier and the Finance Minister had not taken decisive action
with our Cabinet colleagues and our caucus, we would have had a $2.7 billion
deficit. That was a $2.2 billion deficit and we got it curbed to $1.1 billion
and now it's just over $600 million that's being projected this year.
It's
taking a lot effort by everybody and a lot of hard work to roll out the
Aquaculture Sector Work Plan, agriculture plan, shift policies of making Crown
lands available for farming and farming activity. When you look at the
opportunity to focus on forestry, there's a significant fibre basket in
Labrador, in Central Newfoundland, on the Great Northern Peninsula. There are
opportunities to get more value out of our forest sector. We all want to see
that.
The
Member for Bonavista talked about having the finger-joiner plant that's expanded
beyond just doing the lumber. They are creating good jobs. These are the types
of opportunities we need to continue to look at and explore and make sure that
our productivity and competitiveness is as high as it can be, because we're
living in that global world.
The
Minister of Natural Resources was in Houston promoting our oil and gas sector,
talking about our competitiveness and productivity, making really good policies,
working with the industry, listening to them, making sure that we can advance
2030, our plan, in a very co-operative and collaborative way that's going to
create high-value jobs for our economy.
We're
rolling out our Cultural Action Plan, stakeholder engagement sessions are
continuing. There's a lot happening next week. I invite people and encourage
people to participate because culture, when we talk about our cultural
industries, the last time the statistics showed our cultural industries, 5,000
people are employed. It's $452 million to the economy. That's quite significant.
I've
said time and time again in this House of Assembly, the investment in film and
the growth that's happening. We need to talk about these good things, these
sustainable industries that's happening. The diversity that's taking place.
There
are a lot of great volunteers out there running community-based organizations,
social enterprise that's having a huge impact on our economy, day in and day
out. If we look at our volunteer groups, like our Lions clubs, our service
organizations. If we look at the work that our volunteer firefighters do.
I have
18 fire departments in my district. That's quite a large geography when you have
just under 60 communities that you represent. They are to be commended for
stepping up and working 365 days a year. They are doing that, not for any
reward, they give so, so unselfishly.
We've
had community people who work very hard to make sure that community centres are
continuing to operate, that there are outreach programs, that there are
supports. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is experiencing, what I see as, a
rural revitalization. I can see it on the Bonavista Peninsula. I can see it
around the Twillingate and Lewisporte area. I can see it in the Terra Nova
District. You can see it on the Port au Port Peninsula. There is opportunity for
growth.
If we
focus on the cultural connections, if we look at where our natural resources
are, we can grow. We will grow because our government is focused on making the
right investments for Budget 2018. We
will continue that pathway for budget 2019, budget 2020 and continue to get back
to surplus by budget '22-23.
I want
to go back and close where I started because I had an entrepreneur quoted in a
local paper that said: All I see is opportunity here. This person sees it; this
person sees that if you're entrepreneurial, you can do things.
Sometimes things happen in Newfoundland and Labrador that you never thought
would be possible. When I talk to my federal-provincial-territorial counterparts
and we talk about how we were able to achieve this, how we were able to get the
right partnerships in place because we're doing the hard work. We're out there
on the ground connected to people. We're listening to people. We're listening to
communities. We're being creative. We're finding solutions, but that doesn't
come without the hard work. You have to do the hard work.
I'm very
positive about the future because I believe too that all I see is opportunity in
Newfoundland and Labrador, so vote for
Budget 2018.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand this afternoon in the Concurrence debate related to the
Resource sector committee, the Standing Committee of the House of Assembly that
deals with the issues under Resource and is the Committee that – these Standing
Committees are the Committees that take part in the Estimates meetings where we
meet with government at budget time to discuss with them the projected Estimates
for the coming year and to discuss with them what's happened in the past year.
There
are three of these committees, one of which is the general Government sector,
one of which is the Resource sector and the third of which is the Social sector.
The one that we're discussing today is the Resource sector.
For
people who are watching – and there are people watching – I will let them know
that under the Resource sector, we cover the budget of the Advanced Education,
Skills and Labour Department, we cover the estimated budget for the Fisheries
and Land Resources Department, also the Natural Resources Department and, as
well, Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. Of course, the minister for
that department just took his time to speak in the Concurrence debate.
It's
interesting that in the Resource sector, we have three areas – well, two areas
in particular that deal with the development of natural resources and one is
Fisheries and Land Resources. The other is the department called Natural
Resources and that's the one that deals with mining and with the development of
oil and gas.
Then we
also have Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation which is business oriented
because whether we're talking about business in culture or tourism, whatever,
it's business oriented. But with those three that are part of the development of
the natural resources, meaning the resources in the ground or the resources in
the ocean or business resources, we have in the mix Advanced Education, Skills
and Labour. That department actually deals with our human resources.
While
there are a lot of concerns that I could be raising here today with regard to
the fishery, not a lot of things came up in the Estimates around that. I,
personally, was not part of the one around Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation, while there are issues that we could discuss in all of those areas,
as I said in budget, in the Estimates there wasn't a lot. There were no problems
per se.
I think
we do have some questions, obviously, about where things are going, but the area
I want to really concentrate on today deals mainly with Advanced Education,
Skills and Labour, from the perspective of the human resource. Whether we're
talking about post-secondary education or training or whether we're talking
about income support, whether we're talking about labour standards, all of it
has to do with the people of the province.
I want
to concentrate on that because we can get so caught up, for example, with the
natural resources. We can get so caught up in the mining industry, for example,
from the perspective of the companies and getting the ore out and what the
income is from that, et cetera. We can get so caught up with the business side
and the revenues that we gain, that we can forget or ignore the human side of
the industry.
That's
what I want to talk about today, because we've had some things going on that are
disturbing when it comes to the people of the province and the people who work
in the industries. We've had some interchanges in Question Period with
government, in particular during Question Period, that indicates an attitude to
me that's very disturbing. So I want to get at this this afternoon.
One of
the issues for me is that in natural resources, and we all know this, we are
dealing with major corporations. So whether we're talking about the oil
industry, the petroleum industry, energy or whether we're talking about mining,
we're talking about huge corporations that now in our province are our
multinational corporations. They are corporations that work throughout the
world.
We have
corporations, Canadian corporations, that work in other parts of the world too.
But the phenomenon that we're dealing with here now in Newfoundland and Labrador
in the mining industry, for example, the two of major mines, which is the mine
in Labrador West, IOC, and the mine in Voisey's Bay, the corporations now who
own those mines are not only multinational corporations but their base is in
another country.
The
disturbing thing is that the countries from which they come, the countries in
which they are based are not countries that have the same labour standards that
we have in Canada; they're not companies that have the same safety standards
that we have in Canada, or workers' rights that we have in Canada.
In both
cases, with those mines, those two in particular, they originally started with
companies that were Canadian-based companies. Those Canadian-based companies may
have operations outside of Canada but they are Canadian-based companies, like
IOC.
What we
are coming up against are things that are happening which are not good for the
people of our province, things that are happening which are not good for the
workers and, therefore, they are not good for the families. We had the first
example of that back in 2010 and 2011 when we had an extended strike related to
the Voisey's Bay mine. It really did come down to the new company, Vale, having
different values than the values that we're used to.
I want
to speak to that today because it relates to my concerns with what is also
happening right now in two other places in the province. Back in 2011, because
that extended strike went on, it went on for so long – I think it was 15 or 16
months – the government put in place a commission to study what that extended
strike was all about. The commission, which was known as the Industrial Inquiry
into the strike at Voisey's Bay, Labrador, that commission, which was headed up
by Judge Roil, came up with some very interesting recommendations but also
observations.
This is
what I want to talk about: the observations of the commission of inquiry.
Because the commission of inquiry recognized – and this is what I want to get at
– that what we were up against now in the province were international
corporations that did not have the same values as we have here in Canada. You
were getting a real imbalance between the workers and these massive
organizations, these massive companies.
The
commission of inquiry didn't back down on that. The position was that the
transnational corporations were looking for profit from our resources, looking
for profits from our skilled workers and from their hard work – and that's fine,
profits are fine, but they were wanting to get every single dollar, every single
cent they could get without really looking at what the needs of the workers
were.
This
inquiry, in making its recommendations – really, Roil wanted to create an equal,
level playing field so that the workers in our province could negotiate
agreements with these foreign transnational corporations on fair terms. The
government and the minister responsible for AESL talk about the bargaining
process, the collective agreement process. I have a lot of experience with that,
as he very well might as well, but we know – and this is what happened in the
strike with Vale back in 2010-2011. It was an 18-month strike, by the way; I
remember the actual months. What actually happened was that we had a situation
where collective bargaining had completely fallen down – completely.
The
recommendations from the inquiry recognized that and recognized that there have
to be times when it becomes obvious that the collective bargaining is not going
to get anywhere, where everything is at a standstill that if both sides agree,
then there should be binding arbitration.
Now,
binding arbitration is not something that the labour movement looks for. It's
not something that we look for. It's not something the government looks for, but
the commission of inquiry in 2011 recognized because of the nature of the
transnational corporations – and that was the point they made – the nature of
the transnational corporations and their attitude towards collective bargaining,
that we were up against something brand new in this province. The recommendation
that was made by the commission of inquiry to allow for binding arbitration to
be when a complete standstill has been reached, that was something that would be
necessary.
It's a
recommendation that the labour movement agreed with at the time, and still
agrees with – not that they want binding arbitration in place as a general rule,
but when it becomes obvious that collective bargaining is no longer going to
work, when negotiators have been brought in, when conciliation officers have
been brought in, and still nothing happens, then there is a point at which
binding arbitration should come in place.
The
situation we're in right now is we have another strike on of the same length,
actually, going on in Gander between the workers there and D-J Composites. This
is been something that's – we've been going back and forth here in Question
Period between the Leader of the Third Party, the Member for St, John's Centre,
and between the Minister of ASEL, going around in circles there because the
minister keeps insisting that binding arbitration really shouldn't be happening
at all. It's the collective bargaining that should win out and you have to keep
at it.
Well,
they're not keeping at it because the company won't do it. That's why the strike
is going on. So they're into their 18th month now, I think, there. The minister
just refuses to recognize the need for the binding arbitration. He says: Well,
the labour board could be doing it. They haven't demanded it. What the Roil
commission said was it should be in legislation, that the recognition of the
need for binding arbitration when a group of workers is up against a
transnational corporation that will not bend, that binding arbitration should be
there in legislation and then there's something that government can use with the
labour board to say take action here.
I found
it disturbing today when the minister, in response to the Member for St. John's
Centre, said and I'm going to read this because the way in which it works is you
go into a collective bargaining and collective agreement and through a
collective – that's what it says: collective, which means both sides sit down
and try to have what they consider to be a fair, negotiated settlement for both
workers and employers, because not only workers, employers make a significant
contribution to this province as well. We can't lose sight of that. So that's
the whole idea of a collective bargaining. We give everybody the opportunity to
have their say.
The fact
that the minister would think that the workers in Gander or the workers in
Labrador, in Voisey's Bay, are on an equal footing with the transnational
corporations they're dealing with is ludicrous. They aren't on an equal footing.
They have no power. Their only power is the strike and then what happens is you
have the companies circumventing all the collective bargaining process, refusing
to sit down at the table. The workers now, even their one tool which gives them
some power doesn't work anymore.
In
Gander, it doesn't work because the company is finding new ways of bringing in
workers to circumvent the workers who are on the line. Sometimes we call these
replacement workers, or in the labour movement, scab labour. In Gander, they're
doing it in such a way that they're not replacing the positions. They're saying
these are new workers doing different jobs than those who are out on the picket
line. That's the kind of thing that's happening.
Let's
look at what's happening right now in Labrador at IOC. The workers are out for
six weeks and now we're hearing from them – this was raised today in the House
of Assembly – that they are having to deal with scabs working in the mine now in
Labrador West.
When
this was brought up today with the minister, the whole issue of anti-scab
legislation, the minister pooh-poohed it. The minister didn't take it seriously;
yet, it was taken seriously by the Commission of Inquiry in 2011 – taken very
seriously by it.
It's
rather interesting that the Commission of Inquiry in 2011 did deal with the
issue of scab labour. It noted that the use of scab labour enabled Vale to go
forward without the economic pressure which the traditional notion of strike
presupposes. Now that's very interesting, because a strike means that you don't
have the workers working. So if you don't have the workers working, you don't
have production. If you don't have production, you're losing money and you're
going to finally sit down at the table and do something about it.
If you
have the ability to bring in scab labour, to bring in replacement workers,
production continues. And because production continues, the workers who are on
strike have no power. They may be on strike but the company is going ahead and
working.
According to the inquiry's report, it continued and said: it is obviously a
concern for a regulator if the forces that are designed to push one or the other
parties to a settlement position cease to exist if the use of replacement
workers is seen by regulators to undermine the ability of employees and their
unions to both engage in meaningful collective bargaining and impose economic
sanction against their employer, then the pressure for rebalancing will be very
substantial.
Now,
unfortunately – and I don't know why, and I can't read his mind. We are now
seven years past when this inquiry's report came out. Unfortunately, John Roil
did not recommend legislation with regard to anti-scab workers; however, he was
very strong in talking about how scab labour gives all the power to the
employer.
So to
hear the minister talk today about being just as concerned about the employers –
employers who have profits of billions of dollars, billions – we have to be just
as concerned about them as the workers, I say phooey, no way. If we're really
concerned about natural resources, we better be concerned about the human
resources. We better be concerned about the workers and how long they're going
to be out on the picket line and how their families are going to suffer.
We're
not concerned about Gander. We weren't concerned about the workers in Voisey's
Bay and I'm willing to bet we're not concerned about what's going to happen to
the workers in Lab West. This disturbs me immensely, Mr. Speaker. These
companies are making the money from the backs of our workers and this government
is not protecting them.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to have the opportunity to speak to the Concurrence debate on the Resource
Committee.
Mr.
Speaker, there are four categories that have been outlined: Advanced Education
and Skills; Fisheries and Land Resources; Natural Resources; and Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation.
I did
spend a fait bit of time speaking to Fisheries yesterday, I think it was or the
day before. I know the Minister of Fisheries is disappointed because he enjoyed
my speech so much the last time, I'm sure he wants to hear more, but before I
do, I just want to take a moment because it is still the budget debate so I know
we have latitude. We can talk about anything.
I just
want to take a moment because yesterday we debated a private Member's motion and
I only got a couple of minutes to speak to it. I appreciate the time I did get
because I wasn't really entitled to that. I just had leave to do so, but I do
want to just have a couple of more words about it.
I'm not
going to repeat all the history and everything that's been all over the media
and all the Question Periods in the House of Assembly because we all know the
issues and we all know what's gone on. As I did say yesterday, I believe it is a
systemic issue. It is a partisan, political issue, a lot of it. Not the issue of
perhaps how a Member would treat a Member in their own party or a minister would
interact with a Member in their own party, but certainly when we talk about how
parties treat each other; how Members treat each other in the House of Assembly
and otherwise who are not in the same party.
I
believe this is really tied to the whole party system. It starts with the
parties and then it manifests itself, quite often, here in the House of Assembly
when we see this type of activity. So I just wanted to say that, Mr. Speaker. I
wanted to say that for the record and for the information of Members and to put
it in Hansard, today I did write a
letter. I wrote three letters actually. Well, it's one letter. Three copies I
suppose, if you want to call it, but I did write a letter to the president of
the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and I copied the leader. I wrote
a letter to the president of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and I
copied the leader. I wrote a letter to the NDP, to the president and I copied
the leader.
What I
said in that letter, and what I have suggested to those parties, is that we need
to, all parties, I believe, need to take leadership, not just in their Members.
We have a piece of legislation –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
We had a PMR that was
unanimously passed in the House. We all agreed with it, we all passed it and
that particular PMR is calling on, I guess, an anti-bullying or anti-harassment,
if you will, policy for Members in the House of Assembly and for it to apply to
CAs and EAs and political staff as well. That's what was done yesterday and we
all agree with that.
I have
challenged the leaders of the three parties to adopt a similar protocol to put
in the constitution of their parties, their constitution and their bylaws, an
expectation that those parties should have, an expectation for their Members to
apply the same type of protocol, not amongst themselves –
MS. MICHAEL:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
Order,
please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, the Member is
speaking about our party. I don't know if he's ever read our constitution, but –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
– the issues of harassment
and intimidation are an essential part of who were are as a party. It's
something we state at the beginning of every meeting that we have. It's
something we take very seriously. I hope that when he wrote the president of our
party that he read our constitution first.
MR. SPEAKER:
I take your point. I do not
see this as a point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the Member to continue.
I ask
all other Members in the House to please recognize the fact that we're almost
there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Let's listen to this fine
gentleman for Mount Pearl - Southlands. He's got a lot of important things to
say.
Thank
you very much.
MR. LANE:
Thank you for that, Mr.
Speaker.
I did
take the time to go through the constitutions of the parties, actually. I could
see nothing in the constitutions of either of the parties. If the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi wants to point it out to me later, she can. I did speak
to the leader of their party and she indicated they do talk about it at their
meetings and it is something that they adopt as a party and so on. I applaud
them for doing that, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking
about, per se, how in parties they would treat each other and have protocols at
their conventions, at their meetings and so on.
I'm
talking about the type of activity that occurs and has occurred and continues to
occur. It happens a lot in social media, for sure, whether it be overtly or
whether it be anonymous people, who are attacking Members in this House.
Everybody should be concerned about that, all parties. It's not a party issue,
it's really not. I don't mean it as a party issue, it's not taking shots at
parties, but every Member in this House, at one point or another, has been
targeted.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
Everybody has been targeted
in this House by people, anonymous trolls and so on, in social media, some
people more overtly. We all know how the system works and we know that there
will be people in the public – because they're angry over certain things, and we
can't control that – who are going to take shots. We expect that, but we also
know that some of the activity – and I would suggest a good bit of the activity–
that happens is resulting from, perhaps, people associated to us.
While
it's fine to say a Member in this House should not be bullying another Member in
this House; in the House or outside the House. We should also be saying, I
believe, and the party should show leadership to say, Members of our party,
whether they be people on our district associations, whether they be people on
the board or the executive of the party, whether they be candidates in an
election, or former candidates, or former Members of a certain party, that the
party should stand up, take some leadership, put it in their constitution, put
it in their bylaws that, as a Member of this party, we have an expectation that
you will not be attacking other Members of the House, whether they are in your
party or not.
That is
what I have asked. I have written the leaders of the three parties. I hope that
they're going to take me up on that challenge and do it because I think it
benefits everybody in this House of all parties. I encourage them to do so.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to get back to the budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk
about, I guess, the Resource Committee. I'm going to talk about the Tourism one
for a while.
Obviously, we all realize that we have great opportunities here in our province
for tourism. We all recognize that. We continue to see an increase in tourism. I
think that I agree with the minister and that person who said that Newfoundland
and Labrador is sort of a blank slate and there are a lot of opportunities for
entrepreneurs, particularly in the tourism, certainly in his part of the
province, certainly in the Bonavista area and all throughout province because we
do have tremendous opportunity. It's like this gem that a lot of people have not
discovered.
We've
done a good job, and the past administration did a good job as well, with their
advertising and so on, getting tourists here. I'm glad to see that's being
continued with those great ads and so on, in attracting people. That is a
positive thing.
I do
want to say to the minister though, there are three observations I made, Mr.
Speaker, going throughout the province. I've talked about this before. I'm not
sure if he was even a minister before but I'll talk about it again anyway. There
were three things that I noticed, one, if we're going to invite people to come
to this province and take advantage of the great tourism opportunities we have,
then the roads, in particular the roads getting to those locations, they have to
be fit to drive on.
I'm not
going to go on a big rant about the condition of roads. Roads have always been
an issue in this province. They probably always will be because there'll never
be enough money to have them perfect all the time, but I would say to the
Minister of Transportation, in terms of our five-year plan and your rating
system and so on, I would hope, I think it is, but I would hope, that part of
the evaluation, if you will, associated to your roadwork would be tourism
potential.
If we
have a big tourism draw, then the road getting there should be given some
priority. It only makes sense. You can't have people getting there –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
You can't have people going
to a tourist site if they can't get to it and the road's not fit to drive on.
That was one observation.
The
second observation I'll make is signage. I do see some issues with signage. I
really think – and I don't know if there's a signage strategy or so on in place
or there's going to be one, but I do think that signage is an issue. Not so much
if you're from here, I would say, but if you're not from here – even if you're
from here, actually, and you go to certain parts of the province, you may see a
sign saying such and such this way and you turn off. You go down the road but
then when you get down one road, there might be two or three turns, you might
have to make a left here and another right down here and the signage doesn't
follow right to the tourist destinations, necessarily.
I tried
looking at it, if I was someone who wasn't from here and I really didn't know
where the place was, it would be kind of confusing because it was, like I said,
a sign on a main road saying turn right and once you turn right there may have
been, like I said, you might have had to turn off two or three different roads
to get to the spot. The signage wasn't clear of how to exactly get there. I
noticed that in a lot of locations.
I just
say to the minister, that's just an observation and it's not to be critical.
It's just to point out, I think, an area where we need some improvement in terms
of the signage.
I know
even the airport, even the St. John's Airport – if you weren't necessarily from
here, the signage even to the airport is not great. There's a little bit of
confusion even when you're going up Portugal Cove Road, you got the Major's Path
and then you got Chinook Lane, Craig Dobbin's Way and then you get to the
airport, there's a tendency that you want to make a right turn down Craig
Dobbin's Way before you even get to the airport because the signage is not
really clear. I'm from here and I've been there a million times, but these are
just little observations.
I think
that it's something we should be mindful of. If we're going to promote tourism,
I think we need to be mindful of the fact that if we want people to come here,
we want them to take in –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
– the various tourism
opportunities, then having good signage I think is important.
The
third observation I made, Mr. Speaker, in terms of tourism was, along my
travels, there were some locations that you go to where there might be a sign or
something saying a tourist attraction here. There may be some nice area to pull
in and take a look at a scenic place or whatever. I came across locations, when
you got down there, where the condition was not kept up for the site.
I know
that a lot of it might be because over the years there were certain sites set up
all around the Island that might have been done on grants, make-work projects
and so and then were never kept up. It was never kept up after the fact. There
might have been some projects that were put in municipalities that because of
their shrinking populations, they couldn't afford to keep up with it.
I did
come across a number of places where when you get there, the infrastructure
would be crumbling. The picnic tables on this beautiful area – there was once
place down around Twillingate area; I can't remember the name of the little
place, something bay anyway. You went down there and it was a gorgeous view –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. LANE:
It might have been, I'm not
sure.
It was a
gorgeous view but when you got down there, the picnic tables that were there
were falling apart. They were like literally falling apart. There was a swing
set or something there – no swings; tipped over.
I guess
my point is I think it would be helpful to have an inventory – if you don't
already have one – of what is around and make a decision either we're going to
have it and maintain it, or we're just simply going to say we can't afford to
maintain four things here, we can only afford to maintain one, let's do a good
job with that and let's clean up the other ones and not promote it all. Because
you don't want people driving 10 or 20 kilometres down a road and when they get
there, there's nothing down there only an eyesore.
So that
was just some observations I made. Again, it's not being critical; trying to be
constructive in the criticism on that, but I think it's something that should be
considered.
Mr.
Speaker, my time is starting to diminish here, so I'm going to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
The Minister of Fisheries
says he wants some.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm just going to speak very quickly on Natural Resources. I did speak
last time about my concerns around the division of Nalcor and those concerns,
but I will just finish off, again, on the Muskrat Falls inquiry, which is
proceeding. As I have said many times, I just want to repeat for the record and
I say to the Premier and I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, the
Minister of Justice and so on, I really and sincerely hope that – I understand
we want to find out what went on. I understand we want to learn from what went
on so we don't repeat any mistakes that were made, but I think accountability is
also very important.
I just
say that I think it's important that we ensure that there is somebody – whoever
that might be – that you put the resources in place, from a legal point of view,
civil litigation, from an investigative point of view in terms the authorities,
from a human resources point of view and make sure that if things were done –
and again, this is a big if, because all the things we've heard so far are
anonymous, fudging of numbers and all this; anonymous engineers and we've all
heard of this stuff.
We need
to make sure that as we go through process, if indeed there are things that
could lead to civil litigation, things that could lead to perhaps contracts
being null and void, perhaps the need for an investigation by the authorities,
if it's demonstrated that there was complete negligence, mismanagement, whatever
the case might be, that deserves pink slips, if that's what it should show, then
we need to make sure that accountability prevails.
A lot of
people I have spoken to, that's one of the concerns they have about the inquiry.
That's why a lot of people say it's a waste of money because people have this
impression in the public that we're going to go through the motions and even if
people ought to have been held accountable, they won't. They'll just sort of
walk away and they'll say yeah, don't do it next time.
That's
what the average person feels is going to happen here. I think it's important
that we reassure the public that we're not going on a witch hunt. We're not
looking for people to blame or throw under the bus, but if the forensic audit
and the evidence shows that something was done that shouldn't have been done,
then accountability will prevail in that process.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to take my seat and thank you for the time.
MR. SPEAKER:
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.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
On
motion, Report of the Resource Estimates Committee, carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Deputy Government
House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for
Fogo Island - Cape Freels, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Financial Administration Act, Bill 11, and I further move that the
said bill be now read a first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded by the hon. the Deputy Government House Leader shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration
Act, Bill 11, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Financial
Administration Act,” carried. (Bill 11)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 11).
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS.
COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the hour, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House do now adjourn.
MR.
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.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
This House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock,
tomorrow, the 14th day of May, in the year of Our Lord, 2018.
Thank you very much.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.