April 22

April 22, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 6

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Burin - Grand Bank, St. George's - Humber, Mount Pearl North, Placentia West - Bellevue and Lake Melville.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

P. PIKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Volunteer Week, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers in the District of Burin - Grand Bank. I am very proud and humbled today to recognize our volunteer firefighters who play such a vital role in my district, and indeed the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are so grateful to our firefighters for answering this calling as they put our lives and the lives of those we love ahead of their own. Always on call, they live with the understanding that they miss out on family moments and occasions to perform their duties.

Mr. Speaker, for their dedication, commitment and courage, the service and sacrifices that they make, they are truly heroes in our communities.

Thank you to those men, women and their families for keeping our province safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George's - Humber.

S. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to recognize Pasadena author Nellie Strowbridge, who recently published her latest book. This new book is a sequel to her bestselling novel Catherine Snow, which is based on true events from the history of this province. The first book tells the story of Catherine Snow, a woman from Salmon Cove who was accused and convicted of complicity in the murder of her husband in 1830.

Nellie Strowbridge's latest book, The Hanged Woman's Daughter, tells the story of Bridget Snow, the oldest daughter of Catherine Snow, and picks up the story after Catherine's death. While the first book has been described by the author as a work of creative non-fiction, this most recent book also tries to adhere closely as possible to what was known about the life of her daughter.

The author says she writes books on subjects that inspire her and hopes it will cause people to think about things in a different way.

In conclusion, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in recognizing the work of author Nellie Strowbridge, and other writers like her, who contribute to our understanding of our history and culture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

L. STOYLES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The District of Mount Pearl North is a showcase for many successful businesses. Today, I am highlighting just one.

Junior Reid took a chance 30 years ago by starting Reid Music. Music is Junior's life, a dream come true for him. The business is the cornerstone to the community.

Mr. Reid is a long-time volunteer with the City of Mount Pearl, having volunteered with the Frosty Festival for well over 30 years. He also judged many awards that have focus on youth in our community. He has also played music for many senior events.

The family business continues to support Mount Pearl organizations by sponsoring events that have helped to shape our community. Reid Music started out in one room, but after four years, his business grew to the point that he moved to a location at 835 Topsail Road, having expanded several more times at the same location.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in wishing congratulations to Junior and Gina Reid of Reid Music for over 30 years in business.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sit in this hon. Chamber today to express my deep appreciation for the volunteer firefighters that serve to protect the communities of our beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

Placentia West - Bellevue has a total of 16 volunteer fire departments, each made up of brave and selfless men and women whose goal is to ensure the safety of the residents in their communities and travelling public.

The saying firefighters save more than homes; they save hearts, memories and dreams is a great explanation of the impact a firefighter can have on one's life.

Just within the last few weeks, the Southern Harbour Volunteer Fire Department accepted two new recruits, Christopher Penny and Brad Peach, into the ranks of their brigade. Congratulations, gentlemen, for stepping up to serve your community, neighbours and visitors.

I invite all Members of this hon. House to join me in showing our gratitude for those who serve with a volunteer fire department, not only in Placentia West - Bellevue, but throughout this beautiful place we call home, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

I am pleased to recognize the achievements of Inuit artists from Labrador at the exciting INUA exhibition in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Opened in March and comprising 8,000 square feet, INUA is the single largest gallery space for Inuit art.

Among the 90 artists invited to participate from Canada, Alaska and Greenland are several of Labrador's finest, including two from Lake Melville. Shirley Moorhouse of Happy Valley-Goose Bay is known for her mixed-media wall hangings that combine traditional and modern elements to create beautiful artwork. Michael Massie is a sculptor, also from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, who incorporates elements of traditional life in Labrador.

Three other respected artists from Nunatsiavut, Eldred Allen, Glenn Gear and Bronson Jacque, also have profiled their work in various media. The exhibition is attracting national and circumpolar attention.

Heather Igloliorte, one of the co-curators also from Happy Valley -Goose Bay said: “Together these artworks celebrate our past, survey the present and speak to an exciting future for Inuit art.”

Congratulations to these artists and curators for assembling this exciting showcase for all to enjoy and appreciate.

Nakummek.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize April 22 as Earth Day. This year's theme is Restore Our Planet.

As our climate changes, we are working to preserve our environment, coastal and protected areas, and to reduce waste in Newfoundland and Labrador. We all can play a part in protecting our land, air and our waters while preserving spaces that we cherish in our communities.

I just came from visiting St. Paul's Junior High School who were doing a community cleanup in honour of Earth Day.

Mr. Speaker, our government is moving forward with innovative technologies and initiatives in our province to adapt to the effects of climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed to the net-zero emissions by 2050 and we have taken action on 43 of the 45 items in our Climate Change Action Plan. Our plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stimulate clean innovation and growth, and build resiliency to climate change impacts.

We were pleased to see increased investment in the federal budget for the green economy to support our efforts here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our government has announced six programs for energy efficiency and fuel switching. By 2030, these programs are anticipated to deliver 830,000 tons of greenhouse gas reductions.

We are also working to convert schools and municipal and provincial public buildings from oil heat to electric heat and to improve energy efficiency.

On Earth Day and every day, we can all be environmental stewards. We share a responsibility to protect our environment for future generations by making greener choices each and every day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join with the minister to recognize Earth Day in our province. Not only today but every day we need to acknowledge the dangerous impacts our planet is facing due to climate change. The Innu and Inuit of Northern Labrador are already living with the impacts of climate change and our province needs to listen and learn. Climate change is here and if steps are not taken our very way of life is threatened.

This government talks on the progress they are making on fighting climate change, and every action does, indeed, help, but they need to do more. Mr. Speaker, this government has been in power now for almost six years and in those six years they have yet to clearly outline specific CO2-equivalent reduction targets. We need to hear from this government on what actions they are taking while also qualifying the reductions of these actions.

Until this government produces a plan, which quantifies the reduction in CO2 equivalence, clearly outlining how the province will meet its Paris climate targets, they are doing the people of our province a disservice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and join him in recognizing Earth Day and the need for all of us to be environmental stewards.

However, lofty sentiments do ring hollow when government also speaks of clean oil, subsidizes wealthy oil companies, faces judicial challenges for failing to perform proper environmental assessment of aquaculture projects, undermined the work of WERAC and, most recently, breaks its own rules in allowing an ATV trail through the protected Main River watershed.

We need to do better.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

G. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, getting people back to work is crucial for the province's post-pandemic economic recovery. Part of that means making sure that we provide students with opportunities to enter the workforce and for businesses to harness the talents of students to assist them in that process.

In response to the unique challenges created by COVID-19, this year our government increased funding and flexibility for student employment programs. This change will help create over 600 additional jobs, securing summer employment for some 1,600 post-secondary and high school students in our province.

With a one-time increase to the Workforce Development Agreement, funding for this year is set at over $3.7 million, which is up from $2.1 million last year.

As a result, we are increasing wage supports for the private sector employers. They are now eligible to receive a wage subsidy of up to 75 per cent of the student's hourly wage, to a maximum of $12.50 per hour. This is up from a 50 per cent wage subsidy in past years. In addition, our not-for-profit organizations continue to be funded at 100 per cent, to the same maximum of $12.50 per hour.

This year, we are also expanding eligibility to include part-time employment. Under the previous rules, all summer employment must be full-time, a minimum of 25 hours per week. As we know, students are engaged in part-time studies, and part-time employment is important.

Mr. Speaker, the valuable experience high school and post-secondary students gain from the summer jobs will help them pursue their chosen careers, right here at home.

These enhanced employment programs provide working and learning opportunities, while bringing the energy and enthusiasm of students to businesses and to not-for-profit organizations who are working towards economic recovery. I encourage all employers in our province, in communities throughout the entire province, to apply online before the deadline of May 11 this year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join the minister in recognizing the importance of getting more students to work with enhanced employment programs here in this province.

Students have been disproportionately affected during the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to employment. We need to be steadfast in providing our young people with opportunities: opportunities to obtain education, to live here, to work here and to remain here. An increase in funding to create 600 additional jobs for students in our province is very welcome news. Our young people are one of the most treasured resources. Let's get to work to ensure they have a bright future right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and I applaud a program which provides students with opportunities to enter the workforce, and helps our province recover from the pandemic.

However, as most of us know, the post-pandemic economy is proving to be very expensive, especially for those on fixed income and those earning a minimum wage and for our students. Now is the time, I believe, to act boldly and implement a $15-per-hour minimum wage for our students and our other minimum wage workers. Our students and our workers are worth that investment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Other statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak in this hon. House today to recognize April 18 to 24 as National Volunteer Week.

This year's theme – The Value of One, The Power of Many – reflects the inspiring acts of kindness by each individual volunteer throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and the impact they have when working toward a common goal.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen how volunteers make a difference in our province, especially during this past year as we have faced the challenges of COVID-19. The individual and collective efforts they have put forth during the pandemic are phenomenal and I commend all of them for the outstanding contributions they continue to make for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Volunteering also enriches our lives by helping us connect with and learn from others leading to personal and professional growth. I would like to thank the Community Sector Council of Newfoundland and Labrador who have been fostering volunteerism and cultivating leadership since 1976. I might be remiss if I didn't thank them for also highlighting the volunteers in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair this year, Mr. Speaker, I had nothing to do with it, but it was lovely to see.

Their vision is for an inclusive society, which supports individuals, families and communities and our government shares this vision wholeheartedly. On Tuesday, the Premier and Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development and Minister Responsible for the Community Sector signed a proclamation to recognize this week and the incredible volunteers who make our province strong and vibrant.

I invite all Members of this House to join me in celebrating our province's wonderful volunteers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I join with the minister in recognizing the thousands of volunteers in our province and the impact it has on the many organizations and groups meeting their goals.

In each and every community there are organizations, fire brigades, church groups, seniors groups, councils and many others that provide valued leadership. Volunteers are a major asset for success.

Our kids develop skills because of volunteers and it leads to an inclusive society. Support for our children, youth, adult, seniors and their very different needs are made possible by volunteers. During this pandemic it's important we recognize all volunteers that have been risking their own health to ensure the safety of others.

It would be remiss of me to not recognize the many volunteers that work countless hours to ensure all of our election to this office to allow us all to work on behalf of the people of this great province we call home, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I can say from personal experience that my own district has benefited enormously from the contributions of volunteers. Without their tireless efforts, communities across this province would be a much less vibrant and pleasant place to live.

Though it often goes without recognition, our volunteers actually provide a wide range of social services. Unfortunately, we've come to this situation because successive governments have failed to address the shortcomings of our social support systems.

We understand the hard work of these volunteers and we thank every one of them in this province that stepped up to the plate in supporting our neighbours when the systems have failed them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Other statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Media reports today have shed a light on the failure of the government to adequately provide search and rescue helicopter services for the Northeast Avalon, which have been absent for over a year. Last month, Transportation officials said they were working with St. John's Regional Fire Department to address this issue. Now we learn this is not correct.

I ask the Premier: Who is telling the truth on this critical matter of public safety?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that question.

First, let me pass my condolences on behalf of the province and on behalf of this House, I think, to the life that was lost, or certainly seems to be at this particular moment in time. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family during this tough time.

As it pertains to what has actually happened with respect to the negotiations between the City of St. John's, the firefighters and the government, we're certainly looking at everything right now. As I understand it, there was a helicopter contract in place.

There is certainly space to improve on where we are, and the Minister of Justice and Public Safety is certainly looking at that right now, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The chief of the St. John's Regional Fire Department said she had not heard from provincial officials since October of last year.

Again, these words may mean something that the Premier just said, but why is this critical issue allowed to go on for so long? Who is looking into this?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to send my thoughts and prayers to the family who is going through a very difficult time right now. As we all know, we live in a province with oceans surrounding us. It has given us a lot, but it has taken a lot as well. I hope the family can get through the next few days and what the future holds for them.

I do want to reassure, as the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that the search and rescue services are available on the Northeast Avalon and they are available throughout the province.

I hope that the Member opposite isn't conflating the issues here for political purposes. The issue with the St. John's Regional Fire Department is completely different from the issue that arose last night. Last night, after this incident was reported to the RNC, marine support was requested and it was provided. Extra support was offered in the form of air support, and that was provided as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's concerning for a comment like that to come from across the way. My colleague from Cape St. Francis is the Member representing that area and is quite familiar with that area and a former Member who was from Flatrock. These are two separate stories, if you read the news they came out in two separate issues.

This happened to be coincidental and maybe it's timely, who knows, but it's a very unfortunate situation. But never tie this to me playing politics with someone's lives. I take great offence to that and I think anyone listening should feel the same way.

Mr. Speaker, in describing the seriousness of the situation, the current deputy chief of the RNC described the situation as life and death. Again, these are words of experienced professionals.

Why has the government sat idly by for months while companies like Cougar have aircraft ready, willing and able?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I was advised of this tragic event last night, one of the first things I did was reach out to the Member for Cape St. Francis and we did have a conversation this morning because I do understand he is the Member for that area and I wanted him to be aware of it. I do understand he was there last night on the scene and I thank him for that. He was there again this morning. Again, I'm happy to reach across the isle and work with everybody, especially the Members that are specific to that area.

I do want to reassure everyone that there is search and rescue available in this province. The issues that were put forward by the letter from the St. John's Regional Fire Department are separate, distinct and very discreet. We will work with the St. John's Regional Fire Department and the city going forward, my department as well as the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out, it's also the RNC that made complaints, not just the fire department. Also, out of the frustration with the failure to act, Mayors Breen, Aker and Bobbett wrote the Premier on March 17 indicating that contrary to government's statements to the media, there have not been any communications and there were no clear protocols in place.

Again, I ask the Premier: Why is life and safety of the public been put at risk for so long?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The letter was received, it was sent to the Premier's office and there was a letter that was sent back to them to respond to it. Again, that's something that we're going to be working with them going forward, but it is a very specific and discreet issue related to rope teams at the St. John's Regional Fire Department. Last night, was not an issue where rope teams were requested. The appropriate services were requested by the RNC and they were provided.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to see the Minister of Justice finally acknowledge there were issues with this election despite his difficulty in seeing what's obvious to everyone in the province. He has now taken the lead of the All-Party Committee but has not stated an independent investigator will be called in to independently review the election.

I ask the minister: Do you agree an independent investigator should be called in to review the election?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I stated yesterday here in this House, there is an independent investigator, actually four, they're called Supreme Court judges. They will do an independent review of the legalities around the 2021 election.

I look forward to Members of the opposite side of this House to join in the All-Party Committee to review the facts of the 2021 election, as we move forward to modernize the Elections Act here in this province to provide the most access to voters in Newfoundland and Labrador with the ability to make it as easy as possible for them to vote in the next election and future elections.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not off to a good start if he does not recognize the importance and necessity of having an independent, impartial, external review of this election.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer is an Officer of the House of the Assembly, whose appointment is voted on by this hon. House. It is therefore the power of this House of Assembly to suspend the Chief Electoral Officer while the review –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: – of the election takes place, as his conduct is subject to the review.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Do you believe it is inappropriate for someone under investigation to be part of their own investigation?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite knows, there are court cases ongoing at Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and the CEO that she speaks of is a named individual in that. So what I think is appropriate is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of this province to not interfere with ongoing court matters in this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister of Justice understands the power of the House of Assembly to suspend the CEO while the review of the election takes place. That is the venue and the proper form for that to be done.

Mr. Speaker, on January 6, Bruce Chaulk asked for an extended election, which the Premier ignored. On January 15, the federal government issued modeling to show a two-month spike in COVID-19 cases across the country, which the Premier also ignored. If the Liberals ignored warning signs leading into this election, why should the people of Newfoundland and Labrador trust the Liberals to lead this election review?

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

J. HOGAN: I think the Premier has answered that question on numerous occasions. Again, we are looking forward to doing the review to modernize the Elections Act. I am very pleased that the Premier has tasked me with that. Again, we have tasked an All-Party Committee to get involved with that as well, and we hope that all the Members are happy with that, seeing as that they asked for it yesterday, and satisfied with the first step towards fulfilling this task and the mandate that the Premier has given me.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were shocked to recently learn that successive premiers had secret talks about storing toxic nuclear waste in Labrador. Records recently released showed that the former Premier Ball and current Premier Furey had talks with former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, why is government satisfied to have Labrador as an environmentally friendly battery for electricity for North America on one hand, but serve as a toxic dump on the other hand?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for that question.

I welcome the opportunity to clarify. Perhaps I wasn't clear in the media. Absolutely not on my watch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Secret talks without consultation, Mr. Speaker, we have to question what he says.

Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government has spoken out about the lack of legally required consultation on this project. Labrador has a sad history of large-scale environmental pollution, abandoned and contaminated military sites and, recently, the failure to mitigate methylmercury from Muskrat Falls.

Why is the Premier ignoring clearly defined legal rights and repeating past failures to consult Labradorians, especially Indigenous groups? If he is having talks, he should be consulting Indigenous people and Labrador's people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

Let me say again: Absolutely not on my watch.

There is no consultation because there are no discussions – frankly, plain and simple. I don't know how to be anymore frank than that. Not on my watch. Labrador is nobody's dumping ground and that's why there were no consultations because it's not even being entertained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The original terms or the Greene report call for an interim report to be delivered by February 28 and the final report due by April 30. Yesterday the minister said it could be received a few days or a few weeks following April 30.

Considering the Premier has had discussions with Dame Greene, either the Premier has changed the Terms of Reference or Dame Greene is ignoring them, which is it?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Moya Greene report, which is made up and comprised of – the task force is comprised of some incredibly strong, intelligent and gifted Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They're going to give us the information that they have found, that they have discovered, that they have reviewed and that they have consulted with people around the province. They're going to give that to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As the Premier has indicated on multiple times – multiple times – that we will be consulting with people, we'll have a large discussion with people and we'll debate it and review it in this House of Assembly. The Premier is committed to that, Mr. Speaker.

I mean, certainly, this is not going to be delayed as the Muskrat Falls reports, and Muskrat Falls was delayed. We're certainly going to look forward to having good, open consultations and discussions when we receive the report in due course.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, the people of the province deserve transparency on the Greene report, and the government keeps changing its mind on when it's going to be received, whether it's an interim report, a final report.

They pushed back the release of the Greene report until after the election and now they seem determined to push it out until after the budget.

So I'd ask the minister: Why or what are you hiding?

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

S. COADY: Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite is putting out false information. It is simply not true. As everyone in this province knows, we were in lockdown due to COVID. There has been some delay in getting the interim report. I don't expect there'll be any delay in getting the final report. It's expected to be received within the next couple of weeks. We all know that – all know that.

We have said quite clearly, quite sincerely and quite fulsome –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. COADY: I know they are chirping across the hall. I can hear them say this. But we have been very clear. We have asked very great Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to consult with others to bring forward a plan to help us with the financial mess that the Members opposite were responsible for creating.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, we still don't know whether we're getting an interim report or a final report and sometime after April 30.

So again I ask the minister: Can you confirm whether it's an interim report or a final report?

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. COADY: I can still hear them chirping over there, Mr. Speaker; it's disrespectful.

We have good, solid Newfoundlanders and Labradorians looking at how to make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador is strong, vibrant and self-sustaining into the future. I can tell you they're looking at an awful mess left behind by the Progressive Conservative government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. COADY: Just think about this, Mr. Speaker. We have to find almost $600 million a year just on rate mitigation, let alone paying for Muskrat Falls. Now we have this stellar group of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. COADY: The Members opposite are being disrespectful.

I can say to you that I understand from Moya Greene and her team that the report will be received in due course within the next number of weeks and we'll be consulting on that.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

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

We had a great example of respect yesterday afternoon, I thought, led by the Opposition, I have to say.

Yesterday in this House, the minister said, “There is a denture program. It supplies a set on a regular basis at the request of the individual and a denturist.” However, what he failed to note is that is limited to only individuals on the Foundation Plan of the NLPDP and only provides standard dentures once every eight years.

Imagine having to wait eight years to properly eat a meal. This program, as slashed by the Liberals in 2016, fails our seniors.

I ask the minister: Will you do the right thing and reinstate the full Adult Dental Program in this province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.

We have a modest number of people for whom we provide benefits, and dental care is one of those. We are compatible in terms of our range of services with five other jurisdictions and better than three.

I have repeatedly said in this House that we are constrained by our fiscal envelope. As that solves itself over the course of the coming mandate, as we deal with the financial issues that we inherited back in 2016 and are still plaguing us, then we may be able to do more. I look forward to being able to present those to the House in the future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that information.

This week is Information Management Week and it has come to the attention of the Official Opposition that there have been 86 separate data breaches within the Department of Digital Government and Service NL in the last three years alone.

I ask the minister: Why is the Liberal government failing to protect the private information of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Information management is incredibly important. It's important for all public servants; it's important for private organizations as well. We certainly take any data breach very seriously. I'm not aware of that number. I'll certainly look into that for the Member.

We take the information of the residents of this province extremely seriously. We have a comprehensive cybersecurity program in place to prevent attacks. I would encourage all Members and all government employees to be really mindful about the emails they get, the attachments they open and the links they click on. Protecting our data is everyone's responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: On October 1, 2020, WERAC submitted a proposal to government for approval. Six months later now have passed.

I ask the minister: What is the status of this report?

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the hon. Member for the question. I'm all caught up here in my earpiece. It's not functional down in this end, but thank you very much.

This being Volunteer Week, I'd like to say thank you to the WERAC volunteer group that does some great work in our community. We're in the process of cluing up the consultations in that area. I look forward to them presenting that report and their findings of what they've heard in the near future.

Thank you very much for the question. Very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Safety is extremely important for our vehicles on our highways throughout the province; in particular, on the Burin Peninsula, we have treacherous winter weather. Total whiteouts are a common occurrence on the Burin Peninsula.

Will the government commit to upgrading cell services on the Burin Peninsula highway for not only Fire and Emergency Services, but for the general public?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the Member opposite. I think it's a concern that a lot of us share, including myself, especially all over rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I can say is that we have made great strides over the past few years. Phase I of the cell service program is now complete. I believe I spoke in the House about Phase II, which has been announced and we are working through.

What I can say is, number one, we know that the federal government has invested another further billion dollars on Monday in the budget to go towards broadband and connectivity, which I think can be applied towards this. What I will also say is that we are very bullish on the idea of connectivity in this province, whether it is broadband, whether it is cell service. The reality, as we all know, especially in a post-COVID world, is that we need more connectivity for safety reasons, for social reasons and for economic reasons.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: With that being said, the program that's in place, Minister, is cost shared and is applied for by towns. I'm just wondering who would be applying for the Burin Peninsula highway?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, that's one of the challenges that we face is that we have a terrific number of kilometres of highway; in fact, 10,000 kilometres of highway. A number of those kilometres are in areas – I look at the Member for down in Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the same as myself, we have long stretches and it's difficult. The reality is should government just invest in long stretches of highway just on its own?

Right now, I think we have a number of challenges with communities and other populated areas that we need to work on, but I do share the concern for the Member. What I will say is it's a concern that we're working on, but it requires partnerships. It requires partnerships with our federal government; it requires partnerships with the providers, as well as municipalities and citizens. I think we all have a role to play in ensuring that we have that coverage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents have concerns with the length of time it takes to get a hearing test in this province, specifically seniors. Western Health's own website states wait times are very lengthy for routine referrals, which acknowledges the problem quite clearly.

I ask the minister: What is the average wait time for a hearing test in our province and what is being done to reduce the wait times?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

We are aware of challenges with recruitment of audiologists. We, through our processes in the department, had a request for proposals to go out to seek extra audiological support from the private sector. That was held up as a result of some issues with the RFP. That RFP will be going out again in the near future.

It will produce a significant reduction in the number of people waiting and the time they wait. I don't actually have the accurate figures in front of me, but I can certainly go and get them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I'd say to the minister that's little consolation to a senior who can't hear anything for 12 or 14 months. A reduction in the services is creating great problems and being able to enable these seniors to go to a private clinic or elsewhere to get a test would certainly reduce the backlog for infants and other people that need it.

I'll ask the minister again: Can you give us a time frame when public or private entities will be able to do these tests?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE: The short answer to that is no. I can tell him that whatever date I gave him today would be wrong simply because I don't have complete control over the process. It depends on who responds to the RFP and whether or not they fit within the parameters and are eligible and those kind of things.

It is a priority, the Member opposite is quite correct. It has been a challenge to recruit the skills that we need. One of the other directions we're taking is to try and train these people in-house in the province, because in general in health we know that if we train these folk and these skills locally, we keep them. That's another line of approach, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been contacted by an interim physiotherapist who advises that there's a backlog of more than 3,000 candidates who have been waiting over a year to challenge the national exam required to become a licensed physiotherapist.

Is the minister aware of this issue? What is he going to do to address the shortage of licensed physiotherapists in the province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

Yes, we have been made aware of this situation. Unfortunately, physiotherapy is a self-regulating profession and the remedies are outside our immediate control.

What I can say is we are aware that people who have passed the local exams but not yet passed their national certifying exams are able to practice in controlled environments. We are working to see what options exist through their national body, Mr. Speaker, to speed the process up. We are aware of it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was pleased to hear in the news this week from the Minister of Health that we have a significant boost in the supply of vaccines, and that he will be asking pharmacists to assist in giving those inoculations.

I ask the minister: What assurance can he give that all pharmacists will be vaccinated in time to also give the vaccinations?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

We are expecting a large influx of vaccine in May. Exactly when, we're not sure, but it could be in the second half. We have an open call for Phase 2 coming this week.

As far as pharmacists are concerned, the regional health authorities have been working with PANL, the Pharmacists' Association, to identify pharmacists within their boundaries to make sure that they have received a vaccine prior to the arrival of this big surplus.

It's a work in progress, I don't have an update on where we are with that. Certainly, I can go back to PANL and the RHAs and ask for that. Happy to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my short time here in this House, I've asked this question to a couple of different ministers. Route 60 through Topsail - Paradise, through Topsail in my district, is pitted with potholes, it has erosion of the shoulders and it presents safety issues for drivers and pedestrians.

I ask the current minister responsible: What commitment will he give to the residents of Topsail - Paradise that this road will be looked at in the very near future?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that question.

I will say, that presentation in terms of potholes, it's a reality in a lot of areas of this province. But as I committed to you on a side conversation, I'll go have a look at it with you, I'll be glad to do so and I look forward to that. So, yeah, I have no other commitments than that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've heard many promises of public consultation on the Premier's Economic Recovery task force report, or the Greene report.

Will the Premier outline, please, the plans for the consultation process?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

We are looking at a combination and, frankly, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is going to lead this, but we're happy to reach across the aisle and work with Members opposite to facilitate the public consultation.

As I said many times, every Newfoundlander will have a chance to have their say on the Greene report as we develop strategies moving forward to create sustainable opportunities for families here in this province, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to engaging Newfoundlanders with many different platforms, including public consultations in town halls, should COVID restrictions apply and allow. We would also look at doing things like online portals and telephone consultations, if required, where online would be an issue to ensure that we give every Newfoundlander the ability to have a say on this report when they want.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador West is in the midst of a housing crisis, today low-income individuals have been evicted from units as they are being sold off to highest bidder. There are currently more families on the list than NL Housing units in Labrador West. With no emergency shelter in the region, I have repeatedly warned previous ministers and NL Housing of this upcoming situation.

Why did this government allow the situation to happen?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for the question. I was actually in Housing at the time, in the spring of '19, when we signed a $270 million – the most historic, largest agreement in our history between the feds and the province for Housing. That nine-year agreement, we're going to be rolling out three, three-year action plans.

As I outlined in this hon. House, maybe earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, we have made tremendous strides. We have specific targets in that three-year action plan to expand, to preserve. We do have some challenges. We have a housing stock that is 50 or 60 years old, Mr. Speaker. We have a demand, as our families have shrunk, for one and two bedroom and we have many larger.

Right now, in Labrador West, we have – actually the job has started, I misspoke earlier and said the job was starting on those units the end of May. It has started and we expect it to be clued up by the 27th of May.

SPEAKER: Your time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador West are done hearing this phoned-in rhetoric from this government. We have families and children homeless in Labrador West; kicked out of houses because the market is high. They are living on the streets.

Again, I ask why this government ignored warnings from the people of the district, from people from Labrador causing families to be living on the streets because they continued to ignore the realities we face in Labrador.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not rhetoric when we have gone out – 10 units – and we have brought in an external contractor. It has been awarded, the contractor is onsite; they has actually started work on five of the units. That's not words, that's action, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we've been doing in the area of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing: has been action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER: With regard to five other units, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be doing those in-house. There are nine units that remain sitting in Lab West that require a major, major overhaul. Those are being looked at, Mr. Speaker. I believe we've made tremendous strides towards addressing the housing issues, right now, currently, in Labrador West.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Time for a quick question, no preamble, please.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, in response to the fact that cohorts are not being maintained during lunch-hour breaks, five junior high schools in the St. John's metro area are being asked to decide on condensing the instructional day to approximately five hours, which will mean that the five schools will, because they have busing schedules, have to accommodate this change and will mean confining students to their classroom for five straight hours.

SPEAKER: Get to your question, please.

J. DINN: I ask the Minister of Education to explain how this is conducive to effective learning and to the mental and physical health of these school communities.

SPEAKER: Time for a quick response.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've all seen the pictures of children not cohorting at lunch hours. I believe the Member across himself has raised this as a concern. We can control what we can control, Mr. Speaker, and that is when the students are inside of school, we can control the cohorts.

One of the ways we can help reduce the crowding at lunchtimes, Mr. Speaker, is to shorten the lunch break and provide an earlier release for the end of the day.

Members of the union that you were former leader of, Mr. Speaker, in a number of these schools have accepted that proposal by the English School District. There was one that didn't who felt that this was a good way to protect the students when not in the jurisdiction of the school by eliminating the crowding outside during lunch hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER: I do have a couple.

In accordance with section 105 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 and section 82 of the Personal Health Information Act, I am pleased to submit for tabling the 2019-2020 Annual Report for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Secondly, pursuant to section 43 of the Citizens' Representative Act, I am pleased to table the Citizens' Representative Annual Digest for 2019-2020.

Any other tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to provide some additional information to the question the Member raised.

In terms of the 87 over three years, that was manual data breaches. When we look at Motor Registration Division, in particular, we do three million transactions a year. That was 87 times, for example, an employee made a manual mistake and they emailed the document to the wrong email address, for example. Maybe they mistyped it or something.

Data breaches are very serious; we take it very seriously. Those are training opportunities. We look at performance management then. But I just want to reassure the general public that we're not aware of any data breaches or anything like that, or security breaches. These were manual errors, 87 over three years, of three million transactions, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the Member for Torngat Mountains question yesterday about the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Thank you.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you again for your protection there, Mr. Speaker.

It's an important question and it's an important answer. There was $200,000 for a pre-feasibility study announced in Budget 2020. That will be going ahead. I don't have a date to give you, but it will be issued this year and we intend to get it done, absolutely.

SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a little bit more time today.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure that fair electricity rates be provided to the Torngat Mountains' residents in the Northern Labrador communities of Nain, Natuashish, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet.

The rates charged to Northern Labrador residents are cost prohibitive to using electric heat; therefore, rates are cost prohibitive to adequately heating their homes. The rationale for this petition is to bring electricity rates more in line with what our neighbouring residents of Lake Melville region pay.

For the first thousand kilowatt hours, Torngat Mountains' residents are charged the same rate as our neighbouring residents of Lake Melville region. However, above the ceiling of 1,000 kilowatt hours, Torngat Mountains' residents then pay six times the rate that Lake Melville residents pay, jumping up to 18.5 cents a kilowatt hour. The thousand-kilowatt-hour ceiling prevents many residents from being able to afford to heat their homes with electric heat. Low-income families and households that don't have the manpower to haul wood are the greatest impacted.

Poorly heated houses often result in damage, creating expensive repairs for frozen pipes, moisture damage and mould. Poorly heated houses also create social and mental health issues that can be long lasting. We strongly believe that changes to electricity rates need to be made for the northern residents of Torngat Mountains.

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the lifeline block to 3,500 kilowatt hours when applying the Northern Strategic Plan subsidy to the electricity bills of Northern Labrador residents of the Torngat Mountains region.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple minutes left to speak on this petition. Greatly impacted are our seniors, our elders, because they don't have the ability to haul wood. If they do have relatives that can haul wood for them, they still have to actually bring it in and put it in the stove, which causes a lot of problems. People with health issues and age-related issues, they don't have that option. Also, women, single women, single families are greatest impacted as well.

This is a good petition and it would go a long way to help people in my district. I presented this several time –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of chatter is getting pretty high. I can't hear the speaker.

L. EVANS: I presented this petition several times now and I was wondering why there is no interest in increasing the lifeline block that would make life so much easier for women, mothers, our seniors and our elders.

There is talk going around, and many are hearing that Labrador electricity rates are being looked at and there are plans to increase Labrador electricity rates, so we are wondering know: Is that why the Premier and this government will not consider increasing the lifeline block to 3,500 kilowatt hours for North Coast residents, making life so much more easier and convenient for single families, our elders and our most vulnerable?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a quick moment to respond to the petition that was just put in there. Obviously this an issue that we are aware of. We are aware of the petition for a 3,500-kilowatt-hour lifeline block as opposed to the thousand right now. I could get into a lot of discussion about the rural deficit; the fact is that the cost to provide this is extraordinary.

We could talk about the difference of rates, but what I would like to say to the Member, just about the last part of the petition, talking about Labrador electricity rates are being looked at: Right now, electricity rates all over this province are being looked at, because we have to grapple with Muskrat Falls coming on stream and the money that we are going to need to mitigate those rates so that everybody in this province – every citizen – is not frozen out of their homes. That is the reality here.

I share the concern that the Member brings, but every single citizen is worried about the albatross that is Muskrat Falls and the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be required on an annual basis to mitigate those costs to keep them at the level that we have committed to, which, I would note, we are not backing away from.

On that note, I will take my seat.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

Mr. Speaker, the background to this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS individual residents, municipal leaders, including the Conception Bay North Joint Council, have spoken to the deplorable road conditions in the District of Harbour Main; and

WHEREAS the district is made up of many smaller communities and towns like Holyrood, Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers, South River, North River, Roaches Line and Makinsons. Those places in particular have roads in desperate need of repair and paving; and

WHEREAS these roads see high-volume traffic flows every day and drivers can expect potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many washed-out areas along the way;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately take the necessary steps to repair and repave these important roadways to ensure the safety of the driving public who use them on a regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to congratulate the current Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. I'd also like to thank his predecessor, who, I believe and I want to state, has been very positive, and I want to give credit where it's due: He was instrumental in assisting in the work and making sure that brush cutting was done in the District of Harbour Main. The people of the District of Harbour Main appreciate that and the fact that he recognized the serious safety issues that were at play.

I'm asking the current minister to look at that same safety issue which is definitely evident with respect to the roads in the Harbour Main District. Throughout the election campaign, for example, other than COVID and the fact that we were having the election as we were and with all of the problems with that, the next biggest issue that I faced was people responding to the conditions of the road and how really deplorable they were.

Not only were they frustrated though; they were outraged that there's no action. They're concerned about safety issues. There are hazards that are caused by these roads. Large potholes that are difficult to avoid, swerving and severe rutting place people in jeopardy.

I'd ask the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure to recognize this. This is not only the people in the district but all of the people who have to travel on these roads. The frustration level is high; people are upset. Please respond to the issues, especially with respect to Upper Gullies to Holyrood, really serious problems. South River to North River and Roaches Line, those are the three key ones that really need to be addressed. We ask the Minister of Transportation to make a commitment and we call on you to respond and to give us some sense of optimism that these roads will be repaired, if not paved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

I have a petition here today.

As the Trans-Labrador Highway continues to be developed, there is an immediate need for basic roadside services within the extensive distances between communities. The two greatest unserviced sections are from Churchill Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay at 288 kilometres, and from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Port Hope Simpson at 405 kilometres. There are no washrooms or emergency services over these distances. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, there is really nothing there. Accidents, mechanical breakdowns or basic conveniences have been challenging and even life-threatening to deal with.

While the province and their contractors operate depots at Cache River, Crooks Lake and Cartwright Junction, these facilities are not available to the travelling public. However, at each of these locations, stand-alone and independently operated facilities could be established by the private sector.

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to call for expressions of interest to provide essential services at these isolated locations on the Trans-Labrador Highway as soon as possible.

Very timely today, Mr. Speaker, because we have had a couple of questions dealing about the long distances between communities. Well, perhaps we set the record there on that. It's about a four- to five-hour drive if you're making good time between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Port Hope Simpson across Route 510.

While we are working on getting the asphalt down, it is quite a state in terms of – if there are any reasons you have to stop, you are on your own, and that would be from washrooms – forget communications, as the minister alluded to earlier in that challenge, and certainly any other convenience or mechanical repair. You are on your own. We have, as a province, provided in the past satellite phones, which drivers were able to pick up and then drop off if and when they successfully completed their journey across the Trans-Labrador Highway. It is improving. We have a long ways to go.

I can just ask anyone in this room to think about what it would be like to leave St. John's, drive five hours west and then hope that you didn't have to stop for anything, because that really is the situation facing anyone having to make that distance.

The responsibility of the contractors is to fix the highways. I think it was 2017, maybe 2016. I'm just trying to recall. We had a serious washout on Route 510, about an hour and a half outside of Goose Bay. Some friends of mine were involved in it, where the highway literally blew away in front of them. Folks on the other side managed to scramble out of their vehicle, and their vehicle went downstream. They were completely cut off. The inability to respond and so on just further accentuated and exacerbated the problem they were in.

So I really hope we can get this resolved. There are folks out there with ideas and they could come forward, so just get that expression of interest going.

Thank you.

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've been presenting this petition for quite some time, I guess since I came to this House of Assembly, and I don't feel that there has been much action on it.

The background of this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS there are no current operations at the Bull Arm Fabrication Site; this is a world-class facility with the potential to rejuvenate not only the local economy, but the provincial economy; there's a lack of employment there and we would want the facility to encourage employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; it's an asset to the province, it was built to benefit the province and a long-term tenant for the site would be gainful business opportunities for tertiary businesses in the area as well; and the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of the province.

I even have somebody on here that signed this petition that's from Bloomfield, and that's not even in my district, so it obviously affects just about everybody in the province.

It's a world-class facility; we have world-class workers. Again, it comes back to the question I asked in the House today. The reason why we're not attracting international business, because we don't have the technology and the opportunity for them to come here and to do business away from their native country.

I ask the minister if he could give us an update on what he feels the direction is from Nalcor or OilCo to utilize this facility and get a long-term tenant.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll speak to this; I believe I have made comments about this in the past.

The sad reality is that this is an area that's dealing with this fiscal crisis that we face in the oil industry, the same as everywhere else. The fact is that it was great to see a drill ship going out now, but this is an issue worldwide, and sadly we see this happening at Bull Arm, which is a world-class facility.

I would point out that there is no technical issue that prohibits us from attracting international business. In fact, we try our best, we are a part of virtual trade missions and we're a part of everything to try to draw that attraction here. But the reality is that the big players right now have reduced capital, they have reduced ability to invest here and they have reduced exploration budgets. Right now, we're competing all over the world, whether it's Guyana, Brazil, Norway, you name it.

We do know that Barnes is out there with a lease right now and they are a tenant at the moment. They do have a lease that expires next year and there are 27 employed out there right now – far from what it should be, but what I will say is that we are keeping the asset in a good state. The reality is we fully believe that we will have a return to what was and we will be prepared for it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 5.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock, today, Thursday, April 22, 2021.

SPEAKER: The motion is that we do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 10.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 10, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.” (Bill 10)

CLERK (Barnes): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I spoke on this at length yesterday and I have another opportunity today, of course, in Committee, to have further discussion. It comes back again and 24 hours later, you get a lot of time to think about stuff. Sometimes you go and you soften up, sometimes you stay the same, sometimes you get more determined, but this is one of those ones – it's ironic, the last two days there have been a couple of things.

We debated yesterday on the PMR and this one happened to be all grouped together. There's one word that's missing and it's the independence – that's not being adhered to, I should say, and what's appropriate and what's not appropriate for the House. There are lots of things that are appropriate. We're lawmakers; we make a lot of laws, regulations and rules. We set wages; a lot of responsibility that comes with being a Member of this House.

As I have said many times, there are 40 of us in this House and we represent this province. No one should take this job lightly. You're put here for a reason. We just went through three months of learning how to get here. It's no easy task and it's something that we all should keep in mind. Regardless of what the court of public opinion states a lot of times – because I think if we governed ourselves by that on every issue, we'd probably be led astray too.

I'll come back and I think it needs repeating: independence has to be your guiding principle to get things right. Not everything. You can't have independence on everything, but on certain things. This is one of those ones. There's a time when you hear tell – and I know it has happened many times at the municipal level, counsellors would go in and they'd vote themselves a raise. As municipal counsellors, former mayors in this Chamber now, they can attest to what I'm saying – public outcry galore and rightfully so.

Yet, we prevent that. We bring in a process. We're going to prevent that from happening. We're going to form this commission. Good, bad, indifferent, whatever comes out of that commission, we'll accept what comes our way. There's a lot of bad that comes that way. I've said this yesterday, a lot of bad things come our way and we accept them. Yet, anything good comes you're not accepting it – it's a raise, okay. It's not about a raise, by the way. I don't think any Member in this House is advocating for a raise. It's all about a process.

You bring in an MCRC – Members' Compensation Review Committee – to take the politics out of this. It's meant to take the politics out of it. It's supposed to be independent; they have no affiliation with us. I sat in this Chamber in 2016 and the head of the Members' Compensation Review Committee at that time – there was no love-in; government on the government's side didn't get treated any different than anyone else. It was pretty well by the book. You asked a question; you got an answer. I think any Member who sat through that can agree to it. There was no sugar-coating it; there were no favours. This person was in no one's court; she came in and made tough decisions. Fair enough. We accepted it and we agreed to it. That's the way it was supposed to be.

Like I said before, yesterday there was some talk about the pensions. They were trying to grandfather in pensions and people started crying out. It was only over a day or so but, anyway, everyone pulled back and we went along with the MCRC. If you go through Hansard, you can find out that it was said in this House that that had to be your guiding principle. But, now, when it's politically cool and looks good to say, no, we're not doing that; we're in a financial bind and we can't do that, you go in and search yourself politically. But that still doesn't make it right. You can't have your cake and eat it too when it fits the right time.

Mr. Chair, my gut would tell me if we were in a surplus situation and this House were to sit here and approve a raise, there would be a public outcry. It doesn't really matter the financial situation we're in, it's where we are as a Legislature. It's the society you live in and it's never – a no-no. It's meant to be independent, to remove all of that. If that Committee came back and wanted to take a rollback and we came in here and we voted against the Committee taking that rollback – we said we're going to keep the same wages – how would that be responded to? My guess is it wouldn't be very good.

As I said yesterday, it's a cherry-picking event. Again, I repeat, and I'll continue to repeat, it's not about a pay increase. That's not where we are. It's about a process. When it suits you, when you can bring the politics into something and it looks good and it's the right thing to do, then you're going to do it, but you have to keep your independence. I don't think that can be stressed enough, the independence of this process. Right now, there's no independence. We're in a certain (inaudible) where it seems fit.

Many conversations – and we look in the media. Flick on Twitter now anywhere at all and you'll find out the public opinion on politicians is low. If you go into a quiz and they ask who is the lowest opinion in professions, it's politicians, it's lawyers – they're all there, which is not really fair because it's probably one bad lawyer or one bad politician. But we diminish ourselves by agreeing to do what we're doing, exactly what was brought forward in the House yesterday.

If you're entitled to a rollback, if you're supposed to get a rollback and it's done independently, well b'y, that's it. You've done it independently. Live with it. I come from a union background and we went into arbitration. You roll the dice. That's the game but it was done independently. That was even more hands on then. You negotiated for a raise, but an arbitrator would come back and you had to live with that decision. It was binding arbitration; you had to live with it.

This is really no different, only the fact is they ask you your opinion, whether they want it or not. They may have had it – I think that in 2016 it was a preconceived notion on a lot of this stuff, which is fine. It's something that's out of our control. A lot of us were new at the time so it was kind of a new experience for most of us.

It comes back to the process but it also comes back to each and every Member in this House diminishing what we are. So we're not worthy of that? An independent commission decides that you're entitled to a raise, but because it's not politically cool, the public doesn't like it –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I've got several conversations going on the floor and I'd like for it to cease, please.

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So if it was not cool then, you're going to go in now – where does this end? We saw it yesterday in the PMR and we pleaded for independence, we pleaded to get this right. The public should be asking for that. They'll ask for independence on election review, but throw the crowd in there out. They're overpaid anyway. They're over paid; they don't work. They only work when the House is open. That's what you hear.

It comes down to, Mr. Chair – and I said this yesterday. I was never a Star Trek fan but they always said, to boldly go where –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Second warning. I want to be able to hear the Member.

Thank you.

B. PETTEN: Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you for protecting me.

B. PETTEN: Yeah, that's right. No, I don't need protection.

As the saying goes, people inherit – it's a taboo topic in your talk. I spoke yesterday morning and I got a little bit of Twitter traffic: Look at the provincial state, how dare you advocate for a raise? I'm not advocating for a raise, but you have to stand for something, Mr. Chair. You have to be able to stand for something.

I was just about to say, before I was interrupted, I've never been a Star Trek fan but I always remember the quote: “To boldly go where no man has gone before.” What's the matter with courage? I would bet money – I wouldn't bet a lot because I'm not that silly, but the majority of this House here agrees with what I'm saying. Just like the PMR yesterday – a majority agree with me on that, too, by the way. It's not cool to do it because you have to toe a party line.

Sometimes that is problematic with party stuff. But if you have any respect for yourself and this Legislature, that should be enough. I've said this in this House, and my colleagues can attest to this sometimes. I have very pointed opinions, and you've probably noticed that in my conversations in the House. I don't get a lot of coaching from anyone else. I kind of go my own way; sometimes it can be dangerous. You never know, it is a surprise every day.

I really believe you always should stand for something. Sometimes you stand for an issue, you stand for something and you may stand alone; that's fine too. Sometimes it is lonely, because I've been there. You go to bed at night, you sleep and you do what's right. That's like every step of the way of my life and no matter – it's not perfect, but I make lots of mistakes. I am guided by a very principled approach of what's right.

I spoke yesterday on it and I went home and I did give it honest reflection. I thought about it a lot last night and I wondered – I'm honest with myself and I said: Should I have not sucked it up and went along and done what the public and the willingness of government wants to do with this issue? Sometimes I have those moments and I'll come back, I'll have a different approach the next day and I'll be much more reserved. Actually when I went home and start thinking no, I must get really resolved to the fact that this is not right.

By doing what we're doing now, there is no need of us ever having an MCRC again. So unless we change a process – I've spoke to the Government House Leader opposite and I respectfully asked: no raises, don't give any raises, but delay this and put it off to a totally independent – let them decide on a go-forward basis. You have to live with whatever comes out of that, Mr. Chair.

You have to live with whatever comes out of that so if that means you're going to go back 2 per cent, you have to go back 2. That is a fair, independent process; that's what you sign up for. This is not the way this is being done; this is political. It is total politics, the truest form of politics you'll ever see. That's all this is, it's idealistic.

The vast majority over there, it doesn't affect them. The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands made that comment and he's right. That's not where I'm to; it's about the process. It is also having the courage. It frustrates me sometimes, and I sit in this House, why people don't really, truly say what they believe.

I've long said this and, who knows, I may be held to my word on it. I believe I will and I won't disappoint. If we were ever in government, if I was ever in government and I sat on the government side as a minister, I'd probably get myself into trouble. There are people close to me, very close to me, and we've had pretty heated debates over my frankness. The mayor of CBS mightn't be listening now, but he knows. Him and I have had down and out dirty rackets where, as the mayor, he said: I thought you were my buddy. But, I mean, I'm very principled. I speak my mind sometimes, and I'm not always cool, but I get into trouble for that.

I believe in this case here we need to look at things in a different lens and remove the silly games of politics out of this stuff. No one wins here, Mr. Chair. If you're not comfortable based on our financial situation and you don't think it's right, well, okay, defer it to another Committee, ask for it to be reviewed. There are lots of mechanisms that can be done. The will of this House – it's a powerful House; we can make any decision now. But to just come in and flippantly say no, we're not doing it because it's not cool. The public will support them.

I think the Question of the Day was on – I don't know if anyone followed it. I think I seen it earlier. I'd say it's about 90-odd per cent that said we don't deserve a raise. That's not the issue. It's not about the raise, it's about the process and it's about your rationale for doing it.

I know that the Members opposite will be looking forward to making a comment about the judges' raises. I can't control what was said on this side of the House because if it never came out of my mouth, I had no control over it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: That's right.

But if we were told we had no right to bring this in the House, it shouldn't have been brought into the House. If we had no right to vote against it, why did it come into the House? But when it comes in the House, you have a right – anything that comes before us you have a right to vote, and we voted against it.

The principle of the matter is it comes from an independent tribunal. That's the bigger question. We have the ability to change the laws. It should never have come to this House. That should never have come to this House. The independent tribunal said they deserved the raise. We don't have to agree, but the independent tribunal said they deserved it; that meant it should have went on. I know the former minister of Justice was perplexed by it. Maybe he's right. But the issue was it should never have been put in front of us, because on the principle, if you're a principled person, you could not vote for that raise in this climate based on the salaries given to those people. That was the issue.

But if you want to change the laws and regulations, it doesn't have to come to this House; it shouldn't come to this House. If you're going to throw something out and you can't control the answer, you can't control the narrative, so why are you throwing it on the floor of the House of Assembly? Of all the places, to throw something out here and expect to the get the answer you want, in a minority government, because that's what happened. Now, they got the majority they'll probably get that through. But I don't think it ever should come to the House. I personally don't think it should ever come to the House, and the government opposite has the ability to change that law.

This count here, there's no reason we're here debating this. We should not be in the Legislature debating whether we're entitled to a raise or not. I'm adamant about that. There was a process put in place to prevent this from ever happening, but because it's politically cool, it's good – you always curry public favour. Always curry public favour. If they decided tomorrow to try to bring a motion to cut every pay for MHAs, we would have parades in the streets. We need to be bigger than that, but we also need to do what's right and have the guts to stand up for what you believe in and give yourself more credit than what we're giving ourselves.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hadn't intended on speaking to this piece of legislation. My intent was to support my colleagues and stand up and to vote for it, which I will still do. But I feel it necessary to make some comments in regard to the comments made by the Opposition House Leader as it relates to the judges' tribunal, because it will relate specifically to that. Again, it was directly referenced there, because it was less than a year ago that I stood in this House as the minister of Justice at the time and I brought forward a resolution as it relates to the proposed raise for judges.

Now, I'll just point out some background for everybody there, because it's very familiar to what we are dealing with here now. Again, I'm just going to point out the irony of the situation that we're faced with now. The difference in some of the comments that were made then and the comments that are being made now this week. I'm not going to the substance, so much, of this particular thing, but I'm just talking about the comments as it relates to independence and principle and doing things right.

Back then, I had to stand up and do the very unpopular thing of bringing forward a raise for Provincial Court judges through a resolution in the House, which has been dictated by legislation for the last 30 years. Basically, there's a process where the judges get an individual, government gets an individual and there's an independent third party that's agreed by everybody. We have basically a review of the judges' salaries. I believe it happens basically during every session, usually on every four years.

So they came forward with a resolution last year. Again, completely independent, presented to government. It said that the judges were actually entitled to a raise. I will point out that this was a completely independent process of government, of this House. It has to be done, there is no way around it, and failure to do it will result in the judge directing you to come back to this House and forcing you to do it. Again, you're just not going to get away. It's basically done for the same reason that the MCRC was put in place. That we need to have a process to look at this independently.

In that particular case, what I'll point out is just that I brought that resolution and entered it into the House. Not much was actually said the first day but on the second day and the third day, I'll tell you, Mr. Chair, I got carved up by the Opposition; I got carved to pieces. They're apologizing now. Well, I tell you what: the scars are still there.

They can say now it wasn't me, it wasn't me. It doesn't matter, it was the position of the team, which I respect. That's fine, that's their team position. I did not see anybody digress from that position in any public way or any private way. But what they did was these judges make a lot of money, we're in a fiscally tough climate, we don't care what an independent tribunal says; we cannot give them a raise. Do you know why they did that? Because it was politically popular; a politically popular move completely filled with politics.

The reason I say that is because I stood up and I took it at the time. I put it in there because the law said that I had to. Again, I remember the former Leader of the Opposition, and I'll give some credit to the other Members here because most of them, except for the Member for Harbour Main, are not trained lawyers, and there are times – and no disrespect to my colleague, I wish the Member was here right now so he can answer because he knew better. He knew better. He knew what he was doing and he did it anyway. He did it because he knew what it would cause, which would cause VOCM polls, saying: Is the current Minister of Justice ridiculous? Believe me, it was higher than 90 per cent. It was higher than 90 per cent, I can guarantee you.

The reality is that we got laughed out. It's funny because, again, the Member that used to sit in the chair, the former Leader of the PC Party, said: Well, my God, I'm friends with judges, they're not going to sue. They're not going to do anything bad. Why would they? In fact, the current Member for Harbour Main said the judges will think we're doing them a favour. That was what was said to me: we're going to be doing the judges a favour. They don't want to have that. I said: Well, that's not the way it goes because this is going to end up in court. The former Leader, he said: No, I don't think this is going to end up in court, I'm friends with them.

Newsflash to the House of Assembly: It's in court. It is in court, just as we said, but it didn't matter. It didn't matter because it was good politics to go against that independent tribunal, which was not popular.

What I'll point out, and I don't need to belabour it, I don't need all the time, but I'll just point out that we talk about having respect for yourself and for the Legislature, and sometime it's lonely – was one of the quotes – and are very principled. Well, I certainly don't need any lessons on that today.

What I will say is that I did something and the other side tore me to pieces because it was popular. So to stand here and tell me today that I am not principled because I don't think I deserve a raise, I'll say: I will take my seat and I know that when I go to bed tonight, I will sleep very softly because, again, I'm doing what I think is the best thing for me and for the citizens that I represent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am truly sorry that the Member is upset and scarred, but I think –

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll get over it.

P. DINN: Yes, you're right. He'll get over it.

I don't say that sarcastically, I really don't. We come into this House, we debate issues, and whatever happens in the House should stay in the House. We leave and have a conversation outside.

I certainly wasn't around when this Committee was formed. When I got into this game, we'll call it, I was elected by the people to serve the people and that's all I'm going to do here. When we talk about our own wages, our own benefits – increased, decreased, deduction, kick you out, whatever – I really, really find that to be in a conflict of interest. I don't know why that comes on the floor here. Again, I say that not even thinking about if it's a raise or not. There is a certain amount of independence that we need to be doing with that in terms of forming a Committee.

If I may, I just want to go back to a press release from the House of Assembly, November 1, 2016. The title is: “Members' Compensation Review Committee … Report Released.” If I can read this to the record here, because I think this really puts in perspective what this is all about. I'm surprised we haven't talked about Muskrat Falls in this discussion yet, but we can throw anything into this discussion. But if you want to keep it real and focus on the issue, then the issue is there was a Committee appointed; people gave of their time to that Committee to carry out a mandate of that Committee; to provide a report, an independent assessment, to us. That's what it was.

I'm looking at this news release, and this will take the Minister of Education back because he was also Speaker at the time: “The Honourable Tom Osborne Speaker of the House of Assembly, today released the report of the 2016 Members' Compensation Review Committee (MCRC). Appointed in accordance with subsection 16(1) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Committee's mandate is to inquire into and prepare a report respecting the salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions to be paid to Members of the House of Assembly. Such a committee is required to be appointed once during each General Assembly.” It's quite clear what the Committee was intended to do.

“MCRC 2016 was appointed by resolution of the House of Assembly on May 12, 2016, with an effective date of July 7, 2016. The members of the Committee are Ms. Sandra Burke, Q.C. (chair), Dr. Kathy LeGrow and Mr. Jeffrey Pardy. Their report was delivered to the Speaker on Friday afternoon (October 28).”

There are a couple of quotes here in this press release, one from the hon. Tom Osborne, then Speaker of the House of Assembly. “'I wish to thank Ms. Burke, Dr. LeGrow and Mr. Pardy for their extensive work in conducting the review and preparing the report. I also wish to thank the public and the Members of the House of Assembly who provided input.'” Extensive work; we called on this Committee to do an extensive, important piece of work.

There's a quote from Ms. Sandra Burke, the chair: “'Our goals were to ensure that Members of the House of Assembly have a reasonable and sustainable compensation package, and to enhance the accountability and transparency of our elected officials. We believe that we have achieved our goals, being mindful of the significant role of an MHA in our democratic society as well as the province's current economic circumstances.'” Which is something we've already discussed; the Committee took into account the current economic circumstances.

“The 2016 MCRC Report contains a total of 59 recommendations which will be brought to the House of Assembly Management Commission for review. The Commission has the power to modify the recommendations, but only in a manner that does not exceed the maximum amounts recommended by the Committee.”

The reason I bring that forward is to try and bring us back – and there are so many new Members in this House that certainly weren't around in 2016 – to what this whole Committee was formed for. I know this is the House of Assembly and we take every opportunity to attack – I'll say attack, but maybe that's too much of an aggressive word, but to bring up other items, but I am trying to focus on this.

I don't care – and this will be in Hansard – if I'm getting a raise. I don't care if I'm getting cut back. I'm not here for that. I was elected by the people of Topsail - Paradise to bring their issues to the floor here. I'm committed to that, at least for the next four years or if there's an election called beforehand. We have to have respect for the people we appoint to Committees, their extensive time that is put to these Committees, to bring an independent review to the floor. I know you can talk about the judges' salaries and so on, but the difference here is we should not be commenting or debating our own salaries.

I really find there's something wrong with that. I know my time on municipal council, I remember we had to vote on salaries. The last time we voted on it, I voted it down. I said: Why are we doing this? There are processes in place. I know in the public service, if NAPE gets an agreement, then management tends to get an equivalent raise. There's a process. I think we cannot lose sight of the fact that this Committee was appointed for a role, and they put forward a recommendation. Again, it can be modified, but I just think it's totally wrong that we're discussing something that, in my mind, is a conflict of interest for us all here.

I want to end, again, with saying: I am not for that. I'm here for the people of the province. If it's a raise, if it's a cutback, I don't care. I will be working the same job tomorrow as I am today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I won't take a lot of time at all, but I've heard some words across the way, like willing to stand up and be bold. Well, as a person that has been elected – I've been elected four times now– I'm bold enough to say here today quite clearly, now is not the time for us as MHAs and leaders in this province to increase our own pay. This is not the time, Mr. Chair.

We have evidence or we have Hansard from very similar comments from the former Member for Windsor Lake, when he talks about a tribunal that was outdated. By the time it got to this floor, it was outdated.

Mr. Chair, I'll end again, and I'll repeat this as many times as I get the opportunity today, I have no problem standing in my place today and boldly saying: Now is not the time for MHAs to increase our pay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

There are just a couple of points I want to make about this. I've listened to my colleagues speak about this issue and I have to say that I share the views of my colleagues from Conception Bay South and as well Topsail - Paradise when they say this is a very uncomfortable effort that we make here. It's very uncomfortable for me and for them to be speaking about something like this, debating our own salaries.

I want to try to understand why this is being discussed here today, and I'm not really sure that it's clear to me. We do have an independent Committee, and for the benefit of those watching, that Committee was struck – it's an independent Committee – to basically oversee these types of matters. It's called the Members' Compensation Review Committee, the MCRC. We've heard it referred to a lot here the last couple of days. That is the purpose of that Committee. It is struck for the purpose of looking at things like the Members of the House of Assembly, our wages.

This legislation that's before us today, it's Bill 10, An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act. This legislation before the House, what it really does, from what I can understand, is that it removes from the act the formula for providing MHAs with salary increases. The Government House Leader, when he introduced the bill, he indicated that this would be a continuation of a 13-year wage freeze, correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Yes. So if this bill passes, which it most likely will, it will continue that 13-year wage freeze for MHAs.

We're not saying that we believe that there should be an increase to the salaries, because we do recognize, as the Government House Leader has stated, that this is a terrible fiscal climate for the people of the province and we will put them first, because that's what we do. That's why we are here, is to think and be concerned about the interests of the people we represent.

What I find curious and perhaps disingenuous when I hear stated – the Government House Leader say that we need to lead. In other words, the statement is: we need to lead by example, right? But let's look at the salaries of Cabinet ministers. They're not affected to the same degree as other MHAs. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

We need to lead, yes we do. That's why we are not disagreeing with it. What our concern over here is, is with the process. We have a Committee that has the responsibility and has been tasked with that responsibility to oversee these things so we're not debating our own salaries. Inherently, that is wrong.

Another issue that I want to state, and I find this somewhat sad as well – yesterday, the Member for Conception Bay South referenced it – there's no sympathy for politicians, and public opinion about us is pretty low. I'd probably say that it's at the same level as lawyers. I, as well, am a lawyer, so I have a double whammy here.

I find that really sad and I really feel that we need to, maybe, yes, be bold in that regard, and maybe perhaps talk and have more conversations about what we do as MHAs. Because I can tell you, I practiced law for many years as well, in the trenches as a criminal defence lawyer for 12 years, and then another five as a human rights lawyer. I know how tough that was, but I have to tell you, this is really tough work, but it's work that I'm honoured and privileged to do everyday. I love it, and I'm here because I feel that it's my responsibility to serve the people that elected me. It's not about the money.

I can pretty much say that stands for most people here, because I know that they have the demands of being an MHA – and I'm sure as a minister as well. It is tough. I don't think it's a bad thing to talk about, that we really do work very hard and that we have the best interests – I believe most of us have the best interests of the people in our hearts. I know the hours that we put in, the sleepless nights. I can vouch for that. I know that pretty much most of us here have those nights as well because we're concerned about the issues that face the people that we represent.

It's very sad when I look at the poll today on VOCM and I see that there's such disdain, I guess, for politicians. I believe it's because they don't understand what we do. I think that's incumbent upon us, perhaps, to bring the discussion more, have more debate about it and explain the things that we do, because it's important work; it's great work, but I think there needs to be a better understanding amongst the populace of what we do.

The concern that I have with this bill being passed has to do with attracting good, competent candidates to elected office. With salaries that are very low, how are we going to raise the bar, if you will, and attract people? Yes, I would say that most of us are here for the fact that we represent the people and that we want to serve people. It's the honour of public service. There's no question about that, but many people, perhaps, don't have the means to be able to do that, to run for political office. They need to have good salaries.

I think that it's okay to talk about that and to say we need to have adequate compensation for people, because it is no doubt a 24-7 job. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, there's no question about that. I've been doing this for two years, and when you're sleeping, you're thinking about it. At least I know I am, and I'm sure I'm no different than most people here.

I think we need to look at – and keep it in context. I'm concerned about the fact that we're back here and this legislation before the House removes from the act with respect to salary increases. I really don't believe that that's the proper way to be doing this. I think it puts all of us sort of in a conflict, really. It puts us in an awkward position because we have an interest in it, in our own salaries, obviously. Yet, we're commenting about it.

I certainly don't want to be talking about it. I did want to talk about those issues, about trying to attract better candidates, qualified candidates and people to run for elected office, to attract women as well. As well the process, that process has to be independent, and that's why we have the Committee in place. I really find it difficult to understand what we're doing here.

At any rate, on those notes, in conclusion, I'd just like to thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time here today.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber -

E. JOYCE: Humber - Bay of Islands.

CHAIR: Humber - Bay of Islands

E. JOYCE: I know of our soccer days you didn't want to come down to Bay of Islands, but you did. I have to give you credit.

I'm going to speak a few minutes on this. Mr. Chair, I said yesterday that I would be voting for this, and I'll stick by that. The reason why I will stick by that is because if government is willing to bring in an amendment to take away something from a Committee that they will set up, I, for one, will be holding the government accountable to start getting our finances in order. If you're willing to walk in here because it's politically expedient, politically correct, so people won't be upset, I'm going to hold the government accountable. Because when you hear phrases coming out, well, we're not going to do much now. We're going to go out and have more consultation. Another year of consultation is another year of debt that we're going to incur and another year that we're going to kick it down the road.

I will stick to my guns on that, Mr. Chair, for that principle, and I will be speaking a lot on it. Because when you look at another year of interest on the money that we have to borrow just to go for this year, another year, just interest that we're going to have to borrow, and here we are now the government trying to stand up and say, look, what we're doing, people; we're going to take away raises.

I said it before; I can go back many years where government brought in this cut the wages from MHAs, cut their salaries. It's great. People out in the public love it; they think it's great. But I can assure you one thing – and said it before – when we stand in this House and we start undermining and cutting each other, how is the general public going to have confidence in politicians? How are they doing to have confidence? It's just not going to happen – it's just not going to happen.

I just want to put something on the record. As I said, why do we have these Committees set up if we're not going to follow the Committees? Why do we do it? I know the Minister of Industry spoke earlier. I know I'm going to state this now and I'm going to state it publicly. I was here back years ago when we came in with the judges also and we turned it down. We went to court, lost it in court and had to pay court expenses also. When that came in with the minister who brought it in – he was the minister of Justice and Public Safety at the time, the Attorney General – I was voting for it because the process was done and the process was followed. If we follow a process and we bring it to the House of Assembly and if we're just going to say no to it, because it's not looking good in the public's eyes, why do we even have the process? Why don't we find another avenue?

The minister at the time did take a lot of heat publicly over that, but I can tell you it was the right thing to do. When it gets back in court and they'll get the same thing that the judges brought forth, the remuneration that the Committee recommended at the time, it's going to be proven that that was the process. In this case here, setting up a process and then having a Committee come through to make the recommendations – and there's absolutely no doubt we're in a financial bind. If you look at the amount of money that you're talking about here, and government is going to say yeah, this is great, the public don't want us to do that – how about the $2.2-billion deficit we have? That's what we should be tackling. That's what we should be tackling is the $2.2-billion deficit.

Now we're nickeling and diming – I'm going to vote for it, by the way. I will vote with the government not to approve this for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Somewhere along the line this government now, with a majority, has to sit down with all the stakeholders and we have to start getting our finances in order.

I remember, and I said it before, Clyde Wells did it. He worked on it. He brought everybody in and he took a lot of heat. Yet, I guarantee you he was respected for it. I can tell the people of this province right now, and I've been around a long while, don't underestimate the intelligence of the electorate to know what financial situation we're in. Don't do it.

They understand the situation we're in; we just have to work with all the groups and all the stakeholders in this province to help ourselves get out of this mess. I understand the bantering going back and forth. I've been there; sometimes I have been quiet too much. I understand the bantering back and forth: us, the PCs, NDP, the independents and the Liberals. I understand all that but somewhere along the line for the betterment of the province we have to come together, even if it's go in a room somewhere and let's start working things out on how we can move forward. Get the unions to sit down: how can we move this province forward.

That's what we're going to have to do. It's all right to get up in this House and do our political stuff, do our bantering and do our questions – which they should do. Opposition should keep government accountable. Absolutely no doubt, they should keep government accountable. The NDP should keep government accountable, the independents should keep government accountable, but as we keep government accountable, we have to work with government for the betterment of the province. That's what we need to do.

In this case, this is brought forth and politics now is stepping in there, absolutely no doubt. I remember when all the debate went on about the judges. I was sat here; I remember it all. I remember what was said. Go back in Hansard; I remember what was said. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Now we're saying we have a policy, we should follow it. Back when it was the judges, we shouldn't follow it.

I remember Ross Wiseman stood up one day and we asked him a question in the House that he said something before. He stood up and said: Damn Hansard. Be careful what you say in this House because it is on record and people can look it up. So when it happens one day to you, get ready, because when that shoes is on the other foot like it's happening here today, it's coming right back at you, the shoe is coming back at you.

My only advice here to government is that I will be supporting this, but I will be supporting with the caveat that remember I said it. When the government stands up now and says we have to wait and we have to do more consultations as we go another year without tackling that deficit, I, for one, will be raising my voice to say this has been going on now since last August, when you formed the government, that you were going to set up the Moya Greene committee – which I'm sure they're going to do great work; with the health care, also, I'm sure it's going to be great work.

Every time we take it and push it down the road, just remember interest is getting higher and higher on what we're borrowing; now, it's gone up to a $2-billion deficit. I understand about the pandemic. I understand all of that. I understand the needs and that the government had to step in and help out small businesses. I understand all of that. That's never going to be debated by me, whatsoever.

But somewhere along the line, government – if you're bringing this in now and saying we have to be accountable to the people of the province, I'm asking the government today to be more accountable to the people of the province on the deficit. Absolutely, when someone sits down and figures out how much this is going to cost the province compared to a $2.2-billion deficit, it's like putting your hand in the water, when you take it out you won't even notice it. Yet, here we are bantering back and forth if we should go ahead with it.

The other thing that I heard some Members opposite in the Opposition talk about was the process; we should find some way to take the process out of our hands. There's nothing more difficult than anybody sitting around here saying, yes, we should get this for ourselves and, no, we shouldn't get this for ourselves. It is putting everybody in this room in an awkward position – everybody. Then, if the Liberals were on this side, they would be doing the same thing that the Opposition is doing, because it's awkward for everybody.

I'll just close my speech on that, Mr. Chair. I will ask government to start and bring forward the plan that they're going to have for the deficit reduction, what plan they're going to have for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you're going to show true leadership, true leadership brings out bold ideas, makes a plan, sticks by it and convinces people this is why we have to do it.

I remember, again, Clyde Wells – I always remember – in 1993 after he made a lot of bold decisions, he won more seats than he did in 1989. The electorate understands and the electorate is more intelligent than we always give them credit for, trust me.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

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

I've truly enjoyed the debates here this afternoon. It's somewhat heartwarming to hear the reasoned perspectives of Members coming forward: the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, for example, making a very passionate case that change is required.

Change is never easy for the mover; sometimes it can be quite difficult, but the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands is imploring the government to act on change. The status quo is not acceptable to the hon. Member and he is prepared to be a part of that initiative. Even though sometimes as constituency representatives we may want much, the Member makes the case that what we need more is a new outlook to our finances. I appreciate the hon. Member saying that. I'm sure that in future debates that will hold true as well. What we're here to talk about today, Mr. Chair, is really questions of change as well, whether or not a formula that was brought in in 2006 through the advocacy, through the efforts of a learned jurist – whether or not this Parliament should be held to a fixed standard brought in by the recommendations of that jurist.

There's a fundamental tenet in our Westminsterian parliamentary traditions and systems, it's the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy goes as follows – it's three key points; one being that Parliament, or our Legislature in this particular case, can make any laws concerning matters that are within its jurisdiction. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker and no Parliament of one day can bind a Parliament of a future day. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy invokes a pathway for change.

Mr. Chair, what is before us today, in this particular piece of legislation, in this matter, is whether or not the Parliament will be bound by a former decision. Now, the case has been made that when advice is sought and received from an independent body, that it must be acted upon and cannot be deviated from; otherwise, it would break the chain of integrity. It would break the chain of being able to stand the test of scrutiny.

Well, Mr. Chair, I also note during the course of the debates of this past week, the Member for Conception Bay South went on at length earlier this week, in earlier debates, indicating that to him optics matter. Government must be in lockstep with the popular sentiment of the day of the people. Failure to be in lockstep with popular sentiment, failure to understand that optics matter, will cause the government great grief.

Mr. Chair, I believe that the government's stay is in lockstep with the sentiments of the people, but at the same time, I also believe that the government is very cognizant of the fact that it's being called upon for leadership. It is not simply an echo chamber of voices exterior or voices outside; it is providing leadership.

I'll leave with one parting comment. If we are to be held rigid to independent or outside advisory bodies, if Parliament's supremacy is not to be invoked, will those Members who suggest that we should be rigid to advisory bodies and never have debate on the floor of this Assembly when we receive those learned opinions, would they hold that true, for example, for the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council? Would they hold that same concept for the provincial Economic Recovery Team's advisory?

I think, Mr. Chair, in all of these instances, you cannot cherry-pick and say we shall be rigid in one instance; Parliament is not supreme, but in others it must be. Either we are or we are not. I hold the view that this Chamber is the ultimate expression of the view of the people. We have to be leaders, not followers. We have to be cognizant of what popular opinion is, but we also have to understand that our role as leaders is not just simply to be an echo chamber of popular sentiment; it is to do what's in the best interest of the province, to bring people to that place and to seek compromise.

I think, Mr. Chair, what you will find is that this move, this initiative, I suspect will undoubtedly be endorsed 100 per cent by this Legislature. It should be endorsed 100 per cent by this Legislature. It does reflect leadership in a time when it's required. I hope all Members will be part of that leadership initiative.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To be clear, if it comes before this House that I have to approve a salary increase for me while I'm sitting here, the answer will be no. My support for that has not wavered.

I'll try not to repeat what I said in the previous day, but I do believe that my job here is to advocate for those who don't necessarily get increases based on a committee, whether it's a learned jurist, whether it's a parliamentary Committee, regardless. I can tell you, when I look at the people I serve, some of them, it's difficult. If I did my math correctly, for me, I think it was the 5 per cent increase, it would amount to another $6,000 or $7,000 or so. I could be wrong. But that's a significant amount. For some people, that would be, for the people I've had to serve, a gold mine.

Now, it's interesting because there's a certain bright spot to this in the fact that the government Members are asking that we basically go against the recommendation of the Committee and we not proceed with the salary. It gives me hope. Because, you see, there is a Minimum Wage Review Committee that puts forward steps which now gives me the hope that, rather than rest on the increments set out, we can now have the power to actually do what's right for many, many more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I'll be pursuing that. If I'm going to be looking at putting public money somewhere, it's about advocating for issues and advocating for people who are struggling on minimum wage who may be working two, three or four jobs just to put food on the table, I'm all for it.

Now, in my many years I guess I've developed a certain level of scepticism. My colleague from Humber - Bay St. George –

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay of Islands.

J. DINN: – Bay of Islands, my apologies, we'll get it right; I'll get it right. He referred to the former premier, Clyde Wells. It's interesting at the time because there were rollbacks and cuts and severe cuts to public service.

My colleague as well pointed out the fact that we have bigger problems. That this is like putting your hand in the bucket. Actually, in many ways, I guess the gesture is not really going to be that significant. As a friend of mine would say, it's like spitting in the ocean and expecting the tide to rise.

But I can't help but think if this is simply the opening act, the overture, the prelude to cuts and rollbacks for members of the public service to say, hey, it's tough times, look at us and we chose not to take the raise; therefore, come on, follow our example, our bold example and our bold action. We're doing this for the good of the province; you do the same.

Now, I'm not saying we don't deserve a raise or we don't deserve fair compensation. I think all people deserve fair compensation for the work they do. It's gotten incredibly difficult, especially during the pandemic, and it's become a lot more difficult, I would say, for people on the front lines, for people who are the store clerks, the grocery clerks, the people who meet you when you go to that checkout since the pandemic. The stress on them is enormous.

In many ways I do think if we are going to start looking at compensation, how do we rectify the other problems first. Here's the thing. My colleague from Harbour Main talks about the lack of sympathy for politicians, the distain. Yes, I've run into that. As one constituent said to me when I went up to the door in a previous election – not this one, but the one before – you're all crooks.

Part of that is born out of the frustration, the anger and the desperation that many people live, the situation that they find themselves in. Now, whether it's popular or not, I don't know. All I can tell you is that my stand on this is the same as it was on the judges' salaries. If you put something before me, especially knowing the conditions of the people I serve, then I know where I'm going to stand. I'm going to look at the man – let's look at other people first, then we'll come back to ourselves.

It's interesting, we talk an awful lot about process here. In many ways, the one thing that I don't think I really brought out in terms of when we were discussing the judges' salaries here – first of all, if we didn't have authority over it, why bring it but, at the same time, here's the key thing. If I remember correctly, and I stand to be corrected, you're talking to, at the time, three new MHAs. This came up in the space of a few days, near the end of the sitting, and we were asked to make a decision on it. There was no briefing. We were given a report, and that's what we're struggling with. That was literally, I think, a day or so before.

I can tell you, if you're asking me to make a decision on something then you very well better provide the information beforehand, the rationale and the explanation. That's not a failure on my part, that's a failure on the part of the individuals introducing it. That's the first thing.

Now, it's interesting here, and I've got to go to the whole notion of Committees, Mr. Chair. There have been many Committees that have been struck and whose recommendations have been ignored, partial ignored. I'm sure there are bookshelves lined with them collecting dust. I can think of environmental assessment protocols that were not followed, that resulted in, not one but two court cases won by an environmental group because government did not follow its own processes laid down. Here we're talking about we're not following the process with this Committee or the judges' salary. It seems when it's convenient that's trotted out.

WERAC is mentioned, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens when they bring forth their idea, because I've seen how the work of the Committee has, indeed, been treated in the past. But I would suspect that there will be parts of that report that will not be introduced because, well, it may not be politically accurate or correct to do so, or politically expedient is the better word.

Now, I'll certainly look at, if there's a motion, or anything along the lines or an amendment, to entertain maybe a look at another approach, but, in the end, I can tell you that I'm comfortable with my decision. I have to live and work for, with a good conscience, the people I serve. Basically, I look at the fact that I have to serve them first, and before I look at my issues, then I really have to start looking at: How do I help them first? That's my primary concern; that's why I'm here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to take a couple minutes just to speak to this as well. I wasn't really intending on doing so. I thought we kind of were done with the issue when we discussed it in second reading, but I guess just to add a couple of quick points.

First of all, as I said during the second reading, I feel it would be hypocritical of me to support a raise for myself at this current time, given our financial situation that we're in and given the fact that I voted against the raise for the judges for that very reason. I'm going to support the motion, as I said, just to be clear on that.

The only difference I do see when I see the comparison between the vote on the judges' salary versus the vote on our own salary, the only issue that I have and the difference I see is that I don't think I was in a conflict of interest if I'm voting on somebody else's salary; i.e., the judges. That doesn't put me in a conflict of interest. That's part of the process. It has to be approved by the House and we make our decision based on, not just the report and the recommendations but also our financial capacity and any other factors that may be out there. That's what we did. That's why I didn't support the raise for the judges at the time.

I understand the argument could be made that it was an independent process, and as the minister of natural resources – it's not called natural resources anymore; I forget what it's called, but anyway, he knows who he is – former minister of Justice, I agree with him that that was an independent process. Arguably, we could have said: Well, do you know what? It's a fair, it's an independent process; we should just go along with it. But it did come to this Legislature as part of the requirement to be approved.

As I said, based on where we are from a fiscal point of view, I think we're – I believe our debt is – what is it, $15.2 billion now? I could be wrong on that. I think the latest number I saw was $14.2 billion or $15.2 billion. When you add in all the other unfunded liabilities and Muskrat Falls and everything else, we're up to $24 billion or $25 billion that we owe.

We've been having year-over-year deficits. It's probably going to be a couple of billion dollars again this year. I think we had to borrow $3 billion last year. Last year's budget, we had to borrow $3 billion with a B, just to pay the bills. I suspect we're going to have to borrow another $1 billion or $2 billion or $3 billion again this year. The cost to finance that debt is growing. The ability to even obtain the money, I'm sure, is becoming more challenging and the interest rates are probably going to go up because of the situation that we're in.

You look at how much money we pay on servicing the debt, I believe it's second to health care, I think, or maybe it's third to education, but it's up there anyway. If it's not our second –

AN HON. MEMBER: Second to health care.

P. LANE: Second to health care is debt servicing, imagine that.

I understand that there's some politics with this and so on as well, I get that. People are looking upon it favourably. Someone referenced the VOCM there, 97 per cent. I'm not surprised. I'd say if we had a $2 billion surplus this year and our deficit, or sorry, our provincial debt was eliminated, people would still vote to say that politicians don't deserve a raise, because in the minds of many people, unfortunately, this profession is at the very bottom of the barrel, in the minds of many people. Politicians and lawyers, that's what I hear all the time; politicians and lawyers: the worst of the worst. Imagine if you're a politician and a lawyer, imagine how people feel about you.

Anyway, the fact is there is no sympathy there for politicians to get a raise regardless of the circumstance, I don't think it really matters. There's not going to be any will there.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, like I said, for me, it's the conflict of interest piece that makes it different when we talk about the judges versus ourselves because we're being put in a position to approve or, in this case, to turn down a recommendation, to not approve a recommendation made relating to our own benefits, our own remuneration.

I don't know how else we can do it, but I'd like to find some other way. It would be great if we could find some other way, some other mechanism – and I don't know what it is – so that we would not be put in this type of position in the future. That is what I would like to see, some sort of mechanism where we would not be put in this awkward position. Whatever that is, I don't know.

It's pointless looking at our fiscal situation right now, and I suspect it's not improving any time soon. I would say save yourself the time and trouble and everything else, don't even bother with an MCRC this time around. You're saying you need to put another one in place in two or three months' time. Don't even do it.

If they ask me if I want to come for input, I'm going to say, no, I'm not interested; I'm not even going to go to it. What's the point of going through the process if it's all just going to be overturned anyway? If you're going to have a process, you need to follow the process. If you're not, then get rid of it. I'm not wasting my time with it, but that's fine.

I'm supporting the motion here of not – I didn't even know we were getting a raise, by the way. Didn't even know there was one on the books, the first I heard of it. When I signed up for this job I knew that the salary was $95,000 a year, whatever it is. That's what I thought it was, that's what it is and that's what I expected. I didn't expect one dime more and I'm more than happy with what I'm getting. That part I'm fine with.

The only issue I have is the process. The fact that we're having to debate our own remuneration in this House of Assembly, which I feel is a conflict, that's the only issue I have. I definitely agree with the fact that during these fiscal times there is no way I can, in good conscience – I know I've had people come to my office, I have been to their homes and so on, in such distress, financial distress. The last couple of years in particular have been heartbreaking. The number of people that have lost their homes and on the verge of losing everything else they have because of the downturn in the oil industry – whether that is people working here on our own oil and gas projects, or whether it is people working in Alberta – is terrible.

There is no way I could ever support voting for a raise, but I just think that it's unfortunate that we even have to be having this conversation in this House of Assembly. There should be some other way that somebody else decides. I guess that would be the only issue I would have with it.

Just to conclude, I have to make this point. I heard one Member say – the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills, I believe, talked about this is what the people want and we need to be reflective of the people's views and so on. I agree with him a hundred per cent, a thousand per cent. I could not agree more, but I have to say, I wish that same approach had been taken yesterday on the motion about having an independent investigation into the election. I wish the people's views were respected yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: Because I can guarantee you that just like 97 per cent, you're saying, of people don't want us to get a raise – I don't know if it's 97 per cent, but I can guarantee you that the number is up there, big time, of the people who are very, very upset with yesterday's decision. They want to see an independent investigation of that disaster of an election.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

I'm trying to think. When you're having an opportunity to speak to something in Committee – or at any time in the House – you try to think how do you start with your thoughts. There are so many thoughts here. It's the here and now; it's what happened a couple of years ago. It's what happened, frankly – what is it – 15 years ago and what happened five years ago. So with all of that rambling, let me see if I can put some thoughts in.

I think I'm going to start with two ministers of Justice and Public Safety ago. I can recall watching him very eloquently speak to the matter that has been brought up in terms of providing some juxtaposition for the debate that's going on here on the floor.

My thought at that time was this is a process that was set up. There was an independent – I guess the term used is – tribunal. I'm not sure if that's the correct term. It was an independent group identified. Their conclusions have gone before a Legislature in the past, for political expediency voted down and with a more expensive and, as my mother-in-law would say, a more 'expenseful' consequence to the taxpayers of this province. That is something to think about. I can recall the politics that went on at that time – and as the minister said, he took a carving; he was carved up soundly and, again, around a political decision.

I was just trying to put a little quote together. I know the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair always likes to have a quote and I think I'm going to try to generate one here. The history of one political error in judgment should not justify a future, or should I say, present-day political error in judgment.

The Member for Corner Brook talked about the pathway for change. I'm trying to think about the pathway for change, if I think about what the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands just referred to in terms of looking for a process, looking for an opportunity. Well, guess what? I think a good number of us were here in 2016 and watched that MCRC process reveal itself and it was challenging. There were, obviously, some hard feelings, some back and forth and so on. Nevertheless, they were tasked with the job and they did that job. Some were happy with it and some weren't, but there were decisions made then.

The MCRC delivered its final report after a lot of debate. This Legislature looked at those conclusions, moved forward, and guess what? This text of the matter that we're talking about repealing has been sitting there in legislation for five years. Now we find ourselves with, I would suggest, a politically motivated opportunity to say to the public: Hey, look at us. We're going to take this.

I think myself, I would say probably every one of us – I haven't heard anyone who's said different – didn't even know this was happening. I'd forgotten all about it. I'd like nothing better than to say: Yeah, we're not here for that raise. We're not here for that additional compensation, but we have to think about the future.

Again, I will say – I'm going to talk about it a lot over this Assembly – we have four crises facing us: there's this fiscal one that's preoccupying this discussion here today, we have this little pandemic on the go that is – 300,000 people in India yesterday found out they had COVID-19 – 300,000. This is truly something. We are going to need to put our smartest folks on the scene to be able to deal with this.

We have a demographic challenge like no other. I'm meeting tomorrow morning with Rob Greenwood at our favourite breakfast haunt. The Harris Centre is trying to figure out how we, as Newfoundland and Labrador, are going to be able to figure out this population distribution challenge that we have.

As the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands has said today and yesterday, government really needs to be – this Legislature – needs to be preoccupied with these amazing challenges. As the Member for Torngat Mountains said earlier this afternoon, in her petition about climate change – my other big one, which I frankly think is the most serious of these crises – we are going to need the best minds available.

I always believe that if we have to find ourselves in this awkward position – I'm talking about compensation – I want to punt the ball out. I want to punt it out to the future folks that are coming in.

I don't feel that we should be in a position to say, yeah, we're here, we ran on a platform of such-and-such, we understood the terms and conditions and now that we're in we're going to change it. Well, that's not what this is about. This is about something that happened six years ago. I'm fortunate enough to just be here in that situation to see this unfold and then to see this moved by government now that, frankly, is saying let's repeal that. Let's do something politically expedient to go forward. Wow, it's a very frustrating position to put ourselves in.

Back to that minister of Justice, that motion, that bill that he brought before this Legislature, I remember saying to him at the time, and I still believe it, it should never have come to the Legislature. If we have an independent body set up, can we please bring some legislation along so that in future when whoever's sitting in this room feels it's politically expedient to tell the judges that they shouldn't get a raise that they don't have that ability? This should be taken away from us, much the same way that the compensation for ourselves should be taken away from us. And guess what? It is taken away from us. It is there in place and here we are dealing with this.

Mr. Chair, there was a cartoon a little while ago and it's one that I know my independent colleagues, particularly the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said he liked it. It's interesting, if you've seen it. It's the three of us in caricature design and it's called the “Rise of the Independents.” It's pretty interesting. There are somewhat likenesses to the three of us. But you know what is really interesting? Sitting in this chair now is the liberating aspect of being able to look at exactly what's in front of you every time you make a decision. I think about the District of Lake Melville, I think about this province and I go for it. I don't think about a brand; I don't think about a party, a policy, a posture – what is right for these people that I represent, whether back home or broadly across this province.

I have to tell you, bring on the independents. Yesterday, I probably made a few enemies; today, I may make a few more. But I'm going to make a decision every day around that non-partisan perspective and lens I'm going to put on this.

So with that, Mr. Chair, I would like to bring forward an amendment. I'll read it out to this Legislature. So I'm going to first of all read the bill. Bill 10, the amendment: “Subsections 11(1.1) to (1.3) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act are repealed.” That's the bill we're dealing with.

I'm proposing the following, that we replace the words “are repealed” with “are suspended until the completion of the Independent Members' Compensation Review Committee has submitted its recommendations for the 50th General Assembly for incorporation in the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.”

Mr. Chair, we have a process in place. My recommendation is that we park this decision; pass it over to the MCRC, in the event that they are required to meet sometime during this Assembly; and that they deal with this matter. Take it away from us. Take it out of this Legislature. Let an independent body work with it.

I table that amendment right now.

It's moved by myself, seconded by my colleague from St. John's Centre. And I have copies for my colleagues.

CHAIR: Thank you.

This House will recess and we will certainly take a look at the amendment to see if it's in order.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The motion is deemed not to be in order.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I have a bit of time left.

Yes, I'm not surprised. I did what I could knowing what I do about writing amendments. Given the conciseness of the natures, either haul it out or leave it there. The choice before this House is that stark. As I said in my remarks, people before us, I was there, others, years ago worked through a very challenging process to put distance between ourselves and the MCRC. They made recommendations that came before this Legislature. It's been sitting in legislation for really five years and suddenly it's expedient to have that yanked out of there.

Given the situation of numbers in the House and so on, it's unfortunate. I wanted to come back to – I wonder if I can just find it, I need to keep speaking – I think it was the Government House Leader who said this is not the time. Well, if I think back – and again, this lad here is not looking for this wage increase and I'm not sure how I'm going to vote yet. I'm going to wait until I hear all the debate on the floor because I think you need to do that before you formulate your final conclusion.

Given there's been 13 years of a wage freeze, I don't know, maybe there'll never be a time and maybe we should just write some legislation to say: Forget about any further adjustments, we're just going to go with whatever we got here and on into the future.

I go back to my concerns about the challenges before this province, before each of our districts. We are going to need to attract people from other walks of life, people aren't born and become politicians; they do other things. They've got experiences in the private sector, in government, in academics and we're going to need –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. TRIMPER: Except for, yeah – I liked that reference yesterday, by the way, that maybe we should cap how many terms. I was thinking that we'll call it the Putin, the Putin clause that you can't be a politician for life, but we'll see what happens here.

Again, on a serious note, we need to attract good people. I'm very comfortable with what I'm doing, how I'm compensated and what this job entails. It is challenging but we're going to need to attract future good MHAs in this House.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to be able to weigh in on this, I guess, for the people of my district. I actually didn't even know what I was getting paid in the first place until I was probably about six or seven months into the job. I certainly didn't sign up for the money. I didn't know, as a colleague on this side said earlier, that we were even getting a raise. It's news to me.

To bring in a tribunal, I guess, on the judges, to me seems to be a little bit of a different situation for the simple fact that we wouldn't turn it over to the judges to give themselves a raise; therefore, I don't think it's right and it's unethical that we would debate or approve any kind of a raise for ourselves.

It just don't make sense to me that there would be an independent review about us and then be brought back to us to make a determination on. It just seems to be top flippant to me, that we would have even any say in it. We should keep the sanctity of these independent reviews when we ask for them, or what's the sense of even having it in place?

To say that this MCRC has been disbanded now because of a drop of the writ and now there's a new MCRC going to be brought in, then we're just kicking the ball down the road a little bit further, that's all.

On a 13-year wage freeze, I'm not saying that it's deserved, it's not deserved or anything like that, I'm not looking for a raise. In the meantime, I don't think that any of the public sector unions or anybody like that would sit on their hands and not argue for their membership based on 13 years of a wage freeze.

It is the wrong time to do this, as it was the wrong time to give the judges a raise. As the minister had already stated when he was the Justice minister, if it does come back that the judges do argue it in court and they are approved, then that's the mechanism that they had at their benefit. I don't think there's anybody in here that's going to go to the Supreme Court and challenge this to say: Please, give us a raise. I don't think there's anybody in here that is looking for that.

Do we deserve it? I guess based on years of service, there are some people in here that deserve it, but after working here for just about two years, I feel quite content with the money that I'm making. I can't speak for anybody else. In the meantime, this is not about money for me at all; this is just unethical. It shouldn't have been brought back to us to make a decision on, just for the simple fact that it's like feeding a fox because you have lots of feed, and when you run out of feed, you tell him, don't touch the chickens. Well, that's not going to happen. He's still going to want to feed. What we need to do is we can't let the fox be watching the henhouse. It's not our place at all to make a determination on if we get a raise or anything like that.

There was absolutely no problem for the government to add two new ministers to the Cabinet. There's an added expense there. I guess there are two trains of thought here and that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to increase your Cabinet by two ministers, then, obviously, that would kind of conflict with the fact that other people are in line for a raise, but it's not the right time to do it; therefore, it probably wasn't the right time to increase the amount of people in your Cabinet.

As it goes for the tribunal, I will commend the former minister of Justice for sitting there and taking it, because as somebody that's in the field, I would imagine that he did understand the legislation and probably did give us enough warning going down that road. In the meantime, at the time, it wasn't the right thing to do, and giving us a raise today is not the right thing to do either. We're agreeing with what you're saying, but we don't agree with the process that it was done by an independent Committee that brought their findings and everything that was supposed to be brought back to the House of Assembly and we're just going to disregard it.

With that being said, I think there should be an independent Committee that is not bringing things back to the House of Assembly; it's implemented as to what their findings are. Because, like I said, I don't want to be in a conflict of interest, especially when we're in the economic situation that we're in, and we know that people are struggling right now in this economy.

With that being said, I have five minutes; I don't think I'll go another five on this. In the meantime, I think that if we have independent Committees then we should be adhering to what they bring back, their findings, and it's not for us to say yes or no, if their findings are correct or not. They went through a very long process, used a lot of very highly skilled professionals to come to this agreement and they brought it to the House, and we're not agreeing with it, which kind of flies in the face of why we even asked them to get on this committee in the first place.

For me, Mr. Chair, I'm not looking for a raise, but I am looking for a little bit more clarity in why we would ask for reviews and turn them down flat based on the fact that –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DWYER: No, it's not right. But let's make sure the process is right for the next time, because obviously it didn't work this time and it has been in place for five years.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and with that I'll conclude.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have my glasses all tangled up in this mask. I can't see when I got the mask on because my glasses steam up and then I can't see when I take them off because I'm blind.

Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this issue in Committee once again. I just want to emphasize the fact – and it's kind of funny in a sense, I suppose, that everybody agrees with this but we're continuing to talk about it even though every Member in the House agrees with the motion and it's going to be supported, I would suggest, unanimously, I would think. I'd be surprised. Although, my colleague from Lake Melville said he's going to wait to see how the debate ends outs before he makes his decision. But I have a feeling that everyone is going to support this.

I think the issue that has been raised here now over and over again is one of process, and that's the concern. That's the only concern, I think, that people have on this side, is the process and of the conflict of interest – putting Members in a conflict of interest to be debating and voting on their own remuneration. That's really the only issue that anybody has, I think, on this side from what I can gather.

The premise of not taking the raise, absolutely, I think we all agree. We know where we are financially. I kind of want this time to speak a little bit about what the Member from Humber - Bay of Islands, my colleague, was talking about the need for government to act on our fiscal circumstances. This is symbolic. That's all it is. At the end of the day it's really not going to mean a row of beans to the finances of this province, but it is a symbolic move.

I get that and I support it. As I said, there is no way in good conscience, given the fact of where we are as a province, given the fact of all the constituents that I've had to deal with over the last number of years, there is no way I could support giving myself a raise knowing how there are so many people out there that are really challenged. Whether that be people that are challenged for housing, whether that be people that are challenged to afford groceries, people who are challenged with child care issues, whether it is seniors who – I believe my colleague from Ferryland brought up a very good issue today about the dental program which got terminated in the 2016 budget. It is unfortunate that happened, but that is a real hardship on people. I know there are seniors out there that they can't get dentures: they can't afford them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: I would say to the Member it is very relevant, because it is talking to the fiscal circumstance that our province is in and it is talking to the fact that there are many people suffering in our province in any number of areas because we just don't have the fiscal capacity to provide all the services and programs that they require which is why, in good conscience, I would never be able to support sitting in this House of Assembly and voting myself a raise. That's the point I'm making; that's why it's relevant. But it's also relevant that if we're going to make these symbolic gestures in this House of Assembly, that we're also going to take action on the bigger issues. That's where I go back to my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands when he talked about the bigger issues, substantive issues.

I talked yesterday about the fact that there's very little scrutiny of our agencies, boards and commissions – very little. We know that Nalcor has been the tail wagging the dog for years. We know the huge dollars that have been spent and continue to be spent there. Now we have Nalcor, we have Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we got OilCo and we've got the department. So we have like four entities here. I'm sure that there's a lot of duplication and redundancy there, particularly since the Muskrat Falls Project is pretty much complete, that we could be finding huge efficiencies and dollars there.

Again, I talked about it yesterday. We go through the budgetary process for Health and Community Services and we're literally counting pencils in the minister's office and saying how come last year you spent $1,000 on office supplies and this year you spent $1,200, why did you spend $200 more on office supplies. How come you spent $300 more on photocopying? But then, we ignore the fact that there's $2 billion to $3 billion going to the health care authorities and there's not one question about how is that money being spent, because we're not diving into that.

The same thing is happening with the Liquor Corporation. The same thing is happening with Nalcor and its subsidiaries, and OilCo and so on. The same thing is happening to the school boards. Talk about the school boards, we all remember that issue that came out in the media last year or the year before, whenever it was, about buddy who was renting wheelbarrows for $1,000 a week or whatever it was –

AN HON. MEMBER: Extension cords.

P. LANE: Extension cords and so on, paying $500 for an extension cord or whatever the issues were. All that stuff that was going on. We're not diving into any of that stuff.

Now, I understand that there's an Auditor General that can pick a place here and there, or a division of a department or whatever. That happens periodically and so on. But we are the people who were elected by the people. We were elected by the people to manage the people's money and the people's affairs. That is like an $8-billion budget, but we only talk about a couple of billion of it. The rest of it is all left to unelected people, appointed people managing three-quarters of the people's money, and we're not involved in that at all.

Again, to bring it back around to relevance and to this particular motion, if we're going to be making these symbolic gestures, which I support, then we have to be prepared to go further than that. As I said the last time I spoke, we have a provincial debt that is somewhere around $14 billion or whatever – I forget the exact amount, but $14.2 billion rings a bell, maybe. We borrowed $3 billion last year – $3 billion. We're probably going to borrow another couple of billion dollars again this year.

Then, when you throw in all the unfunded liabilities with the pension plans, the Muskrat Falls Project and everything else, we're probably up to around, I think I read, $25 billion or somewhere thereabouts for a population of 500,000 people. It's not about – everyone can share the blame. There are years and years and years of blame to go around, numerous administrations and numerous premiers. It's not about blaming anyone.

We can talk about Muskrat Falls, absolutely; we've seen what went on there. I've acknowledged that in this House numerous times, but it's not just Muskrat Falls. If there were no Muskrat Falls, we'd still be in this. I can remember back in, I'm going to say – what was it. I think it was around 2013, I do believe. I can remember at that particular time the price of oil was at about $110, $120. It was way up there. I think it was $110.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and forty-eight dollars.

P. LANE: Yeah, it went to $148. It was about, at the time, $120 a barrel and we were still borrowing over a billion dollars. I can remember referring to it as the Finance minister's billion-dollar shopping spree at the time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair (inaudible).

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

I don't know if I would call this an honour to be speaking on this in the House today. It's a bit embarrassing I have to tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't have to.

L. O'DRISCOLL: No, I don't have to, but I will. Again, I sit here and listen to you. I would like for you to sit here and listen to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: I'm not talking when you're talking; I'm listening when you're talking. I'm not throwing shots across at you, so I would like the same respect back. I certainly do appreciate it.

I sit here and I've been here two years. I came from a job as a car salesman. It's embarrassing to be a politician I have to tell you. It's embarrassing. To get in here now and run this along to prove a point, it's without words I have to say. It's without words. When you rank a car salesman above a politician or lower than a politician, then that should say something.

I was a car salesman and I was good at it. I come in here and I'm trying to do the job for the District of Ferryland and I'm trying to do the same kind of job here and represent the people that put me here. I sit here and I look around and it's just embarrassing. Everybody should be looking at themselves. Get off your high horses.

We have ministers here and I respect them. I totally respect you. I do, I really do. I will listen to what everybody is saying, but it's embarrassing to sit here and be a politician. We're never going to change it if we don't sit down, look at ourselves and get back to what we have to do. It would drive you mad. There's no need of it.

We come in here; you have a job to do. Let's get down and do it. We're trying to run a game here now to see where we're going to go with this.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're not running the game here.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Oh, you're going to chirp in again? Wait until I'm finished. You will have your turn.

I'm not interested in the pay. I could care less whatever the pay was. I still don't know what I'm getting paid. I had to get my T4 this year to do my taxes and see what I was paid. I'm down $30,000 or $40,000 to do this job. It was an honour to do it for the people in the District of Ferryland. I'm representing the people here and I will continue to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: But I'm not going to go along and play the political game. I have no say in it; you have the majority. What can I do about it? But I'm going to speak my voice when I get my chance and I'm not going to fall into the trap of playing a political game. It's just the way it is. You really have to sit back and look at yourselves and look at what you're doing. You want to change this and get – 93 or 94 per cent on VOCM today. How is it going to change if we don't change it ourselves? I don't know.

You talk about collaboration. That's the only time I ever heard these words since I came in here. There's no more collaboration in here than anywhere I've ever been in my life on committees. You're on a committee and whatever council you're on, you make a decision; you vote on it and you move on. It's just so embarrassing it's beyond words.

We're sitting here talking about people collaborating. We asked a question the other day on ATV proposals and it's not against the minister, they're going to bring in legislation. Has anyone ever come over: we might have a good idea that can help you? No one has ever asked. No one has ever spoke to anyone about it. They're going to bring in legislation and pass it forward and no one is going to talk about it. Where's the collaboration in that?

I've been sitting here now for two years and I haven't seen any collaboration. I might have a good idea, somebody else might. My ideas might be the worst in the world but at least if you listen to them, they might be something that you can take and move forward with it. But if you don't hear them and don't listen to it, if you have a committee then you probably should do it. We just have to be open. We can sit here and we're going to put up walls; we're not going to do it, make gestures. It's just embarrassing I have to tell you. It's beyond words.

Even on our side, too – I'm not going to say it – arrogance all over the place. Get off our high horse and do the job we're put in here to do and that's what the people want. They don't want to witness this all day long. We're in here now; we're going to stay until 12 tonight to prove a point. That's what we're at.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not us.

L. O'DRISCOLL: No, it's not us. Not you. It will be you tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL: It's the same situation and you're going to run all over it. You can't let people run over you. You have to make your point. You make your point. We'll make our point.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're going to fix it.

L. O'DRISCOLL: No, we're not going to fix this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL: When I worked at a car dealership, I earned my wages because I had to sell. There was no salary, it was commission only and you earned your pay. When I got a raise, they'd call you in to speak about it. I worked in service for 10 years before I got at that. When I did a good job I'd have to go in and see my boss, to speak to you, to do an evaluation on you, which I thought was great. They're not going to do that here, obviously, because the people evaluate you when they put you here.

You go in there and the boss would call you in. They'd do an evaluation on you. If you deserved a raise, you got it; if you didn't deserve a raise, you didn't get it. So why am I coming in – I'm going to give you a raise; you give me one back. That makes no sense. Let the people do it. Let the independent person do it and that's where it should be.

If they thought I deserved the raise, they'd give it to me. If they didn't, I didn't get it. I didn't discuss my own wage. That's not how it goes. If they decide to up the labour rates in a car dealership, then they upped the labour rates. What are we going to do about it? Not a thing, only go in and get them fixed or ignore it, one or the other.

It's the same thing. If you deserve a raise, you deserve a raise. Let someone else make that decision. Not put it in our hands in here. To me, it's just something that we should not be at. I don't know how it's fixed. I don't have the answers. I know that you have an independent commission. I don't have the answers for it but we should not be discussing this.

Like I told you, I didn't know what I was getting paid until I got my T4 online, and I had to go find out my password to get it. I didn't know how to do that myself. So to get to that point, I'm not here about the money, and I'm not sitting here bragging about that because that's embarrassing to even be talking about. You should just get to the point, do what's right and we'll move on from there.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I just want to take a few minutes to remind anybody at home on what we're debating here this afternoon. We're debating government's decision to put forward a bill to not – and I repeat to not – increase MHAs' wages. We've just spent almost two hours, with us intervening, I think, four times for maybe a total of 15 or 20 minutes, we've intervened for 15 or 20 minutes in the last two hours on why we do not support MHAs getting a raise.

Practically I've heard from everybody across the way now on why we should not get a raise, but we shouldn't be talking about it because it's a conflict of interest. In all fairness, the two independent Members, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands have been very clear in their statements, as has the Member for Lake Melville.

But from Members of the Official Opposition, it has been totally unclear. They speak one after the other saying they don't want a raise but, for all intents and purposes, they're filibustering the House. We have business to do in this House today. We have Interim Supply which we need to pay our workers and we need some third readings on some important bills we did this week. The Nalcor bonus bill, the one that we brought in yesterday, we need third reading on that.

So, Mr. Chair, the Official Opposition has spent the entire regular afternoon of the House of Assembly telling us why they support us not getting a raise, but we shouldn't be talking about it. I've done a little bit of research this afternoon while I've been listening inventively. Conflict of interest is when you vote for a benefit for yourself. The last time I checked, voting on a raise that would put more money into my bank account and saying I'm satisfied not to take that money, is not a conflict of interest because there's no benefit for me in declining a raise.

Mr. Chair, what we're saying here today, and I'll say it again, quite clearly, I've said – I've heard the words like embarrassed, stand and be bold. Well, I'll boldly say again, now is not the time for us as MHAs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to accept a pay increase.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Mr. Chair, this is not about a conflict of interest; it's about a moral conflict. You can shake your head; you can say what you want. The House Leader from the opposite side just said that not one Member of the PC Party said today that they want a raise, and I agree. There is nobody over here saying that we want a raise or that we believe there should be a raise. What we are saying is that we do not believe in the premise of this bill and how it is being presented. I will also go on to say that the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology has been over their tweeting and shrugging and rolling his eyes and doing his whole thing and he goes on Twitter and says: “… the PC's twist themselves into a pretzel voting for a raise to their salary while turning down a raise for judges” – entirely false. Nobody is voting for a raise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: The issue at hand is the exact same argument that the former Justice minister brought in here with the judges and he supported, and now he goes against the exact same thing he supported six months ago.

A. PARSONS: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: No, you did the same. You did the exact same thing; you voted for it and now you're turning it down, no different –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: I will remind the Members about pay in this House and I will say a couple of names (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can't we get along?

L. PARROTT: Yes, can't we get along?

Look, this is not about a pay raise; this is about how this bill was brought to the House. This is about a problem with how this is managed. If you want to talk about collaboration, you should collaborate. There is not one person in this House who doesn't agree with the amendment that the hon. Member for Lake Melville brought forward, but it got shot down because it doesn't meet the premise of the House.

The governing party has the ability to change that. They can change the bill. They can amend it. It is their bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not going to let that happen.

L. PARROTT: No, we know that's not going to happen because it is smoke and mirrors, period. The hon. Member next to me said that yesterday and it is 100 per cent right.

We come in here and we sit down and we try and be better, and we say we're this and we're that and everything else. Listen, everybody here works hard; everybody here is on the same premise. I can look around this room and I don't know what everybody was making, but I can guarantee you there are a good many people who came in here with their heart on their sleeve and took a major pay cut to come here to do the right thing, and we all agree on that.

We all sit here on our high horses and say we're going to be better and we never are; it's like a bunch of children. You know what? Yes, we're as bad on this side of the House as you are on that side. But the reality of it is that sometimes when things get presented to this House, we have to sit back and look and talk about it collaboratively, and it doesn't happen.

A majority government allows you to do what you want. You know what? You can go ahead and do what you want. We sit here and we get our say based on we are voted to represent our districts, and you guys will say: Well, this isn't representing your district; it's representing your own interests. But this isn't about my interests. I'm not asking for a pay raise. What I am asking is for the next person that comes in to represent my district, they know what they're getting into ahead of time. We all deserve that as Members of this House, not just me, not just the people I represent. Every single person in this House deserves to know what happens going forward, and this clouds it and muddies it.

We could pause it; we could walk away from it, and nobody is suggesting that we get a pay raise. I don't think we should. I actually think that we should vote on a freeze. But this is not the way to do it. The way to do this is to put a bill in front of this House where there's a process going forward, and this is not a process; this is a way out. It's a simple cop-out. It's always the way that things happen in this House. It's ridiculous.

We can sit here and shake our heads and pretend that we're better and everything else that happens in this House, but you know what? Everybody here knows the difference. At the end of the day, we're here for the right reason. We're here to represent the people that put us here. Whether we take a $10,000 pay cut or a $10,000 pay raise, every single person in this House is going to go back to their districts tomorrow and they're going to represent the people. One hundred per cent. That's what we're put here to do.

Do I think that this is a load of crap? Absolutely. One hundred per cent.

J. HAGGIE: Mr. Chair?

L. PARROTT: Go ahead.

J. HAGGIE: Not that I'm adverse to the odd expletive, but is that parliamentary?

CHAIR: I'm sorry? Are you on a point of order?

S. COADY: Yes, he's on a point of order.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

Not to appear too picky, and I'm used to language that's far rosier than that, but I don't think that's entirely parliamentary.

CHAIR: Thank you. We will take that under advisement.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I apologize, Mr. Chair.

Probably I should have said a load of feces.

At the end of the day –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. PARROTT: Your mask is a little bit too tight there, right?

Mr. Chair, what's at hand here today is that a bill has been brought forward to this House where there's a process laid out and we have decided not to follow it. It's not a big deal. There are other ways around this. That is the problem. That is the argument. The argument is not whether or not any MHAs in this House deserve, should get a pay raise or want a pay raise; the argument is about the process. The process was put forward to us by government. Government had an opportunity to be everything that they say they are. They can come in and be collaborative and they can do all of the things that they promised to be. But, at the end of the day, we're four days into it and we haven't seen it. We have not even come close to seeing it.

We had a private Member's resolution voted down yesterday that served all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and everybody in this House knows that. Now, we're going into another opportunity here where we can look after something in a way that it fixes the problem for generations to come. Instead, we're going to kick the can down the road once again because it's the easy and convenient thing to do.

Now, Mr. Chair, I won't prolong this much longer. I will support this bill. I will vote for this bill. I do not want a pay raise. That's not what it's about; it's about the process. The Government House Leader knows it's about the process. He knew the process was flawed when he put the bill to the floor; he knew how it was going to go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Government House Leader.

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

I'm going to look across at the Member and say: No, I did not think how this bill was going to go. In my calendar for this week, I had allotted long enough to do three stages of this bill and Committee. I really did, because I thought every one of us in here understand the position that we're in and this is not the time for MHAs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to accept a pay increase.

If you go back to the remarks of the former leader of your party, he said about a decision that was six or eight months old. Times have changed. This MCRC was 2016 and, quite honestly, I've heard a number of Members here say they forgot there was a raise or didn't even know there was a raise, likewise me too. But if you take the time to read why it was forgotten about, it was because our public service – there was a four-year wage freeze for our public service. It's only because through negotiations we were able to reach extensions to the public service agreements, which triggered this.

This is the first time that this has been triggered since it was brought in, in 2016. It hadn't been presented to us before. If you go back to 2008 when this province was running surpluses, there wasn't a raise. How can we ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, today, in our current fiscal situation, to increase our pay? It's not conscionable to me as an MHA, and we've spent the whole afternoon debating something you're going to vote for.

What I would propose, before we break for supper, let's vote. Let's vote so we can get on to more important work tonight of Interim Supply so that we can keep this province up and running until we get our budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I feel like my colleagues on this side, really; I didn't know about a raise either. I didn't know this piece of legislation was coming through, but, anyway, we're into it. I'm certainly not looking for a raise. I do believe that it's not up to us to make the decision. It's up to the MCRC or another Committee to make that decision. It's not up to us.

I guess with regard to public opinion, maybe after the botched election that we just went through, maybe this is a good way to gain public opinion, because someone said 97 per cent of the public don't agree with it. It should be 100. I'm wondering which three in here phoned in, because they had to.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're over there.

P. FORSEY: No, you agreed that we didn't. You agreed that we didn't agree with it, so it must have been your side.

I'm wondering if that's what it is, to gain points. Hey, you got them, because the public certainly don't agree with it. I don't agree with it, either, not to be discussing this. I really don't, but I do support the amendment.

Again, we need the MCRC, we need another group to make those decisions for us. It's very uncomfortable again to be here talking about it. I've heard conflict of interest mentioned dozens of times here. Maybe it's not conflict of interest, maybe it's a vested interest. If anybody was on council or a group that was making a decision, if someone had a vested interest then they'd be excluded from that decision. As for us, I'm sure we have a vested interest in this decision. If we get a raise that's a vested interest for us, isn't it? Not a conflict of interest. We should be removed from that decision. Why we're doing this just absolutely makes no sense of us fellows making those choices right now.

Mr. Chair, again, like I said, it's an uncomfortable, unpredictable position to be put in. I think we should be excluded, and the Members are right, you're only kicking this down the road. This should be done, the MCRC or another Committee should be put in place to make those decisions so that we don't have to make those decisions. Again, I didn't know I had to make that decision.

When I became an MHA or was elected to the House of Assembly, I didn't know that I had to make a decision like this, and it's one of the worst decisions that I have to make, to be honest with you. I don't want to make it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over here.

P. FORSEY: With some of the decisions you're making right now, I wouldn't want to be over there either.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, I'll leave that alone. I just wanted a few minutes to speak on that because, like I say, I'm appalled just as much as every other Member on this side is. I will support the motion, but, again, I just wanted to make a point that we need to put aside and leave our vested interest out of it and let somebody else make those decisions for us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are in the Committee stage, for anybody that's watching. It seems like we're doing speeches, but sometimes during the Committee stage, it's a good opportunity on bills where actually you do get sort of the quick back and forth where there is question and answer between, usually, the Opposition asking the question and government providing an answer as to the rationale for doing something.

Now, this one might be a bit different because I'm putting it on the other side. I hear what the Members are saying, and it gets heated because we're all in a room; we have different viewpoints. We all think we're right. I have a perspective on this. As I say, I listened to the Member for Ferryland; he was getting animated with it, and I can do that, too. I get that; we all do that. But I'm going to try my best to do this on a logic-based approach.

I believe what the Members are saying is that they don't want a raise and they support the bill, but they disagree with the process. I look to the Members to see if there's any heads nodding, if I've gotten that right. I see one Member nodding his head and I appreciate that.

My question is: If that is the case and the point that has been made, why would we continue to filibuster a bill for which we all agree and will vote, unanimously, then there would be a conversation after as to going forward? We have a motion that's put down.

Again, I've been through three or four of these MCRCs now. That's the question I have. You can understand why I would be exasperated when I sit here and say: You support it; you don't want the raise, but we're going to stay here and we're going to not vote on the bill when we could get to – I'll be honest with you, I'm kind of anxious to get that Nalcor bill done. I'll just put that out there, if somebody wants to answer that.

I'll put in the second part: One of the comments that Members have made is that we need an independent process, which brings me back to June. There was an independent process – been there, been recognized by the courts, was put in place and we had to follow it. I haven't heard a good explanation yet as to why that process, which was independent in nature and brought to us, was not followed at that time and, in fact, it was politicalized.

I think the two questions that I ask are good; I think they are sensible. I'll take my place now so we can have a question and answer, if that is something that the Members would like to entertain.

Thank you.

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

J. DINN: With that in mind then, my next comments are going to be very brief and maybe even a suggestion; one that people may not like. If we're replacing 1.1 to 1.3, which outlines the process, it comes down then, Mr. Chair, as to how the decision is going to be made. What is the process in place? Will it still be with the MCRC or is it now left up to whom? That's the first thing.

In some ways – and I'll throw that out there because I'd like to hear that, but I'll pass this on to another comment. I guess it goes back to my union days when it comes to negotiations. If you want an ideal solution from me, because I think in many ways we need to have that, here's a thought: let the MCRC make the recommendation. The next time a general election is held, put that as one of the options: do you agree to the recommendations of this Committee that the MHAs you're about to elect are entitled to? Now, we're making it truly independent and it's not left to a Committee.

I would dearly love to have, in many ways, a Committee looking at a lot of things along those lines. But if we're talking about compensation, the people who are our political masters, and who, I would say in my district, are our employers, our bosses, let them make the decision on that. If we do a good enough job and if we are, indeed, from their point of view, serving their best interests and that they have that say, then put that to a ballot each time. Now we'll have a truly independent process where we are truly answerable to the people we serve.

In the meantime, that's a suggestion for another time. I really would be interested as to if you remove this what happens next? How is this determined? What's the process?

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

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

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

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

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

S. CROCKER: Presently.

SPEAKER: Presently.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, third reading of Bill 9.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, that Bill 9 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007. (Bill 9)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, third reading of Bill 5.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 5 be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It's been moved and seconded that this bill be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, 2015. (Bill 5)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, 2015,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 5)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recess until 6:15 p.m.

SPEAKER: This House do rest until 6:15 p.m.

April 22, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 6A

The House resumed at 6:15 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Are the House Leaders ready?

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Premier, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 10.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 10, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.” (Bill 10)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've been in here most of the afternoon debating on this motion. I think it has been made clear by most Members who have spoken: It's not about the issue that, maybe, government has tried to turn it around – that it's about a raise. This has never been about the raise; it has always been about a process. I know one Member mentioned over there: Why are we not just voting for this? We're all in favour of not giving ourselves a raise. Which is a fair statement, but that's not where I am. I don't think that's where most of us are.

I feel that it is important for Members to express their concerns. This is the people's House and they were elected by the people. If they want to speak in their seat, they speak. I don't think there's any time limit. The Government House Leader gave a motion which set it to midnight. We had that motion in all week; even Wednesday we had it in. We never used it. As a matter of fact, on Tuesday past, it was shortly after 4 p.m. We had lots of time then to put some other stuff through.

A lot of it comes back to the independence piece. If you look back in the budget documents in 2016, the MCRC cost a fair amount of money. Now, based on the Greene report, we'll have to have a new MCRC in the coming year, I would assume. No doubt that will cost a significant amount of money. We just had a Cabinet sworn in; we had two extra Cabinet ministers, a considerable amount of money. Those are real dollars. They don't lie. They're dollars. Are they needed? I don't know. The court of public opinion is out, whatever, but it's the cost of doing business and that's fine.

Government can pick and choose when they want to spend money, when they don't spend money; that's fine. But if we're going to spend money on an independent review that we're not going to respect – a process, I should say, we're not going to respect – I think going forward we need to seriously consider that. I've said that point several times. Why do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result? If you're going independent, you don't know what decision is going to come. In this case here, it turned out to be something that favoured the MHAs. Like I said yesterday, if it was something that hurt MHAs or took from an MHA, no one would care and you would never be able to reverse it.

I think it's very important for us as Members of this House to have that opportunity to voice our concerns, voice our displeasure. It's about collaboration and you want to work together and you want to try to get along. The Premier makes comments a lot of times about doing things differently and making bold initiatives and thinking outside the box. They're not bad words if there is going to be sincerity behind them. I believe – I've believed this since 2019 when we came in with a minority government under former Premier Ball – the public want us to work together. They want us to work together. We were in a minority government; we made some accomplishments, but it was still adversarial. There was no real collaboration. It was forced collaboration. It was when you never had the votes on the other side and we had to agree to stuff. That's just the way it is.

It's very adversarial and I think we all need to take a sober look and really figure out – and honestly, this is not meant to be words; I really mean it. If we want to solve the problems, we need to work together. I think that's what the public want.

You have your majority government, Premier, and that's fine, you won it fair and square – well, we'll find that out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Mr. Chair, I'll add to that: When I say fair and square, I mean it. What I mean by fair and square is they had the majority of the votes from the general public, and that's the way our electoral system is set up. It doesn't mean the election was a fair process, but I've always believed the people's votes count. It's why we wanted an independent process to review the election, because a lot of those people never got their vote. Based on what went in to vote and counted, they got the majority vote. We have to accept that. If that's any clarity. If you want to take your chair and pat yourself on the back, fine, but we still have a big dilemma on our hands with the election. That's an issue for another day.

If you want to work with us and you want to find answers and you want to work in collaboration, there are a lot of smart people on this side of the House, Premier. You have your own people; there are a lot of smart people and they want input.

Yesterday at 1 o'clock, I get this release from your Minister of Justice about doing an all-party Committee. That's not collaboration. The world knew we were going with a PMR. Let us be a part of something. We've expressed concerns over this process here. It has never been about a pay raise. Why don't you just push this out? Get an independent tribunal, something similar to the judges, something remote. Again, it's not for any of us here; we'll all be long gone. But what do you do in 20 years' time? If you're going to attract bright people in this Legislature to run the province, you have to make it appealing. You have to have some incentive. Let someone else decide in 20 years' time to make this attractive enough for them to come.

You really, seriously have to look at that. Our finances will always be an issue. Giving a politician a raise will always be an issue. That's where, I think, the people lost sight of this. It was never about the initial raise right now based on our financial circumstances. It never was, and you can check Hansard. I'm sick of saying it here today and yesterday. It's about the process. It's about the independence. The MCRC was set up for a reason and it was done for that reason: to take politics out of it. Unfortunately we put politics back into it by bringing it back in the Legislature.

I don't agree with us debating our wages. To say vote down a raise – we already went through second reading yesterday. It was more about pushing back to say we demand more respect in this House. We don't feel like we get our proper respect in the House. We are the Opposition, as a whole here. All these people are the Opposition. They were all voted in by tens of thousands of people in this province who marked their Xs over there. That counts for something.

Everyone on this side of the House cares about what happens to us as a province. It's not lip service. It's not fanfare. It's not to get your name in the paper. It's none of that. I know these people that I'm sitting with, they care. They really care and they want to be part of the solution. No one here wants to be part of the problem. But in order to be part of the solution, you have to be part of something. To be constantly dismissed and constantly ignored and your concerns are brought there – I think there are a lot of great issues that come up. A lot of great points get made on this side of the House. I think if we want to solve the bigger problems we face – because I heard it at the doors and I think we all heard it at the doors: We're faced with big problems.

Premier, respectfully if you make to make bold decisions and do things outside the box, we're all ears. We're willing to work with you. We want to succeed. It's a place I've called home my entire life and most of us in this Chamber have.

If we want to do what's right for this province, it's not about a raise, it's about pushing back and saying we want to be given the same respect; we want to be shown some respect. We will work together because I think it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to park some of that stuff by the door and work together. We're willing to. In my role, I know I am. I know our leader is willing to and I think all of our caucus is, but there has to be mutual respect on both sides of the House.

I won't belabour it anymore. I know we have Interim Supply to do, which is another important piece to pay the bills and keep the government going. I just want to close on saying that I feel we have to be shown more respect. If you give respect, you get respect and I think it's the mutual way. I think we can work together and solve a lot of problems.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I had no intention of continuing on with this debate before we broke for supper, but I have to just pick up on a couple of points that my colleague from Conception Bay South just made because he kind of opened that door. In that same theme, I just want to reiterate a couple of points he made, but also to add a little bit to it.

Part of the real issue at hand today with this particular motion – again, it was never about the money, it was about the process. The bigger picture, the bigger piece, which he just mentioned that time, which I believe what a lot of this has been about this evening, kind of ties into myself and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands there on Monday or Tuesday, whatever it was, when we went on and we spoke two or three times on a particular issue and dragged out the House of Assembly a bit longer than was anticipated, or what was planned between the parties. It was what the Member said; it's respect.

So when the Member talked about respect for the parties, you have a majority government, he's right, but you have an Opposition over here. It's not just respect between the parties; it is respect for the independent Members of the House as well. Whether you like it or not, it's a reality. Not in the last election but the one before that, we had independents here. They were made independent by being tossed by their parties, but then they were re-elected by the people as independents. In this last election, we were re-elected again and now there are not two, there are three independent Members – three of us.

The bottom line is that like it or not we're here and we're not going anywhere. When we talk about respect – it's fine for the Opposition House Leader to be talking about respect and I agree with him, but that has to be extended to independent Members of the House as well. When you go ahead and you take initiatives like this that was going to impact all Members in this House, I think it would have went over a lot better if you had met with the Official Opposition, the NDP and the independent Members and say here's what we're planning on doing. At least there could have been some input and some discussion.

The same thing could have applied before the Minister of Justice decided to throw out his all-party Committee with a Liberal majority, of course. Before he decided to do that, he could have consulted with other Members of this House, the parties and the independent Members. No, he didn't. Basically, what it is doing is it's just thumbing its nose at people who were duly elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, because you have this attitude that we're here with our majority and we're going to do whatever the heck we want. We don't care what you have to say.

Now, you can go out in the media and say we want to work together and all this stuff. That all sounds fine, but working together means consulting. It means consulting with all Members of the House of Assembly. I agree there are so many issues facing our province. I've said publicly, time and time again, that I'm prepared to take a hit. I'm prepared to take a political hit on some tough decisions, if need be, if it's the right thing to do.

If it can be demonstrated as the right thing to do, that the decision makes sense, that it's outcome based, that it's backed up by evidence, then I'm prepared to support some things because I know things need to be done. I'm sure my other colleagues, the other independent Members and everyone, would probably feel the same way. But I'm not going to come in this House of Assembly and rubber stamp everything that you guys are doing, it's as simple as that.

We can work together, for real, and actually work on issues and try to solve them, or you can ram things down everybody's throat, bring it in, your own agenda and don't consult with us. But don't expect everything to go smooth because it's not going to go smooth. It's just not going to and, yeah, at the end of the day you'll get your way.

Tom Marshall, who is a man I had great respect for in this House of Assembly, said it perfectly one time in this House; I was here. He said Oppositions have their say; government has its way. He's right. That's the way it works. That's the way it's always worked.

We all understand who is the government and who's running the government. Nobody here is saying I'm going to go in now and start telling the Minister of Justice or the minister of natural resources what to do and he's going to run his department or her department the way I'm telling them. Nobody is suggesting that. But if you're actually committed to working together and it's more than just political buzzwords and rhetoric, then you have to show it, you have to demonstrate it.

I know the Premier agrees with me because he's paying such great attention to me there now. He's nodding his head in agreement. Everything he's saying, I have his undivided attention, showing me the respect that we all deserve. That's it exactly. I really appreciate it.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. At the end of the day, as I've said, I'm going to support this motion. I was never against the motion and am still not against the motion. If we're going to work together, then we have to actually work together. We all have to be showing respect, we all have to be given a heads-up on things that are going on and asking for meaningful input – not just input, meaningful input – and working together.

If you think for one second that I'm going to play this silly little game of whatever you decide to do, I'm just going to go along with it and say great job and not challenge anything, it's not happening. It's not on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall the motion carry?

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

P. TRIMPER: Thank you. Just a couple of quick comments, Mr. Chair.

I did want to respond. I'm just going to say a couple of other things quickly. The Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, we had quite a – I'm still thinking about his fox and chickens analogy and I'll just give this one to him. It was a former ADM in Service NL that told me this: you can't turn a tiger into a vegetarian by feeding it steak. I think that'll help you out with your situation.

I'm going to relinquish my opportunity to just keep speaking here all evening; I think we have made our point. I still remain concerned about the future of this Legislature and the quality of the people that we attract in here. There are organizations like Equal Voice and many others who are trying to enhance the representivity of this Legislature. We should look like our province. That's who should be in this House.

If any of those people that we're trying to attract in here from those other walks of life have any kind of financial constraints and they look at the funding mechanisms and the pullbacks on the processes that we have in place, I don't think that's a good signal.

It is also, I find, quite ironic that so many of us – I think everyone of us who has spoken has said they didn't realize this was coming and with this raise they'd rather give it to an important charity, to support their fellow constituent, and so on. I can't agree with them more, but the irony is that we're not able to do that. We're certainly not able to talk about it.

The only public way that we can say that we are here, sincerely, to take care of our constituents and think about their needs, first and foremost, is to support this motion. I'll leave you with that thought.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Further speakers?

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I move the Committee rise and report Bill 10.

CHAIR: The motion is the Committee rise and report Bill 10.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

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

B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 10 without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 10 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

B. WARR: Now.

SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time.

B. WARR: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper third reading of Bill 10.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Premier, that Bill 10, An Act to Amend The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act be now read a third time.

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, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

SPEAKER: Are the House Leaders ready?

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

All those in favour, please rise.

CLERK (Barnes): Mr. Furey, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Haggie, Ms. Coady, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Loveless, Mr. Davis, Mr. Warr, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Hogan, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Reid, Ms. Howell, Mr. Pike, Ms. Stoyles, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Petten, Mr. Wakeham, Mr. Wall, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr. Tibbs, Ms. Evans, Ms. Conway Ottenheimer, Mr. Parrott, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Paul Dinn, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Dwyer, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Lane, Mr. Trimper.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes: 38; the nays: zero.

SPEAKER: I declare this motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2(a).

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution and Bill 3 respecting the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

SPEAKER: The motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering the related resolution and Bill 3, An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Resolution

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2022 the sum of $1,371,724,400.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't take a lot of time, but as I sit here in this House of Assembly thinking about the financial position of the province I go back 72 years to 1949 when we joined Confederation with money in the bank. Despite having the richest fishing grounds in the world, tremendous forestry resources, tremendous mining resources, tremendous hydroelectricity resources and tremendous offshore oil resources, we find ourselves, 72 years later, instead of all of us getting a royalty every month or every year, some would say we're flat broke. I say this because it is a tremendous challenge ahead and all of us want the same thing in this House. We want to make sure that all 40 of us leave this province in a better place than which we found it when we got elected here.

I was glad to hear the Premier say that before any new deals are signed, and an Atlantic Loop or anything else, he will bring them to this House to be debated and talked about. I was also glad to hear that we're going to make a commitment that the principal beneficiary of our resources from now on will be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we can all agree on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Sometimes there are questions you need to ask yourself when you're talking about a budget. Usually there are three questions that get asked: What do you want? What do you need? What can you afford? Sometimes the answers will be the same, but oftentimes they're not. For example, I might want to drive a great big SUV. What I really need is something to get me from point A to point B. What I can afford is a subcompact. So as we move forward again in our budget process let's –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

T. WAKEHAM: Especially after today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: So as we move forward – in all seriousness – let us make sure that we work hard to balance that approach.

The reason I bring it up is because government spends a lot of money, $8 billion, and while I love getting things for my district, like every other Member does, I also have needs like every other district has. I think, for me, of the need for a stable health care system. Right now in my district we have a revolving door of family physicians. We certainly have to take a look at what's causing that. Why are we having so much trouble with retention? That's an issue that I don't know if it's simply unique to my district – I don't think it is – but we have to find a way to solve that.

Recently, there was a tender let for a million dollars, or close to it, to put a new roof on the provincial building in Stephenville. Now, I'm happy to be seeing money spent, but this particular building holds the provincial courthouse. In 2014, an announcement was made to replace that particular building because it isn't wheelchair accessible. Now, we're going to spend a million dollars to put a new roof on it and it's still not going to be wheelchair accessible, and anyone with mobility issues is still going to have to go to the local hotel to have their day in court. I would think there are lots of contractors out there and businesspeople who would be more than willing to build a building or lease a building that would be much more energy efficient and possibly wind up not costing us any more to maintain than the current building. I say that because today, as the Minister of Environment and Climate Change referenced, it's Earth Day.

This particular building has an oil tank that I'd say almost runs from the Speaker's Chair to my colleague's desk, and burns, I would think, anywhere from $70,000 to $80,000 a year in fossil fuel. The minister mentioned moving away from that. What an opportunity to do that. First of all, to provide wheelchair accessibility to people who have to go to court or go to Motor Registration, and to also put the money into a more energy-efficient building. It's not about necessarily always spending more money. That's just one example and I think that we really have to take a closer look at what we're doing.

We have severe erosion issues in my district. Lower Cove Hill, which I'm glad to hear there's a tender being called for now, and in Fox Island River the main road through the community is in severe need, it's getting eroded constantly and has to be repaired constantly. But they are only simple fixes, and it's not about moving the road. Perhaps the solution is to look at what was done in Placentia, on Beach Road, where they built an appropriate barrier, protected the road and actually put a walkway on top of it. It was brilliant. That's the kind of thing we need to be looking at.

In the community of Mainland, a beautiful community, right now I have a gentleman down there and I've been trying to get him help. His house, when you step off his balcony now you fall into the ocean. We can't allow that to happen. We can't wait for that house to fall into the ocean before we do something about it. We have to help and we have to find ways to do it.

Those are just some examples of what's going on in my district. I think, like I said, it's not always about want, it's about a need. If we focus on needs and not wants, then I think we will be much better off.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All those years in soccer still have you a bit scared of Curling.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to talk a bit about the election. I made a commitment to the people of Humber - Bay of Islands during the election, the catastrophe that happened, that I would bring it up, and this is probably the last opportunity now before we get into the full debate.

When you have seniors coming to your house who want to vote and they're there with their driver's licence so you can take a picture, there's something wrong. When you have seniors holding their driver's licence up to a window so someone could lift up a camera, get on someone's back and take a picture, there's something wrong. Something fundamentally wrong when you hear this. This is not just Humber - Bay of Islands, this is all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just have to say one thing. I'm not going to criticize anybody here, yet, and I will eventually with Commissioner Bruce Chaulk with some of the things that happened. I've been in this House a long time and I can tell you one thing here in this House: This is the first time that I have ever seen in the House of Assembly where an Officer of the House is not answerable to this House of Assembly. We hire those people. We approve them in this House. They are answerable to this House of Assembly. The day that we don't hold Officers of the House of Assembly accountable in this House of Assembly, we are not doing our jobs. We can put on any excuse we want to.

I know the Minister of Justice and Public Safety will say: Well, it's in the court. But it's not in this House of Assembly. This is who we are. We're answerable to the people of this province. Officers of the House of Assembly are answerable to this House of Assembly. They're not answerable to the courts. The courts will take care of another matter.

When you see what happened in this last election – and I'll say to the Premier, and I'll be frank: If an Officer of this House of Assembly told the Premier of this province that he's ready for a pandemic election and he wasn't, how come we're not asking him into this House and saying, why weren't you ready? The statement he made to the Premier and the Premier made publicly – the Premier said publicly that the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards – the ethics commissioner, by the way, the ethics commissioner. We all know the history of me and him. We all know and I bring it up front, and everything I said before is all coming true. I can name four or five other things.

When the Officer of this House tells the Premier of the province, who then goes publicly and says I was informed that he can run a pandemic election, and he couldn't do it, and we're not asking him in this House what happened and we're not holding him accountable, we're not doing our duty.

I know the Minister of Justice and Public Safety made a few comments – and I'll just bring this up very briefly – where you said the Elections Act, 1991 hasn't been touched in 30 years. That's not totally true. I'll just give you a good example: The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act was in 2008; we just made an amendment to it. Once a bill is in – and in this case, the Elections Act, 1991 – over the years there are always amendments made to it. When something comes up, we come to this House and we make amendments. There have been amendments made to that act since 1992, a lot of amendments made –

AN HON. MEMBER: 1991.

E. JOYCE: 1991, sorry. A lot of amendments have been made to it all throughout those years. I just needed to put that out there in the record, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to go through some of the points. I have a nice few points here, and I'm going to go through Mr. Chaulk's report. I'm going to go through the discrepancies in his report. When you table a report in this House and in it you can show that there are facts in there that don't balance with the act and we are not asking questions, we are going to wait for the court to do it or we are going to wait later on to change the Elections Act.

I welcome the Minister of Justice and Public Safety having the Committee, to sit on it, and I'm sure he is sincere. One of the things is that we're going to look and see what happened with the election in 2021. My question is, what is going to happen once we get the findings? Are we going to present it back to the House? I'll be asking that question if I'm on the Committee. If we go through and we can see the number of discrepancies where the act wasn't followed, will we bring that back to the House in the form of a motion? Because we have to be accountable to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; we have to be accountable to this House of Assembly and we have ensure that Officers of this House of Assembly follow the act which we proclaimed. That is very important.

I'm just going to go through a few things, Mr. Chair, in the Elections Act. “(1) When required by the deputy returning officer, a poll clerk, 1 of the candidates or the scrutineer of a candidate to be sworn as a qualified elector, an elector shall, before receiving his or her ballot, take an oath in the prescribed form.” That is the actual act. If you are not on the voters list, you have to go in and you have to swear or affirm where you live.

Mr. Chair, section 86.3: “On receipt of an application under section 86, the Special Ballot Administrator or his or her designate shall (a) ensure that the applicant's name is on the list of electors for the polling division in which he or she would … vote; (b) if the application is in order, issue a special ballot kit ….”

If your name is not on the voters list – which a lot of people weren't, we know that. Now, under what just happened all you had to do was pick up the phone and phone in and say: Oh yeah, I'm so-and-so; I'm here. Send me a ballot. And the question was asked many times: How many in the household? Oh, there are four of us. Okay, I'll send you out four. Who are they?

Nowhere in this act does it give you the authority to take in phone calls on the phone. Under this act, in order to get sworn in and be given a ballot, you have to sign an oath or an affirmation if you're not on the list. Mr. Chair, those are the facts, yet for some reason, this election, we were allowed to do it. Those are the facts. That's the act.

If anybody here wants to interrupt me at any time, someone justify it and explain to me where we were allowed to call in and right away get a ballot sent to your house. Explain it to me and I'll be willing to listen to it. If not, if no one in this Legislature can explain to me where in the act this is – and I have it in front of me – how that was justified. Was it ever approved in this House? And you're telling me that we're not going to hold the Officer of this House accountable for that? We're not going to hold the Officer of the House accountable?

Section 86.3(2): “Where an application is received from a person whose name does not appear on the list of electors for the polling division in which he or she resides, the Special Ballot Administrator or his or her designate shall, if satisfied that the person is qualified to vote, (a) add the person's name to the list of electors ….”

Now, without either getting an ID, getting some form, signing an affidavit, getting someone to sign an affidavit for you, how can you send ballots out over the phone? I'm bewildered that we even let this happen. I am actually bewildered. This is why I say to the Premier, and I'll say it over again. I said it publicly and I'll say it again: If this Officer of this House of Assembly told the Premier he's prepared and he's prepared by breaking the act, unless someone here in this House can explain it to me, which is –

AN HON. MEMBER: It can't be done.

E. JOYCE: It can't be done. It just can't be explained how the act was just taken and thrown aside and we just have to run by the seat of our pants. How can we not have a hearing in this House of Assembly? How can we not have an investigation done into this?

AN HON. MEMBER: An independent one.

E. JOYCE: An independent investigation. How can we not have it?

Of course, you know my history with Bruce Chaulk, and I make no bones about it. I said in this House before and I'll say it again: He made false statements in this House. He made false statements in the Management Commission. I can name two ministers who were sitting there who already confirmed that he made false statements in the Management Commission, yet he gets away with it. And now not only is he affecting Members; he's affecting all the people in the province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just also wanted to thank the residents of Mount Scio for giving me the opportunity of representing them again. It has been a privilege and an honour to be re-elected to represent them. I would also like to thank my volunteers, a dedicated group of friends and colleagues who supported me again this election. Some new people joined our team as well, which was very exciting. I would also like to thank, obviously, the residents of Mount Scio, the ones who voted for me and the ones who didn't. Obviously, we represent everyone, those who vote for us and those who don't, so I thank the district for the opportunity to represent them again.

As we represent our districts, I know we also, all 40 of us, represent the people of the province as a whole. We all have our different kind of expertise and our place in life. At the moment, everyone knows that I had a baby, so part of that now, my new role, I spend a lot of time breastfeeding. That's something I thought that there probably hasn't been much discussion about in this House of Assembly.

Just to give you a sense of how big an audience we're talking about and how many of our constituents it applies to, if you think of rotational workers, for example, they are very important to our province. I have a lot of rotational workers in Mount Scio. The Rotational Workers of Newfoundland and Labrador Facebook group has 5,300 members. The Breastfeeding Support Group - Newfoundland and Labrador, of which I'm a member, has 6,800 members. A very active group which has helped me significantly through my breastfeeding journey which I'm currently doing – currently breastfeeding, I mean.

We do have a lot of people in the province who are breastfeeding on a regular basis, and I just thought I'd spend the next seven or eight minutes talking a bit about that – it might be uncomfortable to some, hopefully not – just primarily to raise awareness because many, many of our constituents – thousands of our constituents – have kids and breastfeed their kids. I thought that kind of topic wasn't something that was likely properly represented in the Hansard, so I wanted to contribute that to this discussion today while we're speaking about Interim Supply.

The Canadian government talks about breastfeeding intention of Canadians. In 1965, less than 25 per cent of Canadian women who had children said that they planned to breastfeed their children. In 2015-2016, that number was more than 90 per cent, so five years ago more than 90 per cent of Canadians having children, their intention was to breastfeed their children. Then in 2011-2012, 57 per cent continued beyond six months.

Now, I've been very lucky that I've been able to breastfeed. I know some people can't and that there is a range of challenges. If you're on the Facebook group, you will better understand all of those challenges. I won't go into detail of those, but I have been very lucky to have been able to breastfeed Alexander.

We're following kind of healthy advice of what's recommended. The Canadian government recommends exclusively breastfeeding your children for six months – Alexander is just a bit over six months now – and sustained breastfeeding up to two years or longer. You start introducing foods after six months, but only breast milk until six months, and now we're still supposed to be breastfeeding our kids.

Most women, if you choose to go back to work, go back to work two, four, six months or a year. Most women go back a year; some women go back after two years. The Canadian government is recommending that we breastfeed up to two years, but most of those women have already gone back to work. Again, another area where I thought it would be helpful to improve, I guess, the discussion around breastfeeding in our province.

Obviously, I'm not an expert. I just have my own experience, so I'm only speaking here from a personal perspective and I by no means mean to give advice to anyone. As an MHA, we don't get mat leave, and I knew that when I decided to have a child. I appreciate the efforts of this House and all the accommodations for me. I'm extremely lucky and privileged in this position to have such an employer where that flexibility is available. Many women in Canada don't have that option.

At the doors there were many women – well, not many. I would say maybe four or five women who were very unhappy with me that I brought my child to work, and that's their prerogative. A lot of people have strong sentiments around breastfeeding and how to transition from taking care of your child to going back to work. That's a very sensitive, emotional issue for a lot of families in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair.

Given we have all these women who go back to work at varying amounts of time, I think we could be doing a better job in all of society in terms of supporting women breastfeeding as they are trying to meet the Canadian government's recommendations of breastfeeding for up to two years when most of them have already gone back to work.

I guess, stepping back a bit, obviously you have a baby – not obviously, but you have a baby and then there's the lactation consultant. They are like the Genius Bar experts of breastfeeding. If you're lucky enough to give birth in St. John's, at a big hospital – I know from the Facebook group that lactation consultants are not as readily available in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I know virtually that has expanded the options available for women in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Lactation consultants are kind of a gem of our health care system, and, really, having access to one can make or break your breastfeeding experience. I was able to see one in the Health Sciences before I was discharged, which was incredibly lucky, and 10 minutes with her and we were breastfeeding no problem. She gave me some great tips which I think set us up for success. If I had not gotten that advice, I'm not sure we would have been as successful. My mom tells me there was no such thing as a lactation consultant when I was born, and she had a very different experience breastfeeding because there was no one professionally to give you that advice.

Then our job as politicians now – even though I never thought of myself as a politician, as some of my colleagues have said, you're all of a sudden a politician. Going door to door, running again for re-election, introduced a new element to our breastfeeding experience. I try to be someone who works really hard, and when you're going door to door all day, you can't do that and breastfeed. You have to stay really hydrated if you're breastfeeding. You have to stop and pump every three hours if you pump and then give it to them in a bottle. I found that very just personally challenging running in an election.

Every three hours or two hours I had to stop, go to my car and pump, and then you have to keep the milk a certain temperature cool; otherwise, it goes bad after four hours. It's a huge list of logistical challenges to keep in mind, I guess, as you're trying to run in an election. Luckily, Alexander took a bottle. Not all babies do that. And then, I guess, now in my ministerial role, it's kind of a more nine-to-five job, plus the MHA – 24 hours a day, as my colleagues know – and I still have to pump every three hours. I have to build that into my schedule now, which is interesting.

Also, the cost of enabling all of this is something that I never even considered. I thought, okay, well, child care is going to be this cost; I budgeted for all of that. I never really thought pumping would be such a high cost. I rent a pump and that's $20 a week. It's like a big piece of equipment and it has a little suitcase. I don't bring it back and forth every day; I bring it home on the weekends. I rent that for $20 a week and then I have to buy a set of equipment that goes with it. I bought a second-hand pump and all of the new equipment that goes with that, and that's at home for in the evenings so I can pump – anyway. Then I also have a manual pump, which was $80. Over the course of a year, I spend thousands of dollars now on equipment to help me feed my child as the Canadian government and the World Health Organization recommend that I do for two years.

Amazingly, I could not be more fortunate in that I have my own washroom, because if I'm pumping every three hours I have to wash all of that equipment every three hours and dry it so that I can use it again, because you can't have milk there going sour. It's funny, when I go for walks with Alexander, I attract all the cats because I think I smell like sour milk all the time.

I'm just extremely fortunate and I can't imagine how challenging it is for women across Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada to manage work, life, breastfeeding, pumping and making sure that your child is fed. I have to say, I've experienced a lot of stress and learned how to deal with stress. It's a special kind of stress when you're trying to pump, knowing that you are trying to feed your child. You have to relax enough to do that.

Overall, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you everyone for listening. I wanted to increase our awareness of breastfeeding and hopefully represent the constituents who are breastfeeding that we don't always talk about here today in the Chamber.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know how I follow that. It was very informative. I think you'd call it a TMI moment but I'm going to one-up you on the campaign trail when you're going around pumping every three hours. Two years ago in my by-election, as many of you would know, I had a kidney stone procedure and I had a stent put in. So pumping three hours as opposed to having to do something every 10 minutes, I think I got you on that one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. DINN: Oh my gosh, yeah, keeping with the theme.

First of all, I had the opportunity to watch the news this evening –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

P. DINN: – and watch the tragedy unfold down in Flatrock and read what happened. It is terribly unfortunate. There are many in this House of Assembly who have dealt with tragedies. Hopefully there are some in this House of Assembly who are lucky enough that they have not dealt with tragedies. My prayers and thoughts certainly go out to the family of the young man who they have yet to recover.

I want to thank the residents of Topsail - Paradise, the wonderful District of Topsail - Paradise. I'd say beautiful but I think that's taken by Cape St. Francis – the wonderful people of Topsail - Paradise.

I say this in a non-partisan way; I feel the election was one that should never have been called when it was, but it is what it is. We went through it. It's funny because this week is Volunteer Week and it talks about, “The Value of One, The Power of Many.” I think we can all agree that through this election there was a huge strain put on our volunteers for a longer than expected period. If I were to use a theme for volunteers, I would be saying where would we be with you. I think we'd be in a huge deficit if we had to reimburse volunteers for what they do and the value they bring to our communities.

One of the huge things with the election, that I'm sure we're going to address, is around those people who did not have the opportunity to vote. That's unfortunate. When we switched to mail-in ballots, of course, we all shifted gears and we were going around taking pictures of driver's licences and such. I went to an elderly lady who had never missed an opportunity to vote. I said I'll come by, hold your driver's licence up to the window and I'll take a picture. She actually came to the window; she was in tears. She was literally in tears because – I or anyone; I'm sure everyone experienced it – someone took the time to go and ensure that she would get a ballot.

We're here talking about Interim Supply, which is something we have to put through. I don't think any of us are going to be voting it down. Going forward, I look at the red book that the Liberal government put out for the election. I look at what they have listed as their accomplishments. I question some of them.

The first one is: “Created one of the safest jurisdictions in the world through effective public health measures to address COVID-19.” I don't argue we've done a fabulous job, but you know what, I cannot find any documentation that lists us in the top jurisdictions in the world. I really can't, but we have done a good job. There's some liberty taken with the wording here.

“Ensured a safe return to school” is another issue there. I don't know if that's still done. I think it's still debatable; we took a long way to get there. I'm not even sure if we're quite there yet, but that's listed as an accomplishment. Introduced $25-a-day daycare – I'm happy for that one because we advocated for it here. “Expanded the Insulin Pump Program” – happy for that because we advocated for it here.

One issue, too, is the $844 million in immediate federal government relief for Muskrat Falls. Everyone argues about it, that it is money we have to pay back, it is money deferred and, in fact, it is. It's due now November 30, 2021, with the possibility of another six-month extension. It's lovely we have it, but it's still money to be paid back.

Other accomplishments: we “commenced the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.” I don't know if there's any jurisdiction that wouldn't call that an accomplishment, but it's something that would've had to have been done anyway. “Started a New Immigration Pathway” – I believe there's one that came in six years ago and we keep pushing it forward.

So as we talk about Interim Supply and we later get to the budget, I really and truly hope that we're going to have items here – these are all good, don't get me wrong, but let's really do a job on getting things done and not flowering up the wording to make it look like a bigger success than it is. It's a success, no less.

A big part, which is mentioned all the time to us, gets thrown back: you across the floor, you brought us Muskrat Falls. I have to say I look around here and I don't know how many in this House were actually here when Muskrat Falls was voted on. We're all working together to deal with this.

When you look at the comments made with regard to the Throne Speech, the Member for Humber - Gros Morne said we couldn't do it alone. We must decide collectively. The problem is too big to fix alone. There's no instant quick solution. Let's work together and get down to work. Those were made by the Member for Humber - Gros Morne. With what's happening in this House in the last couple of days, I find the words and the actions are not meeting.

Back to Muskrat Falls. I'm waiting for it; I think we have to deal with the rate mitigation. The Liberal government presented their strategy on it and right out of their document they promised power rates will not exceed 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour when Muskrat Falls reaches commercial operations. There's nothing in there – there's no maybe, there's no approximate, that's their words right out of the document. That's right out of the document. I'll say it again: promised power rates will not exceed 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour when Muskrat Falls reaches commercial operations.

I'm really looking forward to that. I know the plan we put forward spoke to a rate that was a little higher because we took into consideration PUB increases, inflation and so on. We presented a more realistic indication of where rates were going. But I'm not going to complain about that because we're going to get 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour. That's what was – and the word “promised” – put out as their rate mitigation plan. I'm really looking forward to seeing that happen.

I don't know when Muskrat Falls is going to reach commercial operations; it's been in the hands of this government for the last six years. Hopefully, we will see that come to fruition. Hopefully, we'll have the battery that will run the Eastern Seaboard at 13.5 cents.

I look forward to that. Thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I call this next piece three committees and a consultation.

In the last few days I've been listening to the interview with Sister Elizabeth Davis and Pat Parfrey of Health Accord NL and their committee. I'm going to come back to that.

I want to talk a little bit about the concerns I have about the comparison of these committees and consultation, the concerns I have about two of them and where they're heading. Now, we've had a lot of talk and discussion about an independent investigator, to which the Minister of Justice has responded: we have the judges and the court cases doing that more or less. They're going to investigate the election and left the impression – and Bruce Chaulk, the Chief Electoral Officer. If that were the case, why have any Committee at all until the court cases are resolved? I would assume they're going to be looking at what went wrong in the election to begin with, so let's wait.

Nevertheless, we have a Committee. This Committee appeared over the lunch hour, Mr. Chair, just before we were to debate the private Member's resolution calling for that – over the lunch hour. I thought again that we were going to be given what we had asked for because the comments were that we got what we wanted, that we asked for an all-party Committee and we got it. No, we did not. Let's be clear on that.

What we were asking for was an all-party Committee, independent, chaired by an independent Member, as we had last year, answerable to the House of Assembly. That's what we asked for. What we got was the Minister of Justice's Committee. Let's be clear about this, that what was being asked for and what we got are in fact two different things. It's about control. The one we were asking for would put control in the hands of this House of Assembly with a balanced membership so that no one party could control the agenda.

It concerns me, too, because when we look at the election – I have to admire the Minister of Justice's penchant for understatement because he said in an interview, Mr. Chair: “There is no doubt the most recent election presented challenges.” A little bit like the captain of the Titanic saying, we sprung a bit of a leak. It was worse than that, and let's call it that, it was a fiasco. At least if I look at the people I was dealing with, it was close to tragedy. They were upset. They were beside themselves.

Then I hear the minister talk about, well, we had an election and then a pandemic happened. The pandemic started almost a full year before the election. What happened was the outbreak of variants, which we knew about at the time the election was called, Mr. Chair. So on one hand, I'm looking at the downplaying of the fiasco that was the election. The Committee itself and what it's about, I have doubts – I really do – about whether we're going to get the results we need.

Secondly, I'll go on to the second committee, and that's the Premier's Economic Recovery committee. Again, as to why this committee is late in getting its report, we blame the pandemic. If I remember correctly, this committee was struck during the pandemic – not before, during the pandemic. When we all knew what the logistics were of trying to do face-to-face meetings, when we all knew that while schools were going back to school face to face and other businesses were back, we already knew what the challenges were.

We could probably blame the fact that we were almost three months in caretaker mode with one of the longest elections that I've been involved in. We should have anticipated that when we called the committee. Another excuse. We still don't have the report.

Today I asked the Premier a question because I have been listening to Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat Parfrey. I asked what are the plans for consultation, because that's the question we've been asking here. When is the report going to come? I asked what are the plans because I figured a committee that was called in October of last year, we'd have plans.

We're looking at multiple approaches. We're happy to reach across the aisle – I'll come back to that one. Every Newfoundlander will have a chance; many different platforms and online portals. Now, maybe a week, days or a few weeks before the report is out, we're going to reach across. Should that not have been done back in October? Should we not have at least said, okay, let's start planning the process right now? Should we not have started setting up here's what the consultation process is going to be?

Because I listened to the interview with Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Parfrey and listened to what they've got. They have an interim report, a thorough discussion on what we have to do. There is no confidentiality around it. They encouraged people to go back and share. They will do consultations to find out did we hear you, here's what we heard. There will be further consultations. They will do a report then on, more or less, how do we achieve this, what is our way forward. Then they'll go back to do consultations again and ask the question, did we get it right? Did we get it right?

Now, I don't think there's a guarantee that we're going to get all the answers we need or please everyone, but only after that well-laid-out process – they looked at multiple ways. They brought in stakeholders; they encouraged dialogue. They certainly, I think, will not have to worry about anyone resigning from the committee, but only then will they present a report to government.

Now, to me, that's thorough consultation. That is doing your level best to make sure you engage as many people as you want. That is a committee that I have trust in. That is a report I will have trust in. That's a process that inspires trust.

Members on the other side, if you're looking for a way to encourage trust on this side in the population, take a page out of the Health Accord NL's process. Engage in true, meaningful engagement. Don't invite people at the last minute. Don't spring a Committee on us over the lunch hour, but reach out. Yes, you have the majority. It is well and good to have a giant's strength, but to use it as such is tyranny. If you're really serious about consultation, engage meaningfully, but no more tricks and sleights of hand.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed an opportunity to speak here this evening and represent the people of my district. I certainly do appreciate the privilege to sit here, albeit several hours today. I am certainly proud to be the representative for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: That district is a district that's rich in natural resources, rich in service and rich in pride. As much as the environment gives us and as many things as we do have to build on there, I always subscribe to the thought that our best asset, our greatest asset, is our people.

Over the course of my campaign I had the opportunity to meet several people that I probably wouldn't have had the chance to meet before. There are a few storied characters, some of whom had interactions with others in the room and had tales to tell about them, but I'll keep those for another day. I did have the chance to meet people, old, young and in between, and the old people they asked me: Why in the world would you get yourself into this? Then I was encouraged by some of the younger people who had asked: How soon can I be a part of it, or how can I do something similar to that? That was very encouraging to me because it's something that I've had a passion for, enjoy and wanted the opportunity to chat about with those individuals.

Everybody was courteous. Everybody was willing to engage in conversation. Everybody had suggestions; everybody had ideas of how we could do things better for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I didn't get kicked off anybody's lawn, so that was good. I did get offered a lot of tea and I'm hoping that I'll get a chance to go back and have tea with these people when the time is right and the restrictions are lifted.

I would like to thank the people wholeheartedly for hiring me to do this job. Longest interview ever, let's just say it. But I am proud to be able to work on their behalf. I'm not sure what token of appreciation I can offer them, except my full, honest effort to represent them to the best of my abilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: Which I hope is a far cry better than what I offered my first nursing manager. When I came out of nursing school, I was green and my first job was a specialty area. I went into surgical nursing in the O.R. I was so appreciative of the opportunity to get to work there that I vowed and declared I would name my first child after the manager. I said I am so glad that you took a chance on me. To honour you, I will name my first child after you. Ten years later and the best that the man got was a goldfish named Declan. I don't know what else to offer to the people of St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows, but I'm not having any more goldfish, so they're out.

In all seriousness, the campaign was a team effort. I had a great group of volunteers and I think it is very fitting to sit here at the end of Volunteer Week and recognize the people who played a part in helping get me here today. They worked tirelessly on my campaign. They tolerated me day in and day out. They figured out the best feeding schedule to keep me from getting angry or hangry. I would like to offer them my sincere appreciation for all that they have done.

I would also like to thank the number of volunteers in our district who make things happen. It has been mentioned a couple times here this week already. The volunteer fire departments, the church groups, the seniors' groups, the coaches, the leaders: All of these people contribute to the tapestry that is our communities, so we are so appreciative of the things that they do. The Value of One, the Power of Many, I think that was very fitting. Certainly all of us can appreciate that, I am sure, in our own districts.

One of the volunteer roles that I had taken on that I was most passionate about was municipal government. I know that many of you have similar stories, so if you'll just oblige me for a moment, I would like to take the time to talk about my experience. Without stealing the thunder of my maiden speech – because there will be a few tales about that in there too – I would like to share briefly.

I started in 2015. I ran in a by-election, and my primary concern was the swimming pool in St. Anthony. It was in a bit of disarray, and nobody else seemed to care. I was after spending 20 years as a swimmer and a coach and I certainly wanted to make sure that the legacy of the pool was maintained. That was my pitch. I was going to run for council and save the swimming pool. I quickly learned that you can't pick and choose what happens around the council table; you have to work as part of a team and figure out what's best for your community. Fortunately, the people around the table with me did agree that our swimming pool was important and we did see some great work on that.

When I did get there, I found myself in a group of all men. Everybody in the council chamber was an experienced man. I noted that based on the colour of their hair and their reference to what they were doing the last time the Leafs won a Stanley Cup. I knew then that they had much experience, but I will say that they were probably a little surprised when this bright eyed 20-odd-year-old showed up in her high heels and her fancy jewellery. They didn't really know what to do with me at that point, but they quickly learned that I was there for the betterment of the community.

I would like to take a minute to thank those gentlemen to the utmost because they treated me with respect. There was never a moment where I didn't feel valued or appreciated. They continued to ask my opinion and they valued my perspective. At the end of it, one of them even said you were a breath of fresh air. So to hear them say that was certainly a confidence boost.

Now, let's not kid ourselves. There were times when they had to gently guide me and say, now, Krista, you can't really do that. But they did that with tact and respect and I think they gave me the confidence to move on to do the things that I've done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: Yes, they were great.

Then in 2019 – sorry, before that, I became the deputy mayor in St. Anthony. In the fall of 2019, I was privileged and proud to have become the first female mayor of St. Anthony.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: It was a great pleasure and I was able to work with a great bunch of people. At that time, some other females had joined council and we worked together on issues that were representative of the entirety of our community. Very inclusive and we had great conversations about how to move our town forward.

My experience with council and with municipal government has certainly been a positive one. With that said, I would like to put a little plug in for the upcoming elections in the fall. There will be municipal elections in the fall of this year and I would encourage anybody, male or female, who has an interest in making things happen in their communities, in seeing change and in being advocates for their towns, for their communities, to take up this opportunity.

It certainly was fulfilling for me. It was something that I enjoyed immensely. As a volunteer there, I wished I had the opportunity to make it my full-time job. When that opportunity arose, I jumped at the chance, and here I am today, the first female representative for the District of St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: I've enjoyed the ride and I certainly appreciate the support that I have received from Members on both sides of the House here in my new role and in my new capacity. I look forward to continuing good work and working with each of you as we work together to make good things happen for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to this Interim Supply bill. Obviously, Mr. Chair, I'll be supporting it; bills have to be paid and employees have to be paid, that goes without saying. But, of course, as this is a money bill, we can talk about whatever we want.

As we've seen, we've heard all kinds of different things. We just heard about municipal elections and municipal councils, which is near and dear to my heart, being a former councillor and deputy mayor in the City of Mount Pearl. I even learned something about breastfeeding tonight, so a wide array of topics, for sure.

Before I get to the main thing I want to talk about – and that, of course, is to go back to the election again – I have a couple of quick things I just want to throw out there for ministers who are present. This may not be of any surprise to the ministers; they probably heard from other people. I have constituents who have reached out to me and wanted me to bring it up in the House of Assembly or any opportunity I had, so I'm just putting it there on the record for the information of not just the ministers but all Members of the House, if you're not aware of any of these.

I've had a number of families reach out to me that have concerns about the high school students and the hybrid model. I don't envy the minister; I really don't, because I know he's been doing the best he can. I have a lot of respect for this minister; I have to say that, I always have. I know he's doing the best he can. It's kind of a no-win situation because there are different points of views, there are different situations and so on.

I was getting a lot of people that were complaining, had concerns about the online model. Some students were doing quite well learning just online, but there were some students who were really struggling, so those parents were saying we need to get back to school. Of course, in an attempt to try to accommodate that – because there was a lot of that happening and I'm sure the minister heard from many families – they went with the hybrid model, which is part half the week in-class learning and half the week learning virtually at home and so on.

Now, of course, I've heard from a number of families that say the blended model is just not working for them. I'm sure the minister has heard from families. I've heard from many. There are petitions on the go and everything about that. There are a lot of families that say we should go back to school full-time. There are some families that would say why can't we have both? If you want to go back to school full-time, go back to school full-time; if you want to stay at home full-time, stay at home full-time.

I don't know logistically, from the point of view of teachers and the work they would have to do, if that's even possible. I really don't know. It's probably not, but I just wanted to raise it because a number of people asked me to raise it and bring it to the minister's attention, if he was not aware.

The second one is one for the Minister of Health and Community Services. I did raise it with him outside earlier today, about a specific case. I thank him for giving me some direction with that constituent. Hopefully they can get it resolved. For all Members of the House and so on, I'll bring this up at our health meeting that we have, our weekly meeting on COVID-19.

A concern I've heard is with cancer patents. Apparently, if you are a cancer patient and you're getting the COVID-19 shot, it's been suggested to me – and this is what, according at least to my constituent, their oncologist even said that this is the case – that the time between your first shot and your second shot has to be within three weeks or four weeks or whatever it is. After that, the COVID shot will not be effective, or it won't be as effective as it should be. The longer you go getting that second shot, if you wait the four months, which is being thrown out there now, the COVID shot will basically be useless to you if you wait that long and you're a cancer patient. They will not get the benefit of that COVID shot.

I'm not a doctor. I'm not an oncologist. I don't pretend to have any knowledge. I'm going by what I was told and I throw that out there. I think there was something on CBC last night, a story or something to do with that. Apparently, the Lymphoma & Leukemia Society are telling patients this as well, that waiting three or four months between shots, you will not benefit from the COVID shot.

Apparently, there is just sort of a blanket policy being thrown out there, but I bring it to the minister's attention here just to look into it. If there is validity to it, perhaps there has to be some accommodation made for cancer patients or anybody in that particular situation, that they don't have to wait the four months, they are going to get their two shots a week or two apart. They should be a priority if they already are going through cancer and they have weakened immune systems.

The other issue I was asked to raise – and this is a new one; again, I readily admit I know nothing about this one. This is directed to the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs. Of course, we've heard that the government intends on renaming Red Indian Lake and we understand the rationale for that. We heard what the new name is going to be. I can't remember what it is and I couldn't pronounce it – perhaps if I had it here. Anyway, we know what we are talking about here.

I've had two or three people reach out to me today since seeing the story in the media. Perhaps other Members have as well, I don't know. What they're telling me at least is that Red Indian Lake was the home of the Beothuk people, yet the new name is going to be named after the Mi'kmaq people.

Now, I don't know if that's true or if it's not true. Sadly, perhaps I should know more about it, but I don't, about the history of if that's right or if it's wrong. But, like I said, I've had three people today already reach out to me and say that was the home of the Beothuk, not the home of the Mi'kmaq. These people, at least, felt it was disrespectful not to name it after the Beothuk people.

Again, I'm not saying one way or the other if that's right or wrong. I don't know what research was done, who was consulted with, Minister. I'm just making you aware that that's something that three separate people have brought to my attention, so you should at least look into it. Perhaps you've already done all that research and there's a good reason why you went that way, I don't know. But some people think it's disrespectful.

Then that brings us to the – I was going to talk about the election and I'm almost out of time already. I have one other thing I just wanted to mention, because I'm wondering – and this perhaps would be for the Minister of Finance at some point – how much money we owe the federal government. I'm just wondering because we have deferral, which was talked about earlier, of – I forget the amount – how much?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight hundred and sixty-four million.

P. LANE: Eight hundred and sixty-four million on the Muskrat Falls. That's one amount, which was a deferral; still money we owe the federal government. I also recall back even in Budget 2016, at the time, when you were putting in the levy. The levy at one point in time was going to apply to everybody and then you raised the threshold, you said, no, instead of it applying to everybody across the board, you had to make over $25,000 or $35,000 or whatever the amount was in order to be charged the levy.

The reason why you were able to do that, at the time, was because I can remember Premier Ball, at the time, saying he was on the phone with Judy Foote, who was the MP, at the time, with their Sunday conversations, whatever it was they used to say they used to have. She managed to get a loan of some money from the federal government, a deferral of some money, then that money was put towards raising the threshold on people who had to pay the levy. I definitely remember that happening. So that's another piece of money.

I'm just wondering, do we have any kind of a running tally, if you will, of how much money we would owe the federal government? Would there be some account somewhere on the books in the Department of Finance that every time the feds loan us money for different things that we're just sort of getting this running tally of what we owe them?

I don't know if that question has ever been asked in the House to be honest with you. I don't recall it being asked, but it is something that occurred to me when we were talking about the $864 million, I thought about that other money and I'm just wondering how much more money we may owe the federal government?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: Yes, that's right. That's another thing, then there's another $875 million we have to pay back on the Atlantic Accord money when we got so many billion dollars, the couple of billion dollars, whatever it was on the equity stakes. Part of that arrangement was in so many years' time, we have to pay money back.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, I'll get back to the election (inaudible).

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. George's - Humber.

S. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to have an opportunity to participate in this debate tonight. We're having a wide-ranging debate here tonight, I guess. For anyone who is tuning in to watch us on TV, we're dealing with Interim Supply. Interim Supply is a money bill, it's related to money and how we're going to spend money. It allows for a wide-ranging debate on many different topics. What we're doing is we're providing an amount of money for the running of the province in the interim while we're waiting for the budget to come in, in about a month or so.

That's the whole idea of what we're doing tonight. It allows for a wide-ranging debate and many Members have taken the opportunity to talk about other things as well as the finances of the province. In that vein, that same way, I intend to talk about a few different things tonight as well.

It was interesting to listen to the other Members talk about their experience with the election and their experiences being new Members to the House and the route getting to the House and things like that. It's very interesting to hear those experiences because we come from very diverse backgrounds in many ways, different occupations previous to entering the House, different experiences and different genders, and we bring all those things to the House with us. That makes our House of Assembly so much richer when we have the interaction between people with different backgrounds, different skills and different experiences. It's great to hear about other people's experiences.

We've had some talk about the election and I'm going to talk about some of my experiences in an election. This past election was my fourth election, and it's always a very interesting experience, and this one was different in many ways from the three that we've had in the past. One thing about elections is, if you're an incumbent you've had opportunities to go to events where people will come up to you or phone you with issues they have, or if you go to an event, you're there and they will talk to you and you'll have some interaction. But an election is a time when you actually go and knock on people's doors, and people who wouldn't approach you, necessarily, and you'll ask them how they feel, you ask them for their support in the election and you'll ask them what issues are important to them. That's the essence of our democracy, it's about listening to people, hearing people and them having a say. It's always an interesting experience and this one was no different.

This week is Volunteer Week and many Members have talked about the importance of volunteers in their communities. I want to name a few groups, I guess, and maybe a few individuals. I'm always weary of naming individuals because you leave so many people out.

Fire departments provide a very important service in the district that I represent, the same as many others. All of the fire departments in my district are volunteer fire departments. They provide a very important service to the community in terms of first responders in some cases and fire protection in other cases. But in some of the fire departments in rural communities, they don't have support from a municipality, they have to also do fund raising and activities like that. That's a big part of the job as well, as well as the training and responding to calls. I want to give a big thank you to the volunteer fire departments throughout my district and, indeed, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Another group of people in the district, in rural areas of the province, are Lions Clubs. There are several Lions Clubs in my district and the motto, of course, is service above self. Some people here may be or may have been member of Lions Clubs. They are still very active in Newfoundland and Labrador and still play an important part in the communities where they exist, so I want to give a hats off to them as well.

In Pasadena, they probably have one of the most active Lions Clubs in the province. The one in Stephenville is very active as well. They are probably two of the most active Lions Clubs in the province. That's due to some of the long-serving people they've had in their clubs and to some of the new people they've managed to get involved in their clubs over the last few years. They have been very influential groups in the district, and I want to recognize them as well. Rotary Clubs as well play an important part. There is a Rotary Club in Humber Valley and also in Stephenville, which encompasses part of my district as well. Many church groups have active volunteers as well, so I want to recognize them as well.

As representatives, we all recognize the importance of volunteers and the work they do. Often I think volunteer groups and the activities they do, if these activities had to be done by government, it would cost us millions and millions of dollars. Sometimes government interacts with volunteer groups; I remember one group were doing some preschool reading classes, and one of the people asked me to see if we could get some funding for snacks and books and things like that for them. I got them some funding and they came back to me in two years, and they said: We've been having these weekly get-togethers for young children, preschool children. We've used up all that money you gave us and we're going to have to come back and look for some more money from you.

They had been operating this program and they were sort of apologetic that they were coming back and asking for some more money. The amount of money that they had was about $1,000. The amount of work they had done with that $1,000 through the Community Healthy Living program was just amazing. It had such an impact in the community because of the volunteers, and the government worked with them. It's something that I think we have to look at doing more of, co-operating with people.

I just noticed my time is almost up there. I was interested in listening to the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port. I had prepared a few notes there. I have three questions and I was interested that he had three questions, too. His three questions were good questions in terms of the future of the province and the budgetary measures as well.

The three questions I had were sort of different. I wanted to share the things that I'm thinking about as we head into election time as well. The three questions that we should be asking ourselves as legislators: How did we get into the situation that we're in today? How did we get to where we are? The Member for Stephenville - Port au Port sort of noted the importance of history as well, but I think it's important to sort of have a real good, reflective look at how did we get where we are? What did we do wrong? What could we have done better? Our history.

The other question I had is, how do we get out of this immediate situation that we're in? How do we solve these immediate problems? What do we have to do? The third question is, what actions can we take, long term, to see that we don't get into this same situation again?

Those are my three questions. I think we should all be thinking about that as we head into the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've had the opportunity to speak several times this week in this hon. House and I'm very fortunate to be able to do that. This evening is the first time for Interim Supply.

I want to mention, Mr. Chair, and bring light to the tragedy that happened in my district yesterday and unfolded today in the Town of Flatrock. I'm sure I speak for everyone in this hon. House when I say to the family of the poor soul that was affected, you are in our thoughts and prayers. That goes without saying, because it hits home to everyone. We may not know the individual, but for me it affects my whole district.

I know I have been in contact with the mayor of the Town of Flatrock, Mayor Thorne, who has kept me up to date on what's going on. I'd also like to take the opportunity just to say I appreciate the Members of my caucus, of course, to the Premier, the Deputy Premier and to the ministers who reached out to me today about this incident. It all makes a difference, Mr. Chair, and I do appreciate that. Of course, we can't forget our first responders, who do have the arduous task of completing this. We keep them all in our prayers.

Mr. Chair, it goes without saying it is an honour and a privilege to be in this hon. House and to represent the constituents of Cape St. Francis. Once again, I want to thank each and every one of them for their support. I also want to thank all of those who voted in the district, who took part in the democratic process, who were able to take part in the process. I thank them for being diligent and getting their vote in and being counted. It makes a difference when we vote, and we encourage everyone to do so. The residents' concerns are now my concerns, and they will have my full attention at all times, I can assure you.

Mr. Chair, sitting in this House would not have been possible without the help of many people in my life, and their support and guidance. First, I want to thank my parents, Robert and Marilyn Wall. From a very early age, they instilled in me the responsibility to help and to serve others, and it was very easy because they led by example. I saw the benefits of helping those around you and it has made a difference in my life. I am forever grateful for their love, care and support, and I certainly appreciate what they have done for me.

Of course, to my family, to my wife, Teena; my son, Zachary; and my daughter, Kristen, who I have had their full support and encouragement since day one. They know full well my love of volunteerism and my want of helping others. They were in full support when I ran as mayor of the Town of Pouch Cove, my hometown, in 2013, and I have to say they certainly tolerated the time I spent away from home for meetings, training, conferences, travel and, of course, the time I spent with my boots on the ground helping the residents of my hometown, all for their benefit. I have to thank them for their love and support. They have played a huge role in my election to this House of Assembly. The only regret that I have, Mr. Chair, is that my wife and family couldn't be here with me when I was sworn in. That's my only regret.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Mr. Chair, strong family support of course is needed; we all know that, but to win an election takes a dedicated and enthusiastic team of volunteers, and my team was second to none. We took nothing for granted and we worked hard. Even despite a prolonged mid-winter election in the middle of a pandemic, my campaign team could not be held back. I appreciate the work that they've done. They kept me in line, in check and motivated on the days that were tough, and there were many tough days during the campaign, I can tell you that. It's been often spoken about here and it was no different in Cape St. Francis. I want to thank them for their strength and determination in helping me to serve them in this capacity as MHA.

Mr. Chair, my district is comprised of five towns on the Northeast Avalon. It's a region that has proven over the years to be expanding, where development is necessary and infrastructure going forward is going to be needed. As a former mayor, I realize the constraints that municipalities work under, so I'm committing to working with them and with all government Members in this hon. House for the benefit of all the residents of Cape St. Francis, and to reduce and to solve any issues that may arise as the days go along. Open communication and co-operation is needed. I'm hearing that from the hon. Members opposite, of course, that we need to work together for the benefit of everybody and that will benefit the whole district.

I also want to reassure the many wonderful volunteers that I have in my district, the many wonderful volunteer groups that do such good work, and it's all for the benefit of others. I've spent a lifetime volunteering myself. I know what it takes to be a volunteer. We all give so freely and it's all for the benefit of others. So I want to thank them, especially during Volunteer Week. That's what makes Cape St. Francis a beautiful district to raise your children and to grow a family in, and I want to thank them for that.

Mr. Chair, I know I recognized him this week in my Member's statement, but I want to do it again, and that's to the former MHA and my good friend Mr. Kevin Parsons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Cape St. Francis has had exceptional representation since its inception in 1949 and my goal is to continue on with that level of commitment. Don't go laughing. That is my goal, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Parsons was here from 2008 to 2021. He worked on both sides of this House and he always put the constituents of Cape St. Francis first. So to Kevin, thank you for the work that you've done, thank you for the mark that you've left on each municipality and thank you to all of the people that you've helped in our beautiful district.

I've been told by many Members of this House, on both sides, and by the staff, that I have big shoes to fill. I know the size of the shoes, Mr. Chair. I'm ready and I'm determined. I want to show this House my compassion and my work ethic to get the job done for all of the residents of Cape St. Francis.

As a new Member to this House – and this happened today – it's been overwhelming at times. It has been, and I'm sure that everyone can relate to that at some point in their career. But I'd like to thank several people: to our party leader for his daily guidance and encouragement, to my caucus Members and to the party staff who have welcomed me and shared their experiences with me to make this transition easier. I also want to say to those on the government side, to the ministers and MHAs who have reached out to me to make this transition easier, it is overwhelming, it is sometimes a little bit daunting, but I can tell you that when you have friends on both sides of the House it makes a huge difference coming here to do the work.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're starting to sound like Kevin.

J. WALL: Well, if I'm starting to sound like Kevin, I'm doing half the job right.

AN HON. MEMBER: You better have good fish pudding.

J. WALL: I told you not to worry about fish puddings; you'll have fish puddings.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank everyone for that, and I don't want to leave anyone out. I want to acknowledge the staff, the House staff here that are making this easier for me as well. We've had good training and, of course, the staff has been very accommodating to me, and so I would like to recognize them and to thank them as well.

To conclude, I'm looking forward to the opportunity to proudly represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. I'm going to continue with that because Kevin charged me to continue on with that. I am a team player, I know what it takes for a team to be successful, but I also know the importance of how important it is to work well and respect others and that will be key in order to get the job done.

A former municipal colleague of mine said this to me just last week: We may be on opposite sides of the House and we may not agree at all times, but let's not lose the friendship. That says it all; I agree that we need to keep that here. We are all working for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, first and foremost, and we need to do that to make a better way of life for everybody. I'm committed to that as well, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to close and say thank you to all of the Members of this hon. House for your attention this evening. It is, indeed, an honour and a privilege to serve and represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. I will be their voice in this House of Assembly, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to the district as it grows and it prospers in the years ahead.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

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

I am truly honoured to be amongst such august company in this the 50th session of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador. When we think of our privileged place here in this House and we consider the fact of how few Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had this privilege, we are among a very small group of people who can say that we have been elected to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, and with that privilege brings great responsibility. We are a unique group, and when we think of our position we should think of exactly what that means and the incredible responsibilities that it places upon each and every one of us.

It is easy, Mr. Chair, to succumb to the challenges, to the cynicism and to the troubles of the job, because it is a troubling job at times. Tough decisions have to be taken; choices have to be made, and sometimes there will be those who feel we have taken a bad decision, or a wrong decision or there could have been a better decision that was taken. Mr. Chair, I am convinced that each and every Member of this House of Assembly, the same as the 49 that preceded us, are all guided by a universal principle of how can we make our province and our country a better place to live.

I look at this from the vantage point of having served in several sessions of both the Parliament of Canada and, as well, the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador. I look at this as an opportunity always to advance, always to make something better, but recognize that there will be times when we will doubt ourselves. We can't let others doubt us. It's okay to be a little bit introspective and it's okay to be always thinking about how things can be done better, but at the same time, Mr. Chair, we can never project to others that we doubt ourselves. We've been put into this position of trust and we must fulfill that position of trust.

I want to thank the people of Corner Brook District and of Newfoundland and Labrador for putting their trust and confidence in myself, putting their trust and confidence in our government and trusting as well that we all respect the dual nature of our House, which is of a government and an Opposition both aligned with one intent and one intent only, which is to advance the best interests of our province.

We can succumb to cynicism and we can actually play to the cynicism. In fact, I have had the unfortunate experience where while we all mouth the words that we need to act and do better, sometimes we are the authors of the cynicism of this place. So while sometimes we take advantage of the circumstances and play upon those that find themselves in a difficult spot and we use that to malign or to diminish the reputations and characters of each other, if there is one thing that I have learned: When we diminish each other, we diminish ourselves; we diminish the nature and power of this House and we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

There are forces there that would like to play upon the negativity of the House and the negative interactions within the House. If we let them do that because we foster and fire it, if we add oxygen to that fire, then we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Mr. Chair, I truly want to say that we're all going to encounter difficult times. One thing that is capturing this particular Session of the House of Assembly, the 50th session, is why we ever had an election to begin with. In adversity why should you have an election? Why should you operate within the democratic framework, the statutory framework of our election cycle? Given the fact that there was a decision of the Assembly to say that upon transition to a new leader, a new Premier, that there must be an election, by law, within a year; not at a year, but within a year.

I remind myself that we are in the company of giants who never ever succumbed to adversity. Do you know, Mr. Chair, that Canada had a federal election in 1917 in the middle, at the height of the First World War? There was a decision that was taken for Canada to have a national election in 1917. Do you know we had a federal election in 1940 and then a subsequent one in 1945? We had two elections in the middle of the Second World War. We've had elections during incredible times of unrest, whether it be the Red River floods when Manitoba was flooded almost to its entirety, the entire Red River Valley. Eleven or 12, maybe even 13 different federal ridings were negatively impacted because we had elections in 1997 and in 2011 while the Red River flooded.

The challenge is not simply to decide when you should have an election, the challenge is how can you overcome the challenges and have an election. I think of the election of 2021 and I say to myself, well, the easiest thing is let's just not have one. Then, of course, let's not have one until the pandemic is over. Well, as we're now discovering that if we were to make that decision we would be in a very serious constitutional issue where we would not know whether or not we'd be able to meet our statutory obligations, nor would we be able to even have an election within 2021 or maybe 2022 – we don't know.

Mr. Chair, it is easy to succumb to the cynicism, to be overpowered by the weight of the challenge that has been placed upon us in our province, but what we can never ever do is just simply say: Let's govern by optics; let's govern by what is popular. What we really need to do is be leaders and bring people with us to the challenges of today for a better future tomorrow. It's why, Mr. Chair, I am incredibly proud to be a Member of the caucus in which I sit. I'm extremely proud of the leader who has received the confidence of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and who elected him in a majority government.

I've already seen evidence, Mr. Chair, that instead of taking that position of authority and responsibility and simply saying, well, we have the majority, he has reached out. He has sought the advice of very, very intelligent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are wise and experienced in things that can assist us, whether it be through the Health Accord, whether it be through the provincial Economic Recovery Team, whether it be through revising or reforming or making consideration for changes to workplace safety and workmen's compensation.

Mr. Chair, we all have a responsibility to lift each other up. If we don't do that in this Chamber, if we simply mouth the words of populism, if we simply echo the words that are spoken, that may not necessarily get us to where we need to go, and then we have diminished the 50th session of the Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I want to say to everyone, just as you are committed, we are committed; just as I am committed, we all need to be committed to working with each other. But that does, indeed, go both ways, in the sense that we would love to hear ideas brought forward. We often hear that democracy does not speak, unless it speaks outside of this Chamber. We hear the necessity of all-party Committees; we hear the necessity of special Committees, of working groups and other things.

Well, Mr. Chair, I'll finish where I began, which is the greatest committee that will ever assemble in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is assembled here tonight on the floor of the House of Assembly. This is where we are currently exchanging ideas on a whole manner, a whole realm of topics. If one were to argue that the only productivity, the only efficiency can be achieved by forming committees outside of the House, you diminish the House.

We are in a privileged place in this spot. We are exchanging ideas. As someone once said to me: Whose mind did you change tonight within the Assembly? I often think that I've probably changed nobody's mind, because we are so patently stuck in our own positions that we are not accepting each other's point of view.

Mr. Chair, I promise, I hope everyone promises, to rise to the challenge, work with each other, but that should not be an imposition of a one-way path.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That was a very passionate speech from the Member for Corner Brook. I say that in order for all of us to work together we must go back and ensure that we represent our districts properly and bring the concerns forward. One of the biggest concerns I had during the election is the way the election was run and the fiasco of the election. As I said, and I'll say it again so people in the general public will know, this is probably my last opportunity to bring up the concerns that I committed to bring up during the election on their behalf to this House of Assembly and, Mr. Chair, I'll continue on.

I have a copy of the report that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Mr. Bruce Chaulk, presented in the House. When you get a report on this here you expect certain things to be in the report. I can tell you a couple of things that are not in the report. One of the things is about him hand-delivering ballots to people. If people want to look at that while there were seniors home holding up their ID to a window so you could take a picture, he went through a hundred thousand ballots to hand-deliver three, four, five or six – we don't know how many, but it's not in this report. It's definitely not in this report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

E. JOYCE: So how complete is this report?

Mr. Chair, the other thing that is not in this report, and it's very concerning, is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: I know, Mr. Chair, I'm touching a nerve over there. But I'm sorry, I'm doing it on behalf of the people of Humber - Bay of Islands. I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Chair, the other thing that's not in this report, and it's very concerning, is how many days were the phone lines and the computer system down? He said we were going to start on Saturday and then vote up until that Friday. We know, I know, the phone lines for outside the Avalon weren't even up until Sunday evening, and during that period the phone lines were so blocked, the computer system crashed. Friday night, we already know the fiasco that, okay, well, they should have voted earlier. That's fine, too, but in this report it doesn't even mention that. It doesn't even mention it.

Here's an Officer of this House of Assembly doing a report for this House about the election, and look at the pertinent information that's left out. Just left completely out, Mr. Chair, that's not even in this report. This is why we need the hold Officers of this House of Assembly accountable to the House of Assembly. It's very, very, very important, Mr. Chair.

The other thing –

P. LANE: Voting over the phone.

E. JOYCE: Voting over the phone, I'm going to get to that now in a second about voting over the phone, Mr. Chair.

What the Commissioner has here is under 86(3) of the act, this was done in accordance of 86(3) of the act. This was considered to be an acceptable method to apply – this is what he applied, that's what he stated; 86(3) of the act: “An application to vote by special ballot may be made by those methods that are acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer.”

Now, the only difference when you read 86(3): “An application to vote by special ballot may be made ….” This wasn't an application. Once you called in, put your name in; say you had three or four, you were given a ballot, and you didn't have to apply. You were given a ballot.

Now, Mr. Chair, when you go back to 86(3), once you make an application you have to ensure the applicant's name is on the list. If it's not, if the application is not in order, they must have identification. But when you call in by phone to get a ballot, you didn't apply for a ballot. You can't say: Well, here's my name, I'll send in the information like everybody else had to do. Once you called in, they called you back: What's your name? Your address? You got a ballot. There was no verification who was on the other end of that line, no verification.

The Commissioner at this time may say, yes, I can go ahead and I can take it by phone; 86(5), Mr. Chair: “An application to vote by special ballot shall contain the information that the Chief Electoral Officer may require, including (a) the name of the applicant and the address of the applicant's residence in the province; (b) proof of the applicant's identity by reference to documents of a class determined by the Chief Electoral Officer; and (c) the applicant's mailing address.”

So over the phone you can get a ballot but you don't have to show the applicant's proof of identity. If I applied before, and at times during, which a lot of us did, we had to take someone's photo ID or they had to do it, or two pieces of identification, where they lived, and we had to include it in the application. But nowhere in the act does it say that you can give a ballot over the phone without proving the person, and that's not in the report either, Mr. Chair. That's some of the things that are just not in the report.

As I mentioned earlier in this House of Assembly, and I ask anybody in this House of Assembly who would like to be able to give the answer: How many hours, how many days were the phone lines and the computer system down to accept ballots? No one can answer it. How can anybody in this House not want the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to come to this House and justify the election? It might never overturn –

P. LANE: Scrutineering.

E. JOYCE: And scrutineering, I'll get to scrutineering. Scrutineering is another thing, Mr. Chair.

Here's what the Commissioner said for scrutineering – and I'll get back to this again – “… appoint a scrutineer to witness the counting process. In an effort to balance transparency and safety of staff, Elections NL also established a virtual portal whereby a scrutineer could view the entire facility as well as review any ballots or declaration envelopes that were being rejected.” That is true. They were allowed to look in a big room, 40 or 50 people in the room and then you could look and just see, okay, if they had a spoiled ballot they would show it to you.

But here's what the act states, 86.5(1) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

E. JOYCE: I know, Mr. Chair, I know.

“The leaders of registered political parties having membership in the House of Assembly at the time the writ is issued shall each designate a representative, to act as scrutineer, who may be present during the verification of the declaration envelopes referred to in subsection 86.6(2) and during each stage of the procedure for the counting of the special ballots.”

That's the act. That is 86.5(1). That's the section, Mr. Chair, where it is in Canada, even in Canada, we send people all around the world to validate elections. One of the cornerstones of validating elections is being able to keep an eye on the ballots and keep on eye on the ballot box, and when they come out be able to count them; be able to count each ballot that came out of that box.

Why anybody in this House wants to allow the Chief Electoral Officer of this province to take this act – take the cornerstone of democracy to make sure that everything is run properly and not allow it and say that this was run properly is fundamentally wrong.

So when the Chief Electoral Officer told the Premier: B'y, we can run an election in a pandemic. Did he tell the Premier: Oh, by the way, we're not going to allow scrutineers in the hall? Did he tell him that now there is not one person in this hall – I had this in an email – and what he did to compromise? He said: We won't show you the special ballots as they're voting, but what we'll do, after we count the boxes, we'll tell you the numbers on the boxes. We won't see the actual ballot when someone hauls out the ballot, who they voted for. We won't show you that, but what we'll do, when we put them all in the box, we'll count them up and tell you. How's that? Is that okay? And I said: No.

That is not in his report again. That is another big issue that is not even in the Chief Electoral Officer's report to this House of Assembly: how he took it upon himself to not follow the act. Mr. Chair, this is why I have major concerns from day one of this election, right down to the counting of the ballots. I'll have another chance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equity.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always an honour to speak in this hon. House. I find that these sorts of sittings at this time of night, usually 8:30 as we are here now, the conversation tends to get a bit lighter and I guess more pleasant. But that said though, we often have pleasant conversation and productive conversation in the House ongoing, no matter what the topic is.

It is National Volunteer Week and I want to thank my volunteers. I spoke earlier this week, but I can't emphasize enough what it means to have the support from the people in our districts. We can all relate here because we are literally all in the same boat across all 40 districts, how important it is because we certainly couldn't do this alone.

This being an Interim Supply bill, that gives us the liberty to talk about things, such as the things that are important and the people in our district.

I'm going to take my memory back and yours and for the people watching at home: I took on this journey, most of us here did, back in 2015 and actually the year prior to that, gearing up to run and to get nominated and all those fun things. I just want to thank the people from years ago, ultimately 2014, when I started campaigning.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Chair, we can all appreciate that from that time there are a lot of people who supported all of us who are simply not with us now. So many people in my district I know – the list unfortunately continues to grow – that have passed away since that time when I first started. You don't forget the nice stories that stay with you or the kind things and the genuine support. Although there are challenges that we face in every election, people go out of their way to do what they can to cast their ballot for you. I'll be forever grateful for that.

A couple of stories I'm going to tell. It was back, actually, in the 2015 election. It was a fall election. I think we've campaigned in every season now. We're like the four seasons in here, Mr. Chair. The very first one was indeed a fall election in November and I'll never forget. My good friend, the MP who represents the area out in Grand Falls, Scott Simms, came out and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Lower the volume, please.

Thank you.

P. PARSONS: He came out, of course, from his federal riding to give me a hand out in the beautiful district, the strong District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave. I'll never forget, it was Mrs. Marie Brazil. She's an elderly lady in the Town of Spaniards Bay, someone I've known forever. She can remember me when I was a little girl going to church in Spaniards Bay, going to Mass.

Scott and I knocked on her door one evening. She came out and she was all excited. It was around suppertime and I'll never forget this story. She was making meat loaf, Mr. Chair. She was in the early stages of making the meat loaf and she had the onions and the ingredients over her hands, but she still came out and answered the door. We had a chat and she told me how proud she was of me. Of course, before she left, she gave me a big hug and she had all those onions and meat over her hands. I'll never forget. It got in my hair.

Of course, we were still campaigning and all night going around Spaniards Bay knocking on doors, on Brazils Hill in particular, I had the smell of the meat loaf and the onions in my hair. I didn't complain because that was love. To this very day, that support is still strong. Some of those stories, of course, I'll just keep with me forever and be forever grateful for.

It is a privilege and an honour to represent the people because it's the people who put us here. As we can all appreciate, we all have different priorities in our district, as we heard Members talk about all night, whether it be a swimming pool, whether it be a primary school; in my case, Coley's Point Primary, of course, with the list of other priorities. You never forget those stories.

It is National Volunteer Week and we can't do this without volunteers. Despite the challenges, Mr. Chair, we had during the campaigns, those volunteers stay by you. My team went from calling the election – number one, it was a winter campaign this time, so, of course, we had to battle with Jack Frost, snowbanks and you name it. I have to say, my team were there for me and we got out.

I'll never forget my campaign manager, George Warford. He's a sweetheart of a man who's been with me from the very beginning and still is, him and his wife Donna. George and I were out, of course, campaigning one night; it could have been January when it was still okay to go around and knock on the doors. We had our masks on and we were all bundled up with our toques, our hats. We were down in the dark – and this was on a side road in Bay Roberts. We were going down; we had the masks on and the hats.

Mr. Chair, I see you shaking your head.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. minister.

P. PARSONS: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Chair.

Anyway, so where I was – on a side road in the Town of Bay Roberts. George and I were down knocking on doors. We had our masks on, as I mentioned, bundled up in our toques. One resident said, is that you? I guess he didn't know who I was. He said, you're down here tonight looking for your cat, aren't you. You're looking for your cat. I said, no, my friend, I'm down here tonight looking for your vote. It's just these funny things that you'll always hang on to. Then he said, oh, that's you, Pam.

Again, I just wanted to send my heartfelt thanks, of course, to the people of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave. I'm very proud of the district I represent. I grew up in the Town of Spaniard's Bay, of course, and I'm now currently living in the neighbouring Town of Bay Roberts. We are an expanding district, an expanding powerful region in CBN, out there in Conception Bay North.

I invite all my hon. colleagues this summer on a staycation, if you're looking for somewhere to go, there are lots of great things to see and do in our great district. Of course, I look at my colleague across the way in the neighbouring District of Harbour Main, another beautiful district, actually, where my parents live. Of course, part of my heart is in Harbour Main as well and always will be.

Again, I want to thank the people who put me here. I'm certainly always going to do my best to represent them, their needs – anything I can do. Again, I want to throw out my big thanks to my constituency assistant, Lisa Brown. Our number at the constituency office is 786-1372. If there's anything that we can do to help, certainly give us a call.

I'm happy to say we work collaboratively with all levels of government – the municipal governments in the district. The Joint Council of CBN is also a very important body out there – they voice their concerns for the priorities – as well as our federal government. I want to throw hats off as well to my friend and my colleague, MP Ken McDonald. He's been there as well and always takes the time to come out and have a fun time knocking on doors with me. We get to announce a lot of projects together and join on projects and to support the people. Again, I want to send my thanks to him.

It is getting late, it's almost 25 to 9 here and I appreciate everybody is getting a little bit antsy. People need a snack, a chocolate, coffee or something. Everybody is a bit chatty but that's the nature of this. We do sign up for this work. It's not a nine-to-five, it's a 24-7 gig. I think we can all appreciate. That said, I'm confident that everybody who puts their name forward here to do this is here to represent their people. We hear that in the passion and we hear the stories that everybody talks about.

I consider everybody friends and colleagues, and we've worked together. We work on Committees; we work on all-party Committees. I've had the privilege of working on a number of Committees over the years, since I started in 2015, and go to conferences. When we go and travel to conferences in places like New Brunswick or wherever all over the country, we're there as a team. We're known as the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. People love us; they tend to flock to us. We're known for our good nature, how hard we work, for our hospitality and just the fun-loving people that we are. I'm very proud. Despite the times, we're going to have challenging times; arguably, we are in the most challenging fiscal time in our history.

That said, we're here for the long haul. I'm confident and everybody in this room certainly is, as well as the staff that we see here. You guys are here late at night as well. I look around and they're here when we are; the security staff as well. A big thanks to everybody who contributes to do their part for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, thank you to the people. Thank you to my campaign team. I love you all. We met, we had a change of course to a virtual campaign towards the end of things, but we met every morning on Zoom. We would have our Zoom meetings and it was fun. It helped us to keep that cohesion among the campaign.

I'm very grateful for the experiences and support that my constituents continue to show me. I had 71 per cent of the vote this time in the election. I'm very grateful. I will do everything I can to represent you with virtue, with honesty and, of course, to do the absolute best I can. I'm one of them, I'm proud of them. I always say when I speak, especially to students, Mr. Chair, always focus on where you want to go. Focus on your goal, but never forget where you came from.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat again here tonight. Again, I'm grateful to be here.

Thank you to the people of the Harbour Grace - Port de Grave District.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a privilege again to sit here on behalf of the people of Labrador West. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their support once again. It's a little different this time around. Not by two, but it's nice. I also want to thank everyone that turned out and everything like that.

As everyone knows, like I said, one thing, a bright spot, especially in this province right now, is the mining industry. Everything home seems to be on wheels right now, as we say. As I said, the demand and price for iron ore has been absolutely staggering, so things have gotten very busy there.

Once again, with great prosperity come great problems. We've seen an increase in mental health issues, we've seen an increase in the need for housing, affordable housing and, also, the increased need for addictions services, obviously, because it all comes together, unfortunately, in that way. When we talk about budgeting and we talk about all this stuff, too, like costs, we also need to recognize the needs for mental health and additions and the needs for low-income housing and things like that because it all seems to cluster together under the same thing. We have to take a look at what is really needed in that sense.

I know my district is a lot different as it does have peaks and valleys with the market. Weirdly enough, the iron ore market dictates the needs and everything like that, but it also comes in cycles, very predictable cycles because there will also be a global need for iron, it's the building block of so many different things that it always will be a requirement. So when we do these kind of things, the forecasting needs to be in place.

The thing is that when we're in lows we tend to neglect the actual needs of the region, as we've seen there when the market was down and everything like that. We seem to put aside that. Okay, eventually, we may need this again, but we keep turning a blind eye to it. That seems to be a big problem that we seem to have, is that we turn a blind eye during the lows to housing and to different kinds of services.

In the low there would've been, as we said before, the need for affordable housing, but also emergency shelters. We're one of the largest regions in the province by population that don't have an emergency shelters, which is very staggering that we don't have that ability, that someone in crisis who needs housing, we have nowhere to put them. We're over a six-hour drive from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and that would be the nearest emergency shelter to Labrador West. It's unreasonable to expect someone who's in a housing crisis to be driven to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to be put in an emergency shelter.

I know they can put them in hotels and stuff like that, but as we see a market rise, those hotels are completely blocked out by contractors and other people passing through for business. There are actually cases where we had nowhere to put them, someone who was in a housing crisis situation, because these facilities were blocked up. So we're facing a lot of challenges that way.

When the pandemic and stuff seems to settle down and we see more work-related travel again, from what I'm seeing now in Labrador West, I can only imagine how much greater it's going to be in the region if more contractors, more specialist and stuff come into the region to do work. We just don't have anywhere to put these people. This causes great stress to the municipalities. It causes great stress to all the social safety nets and also to volunteers and other not-for-profit organizations that work to try to solve these problems and things about it.

We do have the Housing and Homeless Coalition and, God love them, they do everything they can for people in housing crisis. But there's only so much you can expect from groups like this and there are only so many resources to go around. If there's no housing available in a region that's stretched thin right now, it just gets a lot worse.

When we do sit down and talk about a budget, we talk about all these things and we really need to take an eye and turn to people who are most vulnerable in our society. When we see prosperity, we see things like that. These people are the people who are unfortunately left behind in this and sometimes surprises come around that we don't expect until it's too late. We really need to be conscious of the decisions we make but also conscious of these people around us in society that need a hand up, more or less than anything else. They just need a caring, kind hand up to help them.

We have the ability to do it. That's the thing about it, we have the ability to take the most vulnerable people in society and help them with these issues. It's hard to say and see, everyone thinks about Labrador West, the mining industry and the great prosperity that does come with it, but we do have homelessness, we do have addiction issues. We do have these. They may not be as present and visible as other jurisdictions, but it's there and it's very unfortunate that we don't have the tools in place in our region to help these individuals as expediently as I would like. We have to be mindful of all of this.

It's not a great ask but it's an important ask. I'm fortunate where I come from, I'm fortunate that we have what we do have there. I'd like to see when we talk about the budget, we talk about putting in and implementing stuff. I'd really like to see people, not only in my district but other districts, that we put the tools in place to make sure that we don't see anyone on the street, we don't see anyone suffering with addictions issues and we don't see anyone who is down and out. We have the ability, as a society and here, to do everything we can to make sure that people in society have the social safety nets around them; that we can continue to do the best that we can for our residents.

That's something that really truly touches my heart, is helping people like this in time of need. We need to think about these individuals and make sure we give them a hand up, because we live in a kind and just society where we should be helping our neighbour. Everybody, in my opinion, is my neighbour especially if you come from Labrador

With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to say thank you. I want to say a thank you to the residents of Labrador West, once again, for putting me back in this seat. Also, it's nice to see all of our colleagues here. Hopefully, we will continue to do great things together. It's really important to work together to end poverty, to end these kinds of things that we see in our society. We have the ability to do it and we should do it. It's the right thing to do.

With that, thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I'll take a few minutes now, I guess, to have some comments on tonight's debate and offer some thoughts on a number of items.

First and foremost, it's always a pleasure to represent the District of Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde. It's a privilege that I've had now to have been elected in the 47th, 48th, 49th and now in the 50th General Assembly. It's kind of special when you think about this is the 50th General Assembly of this province; all the thanks go to the people of Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde. I'm going to deviate a little bit tonight and I'm going to talk about the new department that I find myself in.

Mr. Chair, when you think about the tourism industry – and I'll concentrate my remarks primarily on tourism and hospitality tonight, because I was speaking to the Member for Ferryland just out in the halls a few minutes ago and we were talking about the impacts that COVID-19 has had on our tourism business around this province. It's been substantial.

Tourism and hospitality, I saw a figure – maybe it was earlier today – that if you look at the impacts on tourism and hospitality in the Canadian economy, there's no industry that comes close to the impacts that have had on jobs in the tourism and hospitality industry. The Premier formed the Premier's Advisory Council on Tourism and enlisted some of the, I would say, brightest tourism talent and tourism operators in the province to bring a report. They presented an interim report a few weeks ago, and they're going to come with their final report, hopefully, next week.

We're going to have to make ways to support them again this year, because, unfortunately, even in Nova Scotia tonight we're seeing changes around COVID and other impacts. It's going to be another tough year for those operators. I say to the Members – and I know we all would anyway – in May, while the House is in recess, if you get an opportunity to support a local tourism operator or a hospitality business, take that opportunity. Their impact from COVID has been, actually, harder than any other industry, so it is important, if we get the opportunity to do that, to do it.

Looking down the road, I had the privilege this morning to attend the announcement of the awarding of the 2025 Canada Summer Games to St. John's and region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. CROCKER: Absolutely.

That was no small feat by the bid committee, by all levels of government. I know my predecessor, the Member for –

AN HON. MEMBER: Virginia Waters.

S. CROCKER: – Virginia Waters – sorry, it has been a long day – the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and the Speaker all played roles getting us to where we are today. As a government, I know we all support the Canada Summer Games in 2025. Mayor Breen actually made a very interesting point today in his remarks. His summary was the Canada Summer Games, in a two-week period, is 10 Briers.

Think about that. The activity of the Brier a few years back and how much activity there was in this city for that week, the Canada Summer Games will be 10 Briers in a two-week period: 5,000 volunteers, 550 jobs created, an economic impact of somewhere around $100 million. It will leave a lasting legacy in the city.

I can't remember much about the 1977 Summer Games here in St. John's. The Member for Cape St. Francis was four; I was five, so I can't remember. But if you think about the legacy of those Games, it's a lot of the ball fields, a lot of the parks around the city. It is the Aquarena. One of the questions the media asked me today as we were finishing up the news conference: What will be the lasting legacy of these Games? I said: We may not build a new Aquarena, but if anybody knows the current condition of the Aquarena, this will breathe new life into the Aquarena. I believe the Aquarena is going to receive nine – a lot of money. The Aquarena is going to receive a very big cash infusion, which is well needed.

The other interesting part about the announcement of today's Games – and, yes, St. John's was the bid committee, but we're going to see activity in Mount Pearl; we're going to see activity in CBS, Paradise, Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. I believe out in Cape St. Francis as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. CROCKER: These will be a regional Games. Facilities will be used in all these areas, and the impact will be lasting. One of the other things that we are going to see from these Games, which are so important: For the percentage of the Canadian population we are, 1.4 or 1.5 per cent, we always hit above our weight anyway when it comes to our sports on the national stage. We're going to invest, through SportNL, $800,000 in the coming years for athlete development, because we want to make sure that our athletes shine at these Games. I'm quite confident they will.

We haven't had a Games since 1999 when we had the Winter Games in Corner Brook. Again, legacy left behind: the Pepsi Centre or the Corner Brook arena. It's very important as we go forward that is a very positive note for our province. It's four years from now, but it's something to look forward to.

In the meantime, again, we have a lot of work to do in the tourism industry in our province. I kind of likened it very early to my first portfolio as a minister in government back in 2015, Fisheries. One of the challenges in Fisheries is we can't control the resource that we harvest. But when you think about tourism –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. CROCKER: Right.

But when we think about tourism, the resource that we're going to need to rebuild our tourism industry, it's out there. It's there. We know where it is; we just have to go and get it. I think it's very important, as we move forward, that we get our campaigns properly targeted to get into those markets to make sure that our visitors, when the restrictions are lifted, from our country and other countries around the world can get back in here. It's a very, very important industry in our province. Pre-pandemic, the tourism industry reached $1.2 billion in benefit to this province.

Another highlight that I was really – the Member for Virginia Waters used to tell me about it on occasion, about the television and film industry in this province and the potential that has. Just this week we saw Hudson & Rex renewed for a fifth season.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. CROCKER: We are getting close, very close, to a television and film industry that will be $100 million per year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. CROCKER: The contribution in our province of the television and film industry – and I had the opportunity to meet with some people from the industry this week. Last summer was the first time that we actually did two TV series simultaneously here in the city. That's a capacity-building exercise, and it's important that we invest in it. One of the questions I asked is, why? Why do people doing productions look to us for a place to come and shoot films? They said there are lots of reasons: It's the resources that we have; it's our scenery. I said: But we don't have good weather. They said: Weather doesn't matter, because a TV series is not based on a sunny day necessarily. Our weather is not a factor. We have to invest.

The mandate the Premier has given me in this role is to invest in infrastructure; to find ways to grow that industry, our cultural industries. We've seen some good investments in the federal budget last week – or, sorry, this week – when it comes to the tourism industry. I say to the tourism and hospitality side of it, we know there's more work to be done. I can assure them we will continue to lobby the federal government for what needs to be done there, to get specifically into them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I will conclude. I could probably go on all night because it's a very exciting department. I'm looking forward to the opportunity in the coming weeks as we'll all get lots of time in here. I was out and did an interview a few minutes ago and asked about sitting late tonight and I said the reality is this portion of the budget is a 75-hour exercise, and we'll go through with this portion of the exercise of budget, which started with Interim Supply. We'll have the month of June that we'll all get multiple opportunities to speak to the budget and talk about things in our departments and our districts and the people we represent throughout the province.

I look forward to having the opportunity, if not tonight, early in June to speak to budget 2021-2022.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I'm not going to take too long, but I did want to summarize, I guess, my first full week in sitting with this independent voice representing the great District of Lake Melville. I need to thank those folks again. It's a fascinating perspective. I need to always remember how I got here, and every decision I make every day, that I'm thinking about them.

What I wanted to do was just talk a little bit about how interesting this is now sitting here and being able to speak about so many issues, bringing issues forward, engaging with government and my other colleagues and so on. I'm just going to summarize what my week has been like.

I first of all wanted to identify, for those of you who may remember, Anna Hutchings, who used to serve us quite well as a Page here for, I think, the 48th and the 49th Assembly. Anyway, she's working with me now. She's a neighbour from Happy Valley-Goose Bay. She's down here completing her society and law degree, and I'm pleased to say she started working with me. My team is building, Mr. Chair. She joins Bonnie Learning, who's back in Labrador as my constituency assistant.

I can't forget when we took a little supper break here tonight and I sent over to Hong's Take-Out. Although it's no longer operating, my wife is in town and she did deliver some lovely food courtesy of her and her mother, so I thank them for that.

I guess I will, on a personal note, say a thank you to all of my colleagues who reached out and expressed condolences on the loss of my father-in-law, my wife's father, Yan Quon William Hong, on his death just a week or so ago. I thank all my colleagues for that.

What I would like to do is just talk about what I spoke about quickly this week. I had three petitions. The first one was on the need to provide support and attention for the folks in Mud Lake. I've spoken about this a few times now on the floor in my new role, and it's very important that we think about what's going on there. We have a very comprehensive document, which is saying that community is going to get hit again.

This afternoon, we met with the department, and I thank the minister for his staff's availability and competence, because we're now watching the flood levels very carefully and, unfortunately, crossing our fingers to see whether we will have to evacuate the community or whether their properties will be again flooded out. Others on the Happy Valley-Goose Bay side continue to see erosion. I look forward to, hopefully, getting the minister up there as soon as possible.

We have a highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and North West River and Sheshatshiu, Route 520. I call it this roller coaster. It's really in need of attention, as so many other highways in this province. I'll be doing my best to argue for a complete overhaul and paving of that highway. It sorely needs it before somebody is killed just driving on it. In fact, I would suggest, perhaps, people have already died because of it. Certainly, their vehicles have taken some serious hits.

The other transportation-related item that I spoke about in a petition was today and these huge distances in Labrador. We are building highways; it is good to see progress. Both this administration and previous administrations have been investing in the Trans-Labrador Highway, but we have distances as far as five hours, and you can imagine crossing your legs for five hours before you can get to the next bit of washrooms or conveniences or any kind of emergency facility. We really do need to get washrooms, communications and other facilities – basic services that you expect to see on any highway in this country – in place. I have a strategy; we just need to get an expression of interest out there.

The questions that we have tackled yesterday, very important one to the minister responsible. We have unfortunately been subjecting our Southern Labrador caribou herds to illegal hunting. It's been going on each spring. When the conditions are right, unfortunately, we are seeing this happening. The only way to resolve this, in my opinion, is to convene a gathering of leaders of all levels of government, community leaders, there are several scientists, several elders, frankly, who are very familiar with caribou in this area, who can help us. Let's get them all in one place and get this resolved. We cannot have the debate going on in the bush where people are carrying loaded weapons and the tempers are very flaring. So for the sake of these caribou and our legacy for our grandchildren who hope to also enjoy the wilderness that we have in Labrador. Remember, this is undisturbed landscape and we are losing a species. The solution is very simple, but implementing it is very complicated.

The other question that I raised this week was to the Minister of Education, the fact that we have early childhood educators who, unfortunately, are struggling to become certified. We need to reinstate this in-person training program so that they can get certified. Lots of people lining up, they just can't get through the certification because it's online, and there are all manner of issues.

One little fact that I didn't mention yesterday, I will today, the largest daycare facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, it's called Pumpkin House, 75 per cent of the staff there right now are not certified. They do not have the proper certification; they are granted exemptions because of this location in the province. We really need to overcome this. This is our most precious resource and we have people who want to help them, we just need to deliver the training. So let's get this resolved as quickly as possible.

I've been talking about the issues in a variety of ways, and I've been trying to tie it because it's not just my district but it's the entire province, and I think we are all preoccupied. I'm just going to mention, again, the four key themes. Here we are in Interim Supply and our fiscal responsibilities and obligations, again, for future generations, we need to fix this now. I hope we can get the best minds for it and I look forward to seeing the budget, the Greene report and so on as we move forward over the next four years.

This pandemic is amazing. There's a gentleman who is harassing all of us in this House right now. I wanted to respond back to him tonight and just tell him we should put him on a plane and ship him to India, so maybe he could see for himself what it's like to see 300,000 new cases of this pandemic unfold. The reckless actions and allegations that that guy is on with here, I don't know, but I just want him to go away.

The demographic challenges of our province – I'm meeting in the morning with Rob Greenwood of the Harris Centre, and I compliment him and his organization for what they're doing to look very closely at our demographics and other questions that we need to challenge ourselves and resolve right now, again, for the future generations.

Again, it all comes back to what I think is the big kahuna of the crises facing us, and that is climate change. As I said earlier this week, the community that I live in is going to be facing a 6.5-degree temperature increase over industrial levels by 2050. I just can't imagine. I think my snowmobiling days are going to be over, if I can get to that point.

With that, Mr. Chair, I didn't want to go on too long, but I do want to summarize. I thank everyone in the House for what I think is a very productive week for Lake Melville and our province.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm very excited to get the opportunity to speak in these hallowed halls of the House of Assembly here today. I'm so happy that I got to listen to colleagues on both sides of the House, listening to their stories about their districts, the details that are so different. Each and every time people speak they come up with something different to talk about, which is always impressive for me. I'm excited about that and I look forward to hearing the differences that people have within their district and the things they face. That's how we're going to get through a lot of the problems that we face in this province: by communication and working together.

I'm going to start by going through a couple of little things. The Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation stole a little bit of my thunder, but as a St. John's native, I'm still going to take some opportunity to talk about the monumental announcement that happened today here in Benvon's Room on Crosbie Road in the beautiful District of Mount Scio. I think it's an important thing that we should highlight. It's the announcement of the Canada Summer Games for 2025 being awarded to the City of St. John's.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say a big thank you to the bid committee for the great work they did. I know there are so many thank yous that could go around, but the bid committee of Kim Keating and Karl Smith did a fantastic job leading that team, with staff support from Karen Sheriffs and Tanya Haywood from the City of St. John's, along with the many fantastic staff in the Recreation Division that I had the pleasure of working with for a couple of years.

Those individuals eat, sleep and breathe recreation. They get it; they understand the benefits that come from recreation. Not just from the ability for elite athletes to participate at a high level, which could be the crowning achievement for their athletic career, but more importantly – the minister earlier touched on it a little bit – the legacy projects that are left behind in the wake – and I say that in the most positive way I can –after the Canada Summer Games in 2025 pack up and move, along with the 20,000 people that will be here visiting the province and extending their stays, from a tourism perspective, peaking their interest to hopefully come back again and spend some more money in this province, which we'd definitely like to have – come each and every time. I think of the benefits of that and being the showcase for Canada.

I received a message from TSN on my phone that mentioned the Canada Summer Games, so –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. DAVIS: I know how Members really want to jump in and talk about how great it is that the Canada Summer Games are placed here in this province. I think the whole region will benefit. I think it's important –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Carbonear.

B. DAVIS: Carbonear will get some benefit, as well as Mount Pearl and as well as all regions of the province.

But more importantly than that, I wasn't alive – the minister mentioned earlier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

B. DAVIS: The minister mentioned that he was four or five when the Canada Summer Games in St. John's were there, and I wasn't even born. So I wasn't born –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: Some people in this House actually competed in those games, so I'm happy.

I think many people in this House and many, many thousands of other people used the infrastructure that was created in this region after the '77 Summer Games. Whether it be St. Pat's Ballpark, which I had the pleasure of playing on for so many years – many more years coaching than playing – as well as the opportunity to watch soccer games that are happening down at King George V. Also, the minister alluded to the Aquarena; I learned how to swim there. So I think it's an important piece that talks about the infrastructure that's left behind after these great events happen.

That doesn't happen without the great work of volunteers, and it being Volunteer Week I'd be remiss if I didn't say thank you to the volunteers that make these things happen. The amount of resources that go into, whether it be the Brier or whether it be the Scotties that came here, all of these things, individuals gain experience in how to do big events like that. St. John's, like Corner Brook in '99, has done a fantastic job, and I look forward to seeing what they're going to bring forward in 2025. I can't wait to be there cheering on our athletes; not just from here, but from right across the country.

I'd also like to talk about another thing that was another major announcement that happened recently, it was the announcement of the completion of the Trail of the Caribou. I think everybody realizes how important this piece of history is for this province – for a lot of reasons. There are so many people to thank. I'm not going to individually thank very many only because I would forget some that have been involved for so long. This transcends governments, many governments have worked on this. I'm happy that I was in the chair to see it almost completed. But the minister delivered on what he started out with, so I'm very happy with that.

In all fairness, this is about the people that paid the ultimate sacrifice so we can enjoy the freedoms we do today. This was a completion that needed to happen, it has been a long time coming and so many people played a role. I think the hon. Member for Lake Melville did a great job talking about some pieces of this as well and some of the great people who have been involved, whether it being Speaker Osborne or Speaker Trimper when they were involved. I know Premier Ball had a role to play in this as well by starting the process again.

Every person has an affinity and every one of us in Newfoundland and Labrador has been touched by the loss in World War I and Word War II, and we give so much to the Canadian Armed Forces and the military from this province. I was so happy and proud at 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock in the morning when I was getting the messages coming in about the caribou being hoisted up onto Hill 10 in Turkey. I was so excited to see that. It was a very proud moment for me, as well as so many others. Watching that right from the start in Bowring Park where the students at CNA took digital renderings of the caribou that's there, so it's an exact replica of the ones that are all over Northern France and Belgium.

If anybody hasn't had the opportunity to do the Trail of the Caribou, I know this is – no one has done the complete Trail of the Caribou at this point, yet, because we just finished it. But anyone who has the opportunity to have seen those first five caribous will understand what I'm talking about when I'm saying it's such an emotional piece for a Newfoundlander and Labradorian to go over and see where our people delivered so heavily for the Allied forces during that time frame and are spoken of so highly in all of these communities, even to this day.

When I went over to represent the government a couple of years ago we went over with a contingent of students from this province. It was eye opening for me to see that these little tiny communities and mayors that couldn't speak a word of English, and I couldn't speak a word of French – similar to the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation as we know from today. I couldn't speak a word of French, but one of the things that we could do was that we could all see how important us being there was to them and how they still remember, to this day, the impact that our soldiers and our people had on their communities in providing them the freedom that we enjoy.

The battlefield was not here in St. John's, Newfoundland, or in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair or anywhere in this province, but it touched every part of our province and it has for generations. To see the completion of the Caribou over in Turkey, it means a lot to me and I'm sure it means a lot to the many family members of those that paid that supreme sacrifice.

InnovativeNL is the company that was contracted to do that, it is a Newfoundland-based company. I couldn't be happier that Frank had the opportunity to work on this project; it has been a passion project for him for decades. It has been something that has been talked about. Whether it be Carmela, Melanie or Jamie in our department here in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, it's important to say thank you to those individuals that never gave up on trying to push this forward, knowing full well that the political climate in Turkey wasn't always favourable for this. I have to say thank you to all of those people that were involved and it's such a happy day for me, in particular, but everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, I could go on and I look forward to having the opportunity to speak about this again sometime soon if not tonight.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to just have a few more words. I saw a lot of people were laughing at me earlier when they were talking about the Canada Winter Games and how old I was. The way I get treated in this House sometimes, Mr. Chair, the lack of respect, I wouldn't mind having a few of them in the ring for 30 seconds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: All in fun, Mr. Chair, all in fun.

I say to the minister, Frank Gogos, as you know, was the manager of this project and he is such a great guy, and everybody else who helped out with this project.

I'll just give you a little story before I get to my last little bit on the election. I was over in 2017, I think it was, and Frank Gogos was there. We had a great-uncle that died in the First World War, and mom always talked about him and no one could ever find him. Frank Gogos found my great-uncle's grave in a little, small town in Northern France. Six days before the war ended he got killed in a raid and Frank Gogos found his grave. We were led there by a man in a tractor in a field. Six graves were there. That's why I remember so much about Frank Gogos. He's so passionate about the people in the First World War. Such a great guy, such a great promoter of Newfoundland and Labrador, such a great promoter of the Trail of the Caribou, and he gives such great respect for the people who lost their lives in the First World War. I just have to recognize that with Frank Gogos.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, this is going to be my last opportunity to speak on the election itself, and I thank the people of Humber - Bay of Islands for giving me this opportunity. I made the commitment that I would speak to this because I saw the anguish and the frustration and the disappointment in their faces on many occasions all throughout. Of course, every question I brought up here tonight – every question I brought up – I'm still waiting for answers. If we can't supply answers in this House of Assembly, the Commissioner for Legislation Standards should be called to this House to get answers. They should be.

I'll just give you an example. I'm going to use me for an example. Of course, we all know the history of myself and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. The report that came in about me, he was in contact with Dwight Ball. Absolutely everybody knows that now. I have documentation on it, signed by Dwight Ball. I already know that he had side conversations.

Mr. Chair, during this election, when it was changed over, I was notified by my colleague – and then we started writing – that he noticed on someone's Facebook page that there was a number to call in to get a ballot. We said, what are you talking about? We started writing: What's this all about? How can this be on someone's Facebook page? Then, a day or two later, you see it on someone's brochure. How come? When did this happen? I think the Member for Torngat Mountains mentioned yesterday she wasn't aware of it; the PCs weren't. We weren't aware of it. How did the Liberal Party or someone in the Liberal connections get hold of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, get a number that they can post and we not know about it? Other candidates don't know?

I already know the side conversations that the Commissioner had with the former premier. This is why it's important for me. Who was he in contact with on the Liberal campaign team that would give them the information? He's supposed to be independent. He said it himself. We heard the Premier also say – well, the Premier answered the question. He said: I shouldn't be involved with that; he's independent. How can he give information as an independent body of this House of Assembly to one group of people campaigning and who are candidates for this province, but not give it to the NDP, the PCs or the independents?

AN HON. MEMBER: I got it to my phone.

E. JOYCE: You might have gotten it to your phone, but I can tell you how we found out: It was posted on someone's Facebook. Then a day later, someone had the brochure already done up. They knew a day or two or three days in advance of this. Those are the questions that we can't get answers for. It's not right.

I wasn't worried about losing the election. If I lost the election, I lost a lot of stuff before. I lost a few boxing matches before. It's not a big deal if you lose the election, as long as it's done right. I know people who played sports in their time. If you lose, if the better man wins or the better woman wins in whatever you play with, it's good. That's the way it happens. If you lose an election, it's not a big deal, but when you know that there are things being done that should be given to all candidates in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there's something wrong.

We can't get answers. Can you imagine? We're in this Legislature; we create the laws and we can't get answers in this House of Assembly of what happened during the election; why did this happen? Why did this happen? We just can't get answers.

Mr. Chair, the other thing I want to bring up is just in the District of Bay of Islands also, as I mentioned earlier. We faxed in ballots; they were lost – up to three weeks, lost, completely lost – until we phoned in and started complaining. We had people call directly to the Chief Electoral Officer; all of a sudden, mysteriously they were found and all of a sudden the extension was made. Mysteriously, the extension was made then, all of a sudden. Up to 9:30, 10 o'clock that night they were still calling people, trying to say your ballot is on the way. We don't know. If people didn't keep calling, if we didn't give that number – you had up to Friday to get the ballot out and back in – would we have gotten the ballots? These are the kind of questions, Mr. Chair.

There are two other things I'm going to bring up, Mr. Chair, and this is in the report, so this is not me talking. I'm going to read his report.

Mr. Chair, on page 3 of his report: “Section 153 requires the returning officer and election clerk for a particular district to perform the official addition of the polls. As the counts were all completed at Elections NL headquarters, the official addition was overseen by the Director of Election Operations and were completed by senior Elections NL staff in the presence of scrutineers from three of the political parties and scrutineers from two candidates.” But the only problem with that, Mr. Chair, is “in the presence”; they could not see the ballots. When you get the weasel words “in the presence,” everybody was saying: Well, jeez, they were all there looking at it. They weren't. The act says you're allowed to look at the ballot and you can see the ballot. They weren't.

Mr. Chair, here also in his report: “… appoint a scrutineer to witness the counting process. In an effort to balance transparency and safety of staff, Elections NL also established a virtual portal whereby a scrutineer could view the entire facility as well as review any ballots or declaration envelopes that were being rejected.” But they could not see the ballots.

The question I'll leave this House, and this is a question that, if I ever get on that Committee, I'm going to ask: Who gave the Commissioner for Legislative Standards the authority to take away the rights of the candidates to have someone to scrutinize each ballot? Who gave him that right? No one gave him that right. That's the question.

I've been around many Legislatures. I've been around many, and this is the worst that I've ever seen, to have an Officer of the House do things and we're just going to let it slide and not take it in this House of Assembly. The bigger question I ask for that: If we're not going to keep an Officer of this House of Assembly accountable to this House of Assembly and to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, how are we going to handle a $2.5-billion deficit? That's the question. That's the point with me.

If we don't have the courage to sit down – I don't think the election is going to be overturned; I don't want the election to be overturned. I want to have a government that's stable, but you need the legitimacy of the people. In order to do that, we need to get the fact-finding of the election. As the former minister of Tourism just said, for all of the people who died in the First World War, who fought so that we can vote, shouldn't we have the right to know why a lot of people could not vote in this province? Shouldn't we have that right? Shouldn't we, as legislators who govern this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who make the laws, who ask that the people of this Legislature pass the law, Mr. Chair, that they should follow the law?

I ask each Member in this House: If any of us here today broke the law while we were in this House, how long would it take for us to have to stand up and withdraw the statement and apologize? If we have to do it as legislators – and we do it willingly when we understand there are mistakes – why are we letting an Officer of the House not do the same thing, to apologize to this House of Assembly and to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, if he made any mistakes to this here? By not allowing scrutineers, that is definitely a violation of my rights and every right of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I want to thank all of the voters in Windsor Lake again tonight. I know I've done that a couple of times in my first week here, but obviously it's very important. A lot of Members have thanked their constituents for putting them in their seats here in this House of Assembly, these hallowed halls, I think, as referred to earlier by the Minister of Environment. I agree with them; it is an honour to be here. I'll never forget all of the voters over the 10 weeks that voted for me.

I'm very lucky, too, to be in a district that's very close to this House of Assembly. I've been reminded many times by my colleagues from rural districts how lucky I am that I can go home for lunch and I'll be able to go home this evening very quickly to my bed. A lot of people here, my colleagues on both sides of the House, have to sleep in hotel rooms or rented houses, et cetera, et cetera. Certainly, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, one of my rookie colleagues, has reminded me a lot over the first four days here that I'm fortunate. All of the city Members here are fortunate. As most people know, my District of Windsor Lake overlaps a lot with Virginia Waters and it overlaps a lot with St. John's East - Quidi Vidi. That's where I grew up; that's where I spent a lot of time in that area growing up. I spend a lot of time there still.

The Member for Lake Melville tonight mentioned the passing of his father-in-law. My condolences to him and to his family. I will just tell a little story about that. I got a text in a group chat that I was in with some friends of mine last week. It said: Sad news for east enders/Wedgewood Park residents. The man who ran Hong's Take-Out passed away.

As I said, I spent so much time in Wedgewood Park growing up. It was where all of my friends lived. You couldn't miss Hong's Take-Out. If you just drove up Torbay Road and took a right into Wedgewood Park, there was Hong's Take-Out. I must have drove past Hong's Take-Out, or walked past Hong's Take-Out or ran around Hong's Take-Out thousands of times.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: I couldn't resist.

J. HOGAN: That's pretty good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: My apologies.

J. HOGAN: You talk about stealing someone's thunder.

Well, anyways, the joke was that he used to give us huge bags of fortune cookies when we were kids to stop playing in the river behind the restaurant. I guess my friends were kind of nuisances and they drove him crazy a little bit and he tried to buy them off with fortune cookies, but my friends weren't always the best listeners and he said, we took the cookies, but we didn't stop playing in the river.

My condolences to the Member for Lake Melville and his family for that.

Again, Mr. Chair, there's been a lot of talk back and forth on both sides of the House today about working together and collaborating and whatnot. I just want to say from the outset here tonight that I am more than willing to do that as well. I did announce, as the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, an all-party Committee to look at the Elections Act, to modernize the Elections Act.

There has been a lot of talk tonight and there's been a lot of talk in the last hour about the 2021 election and the challenges that all Members of the House of Assembly and all other candidates faced. That Committee was referred to tonight as the Minister of Justice's Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's not my Committee. It's a Committee of the House of Assembly, it's a Committee that I'm one Member of and there are nine Members of that Committee.

I just want to say before the Committee is criticized for the work that it might do or will do in the future, we haven't had a meeting yet. I would say, let's just give it a chance. I would ask everyone on the other side of the House to give it a chance, to come to a meeting and see how it goes before we start criticizing it. I wouldn't prejudge anything before you try it. I have a four-year-old daughter and a lot of people in this House have kids, and you give them their supper and they say: I don't want it, I don't like it. They haven't even tried it yet. So let's try it, let's try the all-party Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Let's try it.

The electorate elected some red people, they elected some blue people, they elected orange people and they elected some blanks, and they're all going to be on the Committee. That's what the people voted for, that's what the people want and we're going to give the people what they want.

I do want to talk about a few things that I heard on the doors and phones when I was running in Windsor Lake over the course of that 10-week campaign. What I would say to people – I would knock on the door, they would answer the door and they'd say: What are you going to do? What's your plan? I would talk to them about some ideas I had and then I would always say to them, what do you want? What are you concerned about? Because I'll represent you. It doesn't really matter what I think. It doesn't really matter what I want. It doesn't really matter what's important to me and what my priorities are. I'm only one person in the district. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people who voted in the election in Windsor Lake and what their priorities are, that's what my priorities are. That's what I'll take to the House of Assembly. I will do that and I expect everyone else in the House of Assembly will do that as well.

What they did talk about was the fact that we do have a huge fiscal problem that faces the province. The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands has talked about it probably once, twice, three, four or five times tonight, and you know what, he knows it and everyone in the House of Assembly knows it and everybody in Windsor Lake knows it. What they would say to me at the doors is that they know there's not going to be a quick fix. They don't expect us, or anyone in this House, to snap their fingers and by next week these problems are going to be solved. But they are willing to be patient and let us do our work, as long as we're honest and forthright about what we're going to try and do to get us out of this financial situation that we find ourselves in. It took time to get in this mess. It didn't happen overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight.

If we can take our time, look at solutions, look at ways to get out of it, talk about it, debate – and I am more than happy – there was a comment made tonight that we didn't even ask for suggestions. Well, I didn't have any in my inbox either, I'll tell you that. I will listen; I will take any and all suggestions and I will give credit. I couldn't care less who comes up with the solutions to fix any problems that this province has. I can tell you that right now. It makes no difference to me. I'm not looking for credit; I don't want credit. I want the problems fixed because I want this place to be better for my daughter when I'm done in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: Other things they said at the door: They were concerned about health care. It's always health care. I bet you for dozens of elections it's been probably the top one or two priorities of constituents throughout this province.

I'm extremely pleased that the Premier went to Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat Parfrey to commission a report which they call the Health Accord. We all know an accord is an agreement. We're all going to agree together, collectively, as a province, to work on how we can have better health outcomes here. We need to be healthier, we need to treat better, we need to treat different and we need to modernize it. I think we will do that, and with the help of that report and the long-term vision from them and the Premier and everyone in the House, we will be a healthier province.

Another issue I heard that people were concerned about was child care. I know the Minister of Digital Government tonight talked about the importance of breastfeeding and being able to come to work. Just imagine that 20, 30 years ago, 10 years ago, maybe, she couldn't do what she's doing now. She has a six-month-old at home and she's here at the House of Assembly at 9:30 at night. That's very progressive of this province to be able to allow her to do that. She's in the workforce. She's one more person in the workforce, and child care is a very important part of that process.

A $25-a-day daycare is certainly a step in the right direction, and it didn't take the Premier very long to bring that in. I think it was a promise he made early on and he committed to and he saw it through very quickly, and I'm very happy about that. I'm sure a lot of women are happy about that and I'm sure a lot of men are happy about that as well. It's an issue for everyone in this province; it's not just a women's issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I am running out of time and we are talking about Interim Supply, which is obviously financial issues, so I do want to talk a little bit about what's going in the Department of Justice and Public Safety and why it's important, why the financial ability of the province to keep paying its bills is important.

One thing I'm excited about doing over the next four years is building the new correctional facility. We talk about stuff not being modern; I can tell you one thing that's not modern is Her Majesty's Penitentiary. I don't think anyone was around when that thing was built, not even the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands. I am looking forward to contribute to building that. It's a place where inmates can go. It's not just about punishment; it's about rehabilitation. We need to provide them with recreational programs, educational programs and mental health access so they can rehabilitate, move on with their lives and, hopefully, leave the penitentiary and contribute to society.

So I do look forward to that in my role as Minister of Justice and Public Safety, as a look forward to all other issues and items over the next four years, including things in my department, other departments and all of the districts throughout the province.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to take one more opportunity. This will be my last time this evening. I know there are a lot of disappointed Members here, very disappointed to hear it, but anyway. Of course, this is a part of the budgetary exercise, so the longer we continue with this, this is time coming off the budget debate when the budget comes, so that has to be a consideration for us as well.

Mr. Chair, I want to speak one last time, I guess until we come back, about the election and to, sort of, pick up where my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands finished. Some people will say: Why are you keeping it up? Well, quite frankly, I've been hearing from constituents, and not just my constituents; I'm hearing from people all around the province, from districts over on that side, of people saying: Please continue to bring these issues up; this is an important issue. I was denied my right to vote. I'm absolutely disgusted with what happened yesterday, that the motion was voted down and that we're not going to have an independent investigation.

Now, I'm not making that up. I can show people the emails, the messages and so on. I'm not making this up. I've heard from people who are long-time supporters of the government party who have contacted me, a couple of names that would probably surprise Members over there – I'm not going to name them – who said keep it up. Keep it up. This was a bad decision not to have an investigation into this election.

We've all voted on things and we've all said things in this House that sometimes you regret them after the fact. In my time in the House of Assembly, there are two votes that I can remember that really stand out for me, that I wish I had not voted the way I did. I honestly do. Hindsight is 20/20, I get that. I had a choice back then, but it's like anything else: We all make choices; we all vote certain ways.

One was Muskrat Falls. I regret that I voted in favour of Muskrat Falls. The only difference though, I will say, about Muskrat Falls is when I did vote for Muskrat Falls, I did so based on what I thought to be accurate information. I didn't know that there were numbers being fudged and risk reports being hidden, and the questions I asked were answered and so on. I believed what I was being told.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were hoodwinked.

P. LANE: I was hoodwinked, the Member says. Yes, I was, but I voted for it and I have to own it.

It will go down in the history books that I voted for that project. It will be there and there is nothing I can do to shake it, other than to acknowledge it, say I did what I thought was the right thing at the time, and I did. I can remember when we had the sanctioning of the project. It was out here in the lobby. The picture keeps coming up every now and then. Someone will throw it at me just to remind me. Premier Dunderdale, I'm stood right behind her with a big smile on my face – me and, I think, Sandy Collins and Steve Kent or something. They will, just to have a little dig every now and then. But I thought at the time I was doing the right thing based on the information I had, and I still believe that.

If I were to go back and do it all over again, I probably still would have voted for it. The only thing I would have done different, though: I don't think I would have taken people's word for things the way I did. I never take officials' words or anyone coming with anything now; I never just take their word for it anymore. I'm always skeptical. I always want to find out for myself, ask questions and research myself before I vote on stuff now. That's why I'm so, I guess, anal with this because of Muskrat Falls, because I don't want to get burnt again.

The other one that I voted for that I regret was Bill 29. Bill 29 was a different one for me. Bill 29 was a different one, because at the time when we were debating – there was a filibuster on Bill 29; we were debating it – unlike Muskrat Falls, where I felt like this was a good thing and a wonderful thing, during Bill 29 there was something telling me I'm not really comfortable with this, but I played the game; I toed the party line, as we know happens in party politics. But I went along with it; I voted for it.

I can remember at the end of that filibuster, after I voted for it, turning to my colleague – I think it might have been the former Member for Terra Nova; I could be wrong, but I think that's who it was – and I said: You know what? We're on the wrong side of this one. This is going to come back to haunt us. I just knew that it was going to come back to haunt us, and sure enough it did.

I can remember the minister of – I'm going to say Natural Resources; I forget his title now. He was over on this side and they were here with all the paper, with all the blacked-out ATIPPs, and everything was all black and so on where everything was redacted. I said, b'ys, this is going to be the downfall. I can remember going to caucus meeting after caucus meeting and everything, bringing up we have to change it, we have to change it, we have to change it.

Unfortunately the Cabinet of the day wouldn't go down there. They kept saying we'll look at it, but they never did. Even though it wasn't just me – it was other Members as well – they wouldn't do it. It was the downfall. Unfortunately, after Premier Dunderdale left and Davis came in, they did change it. They got Clyde Wells and we have arguably the best access to information act in the country now – modern, it's a good act. It was too late at that point. The damage had been done and the public had turned against the party at the time.

But the reason why I bring this up – because you're saying, why would you be bringing all this up? What does this have to do with the election? The reason why I bring it up is when you're here long enough and you see how things go down and you see the history, you see history starting to repeat itself sometimes after a while. I believe – I could be wrong, but my gut feeling tells me that yesterday's vote is kind of going to be like my Bill 29. I believe there are people over there that voted against that motion who know what we are bringing up is right. They know all these issues happened with the election.

Interesting that I never heard one Member over there, not one – either in that debate or in Interim Supply tonight or whatever, I haven't heard one Member over there stand up – well, they're not standing up, but when their turn came to speak, to say: I had a problem with the election; I had a problem with people not being able to vote –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: I had an issue with the phone lines, with the computer lines; I have concerns about the scrutineering. Not one Member has an issue. It's amazing.

Everybody on this side has talked about all the issues they've had. The general public is talking about all the issues they've had. We have whistleblowers coming forward talking about everything that happened. So we're not making it up. This is not being made up. I'm getting messages – I'm sure everybody is. But nobody over there seems to have one problem, not one issue. It's amazing.

I don't mean this in a nasty way, I really don't. I'm just being honest here; someone who's been around. I've admitted myself I've made mistakes, and I had to wear it. I have a feeling this could be your Bill 29. I really do. This is not going to go away, because what happened was wrong. What happened was wrong. You can laugh at it, I say to the minister. You can laugh away, but I'm telling you, we laughed away too. There were Members over there who laughed away at Bill 29. Don't be so foolish, don't be so foolish, that's just the Opposition now getting on with their foolishness. I'm telling you, the people were upset and it came back to haunt them. This is going to come back to haunt you because this is not right.

I'm going to urge you, there are still lots of opportunity. Like the Member for Bay of Islands said, you have your all-party Committee you're going to have and it says you're going to look into the election. It's very vague in how that's going to happen, but I hope that this Committee is actually going to find out, like do what – I think it should be independent – but maybe this Committee should recommend that they're going to hire someone to do it independently, find out what happened and hold the Chief Electoral Officer to account.

My God, he's an employee. If you were working for a company and you had a board of directors and CEO and there was a total catastrophe happening in the company, what would the board of directors do? They're going to say: That's all right, b'y, don't worry about it. You just lost the company a couple of million dollars on a contract. That's all right, b'y, you'll do better next time. It's unbelievable.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member that his speaking time is expired.

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

We've had an interesting evening so far and some subjects closer to my old job. We've had breastfeeding in some detail, we've had kidney stones. I will share with the House that before I changed careers I was a proctologist, but now I've seen the light, so I'll move on for fear of upsetting people with TMI.

On a more serious note, given the fact that this is budget-debate time that we are talking through and it is distinctly possible now that the Estimates for Health might not actually get read in in the usual process, and bearing in mind that I haven't seen the budget, I thought I would provide an update for the Members opposite of the activities of the department over the course of the last year so at least there will be some record that we did our due diligence.

Our expenditure for this year will be within a hundred million, I think, of last year's. The difference may well actually be down to federal transfers related to COVID. That would appear on the budget Estimates books, which you will get, as money in and money out. In terms of global expenditure though, I would be pleased to be able to report that our expenditure has not increased by even a fraction of inflation, year on year. This will now be the sixth time I, in this portfolio, have been able to report this to the House or the Estimates Committee.

That is an achievement unparalleled in the history of this province, and it's unparalleled in the history of any jurisdiction in Canada. Quite frankly, the average increase across Canada has been 4 per cent and the range has been up as high as 6 or even 8 per cent some years. Bearing in mind that inflation over that period, on an annual basis, has been less than 2.5 per cent. The fact that our increases amount to a fraction of a per cent would suggest that we have, in terms of net present value from 2015 dollars, for example, actually been able to reduce our health spending.

We've done it at a time when we've invested over $200 million, for example, in mental health and addiction services across this province. We now have 70 locations across the province with Doorways clinics. These did not exist three years ago. We have met or exceeded every one of the timelines laid out in Towards Recovery for short- and medium-term goals. The long-term goal, which is the opening of the new adult mental health and addictions facility, is on track, but it is obviously something for the future.

The time between now and then will be used to build up community-based services, community crisis beds, supports within rural Newfoundland and Labrador to compensate or to balance the fact that we are shifting mental health and addictions, as we will be, with physical ailments, for want of a better description, into a much more community-based, patient-centred approach, and not necessarily simply relying on bricks and mortar and thinking that that equates to health care.

But on the bricks and mortar, we have actually taken the numbers that were generated prior to my time in office for new long-term care beds and we have, as a government, over three mandates now; we have put in place a significant increase in the number of long-term care beds. There are 120 new beds in Corner Brook. There are 60 in Gander and another 60 in Grand Falls-Windsor. These represent a major increase in numbers.

But it is also at a time when, for the first time in our history, we have actually been able to discharge patients from long-term care back into the community because we have been able to provide supports that didn't exist before 2016. That is unheard of. We've never been doing that before, and Central Health led the way with the first 19 in 2019. This shows that we can, in line with the Seniors' Advocate recommendations, look after people in age-friendly communities and they can age in place.

To pick up on my colleague from Mount Scio, breastfeeding is a key to a healthy population. Lactation consultants were brought in and have served an invaluable role in this area, but there are new players – actors, if you like – in that area. That is one of our proudest achievements, which is to bring back to Newfoundland and Labrador the discipline, the speciality of midwifery.

That is in place in Gander. It will be marched out, moved out across the province as other centres are identified. My department is currently working on at least three, if not four potential locations, some of which could be announced even in the budget, perhaps, but if not, certainly over the course of the coming 12 months.

This is a traditional, but also very advanced way of providing sexual health, reproductive health and childbirth support for women. It is extremely popular amongst women and it is a choice that they have a right to expect. Over time, I will regard it as one of my greatest achievements and our greatest achievement from this side of the House to have reintroduced that to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will actually take issue on a health point with one of the comments that were made earlier on, about the Member opposite didn't seem to think that we'd done very well with COVID from what he'd seen in the media. I would point out that the prevalence, our one-week case numbers for Newfoundland and Labrador are 3.4 per 100,000. That is at a time when the same week, Regina, one city, not a province, hit 348 per 100,000. I would argue that not only is that not bad, it's very good and actually does lead the country with the exception of the Territories, which have lower numbers still.

I would say that our Public Health mechanism, our Public Health legislation, which is the best in the Northern Hemisphere has enabled us to do what very few jurisdictions have done. Yes, we have seen the variant come. Yes, we've had our clusters but they have been dealt with promptly and efficiently. We are not in the same position as those provinces on the Mainland. If you say that's an unfair comparison, I wouldn't disagree with you to some extent, but look at Nova Scotia, look at New Brunswick. PEI isn't doing badly but they're in a situation they don't want to be in and for their population, 13 cases and two hospitalizations for the first time ever is troubling them.

We are in a very good position. I would argue we are an example, not just for Canada but for the entire world. We have vaccinated, as of the 19th of April, close of business, 31 per cent of our eligible population with at least one dose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HAGGIE: That is well ahead of a lot of Canadian jurisdictions.

I haven't looked at some of the figures from BC but I don't believe anybody else's figures, with the exception of some of the Territories, will beat those. The reason the Territories are different with their vaccination is that they were different and they were treated differently from a Public Health perspective, and rightly so, so their percentages are higher.

On behalf of my colleagues, and my staff in Public Health, I think it's unfair to leave anybody listening to this broadcast tonight with any impression other than that Public Health in this province is superb.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed an honour and opportunity to speak to my colleagues in the House of Assembly on a later than normal Thursday night in our first week back in the House of Assembly.

I first want to start by congratulating the City of St. John's and the bid committee and the government for being supportive of the 2025 Canada Summer Games coming to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: We all see the value, financially, but we also see it socially for our society. I was fortunate enough to be at the '77 Games, not as an athlete but as a follower of the athletes who were there, and saw Gord Follett, the first individual Newfoundlander and Labradorian, win a medal in track and field, and what that meant at the field that day for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The spirit of sport has taken off since then.

When we look at what's happened over the last number of years when it comes to the sport industry, from a financial point of view, but from a social, moral point of view in a sense of getting our spirits up, we don't have to look very far. Look at the Brier and Gushue winning the Brier here for us, what that meant for the province and what it meant for expats all over this country being proud of it. Look at the Growlers and the Kelly Cup, first year in the league, and what that meant for the City of St. John's and all the outlying areas and what it meant for even promoting pro hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a great industry here that, not only brings financial benefits to the people of this province but it also brings other social inclusions that are very important as we look forward.

I have to note, six months ago we debated financial situations around the needs of people in Newfoundland and Labrador when we passed the COVID budget. Six months is not a long period of time, but we've been through a lot. We've been through a COVID budget that you have to adjust to try to meet the needs, not really knowing where your revenues were coming from and what your expenditures are going to be. We had an election, a very extreme, unique, at times challenging election that obviously has left a bad taste in some people's mouths when it comes to the operations. We do respect the will of the people, but, again, it was a challenging time.

We went through another major spike in the COVID challenges and pandemic here in Newfoundland and Labrador and we went through another Newfoundland and Labrador winter. What all of this tells me is that it tells me something about the people of this province: We're very resilient. We're still here. We're still vibrant. The people haven't given up on this province. I know the people in this House haven't given up on this province and we intend to keep doing that on both sides of this House, without a doubt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: I do want to note a few things about this past week. We've only been here a week since the last election and since the last time we sat in this House, and we've had some spirited debate in the last number of days. We've talked about democratic reform, we've talked about the Elections Act, we've talked about the MCRC for Members and we've passed some legislation that was relevant and very necessary to improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I would hope and I am confident that we did it all in the spirit of what we feel is in the best interest of everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We may not always agree, no doubt. We may have a differencing of opinion. We may even challenge individual's views on why they take a certain stance and what they stand for. But I want to make it clear, and I do this with the full respect of this House of Assembly, we realize everybody on each side of this House has a role. We understand the role that government has. We understand the role of putting legislation forward that's important for the people, based on information that they would use.

But it has to be clear, too, so that people who don't understand – or people would realize not to take anything personally, we have the ability, but more importantly on this side of the House, we have a responsibility to ensure that the will of the people that we hear is discussed and debated in the House of Assembly. We bring that to the government's attention, we challenge the government sometimes on some of their policies, we'll challenge them on some legislation and we'll challenge them for clarification in Question Period. But it's done in the spirit of representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not a specific district; sometimes there are issues particularly to a district, but it's about the betterment of all of our residents in our society.

I think we have an opportunity to start. This is the 50th General Assembly of the House of Assembly, and that's a milestone. I think we have an opportunity to do something unique, to be much more collaborative. I understand, at the end of the day, collaboration is normally felt that it is the responsibility of the Opposition, because we're the adversaries of government by the nature of what people would think. But we've made it clear on this side of the House, particularly the Official Opposition, that our objective here is to work with government, to work with our colleagues on this side of the House, to work with everybody that are responsible within the government and to ensure that we improve people's lives.

We know we have challenges. Nobody has their heads in the sand not to realize that Newfoundland and Labrador has challenges. This whole country has challenges. But we've got to be responsible for our own here in trying to make sure that our stake in life is better improved than the way we found it. There may be some harsh decisions that have to be made, but the best way to make harsh decisions and the best way to ensure that people understand why you're doing it and they don't take it as a personal attack on them or it's something that they're being singled out about is that we share the information we have, that we be honest with people and be open.

I will tell you, over here, this is the philosophy of our caucus. We will engage, with the right information, the best way that we can support any piece of legislation that benefits people in our province. We will support moving forward in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but to do that, we ask that everybody be open to sharing as much information as possible, that we don't become adversarial when it comes to looking at the best approaches for us and that we become collaborative. I've always been taught that it's much easier to do this than it is to do this with somebody. You get much more out of it at the end.

As an Opposition, I know we've had a challenging week. I know we've bantered back and forth. Maybe it's coming back to the House the first time. Maybe it's people feeling they have to take a certain role in certain things. Maybe it's an opportunity to, say, move away from where we were before to where we want to go. But I think we have the ability now to do the right things for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. People are on the edge now worrying about if their children are going to be able to stay in this province and find employment. We know businesses are on the brink of financial disaster and we know everybody has done what they can to support local as part of that process. Let's collectively find a way to work together in this House. Let's collectively find a way to look at legislation that best fits what we do.

We did something unique the last sitting. We took a piece of legislation, and instead of going through the normal, standard process that bureaucrats write the legislation; the minister and their executive look at it. They bring it to Cabinet. It gets discussed, may get modified. It's brought to the House; it becomes debated, but at the end of the day, in a majority government, nothing really changes.

But we did something unique, and that was a collaboration between all Members in this House. We took a piece of legislation, where a Committee – Committees that have been struck for years but really, other than debate in Estimates in budget, have no real influence or power at the end of the day, but took something unique, took a piece of legislation that got vetted through all parties, got extra information brought forward so that the piece of legislation that came to the House was the best felt piece of information that could be put in legislation that would best represent what that piece of legislation was set out to do.

I thought it was a great move forward. I was hopeful that we would continue to do it. I know everything went astray when COVID happened. A COVID budget is totally different than any other standard thing. Legislation became based on immediate stuff we needed, because we only got to meet a number of times. We talked about meeting virtually and the challenges that would be around that.

But I do encourage this administration – because we're open to it over here – let's continue that process. There are a number of pieces of legislation there that could be better fitted to the needs of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and serve better in this House of Assembly and actually save time if it was vetted through the Standing Committees that we all just signed off on as leaders – that had representation on it by individuals who come from different and varying backgrounds who would give 110 per cent to ensure that piece of legislation works for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, as we wind down, as we get a chance to pass the Interim Supply, I do again want to reiterate: We're here to collaborate. We have a responsibility, but collaboration has to be a two-way street here. We need to share information with each other; we need to be open with each other and we need to be honest with each other. Don't worry about if the honest answer isn't the one that somebody likes. If it is the honest answer, it is the right answer.

Mr. Chair, on that note, I do welcome everybody back. I do look forward to working with everybody over the next four years.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Deputy Premier.

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

It is an honour, even at this late hour, to have the opportunity to speak in this House. I represent the historic district of St. John's West. It is a proud district that predates Confederation. It has been represented by the likes of the Cashins; Mr. Smallwood, at one point; Mr. Crosbie; and Mr. Adams. It is a historic district, and I am very proud to represent the people of my district and very proud that they have chosen me to do that for them. I will work very hard and always with integrity and strength. It is an honour tonight to be here, to be with my colleagues and to be back in the House of Assembly.

A few things I wanted to say in conclusion of, really, debate of two Interim Supply bills. One was to dispense with the special warrant that was required because of the election and the fact that House of Assembly was recessed because of that, and the second to get us to the end of July. It is a tremendous sum of money. I think together there was almost $3.6 billion that we are approving over those two Estimate bills. I want to point out the intense amount of work that goes on to prepare for Interim Supply, to prepare the Estimates and to prepare the budget. We have a tremendous budget here in Newfoundland and Labrador, a large budget.

I can tell you if you walk down the corridor in the Department of Finance tonight, there are people working. I want to recognize them. I want to thank them. They are an incredible group of dedicated professionals. I'm very proud to work with them. I think everyone in this House is proud of them. I say that with sincerity and honesty, because I've heard many over the last, I think, six or seven hours that we've debated Interim Supply. There have been officials available. If there was a question that needed to be answered, my officials were available to do that. They certainly are dedicated to the task.

I want to recognize and thank them, on behalf of all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: Mr. Chair, we all know – and many, many people talked about this over the last number of days – that Newfoundland and Labrador is faced with a difficult financial situation. We were making improvements over the last number of years, and then came COVID.

Mr. Chair, we have to ensure we have financial discipline and fiscal discipline. I heard many of my colleagues in this hon. House talk to that. We cannot continue to use the credit card. Our credit card is maxed out. We're now going to Payday Loans. We have to now address this. But just with the same tenacity and strength that Newfoundland and Labrador worked to ensure that we were keeping each other safe during the pandemic, I know that we have the strength, the resilience and the fortitude to address our financial concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

S. COADY: I know there's a lot of chatter; I'm just being interceded here.

I think that we are now armed with some more knowledge and as we move forward towards budget – and as the Member opposite pointed out in this remarks, it's only a few short months ago that we had – I think he called it the COVID budget. We had a budget; it was only a few short months ago. Now we're heading towards our next budget. We're armed with knowledge. We have the post-secondary education report. We have a report by Health Accord. We will have, at some point in the next couple of weeks, the Premier's Economic Task Force report.

We will be armed with knowledge and we will move forward. We will have a plan to get us into a better financial situation. It will take all of us, our collective strength and our collective wisdom to get there. It will be in conjunction with stakeholders and individuals, the people of the province. We represent the people of the province, so all of us working together, I think, will help us to ensure that we modernize, that we transform, that we improve and that we can be seized by this opportunity. We are very, very fortunate, I think, to have that collective strength to push past the concerns that we have financially, now that we're almost through the pandemic to pass through the concerns that we have financially to get to a much better place. We need to define the vision of our province, and I think the budget in the coming weeks and months will help to define that; I think the election helped to define that, the strength of Newfoundland and Labrador, the opportunities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the resilience.

As I conclude this evening, as we all conclude this evening on this discussion, Mr. Chair, this particular allocation is for $1.371 billion. A tremendous amount of money, and that's only for an Interim Supply for two months. That's on top of the other Interim Supply that we did earlier this week. It's a tremendous amount of money and a tremendous strength that we have to take forward to address our fiscal concerns. I know we're going to get there. I have incredible faith in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have incredible faith in the people in this House of Assembly. So I am seized with knowing that we can address these concerns.

I always reflect back; my father used to quote Socrates a lot to us when we were kids and I'm reminded of a quote: The secret of change is to focus all your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building and creating the new. Socrates said that, Mr. Chair. That is indeed what we're going to be doing. Building the new, modernizing, transforming and improving. I think that Newfoundland and Labrador will be in a better place. I think Newfoundland and Labrador will have a bright future. I think Newfoundland and Labrador should be proud of not only its heritage, but of its future.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

Order, please!

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, “An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.” (Bill 3)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, Schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2022 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill subsequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 3 carried.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 3 carried.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

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

B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that the resolution be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce an Interim Supply bill, Bill 3, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 3, the Interim Supply bill, 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.” (Bill 3)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

On motion, Bill 3 read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the Interim Supply bill be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

On motion, Bill 3 read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the Interim Supply bill be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill now be read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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 Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2022 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 3)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, that this House do now adjourn.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m., tomorrow afternoon, May 31, 2021.

Safe travels to everyone that's driving back to their districts and enjoy.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, May 31, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.